You are on page 1of 193

POLITICAL LAW

APRIL 2014
Espinas vs. COA
G.R. No. 198271, April 1, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS; COMMISSION
ON AUDIT; POWERS: Since the Extraordinary and
Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) of GovernmentOwned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs),
Government Financial Institutions (GFIs) and
their subsidiaries, are, pursuant to law,
allocated by their own internal governing
boards, as opposed to the EME of National
Government Agencies (NGAs) which are
appropriated
in
the
annual
General
Appropriations Act (GAA) duly enacted by
Congress, there is a perceivable rational impetus
for the Commission on Audit (CoA) to impose
nuanced control measures to check if the EME
disbursements of GOCCs, GFIs and their
subsidiaries constitute irregular, unnecessary,
excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable
government expenditures.

CSC and DOST vs. Arandia
G.R. No. 199549, April 7, 2014
Brion, J.
PUBLIC OFFICERS; LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS: Insubordination is defined as a
refusal to obey some order, which a superior
officer is entitled to give and have obeyed. The
term imports a willful or intentional disregard of
the lawful and reasonable instructions of the
employer. In this case, the respondent
committed insubordination when she failed to
promptly act on the June 16, 2000 memorandum
issued by her superior, Regional Director
Nepomuceno, reminding her of her duties to
immediately turn over documents to and
exchange room assignments with the new
Administrative Officer Designate, Engr. Lucena.
The subject memorandum was a lawful order
issued to enforce Special Order No. 23, s. of
2000
reassigning
the
respondent
from
Administrative to Planning Officer, and which
warranted the respondent’s obedience and
compliance. […] We see in the respondent’s
initial inaction her deliberate choice not to act
on the subject memoranda; she waited until the
resolution of her motion for reconsideration of
her reassignment (that she filed on June 27,
2000) before she actually complied. The service
would function very inefficiently if these types
of dilatory actions would be allowed.

Imbong vs. Ochoa
G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
Mendoza, J.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT; JUDICIAL REVIEW: The
Court does not have the unbridled authority to
rule on just any and every claim of
constitutional violation. Jurisprudence is replete
with the rule that the power of judicial review is
limited by four exacting requisites, viz.: (a)
there must be an actual case or controversy; (b)
the petitioners must possess locus standi; (c) the
question of constitutionality must be raised at
the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of
constitutionality must be the lis mota of the
case. Hence, there is deemed an actual case of
controversy when petitioners have shown that
the case is so because medical practitioners or
medical providers are in danger of being
criminally prosecuted under the RH Law for
vague violations thereof, particularly public
health officers who are threatened to be
dismissed from the service with forfeiture of
retirement and other benefits. For this reason,
Court can exercise its power of judicial review
over the controversy.

Republic vs. Transunion Corp.
G.R. No. 191590, April 21, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; JUDICIAL RECOURSE AND
REVIEW:
The
rule
on
exhaustion
of
administrative remedies provides that if a
remedy within the administrative machinery can
still be resorted to, then such remedy should be
exhausted first before the court’s judicial power
can be sought. Such exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not violated when the Court denies
the motion to dismiss filed by one of the parties
considering
that
the
latter’s
further
reconsideration or appeal of the investigation
report is not a condition precedent to the filing
of the other party’s reversion complaint. This
holds true especially if such part whose motion
to dismiss was denied, have already filed an
answer and presented its evidence and formally
offered the same. It is well-established that the
touchstone of due process is the opportunity to
be heard.

Disini vs. Secretary of Justice
G.R. No. 203335, April 22, 2014
Abad, J.
BILL OF RIGHTS; EQUAL PROTECTION: It is well
understood that the right of free speech is not
absolute at all times and under all
circumstances. There are certain well-defined
and narrowly limited classes of speech, the
prevention and punishment of which have never
been thought to raise any Constitutional
problem. These include the lewd and obscene,
the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or

1

“fighting” words – those which, by their very
utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an
immediate breach of the peace. At bottom, the
deepest concerns of the movants seem to be the
fact that the government seeks to regulate
activities in the internet at all. For them, the
Internet is a place where everyone should be
free to do and say whatever he or she wants.
But that is anarchical. Any good thing can be
converted to evil use if there are no laws to
prohibit such use.

Hayudini vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 207900, April 22, 2014
Peralta, J.
ELECTION LAW; REMEDIES AND JURISDICTION
IN ELECTION LAW: The COMELEC en banc
subsequently declared the certificate of
candidacy of Hayudini as cancelled. Hayudini
contends that COMELEC mistakenly declared his
proclamation as null and void when there is no
petition for annulment of proclamation filed
against him. The Supreme Court ruled that
COMELEC has the power to declare a candidate’s
proclamation by virtue of a decision in a petition
for cancellation without a petition for
annulment of proclamation filed against the
candidate. It is ruled that the declaration of
nullity of the proclamation of a candidate is a
necessary consequence when a certificate of
candidacy has been cancelled.

Umali vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 203974, April 22, 2014
Velasco, Jr., J.
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT;
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS: Sangguniang Panglungsod of
Cabanatuan City passed Resolution No. 1832011, requesting the President to declare the
conversion of Cabanatuan City from a
component city of the province of Nueva Ecija
into a highly urbanized city (HUC). Petitioner
Aurelio M. Umali contends that qualified
registered voters of the entire province of Nueva
Ecija should participate in the plebiscite. The
Supreme Court ruled that it was determined in
the case that the changes that will result from
the conversion are too substantial that there is a
necessity for the plurality of those that will be
affected to approve it. Similar to the
enumerated acts in the constitutional provision,
conversions were found to result in material
changes in the economic and political rights of
the people and LGUs affected. Given the farreaching ramifications of converting the status
of a city, we held that the plebiscite
requirement under the constitutional provision
should equally apply to conversions as well.

City of General Santos vs. COA
G.R. No. 199439, April 22, 2014
Leonen, J.

2

LOCAL GOVERNMENT; POWERS OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT: The mayor of General Santos City
issued an order which provided separation
benefits for sickly employees. The Office of the
Solicitor General questions the said order. The
Supreme Court ruled that in order to be able to
deliver more effective and efficient services,
the law allows local government units the power
to reorganize. In doing so, they should be given
leeway to entice their employees to avail of
severance benefits that the local government
can afford. However, local government units
may not provide such when it amounts to a
supplementary retirement benefit scheme.

Agdeppa vs. Ombudsman
G.R. No. 146376, April 23, 2014
Leonardo-De Castro, J.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT; JUDICIAL RESTRAINT:
Not every error in the proceedings, or every
erroneous conclusion of law or fact, constitutes
grave abuse of discretion. While the prosecutor,
or in this case, the investigating officers of the
Office of the Ombudsman, may err or even
abuse the discretion lodged in them by law, such
error or abuse alone does not render their act
amenable to correction and annulment by the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari. The
requirement for judicial intrusion is still for the
petitioner Agdeppa to demonstrate clearly that
the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of
jurisdiction.
Unless
such
a
clear
demonstration is made, the intervention is
disallowed in deference to the doctrine of noninterference. The Court adheres to a policy of
non-interference with the investigatory and
prosecutorial powers of the Office of the
Ombudsman. However, other than his own
allegations, suspicions, and surmises, Agdeppa
did not submit independent or corroborating
evidence in support of the purported conspiracy.
Taking away Agdeppa’s conspiracy theory, the
grounds for his Petition no longer have a leg to
stand on.

Shu vs. Dee
G.R. No. 182573, April 23, 2014
Brion, J.
BILL OF RIGHTS; DUE PROCESS: Sufficient
compliance with the requirements of due
process exists when a party is given a chance to
be heard through his motion for reconsideration.
Since the National Bureau of Investigation is an
investigative agency whose findings are merely
recommendatory, the denial of the right of due
process could not have taken place.; the NBI’s
findings were still subject to the prosecutor’s
and the Secretary of Justice’s actions for
purposes of finding the existence of probable
cause.

Land Bank vs. Peralta
G.R. No. 182704, April 23, 2014
Villarama, Jr., J.
BILL OF RIGHTS; EMINENT DOMAIN; JUST
COMPENSATION:
If
the
issue
of
just
compensation is not settled prior to the passage
of R.A. No. 6657, it should be computed in
accordance with the said law, although the
property was acquired under P.D. No. 27.

CSC vs. Cortes
G.R. No. 200103, April 23, 2014
Abad, J.
LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS; ACCOUNTABILITY
OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: Cortes' appointment as IO
V in the CHR by the Commission En Banc, where
his father is a member, is covered by the
prohibition against nepotism. Commissioner
Mallari's abstention from voting did not cure the
nepotistic character of the appointment because
the evil sought to be avoided by the prohibition
still exists.

JUNE 2014
Eijansantos vs. Special Presidential Task
Force 156
G.R. No. 203696, June 2, 2014
Mendoza, J.
LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS; LIABILITIES OF
PUBLIC OFFICERS: Misconduct has a legal and
uniform definition. It is defined as an intentional
wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of
law or standard of behavior, especially by a
government official. A misconduct is grave
where the elements of corruption, clear intent
to violate the law or flagrant disregard of
established rule are present. Eijansantos
apparently failed in one of his duties and
responsibilities as an evaluator which was to
conduct a physical verification/inspection of
manufacturing and plant facilities. While he
followed the instructions and training given to
him by his superiors at the Center, he neither
conducted a physical verification/inspection on
the
actual
office
premises
and
the
manufacturing and plant facilities of Evergreen,
nor did he conduct such verification or
inspection on Evergreen’s suppliers and
exporters. Definitely, as a Senior Tax Specialist,
Eijansantos ought to know that there was a
necessity to thoroughly verify the authenticity of
tax credit applications before processing the
same. There is no doubt that the petitioner,
together with the other evaluators, committed a
deliberate disregard of established rules which
can only be considered as grave misconduct.

Barcelona vs. Lim

G.R. No. 189171, June 3, 2014
Sereno, C.J.
BILL OF RIGHTS; DUE PROCESS: Barcelona
claims that the Civil Service Rules were violated
by Chairperson Señeres. Barcelona misses the
point that strict compliance with the rules of
procedure in administrative cases is not required
by law. Administrative rules of procedure should
be construed liberally in order to promote their
object as well as to assist the parties in
obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of their respective claims and
defenses. The right to a speedy disposition of
cases is guaranteed by the Constitution. The
concept of speedy disposition is flexible. The
fact that it took the CSC six years to resolve the
appeal of Barcelona does not, by itself,
automatically prove that he was denied his right
to the speedy disposition of his case. After all, a
mere mathematical reckoning of the time
involved is not sufficient, as the facts and
circumstances peculiar to the case must also be
considered.

SR Metals, Inc., vs. Reyes
G.R. No. 179669, June 4, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
NATIONAL
ECONOMY
AND
PATRIMONY;
EXPLORATION,
DEVELOPMENT,
AND
UTILIZATION
OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES:
Contending that the 50,000 -MTs production limit
does not apply to small-scale miners under RA
7076, the DENR then erred in declaring that they
have exceeded the allowed annual extraction of
mineral ore. The SC however ruled that the
DENR, being the agency mandated to protect the
environment
and
the
country’s natural
resources, it has the power to promulgate the
necessary IRRs to give effect to mining laws.
Such being the case its interpretation as to the
50,000-MT limit provided under RA 7076 is
authoritative.

Republic vs. Manalo
G.R. No. 192302, June 4, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT; JUDICIAL REVIEW;
MOOT AND ACADEMIC: A case or issue is
considered moot and academic when it ceases to
present a justiciable controversy by virtue of
supervening events, so that an adjudication of
the case or a declaration on the issue would be
of no practical value or use. In such instance,
there is no actual substantial relief which a
petitioner would be entitled to, and which
would be negated by the dismissal of the
petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction
over such case or dismiss it on the ground of
mootness, as a judgment in a case which
presents a moot question can no longer be
enforced. [The] RTC’s rendition of the Decision

3

Article VI of the Constitution because it allows the President to approve the . J. 200402 & No. the President of the Senate. No.—Except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act. No.J.” On the other hand. J. CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolutions which obligated the OSG to represent the Municipality of Saguiran. The OSG could not represent at any stage a public official who was accused in a criminal case. or what a specific portion of the Constitution means. be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. Book VI of the Administrative Code provide: “Section 39. June 18. JULY 2014 Araullo vs. this would surely cause confusion and instability in judicial processes and court decisions. and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may. LOCAL GOVERNMENT. the DAP in effect allowed the President to circumvent the constitutional budgetary process and to veto items of the GAA without subjecting them to the 2/3 overriding veto that Congress is empowered to exercise.R. without. Such ruling disregarded the provisions of the LGC that vested exclusive authority upon legal officers to be counsels of local government units. may. further. Nos. by law. the Speaker of the House of Representatives. the Administrative Code is not the only law that delves on the issue. SEPARATION OF POWERS: If the Legislature may declare what a law means. instead of judicial determination.. that whenever authorized positions are transferred from one program or project to another within the same department.by virtue of which the assets subject of the said cases were all forfeited in favor of the government. it must be alleged and proved. be used to cover a deficit in any other item of the regular appropriations: Provided. et sq. any savings in the regular appropriations authorized in the General Appropriations Act for programs and projects of any department. the Executive has violated the GAA when it stated that savings as a concept is an ordinary species of interpretation that calls for legislative. June 9. The announcement of the purchase price on the day of the bidding does not constitute fraud when it was done following the protocol. Specifically for local government units. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This was necessary to prevent a clear conflict of interest in the event that the OSG would become the appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines once a judgment of the public official's conviction was brought on appeal.” Section 39. that is. are supervening events which have rendered the essential issue in this case moot and academic. Strategic Alliance Development Corp. Even the employment of a special legal officer is expressly allowed by the law only upon a strict condition that the action or proceeding which involves the component city or municipality is adverse to the provincial government or to another component city or municipality. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS: On the matter of counsels’ representation for the government. Section 39 is evidently in conflict with the plain text of Section 25(5). however. C. Herein. Chapter 5. CHECKS AND BALANCES: These violations – in direct violation 4 of the “no transfer” proviso of [Sec. 2014 Bersamin. whether or not respondents should have been allowed by the RTC to intervene on the ground that they have a legal interest in the forfeited assets. 25(5)] of Article VI of the Constitution – had the effect of allowing the Executive to encroach on the domain of Congress in the budgetary process. office or agency concerned. J. In this case. the LGC limits the lawyers who are authorized to represent them in court actions. 199027. Benigno Aquino III G. 2014 Reyes. POWERS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Fraud is not presumed. OSG vs. Article VI of the Constitution states: “(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations. office or agency. Privatization and Management Office vs.R. G. By facilitating the use of funds not classified as savings to finance items other than for which they have been appropriated. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 209287. LIMITATIONS ON APPROPRIATIONS MEASURES: Section 25(5). (Separate Opinion. office or agency. 208127. Authority to Use Savings in Appropriations to Cover Deficits. with the approval of the President. however increasing the total outlay for personal services of the department. especially after the courts have in actual case ascertain its meaning by interpretation and applied it in a decision. CA G. July 1. LIMITATIONS ON LEGISLATIVE POWER. hence. 2014 Sereno. Brion) GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. the corresponding amounts appropriated for personal services are also deemed transferred. the President. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. LOCAL GOVERNMENT.R. that the creation of new positions or increase of salaries shall not be allowed to be funded from budgetary savings except when specifically authorized by law: Provided.

No. have an interest in preventing the further dissipation of public funds. It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or unconstitutional law produces no effect. Article VI of the Constitution. PHILCONSA simply reminds that the Court has long recognized its legal standing to bring cases upon constitutional issues. appropriation has been defined ‘as nothing more than the legislative authorization prescribed by the Constitution that money may be paid out of the Treasury. Congress did not need to legislate to adopt or to implement the DAP. JUDICIAL REVIEW: Except for PHILCONSA.R. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. Indeed. and the identification of the PAPs to be funded under the DAP did not involve appropriation in the strict sense because the money had been already set apart from the public treasury by Congress through the GAAs. office or agency to cover a deficit in any other item of the regular appropriations. a petitioner in G. Augmentations under the DAP which are made by the Executive within its department shall. the petitioner in G. Activities and Projects or PAPs] to be funded under the DAP. But its use must be subjected to great scrutiny and circumspection. Congress could appropriate but would have nothing more to do during the Budge Execution Stage. The petitioners in G. the petitioners have invoked their capacities as taxpayers who.R. The pooling of savings pursuant to the DAP. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. The terms of both appropriations will thereby be violated. and only when the extraordinary circumstances have met the stringent conditions that will permit its application.’ while appropriation made by law refers to ‘the act of the legislature setting apart or assigning to a particular use a certain sum to be used in the payment of debt or dues from the State to its creditors. 29442 (Belgica) also assert their right as citizens to sue for the enforcement and observance of the constitutional limitations on the political branches of the Government. On its part. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. 209136. No. stands by “its avowed duty to work for the rule of law and of paramount importance of the question in this action. it nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effects.use of any savings in the regular appropriations authorized in the GAA for programs and projects of any department. cites his additional as a lawyer. Section 39 cannot serve as a valid authority to justify cross-border transfers under the DAP. to be applied to some general object of governmental expenditure. In such actions. Accordingly. In the context of the DAP’s adoption and implementation being a function pertaining to the Executive as the main actor during the Budget Execution Stage under its constitutional mandate to faithfully execute the laws. OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE: The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased. but is resorted to only as a matter of equity and fair play. POWERS: The Executive cannot circumvent the prohibition by Congress of an expenditure for a Program. In short. Nor could the Executive transfer appropriated funds resulting in an increase in the budget for one PAP. the President. No. 29(1). JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. POWERS. Raquiza. No.R. or sets apart a specified portion of the public revenue or of the money in the public treasury. by averring that the issuance and implementation of the DAP and its relevant issuances involved the illegal disbursements of public funds. ignored or disregarded.” On the other hand. each of the petitioners has established sufficient interest in the outcome of the controversy as to confer locus standi on each of them. The consequences resulting from the DAP and its related issuances could not be ignored or could no longer be undone. Activity or Project (PAP) by resorting to either public or private funds. and it cannot be invoked to validate an unconstitutional law or executive act. He could pool the savings and identify the [Programs. the Executive did not usurp the power vested in the Congress under Sec. Section 39 violates the mandate of Section 25(5) because the latter expressly limits the authority of the President to augment an item in the GAA to only those in his own Department out of the savings in other items of his own Department’s appropriations. As such. As pointed out in Gonzales vs. appropriation was the act by which Congress “designates a particular fund. The Court finds the doctrine of operative fact applicable to the adoption and implementation of the DAP. 5 . had sufficient discretion during the execution of the budget to adapt the budget to changes in the country’s economic situation. including the GAAs. JUDICIAL REVIEW. the petitioner in G. POWERS RELATIVE TO APPROPRIATION MEASURES: The DAP was a government policy or strategy designed to stimulate the economy through accelerated spending. The IBP. for by so doing the appropriation for another PAP is necessarily decreased. remain valid so long as the requisites under Section 25(5) are complied with. He could adopt a plan like the DAP for the purpose. Luna. 209287 (Araullo) and G. 209164.R. not to mention its civic duty as the official association of all lawyers in this country. however. It applies only to cases where extraordinary circumstances exist. 209260. in keeping with his duty to faithfully execute the laws.R.” Under their respective circumstances. “[i]n a strict sense. No. Its application to the DAP proceeds from equity and fair play. or to some individual purchase or expense.

and most importantly. and explain why there was a denial in their situation. The requirement was not met here. Simply put. Jr. placing emphasis on his good traits and character. the public official can once again vie for the same post provided there be a gap of at least one term from his or her last election. This is expected of a person who longs to gain benefits and advantages of Philippine citizenship bestows. in these cases. a serious assessment of an applicant’s witnesses. Republic G. the claim that the Executive discriminated against some legislators on the ground alone of their receiving less than the others could not of itself warrant a finding of contravention of the Equal Protection Clause. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. As a consequence. In turn. 160143. 183290. moral uprightness. it must. 2014 Brion. COMELEC G. BILL OF RIGHTS. both as to the credibility of their person and their very testimony. no evidence was ever proffered to prove the witnesses’ good standing in the community. The allegations about Senators and Congressmen being unaware of the existence and implementation of the DAP. No. The SC ruled that though the RTC-SAC may relax the formula’s application to fit the factual situations before it. reliability. The reason for the requirement is that only such affected legislators could properly and fully bring to the fore when and how the denial of equal protection occurred. the Court was not put in the position to determine if there was a denial of equal protection. Land Bank vs. and. G. which focuses on the release of funds under the DAP to legislators. July 2. Therefore. This lack of credibility on the part of the witnesses. Go vs. Naval vs. known to be honest and upright. Eusebio. 6657 and the formula provided for by the DAR. July 2. DAR vs.] The drafters of our Constitution are in agreement about the possible attendant evils if there would be no limit to reelection. 202809. is an essential facet of naturalization proceedings that may not be brushed aside. EMINENT DOMAIN. Also. J. reputed to be trustworthy and reliable. the SC held that the RTC-SAC gravely abused its discretion. July 9. honesty. For failing to provide any basis for the valuation it made. Spouses Diosdado Sta. J. BILL OF RIGHTS. 2014 Reyes. 207851. “he did not prove that his witnesses had good standing in the community.” While there is no showing that Go’s witnesses were of doubtful moral inclinations. J. such parties would be the few legislators claimed to have been discriminated against in the releases of funds under the DAP. EQUAL PROTECTION: The challenge based on the contravention of the Equal Protection Clause. JUST COMPENSATION: Settled is the rule that when . however. unfortunately.BILL OF RIGHTS. Consequently. No. and about some of them having refused to accept such funds were unsupported with relevant data. their statements about Go do not possess the measure of credibility demanded of in naturalization cases.R. thus set aside the valuation it made for having been made in utter disregard of the law’s parameters. weakens or renders futile Go’s claim of worthiness. there was likewise no indication that they were persons whose qualifications were at par with the requirements of the law on naturalization. EMINENT DOMAIN. Notwithstanding their conflicting preferences on whether the term limit would disqualify the elected official perpetually or temporarily. To have the Court do so despite the inadequacy of the showing of factual and legal support would be to compel it to speculate. CITIZENSHIP. JUST COMPENSATION: Petitioner filed the instant petition on the ground that the RTC-SAC gravely abused its discretion in determining the just compensation without even considering the valuation factors enumerated under R. J. NATURALIZATION AND DENATURALIZATION: The records of the case show that the joint affidavits executed by Go’s 6 witnesses did not establish their own qualification to stand as such in a naturalization proceeding. and that their word may be taken at face value. as a good warranty of the worthiness of Go.A. lacks factual and legal basis. and the outcome would not do justice to those for whose supposed benefit the claim of denial of equal protection has been made. No.R. The denial of equal protection clause of any law should be an issue to be issue to be raised only be parties who supposedly suffer it. Romana and Resurreccion Ramos G. No. July 8. Thereafter. ELECTION LAW. CANDIDACY: [Naval filed a Certificate of Candidacy (COC) as provincial member but it was opposed because he is allegedly violating the three-term limit imposed upon elective local officials. Go’s did not present evidence proving that the persons he presented were credible. they decided that only three consecutive elections to the same position would be allowed. explain and justify in clear terms the reason for any deviation from the prescribed factors and formula.R. No. Mendoza.R. In the words of the CA. An applicant for Philippine citizenship would carefully testify as to his qualifications. 2014.

No. July 9. (g) the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers.the agrarian reform process is still incomplete. BILL OF RIGHTS. This means that PD 27 and EO 228 only apply when there are gaps in RA 6657. (c) the nature and actual use of the property and the income therefrom. 2014 Villarama. the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking. Jr. ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: As previously held by the Court. (d) the owner's sworn valuation. July 9. (f) the assessment made by government assessors... the responsible officials may be dismissed from the government service or meted severe administrative sanctions for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the government service. Beriña G. In addition.R. J. For purposes of determining just compensation. (g) the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm workers. Lagoc vs. DAR vs. must be equally considered. the factors enumerated under Section 17 of RA 6657. in which case. J. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.. Nos. Collusion by and among the members of the PBAC and/or contractors submitting their bids may be determined from their collective acts or omissions before. and by the government to the property. Dela Cruz vs. the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking. It may take place between and every contractor resulting in no competition. July 9. i. must be equally considered. Robredo G. Malaga G. the factors enumerated under Section 17 of RA 6657. Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution. The complainants are burdened to prove such collusion by clear and convincing evidence because if so proved. vs. (b) the current value of like properties. if any .R. (a) the acquisition cost of the land. (f) the assessment made by government assessors. to the prejudice of the government agency and public service.R. Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap. LOCAL GOVERNMENT. In addition. People 7 . J. as in this case where the just compensation for the subject land acquired under PD 27 has yet to be paid. as amended. For purposes of determining just compensation. Collusion may also ensue between contractors and the chairman and members of the PBAC to simulate or rig the bidding process.R. 2014 Carpio. (e) the tax declarations. JUDICIAL REVIEW: It is a rule firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that the courts will not determine the constitutionality of a law unless the following requisites are present: (1) the existence of an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial determination; (2) the existence of personal and substantial interest on the part of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) recourse to judicial review is made at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the resolution of the constitutional question must be necessary to the decision of the case. The Supreme Court has carefully read the petitions and we conclude that they fail to compellingly show the necessity of examining the constitutionality of Section 28(a) and (b) of RA 7279 in the light of Sections 1 and 6. 203834. and by the government to the property. JUST COMPENSATION: Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. (e) the tax declarations.. For such acts of the chairman and the members of the PBAC. (a) the acquisition cost of the land. No.e. POWERS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT: The contracts that the DPWH entered into with Mendoza for the construction of Packages VI and IX of the HADP were done in the exercise of its governmental functions. if any.” Heirs of Diosdado Mendoza vs. and (h) the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land.e. thus insuring the award to a favored bidder. and the income therefrom. petitioners cannot claim that there was an implied waiver by the DPWH simply by entering into a contract. the government may declare a failure of bidding. just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under RA 6657. 183901 & 183931. the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the DPWH enjoys immunity from suit and may not be sued without its consent. “Collusion implies a secret understanding whereby one party plays into another’s hands for fraudulent purposes. 184785. (c) the nature and actual use of the property. J. July 22. where RA 6657 is sufficient. (b) the current value of like properties. Thus. they may be held administratively liable for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the government service. 200903. Hence. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. No. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. i. Inc. PD 27 and EO 228 are superseded. (d) the owner’s sworn valuation. and (h) the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land. DPWH G. EMINENT DOMAIN. 2014 Brion. during and after the bidding process. with PD 27 and EO 228 having mere suppletory effects.

In the instant case. Cogaed was simply a passenger carrying a bag and traveling aboard a jeepney. a basic criterion would be that the police officer. Hence the search and seizure against the accused is illegal because of the absence of the requisite of “suspiciousness”. No. BILL OF RIGHTS. RA 9280 excluded the BOC Commissioner as member of the PRBCB. No. does not automatically denigrate an applicant’s entitlement to due process. While the SC acknowledges that Galle’s estate was expropriated to the extent of 356. 213181. taking into consideration both Section 17 of RA 6657 and AOs 6 and 11. By conferring these powers on the PRBCB. July 28. is therefore inadmissible for violating the right against self-incrimination of the accused and cannot be used against him. it is settled that in the computation of just compensation for land taken for agrarian reform. No. Also. BILL OF RIGHTS. 200334. Thus. criminal. No.R. or repealed accordingly. however. vs. The drug test. being illegally taken.. Galle G.R. Such questions arose from his mishandling of an international case. Inc.8257 hectares. 2014 Mendoza.R. 171836. RA 9280 created the PRBCB whose members are appointed by the President from a list of recommendees submitted by the PRC which has supervisory and administrative control over the PRBCB. moreover. Although we cannot deny that the BOC Commissioner has the mandate to enforce tariff laws and prevent smuggling. CA G. In lieu of the Board of Examiners. the declared policy of RA 9280 to professionalize the practice of the customs broker profession is executed and fulfilled. the computation of the exact amount of just compensation remains an issue that must be resolved. SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE: The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. DUE PROCESS:[Jardeleza was excluded from the shortlist of candidates for the position of retired Justice Abad due to questions on his integrity. BILL OF RIGHTS. suspended. July 23. these powers do not necessarily include the power to regulate and supervise the customs broker profession through the issuance of CAO 32006.. The Court ruled that] the fact that a proceeding is sui generis and is impressed with discretion. C. Airlift Asia Customs. Jardeleza vs. Cogaed G. both Section 17 of Republic Act No. It is well-established in jurisprudence that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in that they are neither purely civil nor purely criminal. 200748. 2014 Brion. BILL OF RIGHTS. July 30. The balance lies in the concept of “suspiciousness” present in the situation where the police officer finds himself or herself in. THE CIVIL SERVICE: Section 39 of RA 9280 expressly repealed the TCCP provisions (Section 3401 to 3409) on the customs broker’s profession. Section 2 of the Constitution.R. August 11. alleged extra-marital affairs and insider trading. AUGUST 2014 DAR vs. control and regulation of this profession to the PRBCB. including interest and attorney’s fees. with his or her personal knowledge. J. August 19. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS.R. and to transfer the supervision. 2014 Del Castillo. Jardeleza alleged that he was denied his rights to due process since he was not given ample time to defend himself and cross examine the witnesses against him. 2014 Sereno. People vs. must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act. JUST COMPENSATION: It has been the consistent pronouncement of the SC that the determination of just compensation is basically a judicial function. The exclusion of the BOC Commissioner as a member of the PRBCB evinces the legislative intent to remove any power he previously exercised over custom brokers. J. 6657 (RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988/CARL) and the formula prescribed in the applicable Administrative Order of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) should be considered. J.J.G. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: “Stop and frisk” searches should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III. Section 39 of RA 9280 further declared that all laws and parts thereof which are inconsistent with RA 9280 are deemed modified. Experienced police officers have personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal 8 behavior. There is thus a need to remand the case in order to properly compute the just compensation that Galle and her heirs are entitled to. EMINENT DOMAIN. if any. Chief Justice Sereno G. Significantly. the Court fails to see how a urine sample could be material to the charge of extortion. 183664. This intent is likewise apparent from a reading of the powers granted to the PRBCB. J. No. 2014 Leonen. they involve investigations by the Court into the . about riding a jeepney or carrying a bag. however. There was nothing suspicious. In the case at bar.

in order to ensure the faithful discharge of their duties and functions. No. J.. No. The respondents argued that they are immune from suit and did not participate to UNCLOS. SEPTEMBER 2014 GMA Network. 8737 were transfer and detail. J. not the trial of an action or a suit. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: Respondent’s recommendation for approval documents for emergency repair and purchase in the absence of the signature and certification by the enduser. Jr. J. Accordingly.R. In the instant case. the adverted reason for imposing the “aggregatebased” airtime limits – leveling the playing field – does not constitute a compelling state interest which would justify such a substantial restriction on the freedom of candidates and political parties to communicate their ideas. 13 by Mayor Biron detailing Belonio to the Office of the Local Civil Registrar was not proof of Mayor Biron’s "crystal clear intention" to replace and transfer her during the election period. Verily. in complete disregard of existing DPWH rules. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS:A memorandum regarding guidelines on the Candidacy of Coop Officials and Employees in Local. Bueno vs. vs. Finding for the petitioners. 199139. Arigo vs. The Court held that as Assistant Bureau Director of the Bureau of Equipment of the DPWH.conduct of one of its officers. she thereafter continued to perform her tasks. No. No. 2014 Bersamin. 9(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Contending that Sec. constitute gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct which undoubtedly resulted in loss of public funds thereby causing undue injury to the government. TREATY: [Tubbataha Reef was damaged due to the fault of US Guardian. COMELEC G. to be violative of the freedom of the press. 2014 Perez. the petitioners filed the instant petitions praying that said COMELEC Resolution be declared unconstitutional. 205357. 2014 Villarama. 2014 Peralta. Ranchez filed motion for reconsideration to the NEA Board of Administrators and made several follow ups but 9 . the Respondent cannot simply recommend approval of documents without determining compliance with existing law. division. platforms and programs of government. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW. Jr. limiting the broadcast and radio advertisements of candidates and political parties for national election positions to an aggregate total of 120 minutes and 180 minutes respectively. No.R. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS.R.R. GENERAL PRINCIPLES: The only personnel movements prohibited by COMELEC Resolution No.. The issuance of Office Order No. Transfer is defined in the Resolution as “any personnel movement from one government agency to another or from one department. The assailed rule on “aggregate-based” airtime limits is unreasonable and arbitrary as it unduly restricts and constrains the ability of candidates and political parties to reach out and communicate with the people. 206510. J. Inc. September 16. 188909. rules and regulations of the Department. Swift G. the same must remain unfettered unless otherwise justified by a compelling state interest. COMELEC G. Ombudsman G. September 17. His duties entail review and evaluation of documents presented. the SC ruled that Political speech is one of the most important expressions protected by the Fundamental Law. 191712. September 9. His explanation that he transferred Causing’s work station from her original office to his office in order to closely supervise her after his office received complaints against her could not be justly ignored. Petitioner issued another addressed to regional electrification directors which resulted to the dismissal of Ranchez as director. September 17. philosophies. September 2. Republic vs. 9615.” while detail as defined in the Administrative Code of 1987 is the movement of an employee from one agency to another without the issuance of an appointment. The court thus expects the US to bear “international responsibility” under Art. BILL OF RIGHTS. Causing vs. geographical unit or subdivision of a government agency to another with or without the issuance of an appointment. The court ruled] that non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters and territorial sea.R. Here. National and Barangay Elections was issued and consequently approved. and uninterruptedly received her salaries as the Municipal Civil Registrar even after the transfer to the Office of the Mayor. 31 in connection with the USS Guardian grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. Mayor Biron’s act of transferring the office space of Causing was rooted in his power of supervision and control over the officials and employees serving in his local government unit. 2014 Villarama. J. Arias G.

The appointee to the position must be career executive service eligible. The Court ruled that petitioners violated R. The Court held that the law emphasizes promptness in attending to requests made upon government offices or agencies. Prior clearance from the Office of the president shall also be required for foreign trips of delegations or groups of two or more persons regardless of the rank of participants. Aklan G.was referred to other offices.A.. No. Jr. [Aquino] declared that the application for zoning compliance was still pending with the office of the mayor even though construction and operation were already ongoing at the same time. We will not hesitate in ordering the refund of incentive awards and allowances for while the acts of public officials in the performance of their duties are presumed to be done in good faith. clearances. OCTOBER 2014 Buena. THE CIVIL SERVICE: The position of Assistant Schools Division Superintendent belongs to the Career Executive Service.R. and exemptions before the construction. and grant or denial of due course to. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: Although many “moonlighting” activities were themselves legal acts that would be permitted or tolerated had the actors not been employed in the public sector. 2014 Leonen.M. No. No. LOCAL GOVERNMENT. and operation of Boracay Wet Cove’s hotel in Malay. J. J. surely put the integrity of the Checks Disbursement Division and the entire FMBO under so much undeserved suspicion. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. There is no doubt about her onerous lending activities greatly diminishing the reputation of her office and of the Court itself in the esteem of the public. 202733. September 29. as Chairman Nañagas and Director Jimenez in this case. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS.. J. 2010-21-SC. DBP vs. the COCs. 211356. We do not need to stress that she was expected to be circumspect about her acts and actuations. 181760. her being the Chief of the Checks Disbursement Division of the FMBO. Municipality of Malay. Hence. and by the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government in the case of other officials and employees of local government units. when government officials are found to have clearly committed an outright violation and disregard of the law. 2014 Bersamin. September 30. The combined application of these sections requires that the facts stated in the COC by the would-be candidate be true. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: Official foreign travel that will last for one (1) calendar month and below of other officials and employees of governmentowned and/or controlled corporations and financial institutions shall be approved by the Department Secretaries or their equivalent to which such government-owned and/or controlled corporations and financial institutions are attached. To recall. She ought to have refrained from engaging in money lending.R. 2014 Velasco. respondent does not possess the required career executive service . In re: Lopez and Montalvo A. Osmeña G. albeit not usually treated as a serious misconduct. it could no longer be denied that petitioner openly violated the [pertinent municipal ordinance concerning zoning permits and clearances].R. can amount to a malfeasance in office by the very nature of the position held. J. expansion. ELECTION LAW.R. as any false representation of a material fact is a ground for the COC’s cancellation or the withholding of due course. No. [Aquino] admittedly failed to secure the necessary permits. particularly to the employees of the Court. CANDIDACY: Section 74. which has long been in effect as early as 1995. 209286. Wefind it rather 10 difficult to believe that officials holding positions of such rank and stature. In the case of Lopez. Benito G. in relation with Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code governs the cancellation of. 2014 Peralta. J. In this case. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. Had petitioner exerted some effort and diligence in reading the applicable law in full. Jalover vs. Aquino vs. Permanent appointment to positions in the Career Executive Service presupposes that the appointee has passed the Career Executive Service examinations. the presumption may be contradicted and overcome by evidence showing bad faith or gross negligence. No. October 14. POWERS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT: In the case at bar. September 23. Aklan. vs. COA G. knowing that the impression of her having taken advantage of her position and her having abused the confidence reposed in her office and functions as such would thereby become unavoidable. it would not have missed the requirement imposed on foreign travels. 6713 for not responding to Ranchez within the prescribed 15 days. a major office of the Court itself. 2014 Brion. Jr. would fail to comply with a plain and uncomplicated order. As such. September 30. almost a decade before their respective travels. moonlighting.

The enactment in March 1990 of the Cooperative Code and R. Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is also classified as a grave offense under Section 22(t) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and other pertinent Civil Service laws. namely: (a) misappropriation of public funds.. Both gross misconduct and dishonesty are grave offenses that are punishable by dismissal even for the first offense. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES: The NEA’s disciplinary jurisdiction over the petitioners stems from its power of supervision and control over regulated electric cooperatives and over the board of directors who manage their operation. lack of fairness and straight forwardness. Caberoy G. gross dishonesty. 188066. NOVEMBER 2014 Re: Alleged Loss of Boxes of Copy Paper A. or excessive use of authority. J. untrustworthiness. 2014 Peralta. vs. October 14. ZAMECO II Board of Directors vs. and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the Government. (b) abandonment of office. (c) failure to report back to work without prior notice. In the exercise of this broad power. However. lack of honesty. Austria and Glor are guilty of grave misconduct. with the penalty for the first offense being suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year. cheat. It is an act of cruelty. officers or employees of the cooperative. removal and replacement of any or all of the members of the board of directors. imprisonment or other injury. and for the second offense being dismissal. No. The grant of loyalty award and the separation pay are not inconsistent with each other and they have distinct noble purposes.” especially when she contributed to the cause of the delay. which is a misdemeanor committed by a public officer.R. November 10. Their dismissal from the service is the proper penalty.M. No. In fact. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS. P-13-3160. ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: Oppression is also known as grave abuse of authority.R. the NEA may take preventive and/or disciplinary measures including the suspension. and (f) falsification of court orders. probity or integrity in principle. CASCONA G. No. The delay in the release of Tuares’ salary hardly qualifies as an “act of cruelty or severity or excessive use of authority. with forfeiture of retirement benefits. The Civil Service laws and rules contain no description of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. except accrued leave credits. cannot be appointed to the position of Assistant Schools Division Superintendent in a permanent capacity. J. (d) failure to keep public records and property safe. the “reset” relates only to any and all separation benefits due to an employee once he is terminated or if he retires from service. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. 204800. The Civil Service Commission cannot be compelled to attest to the permanent appointment of respondent. wrongfully inflict upon any person any bodily harm. 2014 Reyes.M. For making false statements. deceive or defraud. In addition. 2008-23-SC. the entitlement of a qualified employee to both loyalty award and separation pay is not proscribed by the 1987 Constitution as regards double compensation under Section 8 of Article IX(B) thereof. who under color of his office. GENERAL PRINCIPLES: The entitlement to separation pay under the EPIRA law does not disqualify the separated employee who is likewise qualified to receive loyalty award pursuant to the CSC Memorandum Circular. October 20. the records of the case should be referred to the Department of Justice for investigation with a view to the filing.R. No. Velasco vs. jurisprudence has been instructive. 2014 Brion. severity. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. COA G. 6939 establishing the CDA did not automatically divest the NEA of its control over the NEA’s regulated entities. J. No. 11 . J. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. October 22. J. 2002. 2014 Reyes. He. Obispo A. (e) making false entries in public documents. and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. 2014 Bersamin. with the Court having considered the following acts or omissions as constitutive of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. that is.A. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION: There is grave misconduct when the elements of corruption. if warranted. National Transmission Corp.eligibility. 176935-36. While Section 63 of the EPIRA Law provides that those who avail themselves of the separation pay shall start their government service anew if absorbed by any governmentowned successor company. Dishonesty is defined as a disposition to lie. clear intent to violate the law. lack of integrity. therefore. Ombudsman vs. committing perjury and stealing the copy paper. November 10. she submitted her Form 48 (Daily Time Record) for June 2002 only on July 11. No. or flagrant disregard of established rule are present. of the appropriate criminal proceedings.

indeed. 2014 Mendoza.. November 11. 2014 Per Curiam LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. the law abhors a vacuum in public offices. It bears emphasis that the law requires that the search be incidental to a lawful arrest. there is no tenure to speak of. No.R. neither the in flagrante delicto arrest nor the stop-and-frisk principle was applicable to justify the warrantless search and seizure made by the police operatives on Sanchez. what happened in this case was that a search was first undertaken and then later an arrest was effected based on the evidence produced by the search. A search as an incident to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of Court. SB-12-19-P. The arrest of Sanchez was made only after the discovery by SPO1 Amposta of the shabu inside the match box. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on wage earners. whatever missteps may be committed by the employee ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. to wit: however. and courts generally indulge in the strong presumption against a legislative intent to create. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: In the case at bench. abolition of an office and its related positions is different from removal of an incumbent from his office. Applying the rationale in the aforesaid judicial precedents and rules. BILL OF RIGHTS. we rule that the ATO employees’ right to security of tenure was not violated. respondent concealed and distorted the truth in a matter of fact relevant to his office. may they be Filipino citizens or foreign nationals. Thus.LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. the Court has refrained from imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal in a number of cases in the presence of mitigating factors. No. Sandiganbayan. the application of the hold-over principle preserves continuity in the transaction of official business and prevents a hiatus in government. the lack of bad faith on his part in committing the act complained of. cases of extreme necessity justify the application of the hold-over principle. Petitioner itself states and this Court. People G. 190120. In Lecaroz v. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: To temper the harshness of the rules. in the absence of any bad faith. a condition which may result in an executive or administrative office becoming.R. No. his family to consider. Andal A. The reason for the application of the hold-over principle is clearly stated also in Lecaroz. Hence. Civil Aviation Authority G. without doubt.M. Indeed. Thus. Sanchez vs. It is not only for the law’s concern for the workingman. 204589. Jr. tourism and trade of the country but more so on the safety and security of aircraft passengers. for any period of time. November 19. 2014 Villarama. they had no personal knowledge to believe that Sanchez bought shabu from the notorious drug dealer and actually possessed the illegal drug when he boarded the tricycle. CAAP-EU vs. otherwise it is reasonable to assume that the law-making body favors the same. removal implies that the office and its related positions subsist and that the occupants are merely separated from their positions. J. J. This is founded on obvious considerations of public policy. GENERAL PRINCIPLES: Apropos then is the Court’s ruling in Kapisanan ng mga Kawani ng Energy Regulatory Board v. On the other hand. Barin. the Court held: absent an express or implied constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary. the search preceded the arrest of Sanchez. clinches the case against him. the Court considers as mitigating circumstances the fact that this is the first infraction of Obispo and more importantly. an officer is entitled to stay in office until his successor is appointed or chosen and has qualified. agrees that the CAAP is an agency highly imbued with public interest. impairment of the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure does not arise in the abolition of an office. Based on the premise that there was a valid abolition of ATO. Where there is no occupant. by perpetrating false eligibility and letting it remain on record. we castigate the grave offense of respondent by imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from service. Evidently. however. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Therefore it is beyond cavil that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person and his belongings. there is. November 18. It is of rational inference that a hiatus therein would be disastrous not only to the economy. for the principle of holdover is specifically intended to 12 prevent public convenience from suffering because of a vacancy and to avoid a hiatus in the performance of government functions. wholly vacant or unoccupied by one lawfully authorized to exercise its functions. The Court also ruled that where a penalty less punitive would suffice. When the police officers chased the tricycle. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: By engaging or colluding with another person to take the test in his behalf and thereafter by claiming the resultant passing rate as his. by statute. The legislative intent of not allowing holdover must be clearly expressed or at least implied in the legislative enactment. similar to the fate of prior employees who falsified their eligibility requirement. Here. CSC vs. there is no occupant in an abolished office. in addition. There was no overt manifestation on the part of . Thus. Abolition and removal are mutually exclusive concepts. From a legal standpoint. the process cannot be reversed.

all of the following elements must concur: (a) there must be a de jure office. No. however.R. November 25. 03-8-02-SC as above-explained. involves moral turpitude. 191672. the operation of Section 5. In both cases. However. CSC G. In the same vein. 2014 Bersamin. treated as valid as if it was issued by a de jure officer suffering no administrative impediment.R. probable cause in this case was more imagined than real. No. Chapter 3. the elements of the administrative offense of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude clearly exist in this case. ECC and HDMF for being violative of Sections 1 and 2 of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions from holding any other office or employment during their tenure. J. and welfare of government officials and employees. Chairman. the concerned GOCCs are also tasked to perform other corporate powers and functions that are not personnel-related. an act of baseness. or conduct contrary to justice. modesty. People G. are carried out and exercised by the respective Boards of the concerned GOCCs. All of these powers and functions. rights. No. Ruling in favor of Funa the SC ruled that Section 14. privileges. While powers and functions associated with appointments. Pagaduan vs. vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen. Judge Peralta can be considered to have acted as a de facto officer when he issued the Search Warrant. the Law Department makes a prima facie finding of guilt and the corresponding information has been filed with the appropriate trial court.R. or to society in general. modesty. COMELEC G. rights. DE FACTO OFFICERS: In order for the de facto doctrine to apply. Judge Peralta also had a colorable right to the said office as he was duly appointed to such position and was only divested of the same by virtue of a supervening legal technicality – that is. which are not anymore derived from his position as CSC Chairman. November 19. employment status. Ejercito vs. or (b) who has already been proclaimed as winner. REMEDIES AND JURISDICTION IN ELECTION LAW: [A] complaint for disqualification filed after the election against a candidate (a) who has not yet been proclaimed as winner. 212398. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done contrary to justice. the designation of Duque was unconstitutional. Verily. employment status. Accordingly. No. 2014 Per Curiam LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. whether personnelrelated or not. the complaint shall be dismissed as a disqualification case but shall be referred to the Law Department of the COMELEC for preliminary investigation. there is a de jure office of a 2nd Vice-Executive Judge. 206379. The existence of the foregoing elements is rather clear in this case. Title I-A. or good morals. J. it may be said that there was general acquiescence by the public since the search warrant application was regularly endorsed to the sala of Judge Peralta by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Manila-RTC under his apparent authority as 2nd Vice Executive Judge. 199032. Judge Peralta’s actual physical possession of the said office is presumed to be in good faith. JURISDICTION: Funa filed the instant petition questioning the designation of Duque as a member of the Board of Directors or Trustees of the GSIS. PHIC. if before proclamation. ELECTION LAW. CSC G. November 25. November 19. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. he may exercise these powers and functions. Hence. Book V of EO 292 is clear that the CSC Chairman’s membership in a governing body is dependent on the condition that the functions of the government entity where he will sit as its Board member must affect the career development. J. and welfare of government officials and employees. (b) there must be color of right or general acquiescence by the public. Chapter III of A. or good morals. honesty. as the contrary was not established. Such being the case.Sanchez that he had just engaged in. the complainant may file a petition for suspension of 13 .M. also. compensation and benefits affect the career development. and (c) there must be actual physical possession of the office in good faith. Considering that the principal act punished in the crime of falsification of public document is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. The concerned GOCCs are vested by their respective charters with various powers and functions to carry out the purposes for which they were created. was actually engaging in or was attempting to engage in the criminal activity of illegal possession of shabu. Undoubtedly. contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman. hence. No. Finally. Funa vs. 2014 Mendoza.R. Not every criminal act. 2014 Peralta. when the CSC Chairman sits as a member of the governing Boards of the concerned GOCCs. Retired SP04 Laud vs. there could be no valid “stop-andfrisk” search in the case at bench. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS. privileges.

For example. The PNCC was incorporated in 1966 under its original name of Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) for a term of fifty years pursuant to the Corporation Code.” which even if not expressly spelled out covers regular. not only regular but also special or recall elections. that this Court entertains a petition questioning its rulings. Dumlao and the DPWH correctly invoked the doctrine of sovereign immunity in their favor. Hermano Oil vs. 2014 Reyes. 2014 Bersamin. The question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and proper cognizance of the COMELEC. the doctrine of sovereign immunity had no application to the PNCC. December 2. otherwise. the purpose can be to “conduct elections. November 25. Toll Regulatory Board G. COA Chairperson Pulido-Tan G. JUDICIAL REVIEW: The existence of an actual controversy in the instant .R. Hence. No. special. POWER OF APPROPRIATION: To be valid. the Government owned 90.3% of the equity of the PNCC. it shall constitute deprivation of due process on the part of the employee. It is only when the COA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. being a private business entity.R. When the dismissal is ordered by another person other than PAGCOR. Goh vs. However. Dumlao was acting as the agent of the TRB in respect of the matter concerned. or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 212584. Robredo G. No. 2014 Reyes. 195390. CANDIDACY: [The] duty of the COMELEC to give due course to COCs filed in due form is ministerial in character. FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES ACCORDED RESPECT AND FINALITY: Findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. As such. and was subject to the regulation and jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Bayron G. Cerafica vs. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. the PNCC was essentially a private corporation 14 due to its having been created in accordance with the Corporation Code.R. On his part. Villafuerte vs.the proclamation of the respondent with the court before which the criminal case is pending and the said court may order the suspension of the proclamation if the evidence of guilt is strong.70% of the PNCC’s voting equity remained under private ownership. it has not been upheld in favor of the latter whose function was not in pursuit of a necessary function of government but was essentially a business. even if not expressly stated. 2014 Carpio. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES: An employee appointed by PAGCOR may only be dismissed by PAGCOR through its Board of Directors as only the proper disciplinary authority may dismiss an employee from service. Nonetheless. 2014 Perez.R. 167290. The purpose of the appropriation is still specific – to fund elections. was not immune from suit.R.R. they could not be sued as such. ELECTION LAW. J. or recall elections. which naturally and logically include. No. J. 59. The immunity has been upheld in favor of the former because its function is governmental or incidental to such function. No. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. Being unincorporated agencies or entities of the National Government. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. IMMUNITY FROM SUIT: An unincorporated government agency without any separate juridical personality of its own enjoys immunity from suit because it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty. a claim for damages against the agency cannot prosper. No. they were invested with the inherent power of sovereignty. J. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. No. December 8. The TRB. 209219. 208961. 205136. Although the majority or controlling shares of the PNCC belonged to the Government. the purpose may be specific even if it is broken down into different related sub-categories of the same nature. it may not go into matters not appearing on their face. December 10. J. and only 9. the doctrine of sovereign immunity is violated. December 2. J. Accordingly. Consequently. the Hermano Oil properly argued that the PNCC. DECEMBER 2014 BCDS vs. COMELEC G. J. the PNCC was an acquired asset corporation under Administrative Order No. PAGCOR vs. the general corporation statute. November 26. De Guzman G. and that whilethe Comelec may look into patent defects in the COCs. The TRB and the DPWH performed purely or essentially government or public functions. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. More specifically. an appropriation must indicate a specific amount and a specific purpose.

Robredo had already implemented the assailed MCs. A scrutiny of the contents of the mentioned issuances shows that they do not. which embodies a set of standards such as responsibility. rules and regulation designed to give teeth to the constitutional mandate of transparency and accountability.” Since the DENR Secretary has power of control as opposed 15 . vs.” Uyboco vs. The AOM specifically mentioned of Villafuerte’s alleged non-compliance […] and [t]he fact that Villafuerte is being required to comment on the contents of thereof signifies that the process of investigation for his alleged violation has already begun. However. It amounts to dishonesty. for which the penalty of Dismissal from Service is imposed pursuant to Sec. DE FACTO OFFICERS: Falsification of an official document such as the SALN is considered a grave offense. Neither does constitute a denial of due process or the right a competent counsel. in any manner. requiring him to comment on the observation of the audit team […] The issuance of AOM No. Moncayo Integrated Small-Scale Miners Assn.R. In fact. 211703. which violates fundamental principles of public accountability and integrity. it is also an act of dishonesty. except accrued leave benefits. G. 2010-83 and 2011-08. 2011 from the Office of the Provincial Auditor of Camarines Sur. ill or a it to Casimiro vs. 2014 Leonen. The constitutionalization of public accountability shows the kind of standards of public officers that are woven into the fabric of our legal system. and the Court is mandated to apply these principles to bridge actual reality to the norms envisioned for our public service. At the time of filing of the instant petition. the investigation is expected to end in a resolution on whether a violation has indeed been committed. Ultimately. At the same time. MC Nos. LOCAL GOVERNMENT. falsification of an official document and dishonesty are distinct offenses. PRINCIPLES OF LOCAL AUTONOMY: The assailed issuances of [Robredo]. but our society has consciously embedded them in our laws so that they may be demanded and enforced as legal principles. reality may sometimes depart from these standards. Under Civil Service regulations. Both falsification and dishonesty are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service. 149916.R. DUE PROCESS: A counsel’s [advice] cannot qualify as gross negligence incompetence that would necessitate reopening of the proceedings. Villafuerte’s apprehension is real and wellfounded as he stands to be sanctioned for noncompliance with the issuances. People G. Villafuerte received Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) No. “[f]iscal autonomy means that local governments have the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable share in the national taxes released by the national government. No. Clearly. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. No.. BILL OF RIGHTS. and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service. 2014 Velasco. December 10. J. 2011-009 dated May 10. 34–92 also provides that “the Board created under RA 7076 shall have the authority to declare and set aside People’s Small-Scale Mining Areas in sites onshore suitable for smallscale mining operations subject to review by the DENR Secretary thru the Director. They are amalgamations of existing laws. It extends to the preparation of their budgets. To be clear. To reiterate. and local officials in turn have to work within the constraints thereof. Rigor G. No. Then DENR Secretary Antonio H. as well as the power to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities. arguing that it contravenes the mandate of the PMRB. Section 6 of DAO No. December 10. together with the appropriate sanctions that come with it. public office is a public trust.case cannot be overemphasized. J.R. are but implementation of this avowed policy of the State to make public officials accountable to the people. as amended. but both may be committed in one act. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES: The Provincial Mining Regulatory Board of Davao declared the 729-hectare gold rush area in Mt. 206661. Jr. These facts certainly constitute sufficient and relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to sustain a finding of guilt against Rigor for Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Documents. Inc. Cerilles affirmed with modification the PMRB decision. The act of falsifying an official document is in itself grave because of its possible deleterious effects on government service. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp. as required by law. Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. 2011-009 to Villafuerte is a clear indication that the assailed issuances of Robredo are already in the full course of implementation.. with forfeiture of retirement benefits. J. The CA annulled the DENR Secretary’s decision. violate the fiscal autonomy of LGUs. Unfortunately. he likewise failed to satisfactorily explain the other glaring irregularities involved with his SALNs.. even for the first offense. Not only did he fail to declare in his SALN the separate properties of his wife. as in this case. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. integrity and efficiency. Diwalwal as People's Small Scale Mining Area. 2014 Peralta. December 10. 52.

Quirino State College that “the fee of the lawyer who rendered legal service to the government in lieu of the OSG or the OGCC is the personal liability of the government official who hired his services without the prior written conformity of the OSG or the OGCC. IX(B). MIA failed to prove its existence. JANUARY 2015 Yinlu Bicol Mining Corp. COA G. which states that “expenditures of government funds or uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee found to be directly responsible therefore”. The latter is the principal penalty pardoned which relieved him of imprisonment. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.. which states that “(h)e is hereby restored to his civil and political rights. Hence if the pardon was intended be conditional. 86-255.to power of supervision. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT. This finds support in Sec. 2015 Bersamin. vs. No.” neither makes the pardon conditional. ADDITIONAL. 185544. OR INDIRECT COMPENSATION: To prove the validity of the allowances granted.” Maritime Industry Authority vs. nor militate against the conclusion that former President Estrada’s rights to suffrage and to seek public elective office have been restored. AND UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: Rights pertaining to mining patents issued pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902 and existing prior to November 15. respondents correctly held that the officials of CDC who violated the provisions of Circular No. 9 should be personally liable to pay the legal fees of Laguesma. A copy of the document is not in the Malacañang Records Office.” expressly remitted the accessory penalties that attached to the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hence. No. The Law Firm of Laguesma. as previously provided for in Circular No. No. 206666.R. 16 CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS. J. 8 of the 1987 Constitution. POWERS.R. the 3rdpreambular clause cannot be interpreted as a condition to the pardon extended. This Court has also previously held in Gumaru vs. from the text of the pardon that the accessory penalties of civil interdiction and perpetual absolute disqualification were expressly remitted together with the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua. DOUBLE. Consequently. 185812.e. PARDONING POWER: When the pardon extended to former President Estrada shows that both the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties are included in the pardon. It is merely an introduction to show its intent or purposes. Below the stamp is the signature of thenPresident Estrada. the mining patents of Yinlu were issued pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902 and were subsisting prior to the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. and Gastardo vs. 2015 Leonardo-De Castro. Sec.R. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. Mining rights acquired under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and prior to the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution were vested rights that could not be impaired even by the Government. 86-255. Furthermore. “the grant of allowances and benefits amounts to double compensation proscribed by Art. “[w]hereas. he had the power to affirm with modification the PMRB’s decision. No. 1935 are vested rights that cannot be impaired. 103 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines. Yinlu and its predecessors-in-interest had acquired vested rights in the disputed mineral lands that could not and should not be impaired even in light of their past failure to comply with the requirement of registration and annual work obligations. i. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY. January 13. . J. the third preambular clause of the pardon. 207942. Since it did not make an integral part of the decree of pardon. COMELEC G. as the case may be. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS. Trans-Asia Oil and Energy Dev’t Corp. it should have explicitly stated the same in the text of the pardon itself. COA G. Indeed. Consulta. Where the meaning of a statute is clear and unambiguous. Magsalin. The sentence that followed. 2015 Leonen. A preamble is really not an integral part of a law. DEVELOPMENT. The first sentence refers to the executive clemency extended to former President Estrada who was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of plunder and imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua. Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective position or office.R. the preamble can neither expand nor restrict its operation much less prevail over its text. January 13. Further. The alleged approval of the President was contained in a mere photocopy of the memorandum… The original was not presented during the proceedings. January 21.. 98-002 and Circular No.” Risos-Vidal vs. G. POWERS: To fill the gap created by the amendment of COA Circular No. J. It cannot be the origin of rights and obligations. MIA presented a photocopy of the memorandum with an “approved” stamped on the memorandum. J. January 12. 2015 Leonen. The Court cannot rule on the validity of the alleged approval by the then President Estrada of the grant of additional allowances and benefits. EXPLORATION.

weighty. J. BILL OF RIGHTS. Ombudsman vs. Mijares wants the court to strike down the proposed bills abolishing the Judiciary Development Fund. The position of the Catholic religion in the Philippines as regards the RH Law does not suffice to qualify the posting by one of its members of a tarpaulin as religious speech solely on such basis. and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. momentous. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: When petitioners. The enumeration of candidates on the face of the tarpaulin precludes any doubt as to its nature as speech with political consequences and not religious speech. has no jurisdiction to issue its order as it lacks the requisites of a valid content-based regulation of speech. The court is not empowered to review proposed bills because a bill is not a law. political party or party. January 21. without a warrant. BILL OF RIGHTS. A misconduct that warrants dismissal from service must be grave. and not trifling. as it is important to convey the advocacy of the petitioners. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. or is attempting to commit an offense. The Court can exercise its power of judicial review only after a law is enacted. Two (2) elements must be present: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed. in his presence. arrest a person. however. It was part of the petitioner’s advocacy against the RH Law. No.R. and the COMELEC twice ordered the latter to dismantle the tarpaulin for violation of its regulation which imposed a size limit on campaign materials. a Diocese and its Bishop posted tarpaulins in front of the cathedral which aimed to dissuade voters from electing candidates who supported the RH Law. JUDICIAL REVIEW: There can be no justiciable controversy involving the constitutionality of a proposed bill. Otherwise. J. therefore. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS.R. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: A peace officer of a private person may. who are also part of the electorate. the tarpaulin is protected speech. JUDICIAL REVIEW. The COMELEC. is actually committing. 2015 Leonen. No. January 21. 2015 Peralta. as the petitioners are private individuals who have lost their right to give commentary on the candidates when the COMELEC ordered the tarpaulin removed. Third. J. The court. 2015 Leonen. With all due respect to the Catholic faithful. People vs. every citizen’s expression with political consequences enjoys a high degree of protection. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. as they do not convey any religious doctrine of the Catholic Church. POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE: When petitioners. De Zosa G. Thus. Second. must act only within its powers granted under the Constitution. the person to be arrested has committed.list group. Thus. important. 189272. The size of the tarpaulins is fundamentally part of protected speech. COMELEC G.R. Liu G. 205728.In Re: Supreme Court Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy Movement UDK-15143. Diocese of Bacolod vs. or is attempting to commit a crime. Jurisprudence which sets the limit to free speech of candidates during elections but do not limit the rights of broadcasters to comment on the candidates do not apply to the petitioners. not before. the tarpaulins and their messages are not religious speech. 205433. the case is about COMELEC’s breach of the petitioners’ fundamental right of expression of matters relating to election. January 21. More importantly. The concept of a political question never precludes judicial review when the act of a constitutional organ infringes upon a fundamental individual or collective right. While the tarpaulin may influence the success or failure of the named candidates and political parties. the case is about COMELEC’s breach of the petitioners’ fundamental right of expression of matters relating to election. No. they shall not be binding upon the courts. […] church doctrines […] are not binding upon this court. It must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment and must also have a direct relation to and be connected with 17 . the Court must make its own factual review of the case when the Ombudsman’s findings are contradictory to that of the Court of the Appeals. The tarpaulin was not paid for or posted “in return for consideration” by any candidate. and the COMELEC twice ordered the latter to dismantle the tarpaulin for violation of its regulation which imposed a size limit on campaign materials. when. serious. the COMELEC had no legal basis to issue said order as the tarpaulins were not paid for by any candidate or political party and the candidates therein were not consulted regarding its posting. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act provides that findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive. is actually committing. J. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. this does not necessarily mean it is election propaganda. January 21. a Diocese and its Bishop posted tarpaulins in front of the cathedral which aimed to dissuade voters from electing candidates who supported the RH Law.

Thus. Notably. By a fair analogy. She was not restrained of her freedom in any manner. J. the presence thereof does not automatically result in the downgrading of the penalty to be imposed upon respondent. February 4. A person undergoing a normal audit examination is not under custodial investigation and. the CSC found that respondent’s signature on the picture seat plan is different from her signatures on her personal data sheets. mainly from taxes. Thus. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. Sabijon vs. Thus. clear intent to violate the law. P-14-3281. DE FACTO OFFICERS: While “First Offense” and “Length of Service” may indeed be considered as mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court ruled that the mere approval by Congress of the GAA does not instantly make the funds available for spending by the Executive Department. No. the elements of corruption. since there is one (1) aggravating circumstance (i.e. The funds authorized for disbursement under the GAA are usually still to be collected during the fiscal year. BILL OF RIGHTS. 2000. She was free to stay or go. No. Vergel De Dios G. 2015 Bersamin. COA G.e. Specifically. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. Marieta may not be said to be under custodial investigation.R. we referred to the personal data sheet as the repository of all relevant information about any government employee or official. On top of it is her purported signature. the audit examiner may not be considered the law enforcement officer contemplated by the rule. we declared that concealment of any information therein warrants the imposition of administrative penalty. February 2. This ruling is pure speculation and is belied by the evidence on record.M. then she was the one who wrote her name in bold letters and put the signature on top of it. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE: The right to remain silent and to counsel can be invoked only in the context in which the Miranda doctrine applies – when the official proceeding is conducted under the coercive atmosphere of a custodial interrogation.the performance of the public officer’s official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful. She was under administrative investigation by her superiors in a private firm and in purely voluntary manner. may fall short of the approved budget. Simple Neglect of Duty) and two (2) mitigating circumstances (i. 2015 Bersamin. People G. we ruled that the making of an untruthful statement in the personal data sheet amounts to dishonesty and falsification of official document. Jr. The evidence at hand also disproved her testimony that she herself took the examination.. Respondent committed serious dishonesty when she declared in her personal data sheet that she took and passed the civil service examination on November 17. Written on the picture seat plan is the name of respondent in bold letters. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES: The petitioner contends that COA gravely abused its discretion when it ordered the disallowance of the release of health benefits to its employees. or failure to discharge the duties of the office. or flagrant disregard of established rule. January 28. No. 171672. Hence. as has been the normal occurrence almost every year. hence. and activities of the Government in fiscal jeopardy. In Advincula v. there was no mix up in her signature on the picture seat plan. No. In this case. Dicen. First Offense and Length of Service). identified. De Juan A. J. . which warrant dismissal from service upon commission of the first offense. must be clearly manifested. in De Guzman v. especially in view of the existence of an aggravating circumstance. FEBRUARY 2015 De Castro vs. TESDA vs. respondent said that she was the one who took the examination. We also agree with the CSC that the pictures of respondent on the picture seat plan and personal data sheets are different.R. There are no cases extending them to a non-coercive setting. or sanctioned to avert putting the legitimate programs. The rights are invocable only when the accused is under custodial investigation. intentional neglect. J. it is important that the release of funds be duly authorized. February 10. She was not even being investigated by any police or law enforcement officer. If the Court believes her. 2015 Villarama. The revenue collections of the Government. CSC vs. only the minimum of the imposable penalty for Grave Abuse of Authority (or Oppression) should be meted against respondent. There was no evidence that she was forced or pressured to say anything. Delos Santos. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. 203536. Upon comparison of respondent’s signatures. projects. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: The Court reverses the ruling 18 of the CA that the discrepancies in Maria’s signatures and pictures on the personal data sheets and picture seat plan can be the result of a simple mix-up.R. We also examined respondent’s signatures on the picture seat plan and personal data sheet and we agree with the CSC that the signatures are different. J. 196418.

ELECTION LAW.R. […] Finally.R. No.R. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS/ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: The Ombudsman is authorized by the Ombudsman Act to directly impose administrative penalties against errant public servants. BILL OF RIGHTS. Quimbo G. The reason is that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory. Alcantara and Jacinto admitted to taking and encashing checks of their co-workers without permission. 2015 Mendoza. Sadly for him. all of which must be established by substantial evidence. and the prosecution is barred from appealing lest the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy be violated. J. in acquitting the accused. FRANCHISES. 173277. 2015 Sereno. No. There is no doubt that their acts of repeatedly stealing the checks and forging the signatures of their co-workers constitute grave misconduct and dishonesty.J. he had the opportunity to appeal to the President. but only with respect to the civil aspect of the decision. Despite acquittal. 2015 Peralta. and convenience. February 24. J. C. Board G. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. 2015 Peralta.” Respondent in this case declared petitioner a nuisance candidate without giving him a chance to explain his bona fide intention to run for office. Hontiveros-Baraquel vs.” In this case.” “subject to an opportunity to be heard. thereby rendering the assailed judgment null and void. No. COMELEC G. DUE PROCESS: In general. No. 211362. 181293.M. no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted. February 25. committed in the administrative forum. February 25. February 17. have been given the appropriate opportunity to act and correct their alleged errors. the investigation of Cadet 1CL Cudia’s Honor Code violation followed the prescribed procedure and existing practices in the PMA. in a case where a Provincial 19 . LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: Grave misconduct is committed when there has been “‘a transgression of some established and definite rule of action. AND CERTIFICATES FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES: It is thus clear that Congress does not have the sole authority to grant franchises for the operation of public utilities.R. Thus. People vs. If there is grave abuse of discretion. This was an ineffective opportunity to be heard. willful intent to violate the law. Ombudsman vs. 183652. DOUBLE JEOPARDY: As a general rule. should not entertain suits unless the available administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the proper authorities. 206004. more particularly.” […] In this case. for reasons of law. their certificates of candidacy may be denied due course or cancelled by respondent. AUTHORITY. CANDIDACY: Nuisance candidates are persons who file their certificates of candidacy “to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate. all had issued unfavorable rulings. This denial or cancellation may be “motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party. however. Respondent had already declared petitioner a nuisance candidate even before the clarificatory hearing. but also exercised grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.R. or a denial of due process. February 24. J. 2015 Leonen. Timbol vs. Or.’ The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption. unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. 2015 Per Curiam LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. granting petitioner’s prayer is not tantamount to putting private respondents in double jeopardy. if any. P-15-3296. either the offended party or the accused may appeal. Toll Reg.” To minimize the logistical confusion caused by nuisance candidates. The rationale behind the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is that “courts. committed not merely reversible errors of judgment. who are competent to act upon the matter complained of. comity. Cudia vs. February 23. or to disregard established rules.In re: Alcantara A. BILL OF RIGHTS. said judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court showing that the lower court. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY. Superintended of the PMA G. J. No. the prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal case. No. and must necessarily be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct. CA G.

In re: Parreno OCA IPI No. J. 2015 Reyes. No. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS. and 20 consistently with the demands of human dignity. March 25. March 18. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. the appointment is valid. March 17. it signifies that it shall also take charge of the regulation of the use. 14-220-CA-J. DOH vs. No. Huang Te Fu G. COA G. In addition. CITIZENSHIP. It must be shown that the employment gives one an income such that there is an appreciable margin of his income over his expenses as to be able to provide for an adequate support in the event of unemployment. the absence of malice or deliberate attempt to impede the dispensation of justice can exculpate him from liability. 207422. Abad vs. cannot reverse the suspension by holding that the Ombudsman’s power is limited only to recommend penalties. as well as all forms of “promotion” which essentially includes “sales promotion. as well as those under “promotion” in RA 9211 (“Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003”). In line with this. CITIZENSHIP. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Dela Cruz G. ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS: In administrative proceedings. Jr. or lawful occupation” means “not only that the person having the employment gets enough for his ordinary necessities in life.R. sale. so long as the appointee possesses the qualifications required by law. 2015 Villarama. Appointment is a discretionary power of the appointing authority. J. 202943. in accordance with the prevailing standard of living.R.” It provides that those natural-born Filipinos who have lost their citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country shall re-acquire their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. among others. No. 199113. it has been settled that the Ombudsman has the legal interest to intervene in the proceedings in the CA to defend its decision. while Section 2 declares the general policy that Filipinos who have become citizens of another country shall be deemed “not to have lost their Philippine citizenship. MARCH 2015 Nacion vs. 2015 Bersamin. Agbay G. 9225 he was by legal fiction “deemed not to have lost” it at the time of his naturalization in Canada and through the time when he was said to have falsely claimed Philippine citizenship in his Miscellaneous Lease Application.” such is qualified by the phrase “under the conditions of this Act.A. and advertisements of tobacco products. 204757. and that by re-acquiring the same status under R. distribution.. the Court of Appeals. J. Republic vs. 2015 Leonen. as would warrant a delineation in the authority to regulate its conduct.Engineer was suspended by the Ombudsman. J. However.” His income should permit “him and the members of his family to live with reasonable comfort. J. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: Although often holding that a heavy caseload is insufficient reason to excuse a Judge from disposing his cases within the reglementary period. March 18. or lawful occupation. at this stage of our civilization. INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE. or disability to work and thus avoid one’s becoming the object of charity or a public charge. J. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. No. profession. March 17. and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. GENERAL PRINCIPLES: The next-in-rank rule is a rule of preference on who to consider for promotion. 2015 Del Castillo. that an applicant for naturalization must be of good moral character and must have some known lucrative trade. sickness. the essence of due process is the opportunity to explain one’s side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. profession. The qualification of “some known lucrative trade. NATURALIZATION AND DENATURALIZATION: Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law or CA 473 requires. March 18. The demands of due process are sufficiently met when the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. if the IAC -Tobacco was created and expressly given the exclusive authority to implement the provisions of RA 9211. POLICE POWER: The Court finds that there is no substantial difference between the activities that would fall under the purview of “sales promotion” in RA 7394 (“Consumer Act of the Philippines”).” Hence. The rule does not give employees next in rank a vested right to the position next higher to theirs should that position become vacant. the Court finds that RA 9211 .R. No. 200983.R No. Philip Morris Philippines G. LOSS AND REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP: David argued that the Court has disregarded the undisputed fact that he is a natural-born Filipino citizen.” David vs.R.

impliedly repealed the relevant provisions of RA 7394 with respect to the authority of the DOH to regulate tobacco sales promotions. 21 . Therefore. with this regulatory power conferred upon the IAC-Tobacco by RA 9211. the DOH and the BFAD have been effectively and impliedly divested of any authority to act upon applications for tobacco sales promotional permit. including PMPMI’s.

payrolls. Moreover. No. 189456. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. LABOR STANDARDS. CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL: There is constructive dismissal when there is cessation of work. Villegas Taxi Transport G. Bluer Than Blue vs. April 2. is the most important element. JUST CAUSES: It is not the job title but the actual work that the employee performs that determines whether he or she occupies a position of trust and confidence. 2014 Reyes. No. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP: [I]n determining the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. because continued employment is rendered impossible. Emeritus Security vs. Sibug G. Dailig G. 201072. KINDS OF EMPLOMENT. 196280 & 196286. 2014 Villarama. LABOR STANDARDS. serve as evidence of employee status. the so-called control test. Sambajon G. constructive dismissal may. (b) the payment of wages. R. Jr. Jr. while the award of separation pay is the exception.R. social security registration.R. it is within the exercise of the right to select his employees that the employer may set or fix a probationary period within which the latter may test and observe the conduct of the former before hiring him permanently. Esteban G. 2014 Reyes. appointment letters or employment contracts. 192582. April 2. Isabel vs. Nos. (c) the power of dismissal. or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. No. April 2. April 2. organization charts. J.. 2014 Villarama. CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL: The temporary inactivity or “floating status” of security guards should continue only for six months. […] . DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT.R. Article 279 of the Labor Code mandates the reinstatement of an illegally dismissed employee. No. The failure of the security agency to give the security guard a work assignment beyond the reasonable six-month period makes it liable for constructive dismissal. unreasonable or unlikely. 192998. LABOR STANDARDS. No. as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay and other benefits. While there is no statutory cap on the minimum term of probation. This definite assessment of the seaman’s permanent disability must include the degree of his disability. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. J. Otherwise. April 2. LABOR STANDARDS.R. J. J. insensibility. the law sets a maximum “trial period” during which the employer may test the fitness and efficiency of the employee..LABOR LAW APRIL 2014 Universidad de Sta. If he fails to do so and the seafarer’s medical condition remains unresolved. as required by Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC. United Philippine Lines vs. Section 2 of the 22 Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation. exist if an act of clear discrimination. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not. 2014 Carpio. LABOR STANDARDS. cash vouchers. There is no hard and fast rule designed to establish the aforesaid elements.R. DISABILITY BENEFITS: The company-designated physician must arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to work or permanent disability within the period of 120 or 240 days. J. Identification cards. pursuant to Article 192 (c)(1) of the Labor Code and Rule X. and personnel lists. Reinstatement is the general rule. the latter shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled. J. to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee. LABOR STANDARDS. In that sense. 204761. The last element. Tenazas vs.R. Espino G. PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT: A probationary employee is one who is on trial by the employer during which the employer determines whether or not said employee is qualified for permanent employment. likewise. It is well-settled that the employer has the right or is at liberty to choose who will be hired and who will be denied employment. Chang Kai Shek College vs. the security agency concerned could be liable for constructive dismissal. the Court has consistently looked for the following incidents. April 7. 2014 Perez.

April 7. heedlessly or inadvertently. that the employee becomes entitled to reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights. Also. then the company must have already hired a new one to replace her in order not to jeopardize its business operations. the employer must comply with the following requisites: (1) written notice served on both the employee and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of termination; (2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service. LABOR STANDARDS. 2014 Abad. vs. AUTHORIZED CAUSES: The Court does not agree with the rationalization of the NLRC that if it were true that her position was not redundant and indispensable. No. Land Bank vs. 199022. change in the job title is not synonymous to a change in the functions. J. without justifiable excuse as distinguished from an act done carelessly. 207983. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. Disability. SPI Technologies vs. or work of similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform. No. to be a valid cause for dismissal. the transitional period the dismissed employee must undergo before locating a replacement job. which can be done either actually or through payroll reinstatement. The fact that there is none only proves that her position was not necessary and therefore superfluous.. Put a little differently. the payment of backwages covers the period running from his illegal dismissal up to his actual reinstatement. LABOR STANDARDS. it is the duty of the employer to comply with the order of reinstatement. In cases of redundancy. These two reliefs are not inconsistent with one another and the labor arbiter can award both simultaneously. that is. In a catena of cases. April 7. Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work. J. 2014 Velasco. J. the Court has consistently ruled that disability should not be understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity. 2014 Brion.” What is compensated is one’s incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of his earning capacity. payment of backwages is a form of relief that restores the income that was lost by reason of unlawful dismissal. 23 . No. For a valid implementation of a redundancy program. the grant of separation pay was a substitute for immediate and continued re-employment with the private respondent Bank.(4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant.R. and. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. What the above reasoning of the NLRC failed to perceive is that of primordial consideration is not the nomenclature or title given to the employee. the management should adduce evidence and prove that a position which was created in place of a previous one should pertain to functions which are dissimilar and incongruous to the abolished office.R. A position cannot be abolished by a mere change of job title. must be work-related such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer and it must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts.R. April 7. [The Court points] out that reinstatement and backwages are two separate reliefs available to an illegally dismissed employee. An additional award for loss of earnings will result in double recovery. As provided under Article 223 of the Labor Code. separation pay. SSS LAW: In resolving the issue of whether the COLA and/or the BEP should be paid separately from the basic salary to the employees of LBP as of July 1. Magsaysay Maritime vs. or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment could do. RELIEF FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL: Since the decision is immediately executory. No. thoughtlessly. is not synonymous with “sickness” or “illness. It is not the job title but the actual work that the employee performs. in contrast. Wenphil Corp. The employer has the duty to reinstate the employee in the interim period until a reversal is decreed by a higher court or tribunal. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally. and purposely. 195687. LABOR STANDARDS. J. Naval G. and second. Chin G.Loss of trust and confidence. the Labor Arbiter’s award of loss of earning is unwarranted since Chin had already been given disability compensation for loss of earning capacity. DISABILITY BENEFITS: Definitely. 2014 Reyes.R. The grant of separation pay did not redress the injury that is intended to be relieved by the second remedy of backwages. the loss of earnings that would have accrued to the dismissed employee during the period between dismissal and reinstatement. SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION. is oriented towards the immediate future. but the nature of his functions. 191154. this immediately executory nature of an order of reinstatement is not affected by the existence of an ongoing appeal. Mapua G. April 7. Abing G. The normal consequences of a finding that an employee has been illegally dismissed are: first. whichever is higher; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant position. knowingly. […] In the instant case. therefore.

195227. Representation and transportation allowances. J. The employee. 1989 because (1) it has not been expressly excluded from the general rule on integration by the first sentence of Sec. it is illogical for . 2. 7. Hazard pay. Primarily. 2014 Reyes. No. LABOR STANDARDS. No. an employee may be barred from collecting the accrued wages if shown that the delay in enforcing the reinstatement pending appeal was without fault on the part of the employer and not when it was due to the employer’s unjustified act or omission by filling several pleadings to suspend the execution of the LA’s reinstatement order and not notifying the petitioners of their intent to actually reinstate them. Thus. the illness of the employee which incapacitated him to work more than 120 days after repatriation is considered as work-related which entitles him to disability benefits. there’s no other conclusion than to deny the payment of the COLA on top of the LBP employees’ basic salary from July 1. AUTHORIZED CAUSES: Redundancy does not need to be always triggered by a decline in the business. 188190. 6. is not required to return the wages that he had received prior to the reversal of the LA’s decision. an employer can still validly dismiss an employee from the service due to redundancy if that employee’s position has already become in excess of what the employer’s enterprise requires. April 7. Thus. 170007. Indeed. 4. A mutual declaration would neither add to nor subtract from the reality of the deadlock then existing between the parties. South East Asian Airlines 24 G. J. Allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad. they should be considered as deemed integrated in the standardized salaries of LBP employees under the general rule of integration. [the Court] should look into the very provisions of the SSL. Since the COLA and the BEP are among those expressly excluded by the SSL from integration. and not the actual injury itself. April 21. there was actually a complete stoppage of the ongoing negotiations between the parties and the union filed a Notice of Strike. in turn. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION. 3. April 21. From the foregoing provision. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. Thus. Jardine Pacific Finance G.R. the COLA is not granted in order to reimburse employees for the expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties. What was lacking was the formal recognition of the existence of such a deadlock because the union refused a declaration of deadlock. Clothing and laundry allowances. the absence of the parties’ mutual declaration of deadlock does not mean that there was no deadlock. employers resort to redundancy when the functions of an employee have already become superfluous or in excess of what the business requires. LABOR STANDARDS. there was already an actual existing deadlock between the parties. No. J. it is immediately apparent that the SSL mandates the integration of all allowances except for the following: 1. because of the unresolved issue on wage increase.R. 5. 2014 Brion. deadlock was possible and did occur. From this perspective.R. the employer’s duty to reinstate the dismissed employee is effectively terminated. After the LA’s decision is reversed by a higher tribunal. Further. Arabit vs. And such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM. LABOR RELATIONS. Bergonio vs. Thus. DISABILITY BENEFITS: What is important is that the employee was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE: As there was no bad faith on the part of Shell in its bargaining with the union. Subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels. Pilipinas Shell G. J. Undoubtedly. 12 of the SSL and (2) as explained.1989. April 21. Subsistence allowance of hospital personnel. Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association vs. even if a business is doing well. 181719. EFFECT OF NLRC REVERSAL OF LABOR ARBITER’S ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT: A dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by the LA is entitled to receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement. No. By way of exception. Barko International vs. which reinstatement is immediately executory. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. the fact that a certification declaring the employee as fit to work contrary to a prior finding of tuberculosis can be considered as a ploy to circumvent the law intended to defeat the employee’s right to be compensated for a disability which the law considers as permanent and total. 2014 Brion.R. Alcayno G. it would have been simply a recognition of the prevailing status quo between the parties. At most.

The determination of “adequate performance” is not. vs. measurable by quantitative specification. LABOR STANDARDS.R. 181490. NLRC G. Constructive dismissal does not always involve forthright dismissal or diminution in rank.R. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE: While the adoption and enforcement by Mirant of its Anti-Drugs Policy is recognized as a valid exercise of its management prerogative as an employer. artists.. Virgen Shipping G. compensation. PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT: [It] is not the probationary employee’s job description but the adequate performance of his duties and responsibilities which constitutes the inherent and implied standard for regularization. No. then basic knowledge and common sense dictate that he must adequately perform the same. benefit and privileges. In these kinds of occupation. vs. 2014 Peralta. such as that of a sales quota […] It is also hinged on the qualitative assessment of the employee’s work. the corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be. and journalists. such employee is eligible for disability benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement executed between his employer and its union.) Corp.R. to wit: Section 64. The Anti-Drugs Policy of Mirant fell short of these requirements. June 2. LABOR STANDARDS. April 23. In the exercise of its management prerogative. an employer must therefore ensure that the policies. There may be constructive dismissal if an act of 25 . KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT. JUNE 2014 Nahas vs. 192571. […] If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being.R. Alcaraz G. J. No. Abbott Laboratories vs. Jr.. In the ultimate analysis. Sunga vs. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. 2014 Del Castillo. The replacement effectively belies employer’s claim that the petitioners’ positions were abolished due to superfluity. such exercise is not absolute and unbridled.R. A good example would be the case of probationary employees whose tasks involve the application of discretion and intellect.. No. by its nature. the best that the employer can do at the time of engagement is to inform the probationary employee of his duties and responsibilities and to orient him on how to properly proceed with the same. The employer cannot bear out in exacting detail at the beginning of the engagement what he deems as “quality work” especially since the probationary employee has yet to submit the required output. DISABILITY BENEFITS: When an employee’s injury was the result of the accidental slippage in handling of the 200kilogram globe valve. LABOR STANDARDS. J. Solidary Liability – The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment placement agency on any and all claims under this Rule shall be [joint] and solidary. June 4. when prescribed. No. J. 198640. Mirant (Phils. While in some instances the standards used in measuring the quality of work may be conveyed – such as workers who construct tangible products which follow particular metrics. [If] the probationary employee had been fully apprised by his employer of these duties and responsibilities. RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT: [The Court finds] nothing capricious or whimsical with the NLRC’s finding and thus affirm Nahas’ liability in accordance with Section 64 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (RA 8024). April 22. No. J. 169247. J. 193421. 2014 Villarama. Olarte G. 2014 Brion. shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages. commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. such as – to name a few – lawyers. rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and reasonable and the corresponding penalties. the communication of performance standards should be perceived within the context of the nature of the probationary employee’s duties and responsibilities. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. McMer Corp. Caro G. CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL: [An] employee who is forced to surrender his position through the employer's unfair or unreasonable acts is deemed to have been illegally terminated and such termination is deemed to be involuntary. LABOR STANDARDS. Redundancy could have been justified if the functions of the petitioners were transferred to other existing employees of the company. else he fails to pass the probationary trial and may therefore be subject to termination. this largely rests on the reasonable exercise of the employer’s management prerogative. in all cases. not all standards of quality measurement may be reducible to hard figures or are readily articulable in specific preengagement descriptions. April 23.employer to terminate the petitioners’ employment and replace them with contractual employees.

no basis for petitioner to contend that grounds exist for the cancellation of respondent's union registration. 2014 Peralta.00. J. It was only on August 14. therefore. and [3]arrival at the point of hire.. 2014 Mendoza. appellant engaged in recruitment when she represented herself to be capable of deploying workers to South Korea upon submission of the pertinent documents and payment of the required fees. his point of hire. June 4. 196276. even the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code does not so provide. insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. 2014 Brion. (2) the accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. J. [Here. June 4. Takata (Phils. J. 2006 that he signed off from MV Haitien Pride and arrived in Manila on August 30. considering] that there are 119 union members which are more than 20% of all the employees of the bargaining unit. the prosecution has to prove three essential elements. 2014 Peralta. a third element is added: that the offender commits any of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more persons. there was no clear showing that Caseñas signed off from the vessel upon the expiration of his employment contract.clear discrimination. 26 PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION. . June 4. 2006. No. vs. It is also clear from the evidence presented that the crime of illegal recruitment was committed by against five persons. because he was still on board the vessel MV Haitien Pride on the supposed date of expiration of his contract.000. UNION REGISTRATION: It does not appear in Article 234 (b) of the Labor Code that the attendees in the organizational meeting must comprise 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit. In the case of illegal recruitment in large scale. Fernandez G. In fact. 2014 Brion. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT: Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. It is necessary that the prosecution prove the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” under Article 13 (b) of the labor Code.R. or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of RA 8042) and (2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. People vs. People vs. In this case. RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT. an indication of a genuine effort on the part of the agency to comply with the bond requirement. No. Caseñas G. 199211. Binalla G. together with the notice of appeal and the memorandum of appeal. and since the law does not provide for the required number of members to attend the organizational meeting. 197005. 197303. TERMINATION OF A SEAFARER'S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT: There are three (3) requirements necessary for the complete termination of the employment contract: [1] termination due to expiration or other reasons/causes. 200884. Clearly. BLR G. He did not arrive either in Manila. the 20% minimum requirement pertains to the employees’ membership in the union and not to the list of workers who participated in the organizational meeting. APQ Ship Management vs. RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT. LABOR RELATIONS. individually or as a group. Also. Section 6 of the NLRC 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure. No. No. No. June 4.R. Salvatierra G. There is.) Corp.R.R. the 68 attendees which comprised at least the majority of the 119 union members would already constitute a quorum for the meeting to proceed and to validly ratify the Constitution and By-laws of the union. LABOR STANDARDS. namely: (1) the accused undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code. [2] signing off from the vessel. the motion was accompanied by a surety bond of P250. Princess Joy Placement and General Services vs. which was in February or April 2005. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT: [For] illegal recruitment in large scale to prosper.R. In this case. J. It is only under Article 234 (c) that requires the names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate. and (3) the accused committed such illegal activity against three or more persons individually or as a group. APPEAL: The NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of and acting on Princess Joy’s motion to reduce the appeal bond as it is allowed under Rule VI. and the motion was filed within the ten-day appeal period. J. June 4.

27 . The workers’ performance of work necessary and related to the company’s business operations for a long period of time also proves the existence of an employer-employee relationship. 2014 Mendoza. Spring Water Resources. June 11. Defensor G. J. positive and convincing. Inc. Mega Magazine vs. LABOR STANDARDS. KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. which must prove the same. LRTA vs. however. However. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. where the company insists that its service contractor is a legitimate contractor. Aside from his mere assertion. that they should first establish by competent evidence the fact of their dismissal from employment. 207888. LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING: Generally. JUST CAUSES: Serious dishonesty is punishable by dismissal. J. There is no dispute that the work of Noblejas was necessary or desirable in the business or trade of IMAPI. Thus. KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT. during which the contractor had already provided workers to the company. Mere allegation is not evidence. 2014 Mendoza. 162021. said principal has the burden of proving that supposed status. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. the contractor is presumed to be a labor-only contractor. investment. Let it be underscored that the fact of dismissal must be established by positive and overt acts of an employer indicating the intention to dismiss. Falsification of a document cannot be classified as serious since the information falsified had no direct relation to her employment. LABOR STANDARDS. no corroborative and competent evidence was adduced by Noblejas to substantiate his claim that he was dismissed from employment. In addition. J. Noblejas was employed by IMAPI as a training instructor/assessor for a period of three (3) months effective May 20. the workers are employees of the company when the latter exercises the power of control over the workers as manifested by the power to transfer employees from one work assignment to another. Salvaña G. Moreover. No. unless such contractor overcomes the burden of proving that it has the substantial capital. Alilin vs. 192074. In the case at bench. Petron G. 205278. Phil. vs. PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT: Article 281 of the Labor Code [provides:] Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working.R. No. Whether or not she was suffering from hypertension is a matter that has no relation to the functions of her office. It is likewise incumbent upon the employees. It is an age-old rule that the one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and the proof should be clear. KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT. June 16. 2014 Del Castillo. it is incumbent upon the employee to first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his or her dismissal. PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT: Fair evidentiary rule dictates that before employers are burdened to prove that they did not commit illegal dismissal..Noblejas vs. he was rehired by IMAPI for the same position and continued to work as such until March 16.R. unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. and dismissal for the third offense. CA G. LABOR STANDARDS. 2009.R. such continuing need for his services is sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of his services to IMAPI’s business. a training and assessment center for seamen and officers of vessels. No. June 9. six months and one day to one year for the second offense. On the contrary. J. No. and not to the decades prior to the contract. tools and the like. 2010. Simple dishonesty is punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense. LABOR STANDARDS.R. Noblejas had indeed attained the status of a regular employee at the time he ceased to report for work on March 17. it is rather the apparent disinterest of complainant to continue his employment with respondent company that may be considered a covert act that severed his employment when the latter did not grant the litany of his demands. J. 2010. where the principal is the one claiming that the contractor is a legitimate contractor. Italian Maritime Academy G. The company fails to overcome such presumption when it presents financial documents which [show] the financial capability of the contractor covering the period when the company and the contractor executed a service contract. After the end of the 3-month period. No. June 9. it is the company and not the workers. 2014 Bersamin.R. June 10. Taken in this light. Less serious dishonesty is punishable by suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. 177592. 2014 Leonen.

petitioners clearly violated her right to due process from the very beginning. that the enumeration in Section 32-A does not preclude other illnesses/diseases not so listed from being compensable. participated in a strike where this Court found the commission of illegal acts by the strikers. GRANT OF BONUSES AS MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE: The grant of a bonus or special incentive. 2014 Brion. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT.R. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver. LABOR STANDARDS. If the desired goal of production or actual work is not accomplished. among them the petitioners. No. June 18. J. This is in view of Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC which states that “(t)hose illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related. No. “[I]t is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer’s illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled. Rule 1. Book VI of the IRR expressly states that the employee should be afforded procedural due process in all cases of dismissals. the bonus does not accrue. No. No. J. J.R. 195598. 2014 Brion. the infliction of punishment before trial is fundamentally abhorred.R. June 18. DUE PROCESS: By pre-judging respondent’s case. J.” Concomitant with such presumption is the burden placed upon the claimant to present substantial evidence that his working conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease. a work-related illness is “any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A with the conditions set therein satisfied.R. NAPOCOR G. LABOR STANDARDS. What petitioners did was clearly illegal and improper. SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION. being a management prerogative. 156208. June 18. SSS LAW: Under the 2000 POEA-SEC. Intel G. like the petitioners. LABOR STANDARDS. J. DUE PROCESS: The Labor Code and its IRR are silent on the procedural due process required in terminations due to disease. rules or regulations or be able to avail of the privileges under a separation plan which shall be one and one-half month salary for every year of service in the government. the liability to pay for their separation benefits should be deemed existing as of the EPIRA’s effectivity. 192011. 2014 Brion. 2014 Reyes. Grandeur Security G. 28 Libcap Marketing vs. In this particular case. which must be considered in the execution of the CA decision […] in order not to create an injustice to or an inequitable treatment of workers who. 206716.” The Court has held. is not a demandable and enforceable obligation.” Deferio vs. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION. NPC-DAMA vs. and were thus transferred to PSALM pursuant to Section 49 of the law. Baquial G. 2014 Del Castillo. salary or compensation of the employee. June 25. Phimco G. 2014 Brion. a supervening event transpired. it must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer’s illness or injury and the work for which he had been contracted. The employees’ separation being an unavoidable consequence of the mandated restructuring and privatization of the NPC. No. Despite the seeming gap in the law.R. June 30. J. LABOR STANDARDS. the EPIRA gave the assurance that these employees shall receive the separation pay and other benefits due them under existing laws. Jordan vs. and from then on it could not be expected that she would obtain a fair resolution of her case. In recognition of this. SUPERVENING CAUSE: [The] doctrine of immutability of final judgments admits of certain exceptions [and one] recognized exception is the existence of a supervening cause or event which renders the enforcement of a final and executory decision unjust and inequitable. Jarin G. June 30. RELIEF FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL: An employee refusing a valid management prerogative cannot file a complaint for illegal dismissal and shall not be entitled to monetary awards. AUTHORIZED CAUSES: The separation of NPC employees affected by its reorganization and privatization was a foregone conclusion. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. . Section 2. however. The POEA-SEC cannot be presumed to contain all the possible injuries that render a seafarer unfit for further sea duties.LABOR STANDARDS. 203332. By its very definition.R. and cannot be considered part of an employee’s wages if it is paid only when profits are realized or a certain amount of productivity is achieved. Teekay Shipping vs. 202996. except when the bonus or special incentive is made part of the wage. In a democratic system. Libongcogon vs. No. or is promised by the employer and expressly agreed upon by the parties.

it noteworthy to state that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to award not only the reliefs provided by labor laws.R. LABOR STANDARDS: DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. July 9. benefits. the penalty imposed. 8282. any amount that the respondents may have expended for [the late petitioner. July 2. LABOR STANDARDS. a forbidden act. Besides.. petitioners already settled their pecuniary obligations to it.JULY 2014 Immaculate Conception Academy vs. At the same time. J. No. 2014 29 . Inc. 209302. Tagle vs. Camilon G. As such. the benefit of medical treatment at the employer’s expense is separate and distinct from the disability benefits and sickness allowance to which the seafarer is additionally entitled. there is evidently a case of illegal constructive dismissal. vs. lest the SSC be swamped with cases of this sort. is illegal. the employer must prove the following: (1) it is of a grave and aggravated character. but also damages governed by the Civil Code.R.R. check the entries therein and keep custody of the petty cash fund. Alberto Javier’s] medical treatment should not be deducted from the monetary award that consisted only of the disability benefits and attorney’s fees. CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL: When another employee is soon after appointed to a position which the employer claims has been abolished. and (3) show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. there is no longer a dispute with respect to petitioners’ accountability to the System. July 9. a dereliction of duty. the SSC need not be unnecessarily dragged into the picture. Article 217 (a) (4) of the Labor Code is applicable. This is in line with the Court’s ruling in Reno Foods. J. 1161. J. albeit a suspension. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action. as well as in cases of illegal dismissal in which reinstatement is no longer feasible. July 2. it cannot be made to act as a colleting agency for petitioners’ claims against [Lopez]. 2014 Perez. No. JUST CAUSES: Misconduct is defined as improper and wrongful conduct. 178055. as amended by Republic Act No. while the employee who had to vacate the same is transferred against her will to a position which does not exist in the corporate structure. Otherwise. Letran Calamba vs. Had she been assiduously doing her job. 2014 Del Castillo. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management G. Said provision bestows upon the Labor Arbiter original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims for damages arising from employer-employee relations. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION: The Court holds that as between the parties. petitioners’ claims should have been referred to the labor tribunals.R.R.R. J. Accordingly. (2) it relates to the performance of the employee’s duties. To rule otherwise would be to reward Camilon for her negligent acts instead of punishing her for her offense. the unaccounted school funds would have been discovered right away. Amecos Innovations vs. Javier vs. No. LABOR STANDARDS. 2014 Villarama. As far as SSS is concerned. such as those provided in Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code. No. July 9. it cannot be assumed that since the dispute concerns the payment of SSS premiums. 190303. No. In this connection. willful in character. To be a just cause for terminating an employee. Since there is no longer any dispute regarding coverage. the Social Security Law should not be so interpreted. LABOR STANDARDS. Systems Technology Institute G. there must be substantial evidence to prove that the employee acted in malicious and contemptuous manner with the intent to cause damage to the employer. She was guilty of gross and habitual negligence in failing to regularly pre-audit the report of the school cashier. 204101. she should not be granted separation pay. DISABILITY BENEFITS: As a matter of law. Jr. contributions and penalties to speak of. It is not allowed when an employee is dismissed for just cause. petitioners’ claim should be referred to the Social Security Commission (SSC) pursuant to Republic Act No. 2014 Del Castillo. 188035. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng ManggagawaKatipunan that separation pay is only warranted when the cause for termination is not attributable to the employee’s fault. July 2. 2014 Brion. Philippine Transmarine Carriers G. and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. thus. Camilon was holding a position which involves a high degree of responsibility requiring trust and confidence as it involves financial interests of the school. SEPARATION PAY: Camilon is clearly not entitled to separation pay. Hence. No. Ico vs. J. The observation that the matter of SSS contributions necessarily flowed from the employer-employee relationship between the parties – shared by the lower courts and the CA – is correct. Tardeo G. 185100. Lopez G.

As such. in the absence of a third doctor resolution of the . In the case at bar. (f) The companydesignated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or workrelated under the POEA. as the case may be. LABOR STANDARDS. but his physician of choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion. created a possibility that he acquired his disease at some other time when he was not on board and working in any of the employer’s vessels. He has to prove causation between the nature of his employment and his illness. DISABILITY BENEFITS: A seafarer may have basis to pursue an action for total and permanent disability benefits only if any of the following conditions are present: (a) The company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability. Such disagreement should have been referred to a third doctor jointly by the employer and the seafarer. While a seafarer is not precluded from seeking a second opinion on his medical condition or disability. a finding by the doctor of choice of the employee in contrast with that made of the company-designated physician.R. Also. the declaration of disability should no longer be based on the number of days the seafarer was treated or paid his sickness allowance.SEC but his doctor-ofchoice and the third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and declared him unfit to work. all of the following conditions must first be satisfied: (1) The seafarer’s work must involve the risks described herein. necessitates the appointment of a third doctor whose decision shall be final and binding. but rather on the disability grading he received. believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well. while it is provided for in the law that it is the company-designated physician who declares the fitness to work of a seafarer who sustains a work-related injury/illness or the degree of the seafarer’s disability. justify an extension of the period to 240 days. Otherwise. the non-referral cannot be blamed on the employer. whether from the companydesignated physician or from the third independent physician.Mendoza. 180343. July 9. (c) The company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period. (e) The company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading. Since it was the seafarer who consulted another doctor without informing his employer. or that the risk of contracting the illness was increased by his working condition. No. Magsaysay Maritime vs. LABOR STANDARDS. (3) The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it. (2) The disease was contracted 30 as a result of the seafarer’s exposure to the described risks. DISABILITY BENEFITS: Under the POEA-SEC. (g) The company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits. 2014 Brion. he will not be entitled to any claim. No. In the absence of any request from him. J. a finding by his doctor of choice in contrast with that made of the company-designated physician. Simbajon G. for an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death from it to be compensable. he should have actively requested that the disagreement be referred to a final and binding third opinion. the claim of previous contracts with the same employer as long enough to expose the employee to work-related risks to trigger a disease. in the absence of the respective dates and durations of those.R. Bahia Shipping Services vs. it is the companydesignated physician who declares the fitness to work of a seafarer who sustains a work-related injury/illness or the degree of the seafarer’s disability. Hence. and (h) The company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of said periods. Moreover. DISABILITY BENEFITS: Under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC. J. the assessment of the company-designated physician as to the seafarer’s health should stand. on his own and jointly with his employer. 203472. 2014 Brion. J. (b) 240 days had lapsed without any certification issued by the company designated physician. July 9. if the medical findings of the physician chosen by the seafarer conflicts with that of the company-designated doctor. Furthermore. the third condition is absent. LABOR STANDARDS. for workrelated illnesses acquired by seafarers from the time the 2010 amendment to the POEA-SEC took effect. (d) The company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted. the employer-company cannot be expected to respond. the onus probandi falls on the seafarer to establish or substantiate his claim that he is entitled to disability benefits by the requisite quantum of evidence. Constantino G. necessitates the appointment of a third doctor whose decision shall be final and binding. Otherwise. In the case at bar. for lack of factual and legal basis. hence. and (4) There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.

July 23. SERVICE CHARGE: PPHI did not violate Article 96 of the Labor Code when they refused the Union’s claim for service charges on the specified entries/transactions. J. as a general rule. July 23. As the Court has explained in Republic v. Article 96 requires the employer to incorporate the amount that the employees had been receiving as share of the collected service charges into their wages. Quebral G. 2014 Bersamin. the assessment of the company-designated physician as to the seafarer’s health should stand. July 23.R. Inc. LABOR RELATIONS. Luke's Medical Center vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G. In cases where no service charges had previously been collected (as where the employer never had any policy providing for collection of service charges or had never imposed the collection of service charges on certain specified transactions).conflicting assessments between the doctors. and the employer is deemed an intruder as far as the certification election is concerned. or even appeal the Med-Arbiter’s orders relative to the conduct of the certification election. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE: It is the employer’s prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its business or concern.R. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. to provide certain disciplinary measures to implement said rules and to assure that the same be complied with. Kawashima Textile Mfg. Thus. Philippine Plaza G. orders. J. Heritage Hotel Manila vs.R.. and its integration in the covered employees’ wages in the event the employer terminates its policy of providing for its collection. 193324. LABOR STANDARDS. justifies rescission of the contract of service and the peremptory dismissal of the employee. it was incumbent upon him to read the terms and conditions stated thereon. the petitioner lacked the legal personality to assail the proceedings for the certification election. and that because he was not reinstated either actually or by payroll. J. it is one of the fundamental duties of the employee to yield obedience to all reasonable rules. and instructions of the employer. and should stand aside as a mere bystander who could not oppose the petition. Nat’l Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurant & Allied Industries. CERTIFICATION ELECTION: Basic in the realm of labor union rights is that the certification election is the sole concern of the workers. much less oppose. 31 . July 23. No.R. the process by filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some employees participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the certification election. No. 177524. Castro vs. And second. Having used said parking tickets many times. 2014 Bersamin. This last paragraph of Article 96 of the Labor Code presumes the practice of collecting service charges and the employer’s termination of this practice. St.R. No. 2014 Brion. No. it is written on the parking ticket itself. LABOR STANDARDS. At the same time. 176317. Esmarialino vs. 192352. July 23. LABOR STANDARDS. The new principle being applied is a system based on social security principle; thus. Quebral cannot feign ignorance of the policy limiting to patients the privilege of the use of validated parking tickets. 2014 Villarama. Jr.. RELIEF FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL: The employer is obliged to reinstate and to pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until its reversal by the higher Court. J. Ateneo de Naga G. The choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with. First. Article 96 will not operate. No. Article 96 of the Labor Code provides for the minimum percentage distribution between the employer and the employees of the collected service charges. the introduction of “proof of increased risk”. he should be held entitled to the accrued salaries. even assuming he was not able to read said policy. Philippine Plaza Chapter vs. 2014 Reyes. and willful or intentional disobedience thereof. 175293. LABOR STANDARDS. J. DISABILITY BENEFITS: [The] principles of “presumption of compensability” and “aggravation” found in the old Workmen’s Compensation Act is expressly discarded under the present compensation scheme. Philippines. except when it is requested to bargain collectively. the Court agrees with petitioner that this only serves as a testament of his inefficiency in his job as he is not aware of his employer’s policies despite being employed for 7 years.. an employer is a mere bystander to any petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative. SOLE G. for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. When this happens.

Cuntapay. code of ethics. that the following are extant: (1) the existence of the subject company policy; (2) the dismissed employee must have been properly informed of said policy; (3) actions or omissions on the part of the dismissed employee manifesting deliberate refusal or willful disregard of said company policy; and (4) such actions or omissions have occurred repeatedly. LABOR STANDARDS. The Court disagrees. in fact. FLPE adduced nothing more. Probability. and periodic evaluation. No. Dela Cruz G.. the element of control is present. the CA ratiocinated that since the performance of his tasks is subject to company rules. But aside from its self-serving and uncorroborated declaration. 2014 Velasco. Talosig vs. and if it does truly exist. On that note. the rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party do not amount to the labor law concept of control that is indicative of employer-employee relationship. Inc. citing Government Service Insurance System v. It. we emphasize that making factual findings based only on presumptions and absent the quantum of evidence required in labor cases is an erroneous application of the law on compensation proceedings. DISABILITY BENEFITS: In Quizora v. LABOR STANDARDS. 198388. However. 32 however. The disputable presumption provision in Section 20(B) does not allow him to just sit down and wait for respondent company to present evidence to overcome the disputable presumption of work-relatedness of the illness. and a copy of the supposed policy as contained in the October 23.).R. announced. Royal Homes vs. J. the Court cannot provide him relief. FLPE could likewise have simply called some of its employees to testify on the rule’s existence. Ltd. they have been notified of the existence of said company rule and that they have received. is required; otherwise. 2003 Memorandum. 2014 Peralta. July 28. Not every form of control is indicative of employer-employee relationship. The company vehemently insists that it posted. No. C. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. FLPE failed to establish that such a company policy actually exists. As he did so without solid proof of work-relation and work-causation or work-aggravation of his illness. Wesleyan University vs. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. by substantial evidence. which aim only to promote the result. Scanmar Maritime Services. regulations. United Philippines Lines G. and those that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means. 195190. [the Supreme] Court categorically declared that the petitioner cannot simply rely on the disputable presumption provision mentioned in Section 20(B)(4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. JUST CAUSES: There is a difference between the criteria for determining the validity of invoking loss of trust and .R.. regulations.. and code of ethics does not necessarily become an employee. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP: In concluding that Alcantara is an employee of Royale Homes. A person who performs work for another and is subjected to its rules. FLPE must show. Denholm Crew Management (Phils.. read. J. indeed. July 28. In Insular Life Assurance Co. Neither is there anything in the records which reveals that the dismissed respondents were informed of said policy. No. dissemination. [The Supreme] Court has ruled in Gabunas. v. He cannot simply argue that the burden of proof belongs to respondent company. Sr. National Labor Relations Commission it was pronounced that the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it. As long as the level of control does not interfere with the means and methods of accomplishing the assigned tasks. 198093. Alcantara G.J. he still has to substantiate his claim in order to be entitled to disability compensation. J. and implemented the subject Safekeeping Policy in all its retail stores. vs. that it was.The employer’s only right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof.. which address both the result and the means used to achieve it. FLP Enterprises vs. Contrary to his position. It could have easily produced a copy of said memorandum bearing the signatures of Dela Cruz and Malunes to show that. Inc. that claimants in compensation proceedings must show credible information that there is probably a relation between the illness and the work. create no employeremployee relationship unlike the second. 2014 Sereno. the resulting conclusion would proceed from deficient proof. failed to substantiate said claim. posted and/or disseminated accordingly. and understood the same. No.R. The first.. and not mere possibility. July 28. Reyes G. and strict implementation. July 30. He has to prove that the illness he suffered was work-related and that it must have existed during the term of his employment contract.R. Jr. LABOR STANDARDS. 208321. JUST CAUSES: In order to sustain the respondents’ dismissal. especially the one in Alabang Town Center. LABOR STANDARDS. 2014 Del Castillo.

vs. the legal requirements for creditability apply to both. J. 2014 Mendoza. Indophil Textile Mills vs. Hence. However the question of whether she was a managerial or rank-and file employee does not matter if not only is there basis for believing that she breached the trust of her employer. No.R. 2014 Brion. 204651. These requirements are (a) proof must be shown that such facilities 33 . There is no substantial distinction between deducting and charging a facility’s value from the employee’s wage. August 4. gross violation of the CBA. LABOR STANDARDS. which is defined as “flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions” of the CBA. then the case is within the jurisdiction of the labor courts. J. vs. J. Thus. J. 2014 Reyes. No. her involvement in the irregularities attending to petitioner’s finances has also been proved. it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction. disability and history in the pre-employment medical examination constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation and shall disqualify him from any compensation and benefits. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. 170139.” Aside from the notice requirement. 2014 Peralta. 203957. DISABILITY BENEFITS: Section 20(E) of the POEA-SEC is clearly states that a seafarer who knowingly conceals and does not disclose past medical condition. Status Maritime Corp. The employer is required to give the charged employee at least two written notices before termination. Adviento G. J. petitioner committed fraudulent misrepresentation which under the POEA-SEC unconditionally barred his right to receive any disability compensation or illness benefit. Thus.. Cabiles G. No. LABOR STANDARDS. No. the acts complained of appear to constitute matters involving employee-employer relations since Adviento used to be the Civil Engineer of Indophil. HMR Philippines G. and not the Labor Arbiter. and in the absence thereof. July 30. August 6. No. August 5. The other notice must “[inform] the employee of the employer’s decision. 201483.. August 4. LABOR STANDARDS. UST G. 198097. The illegal dismissal ruling stands. in the present case.R.” Our Haus Realty Dev’t Corp. USTFU vs. More. Sps. One of the written notices must inform the employee of the particular acts that may cause his or her dismissal. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT: Money-claim underpayment of retirement benefits involves an issue arising from the interpretation or implementation of a provision of the collective bargaining agreement which according to Article 261 of the Labor Code falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. it should be stressed that Adviento’s claim for damages as can be gleaned in his complaint is specifically grounded on Indophil’s gross negligence to provide a safe. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION: The “reasonable causal connection rule” provides that if there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the employeremployee relations. healthy and workable environment for its employees – a case of quasi-delict. LABOR RELATIONS. BACKWAGES: The recomputation of the consequences of illegal dismissal upon execution of the decision does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented. No. Parian G. This may also be a valid ground for termination of employment and imposition of the appropriate administrative and legal sanctions. 2014 Leonen. the maintenance of a safe and healthy workplace is ordinarily a subject of labor cases. DUE PROCESS: [A] valid dismissal requires both a valid cause and adherence to the valid procedure of dismissal. Delalamo G. only the computation of monetary consequences of this dismissal is affected and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments. AUGUST 2014 Lim vs. the employee must also be given “an opportunity to be heard. for knowingly concealing his diabetes during the PEME. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. a re-computation of backwages until actual reinstatement is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments. 2014 Carpio.R. However. Hence. LABOR STANDARDS.R.R. 171212.confidence as a ground for terminating a managerial employee on the one hand and a rank-and-file employee on the other. Said provision. True. Sameer Overseas vs. J.R. WAGES: The employer’s argument is a vain attempt to circumvent the minimum wage law by trying to create a distinction where none exists. July 30. however. excluded from this original and exclusive jurisdiction. the jurisdiction over the case is within the regular courts.

J. August 11. such death is not compensable. The death of a seaman during the term of his employment makes the employer liable to the former's heirs for death compensation benefits. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT: When the parties. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. however.R. 205870. Hernani’s death is not compensable and his heirs are not entitled to any compensation or benefits. If the terms of a CBA are clear and there is no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties. Pellazar G. 198342.R. LABOR STANDARDS. Colegio de Sta. Pedrajas G. and it is directly attributable to the seaman. De Guzman and Banaga as against Pellazar’s physician of choice. J. Benson Industries Employees Union vs. No. with full knowledge of its financial situation. OSG Ship Management Manila vs. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. J. the literal meaning of its stipulations shall prevail. DISABILITY BENEFITS: The mere lapse of the 120-day period itself does not automatically warrant the payment of permanent total disability benefits. Yap vs. agree to deviate there from. 189629. DEATH BENEFITS: It is settled that when the death of a seaman resulted from a deliberate or willful act on his own life. 200746. 34 then the obligatory force of that contract prevails and its terms should be carried out to its full effect. 198367. No. Since Pellazar was responsible for the nonreferral to the third doctor because of his failure to inform the manning agency that he would be consulting Dr. 192993. (b) the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee. No. JUST CAUSES: The failure of the school physician to perform his duties such as failure to conduct medical examination on all students for two (2) to five (5) consecutive years. In order for the beneficiaries of a seafarer to be entitled to death compensation from the employer. Since the company-designated physicians gave Pellazar only a Grade 10 disability – and not a permanent total disability – he cannot be entitled to the full disability benefits. lack of medical records on all students. hence his dismissal is legal. Fernandez vs. APPEAL: While Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 3(a). There is no established link connecting Dovee Yap’s accidental slip to the lung cancer and pneumonia that killed him. the NLRC was well within the bounds of its jurisdiction. LABOR STANDARDS. Clearly.R. and unqualifiedly covenant the payment of separation benefits irrespective of the employer’s financial position. August 06. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. Since there is a conflict in the assessment of the company – designated physicians and Dr. Botica Claudio G. August 13. Benson Industries G. No. and (2) occurred during the term of his contract. 2014 Peralta. is not absolute. Wallem were able to prove that Hernani committed suicide. Wallem Maritime vs. Rio vs. Rover Maritime Services G. and (c) the facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value. DEATH BENEFITS: The records would reveal that Remedios Yap failed to prove by substantial evidence that the death of her husband occurred during the term of his employment contract and that the cause of death was work-related. LABOR STANDARDS. Sabado. the NLRC could not have gravely abused its discretion in not granting Pellazar permanent total disability benefits based on this as the entitlement to disability is governed not by the period of disability per se but by the specific provisions of the law and contract. freely and voluntarily entered into such collective bargaining agreement with its employees. J. No. Sabado’s certification in relation to Pellazar’s fitness or unfitness to work. in upholding the disability assessment of Drs. 2014 Brion.R. August 13.are customarily furnished by the trade. he should suffer the consequences of the absence of a binding third opinion. the fact that the employer. cannot be accepted as an excuse to clear itself of its liability to pay its employees of separation benefits under such agreement. Neither can it be said that Dovee Yap’s working conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease for which he died. This rule. August 6. Thus.R. J. LABOR RELATIONS. LABOR STANDARDS. however. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION. 2014 Perez. Hence. and students having medical records prior to their enrollment constitute gross neglect. it must be proven that the death of the seafarer (1) is work-related. the matter should have been referred to a third doctor for final determination as required by the POEA-SEC and the parties’ CBA. 2014 Peralta. August 6. No. Rule VI of the then New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC require the party intending to appeal . Rosa Makati G. The employer may be exempt from liability if it can successfully prove that the seaman's death was caused by an injury directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act. J.R.

damages. The CA correctly granted respondents’ certiorari petition since the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it held that respondents were project employees despite petitioners’ failure to establish their project employment status through substantial evidence. the presumption under Art. However. 280 of the Labor Code that the garbage truck drivers and paleros are regular employees. Lopez vs. 204233.J. 175689. August 20. a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer and the third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties. COURT OF APPEALS: In labor disputes. an excusable neglect. No. PROJECT EMPLOYMENT: In order to safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word “project” to prevent employees from attaining a regular status. August 20. KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. which does not. by and of itself. Eagle Clarc Shipping G. J. September 3. periodically treated the seafarer Dalusong for months and 35 . and the findings of his physician disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician as to the degree of his injury. 2014 Carpio. the Court has held that the mere failure to serve the same upon the opposing party does not bar the NLRC from giving due course to an appeal. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. Hence. either in Cavite. As the records would show. LABOR STANDARDS. the NLRC should require the appellant to provide the opposing party copies of the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal. No. September 3. inter alia. LABOR STANDARDS. No. with his team of specialists which included an orthopedic surgeon and a physical therapist. PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS: The prescriptive period for filing an illegal dismissal complaint is four years from the time the cause of action accrued. if a garbage contractor terminates the employment of its garbage truck drivers and paleros. J. or possibly. REGULAR EMPLOYMENT: Lopez is a regular and not a project employee. a claim for backwages likewise prescribes in four years. Pilipino Star Ngayon G. 207253. No. Thus.from the LA’s ruling to furnish the other party a copy of his memorandum of appeal. it is up to the labor tribunal and the courts to evaluate and weigh the merits of the medical reports of the company-designated doctor and the seafarer’s doctor. Bon G. which the former alleges were project employees yet the contractor failed to show evidence to prove such assertion. The prescriptive period for filing an illegal dismissal complaint is four years from the time the cause of action accrued. LABOR STANDARDS. 177845. not the three-year period for filing money claims under Article 291 of the Labor Code.e. No. Irvine Construction G. its findings and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported by substantial evidence. where there was no third doctor appointed by both parties whose decision would be binding on the parties. and attorney’s fees arising from his claim of illegal dismissal have not yet prescribed when he filed his complaint with the NLRC. who. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION. and. August 13. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION.R. Since an award of backwages is merely consequent to a declaration of illegal dismissal. the findings of the company-designated doctor. KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT. but also that there was indeed a project.R. J. in any of its business locations.5 days: 15 days plus 2. RETIREMENT BENEFITS: [For] the computation of retirement benefits. applies to claims for backwages and damages due to illegal dismissal. hence.R. 2014 Leonen.5 days representing one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the remaining 5 days for SIL [i.R. and that their refusal to sign employment contract stating that they were “‘rehired’ for the duration of the renewed service contract” is not a valid ground for dismissal. Arriola vs. SEPTEMBER 2014 Omni Hauling Services vs. Lavandera G. should not have been affected by the culmination of the Cavite project alone. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. employers claiming that their workers are project employees should not only prove that the duration and scope of the employment was specified at the time they were engaged. LABOR STANDARDS. one-half (1/2) month salary means 22.R. Grace Christian High School vs. 199388. DISABILITY BENEFITS: When a seafarer claims disability due to injuries incurred during work. Clearly. grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when. service incentive leave]. the continuation of his engagement with Irvine. This fouryear prescriptive period. Instead. J. Such failure is only treated as a formal lapse. it merely completed one of its numerous construction projects. We find that Arriola’s claims for backwages. Acting C. Dalusong vs. not a jurisdictional defect warranting the dismissal of an appeal. amount to a bona fide suspension of business operations or [undertakings].

(b) relate to the performance of the employee’s duties. No. vs. Inc. oppressive to labor. Interorient Maritime vs. we emphasize that the written notice of administrative charge did not serve the 36 purpose required under due process. 2014 Bersamin. and rendered a written decision suspending Montinola. reasonably and liberally in favor of the seafarers. 198656. however. vs. for it is only then that its beneficent provisions can be fully carried into effect. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION. 2014 Reyes. Thus. PAL did not deny her allegation that there would be a waiver of the clarificatory hearing if she insisted on a specific notice of administrative charge. which was not more than a verbal argument between them. DISABILITY BENEFITS: Given the failure of the first doctor to fully evaluate petitioner’s illness. similar to illegally dismissed employees. and (b) the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.monitored his condition.R. September 17. Montinola vs. was not enough to tarnish or diminish Northwest's public image. J. 157633. 2014 Del Castillo. paragraph (b) of the Labor Code. LABOR STANDARDS. the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC nonetheless allows the reduction of the bond upon a showing of (a) the existence of a meritorious ground for reduction. Del Rosario G. The Court held that POEA Contract’s provisions must be applied fairly. while simultaneously posting a surety bond which is more than 10% of the full judgment award. September 8. JUST CAUSES: Misconduct or improper behavior. PAL issued a written notice of administrative charge. Libang. permanent partial disability grading beyond the 120-day period but before the 240-day maximum. G.R. In this case. September 10. who appeared to have examined Dalusong only once. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. He was diagnosed initially with pneumonia and asthma then with tuberculosis. DUE PROCESS: Illegally suspended employees. LABOR STANDARDS. deserve greater evidentiary weight than the single medical report of Dalusong’s doctor. DISABILITY BENEFITS: After the expiration of respondent’s contract. If the [120-day] initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical attention. LABOR STANDARDS. This exhortation cannot. conducted a clarificatory hearing. Indochina Ship Mgmt. the same could not be considered as of such seriousness as to warrant Del Rosario's dismissal from the service. and (c) show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. must: (a) be serious. Mas Transit Workers Union G. J. However. he informed the company of his illness but was not given any doctor’s referral. In this case.R. J. J. No. even assuming arguendo that the incident was the kind of fight between Del Rosario and Gamboa is prohibited by Northwest's Rules of Conduct. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe... 189863. to be a just cause for termination of employment. 181921. The Court denied his disability benefit claim for non-compliance with the three-day rule on post-employment medical examination and because respondent’s illness is not compensable. APPEAL: While it has been settled that the posting of a cash or surety bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the decision of the LA. In addition. just because the seafarer is unable to perform his job and is undergoing medical treatment for more than 120 days does not automatically entitle the seafarer to total and permanent disability compensation. Jr. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. No.R. The gravity of the fight. J. the bond may be reduced and the appeal is considered perfected. Philippine Tourists. or done in a manner contrary to morals. he was justified in seeking the medical expertise of his physician of . 2014 Leonen. No.R. PAL complied with procedural due process as laid out in Article 277. when the appellant employer prayed for the reduction of the bond in view of serious liquidity problems evidenced by audited financial statements. September 17. LABOR STANDARDS. 201237. be taken to sanction the award of disability benefits and sickness allowance based on flimsy evidence and/ or even in the face of an unjustified noncompliance with the mandatory reporting requirement under the POEA Contract. there were irregularities in the procedural due process accorded to her. Northwest Airlines vs. then Dalusong is not entitled to permanent disability benefits. then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days. September 3. Creer III G. are entitled to moral damages when their suspension was attended by bad faith or fraud. When the company-designated physician gave Dalusong a final. With Montinola unable to clarify the contents of the notice of administrative charge. good customs. or public policy. No. PAL G. subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists.

APPEAL: In this case. wages and other benefits. was aggravated by her 37 . the employer fails to remit these to the SSS. or those casual employees who have rendered at least one year of service. lung cancer is occupational only with respect to vinyl chloride workers and plastic workers. Ravena G. Such officers are criminally liable under R. The condition of posting a cash or surety bond is not a meaningless requirement – it is meant to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case. with respect to the activity in which he is employed. The blacklisting of a bonding company is not a whimsical exercise.A. it was not disputed that at the time CBIC issued the appeal bond. 2014 Brion. J. however. J.choice. September 24. The alleged concealment by petitioner of his hypertension during his pre-employment medical examination was also unsubstantiated. Kua vs. 2014 Perez. He cannot merely cling to his allegations that the conditions in the engine room aggravated his illness but must present substantial evidence to prove the same. LABOR STANDARDS. among others. however.” Good faith. 191237. September 24. KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT. The elements of criminal liability under Section 22 (a) are: (1) The employer fails to register its employees with the SSS. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. In the case at bar. GSIS vs. It was only under threat of criminal liability that Vicmar’s officers subsequently remitted what they had long deducted from the wages of respondents. However. 200566. REGULAR EMPLOYMENT: A regular employee is one who is either engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Jebsen Maritime vs. 2014 Brion. In this case. is not an excuse for setting aside the mandatory and jurisdictional requirement of the law. SSS LAW: Vicmar’s officers initially failed to remit the SSS contributions and payments of respondents such that respondents were denied benefits under the SSS Law which they wanted to avail of. September 17. 2014 Peralta. they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the former’s appeal. No. The latter. which is similar to lung cancer. no reasonable proof exists to support the claim that her respiratory disease. Trivializing it would release a blacklisted bonding company from the effects sought to be achieved by the blacklisting and would make the entire process insignificant. it meant that it committed certain prohibited acts and/or violations of law. [MCCI]. opined that “MCCI should not be faulted if the Bacolod branch office of the bonding company issued the surety bond” and that “MCCI acted in good faith when they transacted with the bonding company for the issuance of the surety bond. LABOR STANDARDS. J. (2) The employer fails to deduct monthly contributions from the salaries and/or wages of its employees. No 187621. Much more in this case where the bonding company was blacklisted at the time it issued the appeal bond. aside from Jose’s general allegations proving the stressful duties of his late wife. Menese. but was […] mere hearsay. 191237. September 24. 179654.R. In termination by retrenchment. SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION. Sacupayo G. whether continuous or broken. and (3) Having deducted the SSS contributions and/or loan payments to SSS. while [MCCI] may have presented its Financial Statements. 2014 Reyes. No.R. The employer must prove. nevertheless. this will not bar a claim for benefits under the law if the complainant can adduce substantial evidence that the risk of contracting the illness is increased or aggravated by the working conditions to which the employee is exposed to. J. it was already blacklisted by the NLRC. Mount Carmel College Employees Union vs. LABOR STANDARDS.R. Capacite G. Hacienda Leddy vs. No. not every loss incurred or expected to be incurred by an employer can justify retrenchment. prescribed rules and regulations. GSIS LAW: It is true that under Annex “A” of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation. failed to establish with reasonable certainty that the proportion of its revenues are largely expended for its elementary and high school personnel salaries. Mount Carmel College (MCCI) G. the Court categorically ruled that the defense of good faith does not render the issued bond valid. No. DISABILITY BENEFITS: A seafarer must prove that his illness is an occupational disease to claim disability benefits. September 22. In Cawaling v. When a bonding company is blacklisted. Villegas G. Such aim is defeated if the bond issued turned out to be invalid due to the surety company’s expired accreditation. that the losses are substantial and that the retrenchment is reasonably necessary to avert such losses. SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION. AUTHORIZED CAUSES: The burden of proving that the termination of services is for a valid or authorized cause rests upon the employer. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION. 8282. J.R.R.

J. 190161. Apolinario's complaint must be dismissed not because of doubt but because of the insufficiency of his evidence to support his claim of insanity. As such. 2014 Brion. 2014 Del Castillo. No. 191034. Jr. the seafarer’s death occurring after the termination of his employment due to his medical repatriation on account of a work-related injury or illness constitutes an exception thereto. the seafarer’s beneficiaries may successfully claim death benefits if they are able to establish that the seafarer’s death is (a) work-related and (b) had occurred during the term of his employment contract. DEATH BENEFITS: As stated in Section 20 of the 2000 POEA-SEC. Magsaysay Maritime G. CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL: It is manifestly unfair and unacceptable to immediately declare the mere lapse of the sixmonth period of floating status as a case of constructive dismissal. he could not have contracted his illness elsewhere except while working for such employer.R. DISABILITY BENEFITS: It is recognized that any kind of work or labor produces stress and strain normally resulting in wear and tear of the human body. J. LABOR STANDARDS. nor do they provide any definite picture of her working environment. the company physician. when a seaman has long been in the employ on an employer. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. the injury is the proximate cause of his death or disability for which compensation is sought. Exocet. evidence of insanity or mental sickness may be presented to negate the requirement of willfulness as a matter of counter-defense.e.working conditions.R. Magsaysay Mitsui Osk Marine vs. The basis of such is the liberal construction of the . LABOR STANDARDS. without looking into the peculiar circumstances that resulted in the security guard’s failure to assume another post. In other words. POEA-SEC requires the employer to prove not only that the death is directly attributable to the seafarer himself but also that the seafarer willfully caused his death. the assessment of the companydesignated physician is more credible for having been arrived at after months of medical attendance and diagnosis. J. J. Bengson G. compared with the assessment of a private physician done in one day on the basis of an examination or existing medical records. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT.. Agile Maritime vs. Since the willfulness may be inferred from the physical act itself of the seafarer (his jump into the open sea). No. October 1. 2014 Brion. gave Rosales a partial permanent disability assessment but a private physician gave him a permanent total disability assessment. 2014 Velasco. JUST CAUSES: The principle in employee dismissals that it is the employer’s burden to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. 198528. October 1. the employee concerned] willfully caused his death while Apolinario's [i. OCTOBER 2014 INC Shipmanagement vs. Cantos G. no other conclusion can be arrived at other than his years of service certainly taking a toll on his body. the insanity or mental illness required to be proven must be one that deprived him of the full control of his senses. 198538. Canuel vs. 195832. DISABILITY BENEFITS: Dr. Siador G. The records do not support the contention that she had been exposed to voluminous and dusty records. Siador’s] evidence fell short of substantial evidence to 38 establish its counter-defense of insanity.R. October 13.R.R. Under these circumstances. It is also settled that the cardiovascular disease. J. and other heart ailments are compensable. Serrano G. In such case. 200729. October 13. LABOR STANDARDS. the Court takes this opportunity to clarify that while the general rule is that the seafarer’s death should occur during the term of his employment. Rosales G. LABOR STANDARDS. No. This is especially true in the present case where the security guard’s own refusal to accept a nonVIP detail was the reason that he was not given an assignment within the six-month period. Temic Automotive (Phils. September 29. in other words. No. Exocet Security vs.) vs. Temic failed to discharge this burden of proof in Cantos’ case. J.e. coronary artery disease. the previous physical condition of the employee is unimportant and recovery may be had for injury independent of any pre-existing weakness or disease. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. With respect to the second requirement. 2014 Brion. No. LABOR STANDARDS. The security agency. Cruz. should not then be held liable. September 29.R. DEATH BENEFITS: Dennis [i. there must be sufficient proof to negate voluntariness. LABOR STANDARDS. The first requirement is complied with if the seafarer incurred an injury when he figured in an accident while performing his duties. Hence. No.

2014 Brion. the Court concludes that the respondents' work as janitors. Having already determined that the respondents are regular employees and not project employees. service crews and sanitation aides. And. that he signed the quitclaim out of fear of not being able to provide for the needs of his family and for the schooling of his children did not immediately indicate that he had been forced to sign the same. Magtalas vs. Secondly. LABOR STANDARDS. and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable.R. To be valid. SKILLEX vs. a dismissal should be supported by a just or authorized cause. Seva G. and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT.R. Thirdly. Imasen Philippine Manufacturing vs.aforementioned law as impelled by the plight of the bereaved heirs who stand to be deprived of a just and reasonable compensation for the seafarer’s death. by the generally accepted norms of conduct. Alcon G . 2014 Brion. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION. October 22. will not offend public decency nor disturb the generally held or accepted social morals. 2014 Peralta. the law steps in to annul the questionable waiver. October 22. October 22. This connection can be ascertained by considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business. Under these parameters. Guided by this test.R. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION: [The] dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute has the effect of adjudication on the merits. J. MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASES: The Release. the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. sexual acts should be carried out at such place. [Amurao] acknowledged in his quitclaim that he had read and thoroughly understood the terms of his quitclaim and signed it of his own volition. Waiver and Quitclaim) executed has now therefore rendered this case moot and academic. Zameco II Electric Cooperative G. Procedurally. 2014 Villarama. and that the respondents' belated employment contracts could not be given any binding effect for being signed under duress. No. October 15. that he was required to sign the quitclaim as a condition to the release of the settlement pay did not prove that its execution was coerced.. No. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. RELIEF FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL: Not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against public policy. with a full understanding of its terms as well as its consequences. Substantively. Jr. Azuelo vs. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. In the Court’s view. and is necessarily understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another action. The primary standard in determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee and the employer's business or trade. Indeed. 2014 Bersamin. the employer must observe the twin notice and hearing requirements in carrying out an employee's dismissal. J. No. unless otherwise provided in the order of dismissal. PROJECT EMPLOYMENT: A careful look at the factual circumstances of this case leads us to the legal conclusion that the respondents are regular and not project employees. an employee's dismissal must comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of due process. sexual acts between two consenting adults do not have a place in the work environment. are necessary or desirable to the petitioner's business of providing janitorial and manpower services to its clients as an independent contractor. notwithstanding its evident work-connection. or even state that he was entitled to a higher amount. 167225.R. or the trade in its entirety. J. Waiver. or (2) where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on their face. are already punishable misconduct. and Quitclaim and the Addendum (to Release. lastly. the requisites for the validity of Michael’s quitclaim were satisfied. Where the party has voluntarily made the waiver. Ante G. No. J. the Court holds that illegal dismissal took place when the petitioner failed to comply with the substantive and procedural due process requirements of the law. time and circumstance that. October 22. A quitclaim is invalid or contrary to public policy only: (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wrangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person. Radio Mindanao vs.R. In instances of invalid quitclaims. Amurao III G. the settlement pay was credible and reasonable considering that [Amurao] did not even assail such amount as unconscionably low. 187240. J. 194884. 200857. Firstly. No. A waiver is essentially contractual. These circumstances. there are legitimate waivers that represent the voluntary and reasonable settlements of laborers’ claims that should be respected by the Court as the law between the parties. 192573. by themselves. 39 . LABOR STANDARDS. LABOR STANDARDS. JUST CAUSES: [Whether] aroused by lust or inflamed by sincere affection.

and it is the breach of this trust that results in an employer’s loss of confidence in the employee. J. The POEA contract defines “work-related illness” as “any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set therein satisfied. 2014 Del Castillo. G. 8282 or the Social Security System (SSS) of the Social Welfare Legislation (PD 626) as a secondary beneficiary being an independent parent The death of the adopter during the adoptee’s minority resulted in the restoration of the biological mother’s parental authority over the adopted child. 2014 Leonen. November 12. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT.R. Angus G. No. the ties between the adoptee and the biological parents are not entirely eliminated. Monana vs.R. No. No. Retirement benefits are a form of reward for an employee's loyalty and service to an employer and are earned under existing laws. J. No. DISABILITY BENEFITS: Section 20(B) of the POEA contract provides that entitlement to disability benefits requires that the seafarer’s disability be work-related and that it occur during the contract’s term. is entitled to the death benefits under R. that of a cashier calls for utmost trust and confidence.” Bartolome vs. 185449.A. It has been held that a special and unique employment relationship exists between a corporation and its cashier. BACKWAGES: [Re-computation] of awards issued by the Labor Arbiter is only a necessary consequence of illegal dismissal cases and it does not violate the principle of immutability of judgment. Thus. consistent with Jurisprudence. SSS LAW: Even though parental authority is severed by virtue of adoption. Fernandez G. LABOR STANDARDS. SSS G. the release and quitclaim signed by the employee cannot be used by the employer to legalize the denial of the former's rightful claims. 2014 Reyes. No. 2014 Reyes. FIT-TO-WORK CERTIFICATION: Hipe failed to comply with the procedure laid down under Section 20 (B) (3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC with regard to the joint appointment by the parties of a third doctor whose decision shall be final and binding on them in case the seafarer’s personal doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician’s fit-to-work assessment. separation pay is that amount which an employee receives at the time of his severance from employment. 184618. J. J. J. the employee is entitled to both. No.designated physician. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. Bahia Shipping Services vs. only the computation of monetary consequences of this dismissal is affected and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments. November 12.R.R. a quitclaim cannot bar an employee from demanding benefits to which he is legally entitled. . CBAs. Jr. University of Pangasinan vs. J. RETIREMENT PAY VIS-A-VIS SEPARATION PAY: In the absence of a specific provision in the CBA prohibiting recovery of separation pay on top of the retirement pay. On the other hand. November 19. the fit-towork certification of the company designated physician ought to be upheld. 2014 Del Castillo. employment contracts and company policies. more than most key positions. Jurisprudence provides that the seafarer’s noncompliance with the said conflict resolution procedure results in the affirmance of the fit-towork certification of the company. Heirs of Villareal G. November 12.R. JUST CAUSES: Article 282 of the Labor Code allows an employer to dismiss an employee for willful breach of trust or loss of confidence. 211228. No. the biological mother of a deceased employee who was legally adopted and whose adopter had died during the adoptee’s minority. Lhuillier vs. J. 196122. 40 LABOR STANDARDS. Under prevailing jurisprudence. November 12. LABOR STANDARDS.J. Moreover.NOVEMBER 2014 Goodyear Philippines vs. 196122. LABOR STANDARDS. Hipe filed his complaint before the NLRC but prematurely did so without any regard to the conflict-resolution procedure under Section 20 (B) (3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. P. 204699. 198620. Retirement benefits and separation pay are not mutually exclusive. No. Truly. Peak Ventures vs. SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION. Hipe. Velayo G. 2014 Leonen. MEC Global Shipmanagement G.R. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. LABOR STANDARDS. In light of the contrasting diagnoses of the company-designated physician and Hipe’s personal doctor. November 12.R. November 12.” The POEA contract also states that “illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this contract are disputably presumed as work related. Thus. The illegal dismissal ruling stands.

No. the employer should prove that there are no posts available to which the employee temporarily out of work can be assigned. Villareal’s backwages must be computed from the time of his unjustified relief from duty up to his actual reinstatement. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. APPEAL: It is clear that the NLRC in due observance of its own procedural rules had amply justified its dismissal of Ortiz's appeal in view of his numerous procedural infractions. 2014 Mendoza. LABOR STANDARDS.R. REINSTATEMENT VIS-A-VIS SEPARATION PAY. DISABILITY BENEFITS: The entitlement of a seafarer on overseas employment to disability benefits is governed by the medical findings. the parties shall jointly agree to refer the matter to a third doctor whose findings shall be final and binding on both. Temporary total disability only becomes permanent when declared by the company physician within the period he is allowed to do so. 209201. No. 2014 Reyes. considering that the condition of total and temporary disability may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days. he was placed on floating status. Michael’s [i. CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL: The Court subscribes to the uniform rulings of the Labor Arbiter.R. Belmonte vs. LABOR STANDARDS. and third. Rule VI of the NLRC Rules. BACKWAGES: Under Article 279 of the Labor Code. the records show that Belmonte only consulted the private physician after his complaint with the LA has been filed. CFSCMI G. and.(b) his filing of a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC's March 24. separation pay is only granted as an alternative to reinstatement. or upon the expiration of the maximum 240day medical treatment period without a declaration of either fitness to work or permanent disability. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION. Michelin Asia Application Center vs.LABOR STANDARDS. J. Ortiz G.e. The award of separation pay must be deleted because. J. following the procedure spelled out in Section [20-B]. 189861. the Court holds that the certification of the company-designated physician should prevail. The Court agrees with New Filipino’s stance that Michael was indeed guilty of medical abandonment for his failure to complete his treatment even before the lapse of the 240 days period. Despabeladeras G. an employee who is unjustly dismissed shall be entitled to (1) reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties. 2008 Resolution beyond the 10 day 41 . incapacity. DISABILITY BENEFITS: There being no assessment. November 19. Despabeladeras’] condition cannot be considered a permanent total disability. J. No. 6715. November 19. The Court does so for the following reasons: first. Worse. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. the medical certificate was issued after a one-day consultation. Michael was duty-bound to complete his medical treatment until declared fit to work or assessed with a permanent disability grading. no sufficient reason was given for his relief and continued denial of a new assignment. namely: (a) his failure to attach to his Memorandum of Appeal a certificate of non -forum shopping in violation of Section 4. Section 20(D) of the POEA-SEC instructs that no compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury. the NLRC and the CA that Villareal was constructively and illegally dismissed. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. November 19. Considering the absence of findings coming from a third doctor. LABOR STANDARDS. the medical certification was not supported by particular tests or medical procedures conducted on Belmonte that would sufficiently controvert the positive results of those administered to him by the company-designated physician. as amended by Republic Act No.” Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC laid out the procedure to be followed in assessing the seafarer’s disability in addition to specifying the employer’s liabilities on account of such injury or illness. 209202. inclusive of allowances. The same provision also provides that the seafarer is not irrevocably bound by the findings of the company-designated physician as he is allowed to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice. New Filipino Maritime vs. paragraph 3 of the POEA-SEC. second. A seafarer’s inability to work and the failure of the company-designated physician to determine fitness or unfitness to work despite the lapse of 120 days will not automatically bring about a shift in the seafarer’s state from total and temporary to total and permanent. In case of disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s private physician. (2) full backwages. When Villareal was relieved from duty. and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to the time of actual reinstatement. by law and by the parties’ contract. thus. Peak failed to discharge the burden of proving that there were no other posts available for Villareal after his recall from his last assignment. The disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician and Belmonte’s private doctor was never referred to a third doctor chosen by both CFSCMI and Belmonte.R.

Calumpiano G. necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. the implementation of the order of reinstatement is ministerial and mandatory. November 26. ordering his reinstatement. C. if dismissed. GSIS vs. November 26. It violates their right to security of tenure and should not be tolerated. The open-ended Table of Occupational Diseases requires no proof of causation. J. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein. Rule VII of the NLRC Rules. until the same was overturned by the NLRC. however.R. A similar question is now being raised. No. 192924. at the earliest. Rule VII of the NLRC Rules. November 26.R. GSIS LAW: [Hypertension] is a listed occupational disease. In addition. 42 LABOR STANDARDS.R. RELIEF FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL: Paragraph 3. SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION. TNS Philippines G. PAL vs. Petitioners’ successive re-engagement in order to perform the same kind of work firmly manifested the necessity and desirability of their work in the usual business of TNS as a market research facility. as well as on the rest of the terms and conditions therein. a breach of which may give rise to a cause of action against the erring party. Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that in any event. It is clear from the records that PAL failed to reinstate the Paz pending appeal of the LA decision to the NLRC.J. Hilario G. then the employee must be deemed a regular employee. Stanley Fine Furniture vs. at the option of the employer. 2014 Sereno. No.R. and (2) these tasks are vital. PROJECT EMPLOYMENT: Once a project or work pool employee has been: (1) continuously. Paz obtained a favorable ruling from the LA in the complaint for illegal dismissal case he filed against PAL but the same was reversed on appeal by the NLRC. this Court has been emphatic in ruling that the seasonable filing of a motion for reconsideration within the 10-day reglementary period following the receipt by a party of any order. No. Paz G. Also. is a mandatory requirement to forestall the finality of such order. resolution or decision of the NLRC. as opposed to intermittently. 2014 Reyes. […] It is the burden of the employer to prove that the employee was not dismissed or. Manalo vs. No. 208567. the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee. Undisputed also is the fact that the petitioners were assigned office-based tasks from 9:00 […] in the morning up to 6:00 […] in the evening. November 26. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or. 2014 Mendoza. Abosta Ship Management vs. pending appeal. 195792. 2014 Leonen. and (c) his filing of a second motion for reconsideration in violation of Section 15. neither the manning agent nor the employer can simply prevent a seafarer from being deployed without a valid reason. Naturally. KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT. 2014 Del Castillo. whether the Paz may collect reinstatement salaries which he is supposed to have received from the time PAL received the LA decision. will show that the delay in reinstating the Paz was not due to the unjustified refusal of PAL to abide by the order but because of the constraints of corporate rehabilitation. In the instant case. Also. Time and again. November 24. resolution or decision. PAL was under rehabilitation receivership during the entire period that the illegal dismissal case was being heard. which occurred when Abosta and Hilario agreed on the object and the cause. contemporaneous with the perfection of the employment contract was the birth of certain rights and obligations. Gallano G. A scrutiny of the circumstances. LABOR STANDARDS. J. 196102. J. i.R. without any corresponding remuneration. such being the case it is not necessary that there be proof of causal relation between the work and the illness which resulted in the respondent’s disability. a covered claimant .reglementary period in violation of Section 15. insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned. the POEA Standard Contract must be recognized and respected. Case law recognizes that unless there is a restraining order. JUST CAUSES: To terminate the employment of workers simply because they asserted their legal rights by filing a complaint is illegal. shall immediately be executory. No. Thus. RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT: The contract was already perfected on the date of its execution. merely reinstated in the payroll. In general. J.e. the phrase “because we need further time to determine your competence on the job” in the supposed project employment contract would refer to a probationary employment. Such phrase changes the tenor of the contract and runs counter to the very nature of a project employment. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT.. that such dismissal was not illegal. rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks. 190486. LABOR STANDARDS.

” In the case at bar. December 3. Therefore. Sr. Section 1(f) of the June 1. including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement. LABOR STANDARDS. A collective bargaining agreement is “a contract executed upon the request of either the employer or the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with respect to wages. and those that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means. CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL: [Respondent. 1997 rank-and-file collective bargaining agreement. CA G. Sr. Nos.R. As to her glaucoma. In disability compensation. She was entitled to security of tenure and could be dismissed only for just or authorized causes and after the observance of due process. Section 4 and Article IX. The manner of petitioner. J. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment. but rather the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity. did not conform to Article X. the latter is likewise compensable under the New GSIS Act. or more than two (2) years from the time Munar filed his complaint and observance of the principle of prospectivity dictates that Vergara should not operate to strip Munar of his cause of action for total and permanent disability that had already accrued as a result of his continued inability to perform his customary work and the failure of the company-designated physician to issue a final assessment. LABOR STANDARDS. Vergara was promulgated on October 6. by explaining: “Nonetheless. J. LABOR STANDARDS. Under the four-fold test.R. 168612. Respondent proved that petitioner had control over her work as indicated in her contract.suffering from an occupational disease is automatically paid benefits.R. 2008. J. whose contract was not renewed after she was diagnosed with cancer] was a regular employee and was illegally dismissed. Rickmers Marine Agency G. 2014 Leonen. DISABILITY BENEFITS: Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work. Counting the days from 4 June 2010 to 3 January 43 . Montierro’s treatment by the company doctor began on 4 June 2010. Montallana vs. it is not the injury which is compensated. informing respondent that her contract would no longer be renewed. Inc. KGJSFLEET Management G. J.R.J. 211211. Munar. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT: The schedule of training allowance stated in the memoranda served on Lipio and Ignacio. or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment could do. 2015 Mendoza. it would be highly unjust if he would be awarded the disability benefits which the law accords only to the deserving and utterly unfair to KGJS if they would be made to pay. is tantamount to constructive dismissal. No. Lipio’s and Ignacio. that he was trained for or accustomed to perform. No. Espiritu G. LABOR RELATIONS. La Consolacion Manila G. when the company doctor issued a “Grade 10” final disability assessment. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. December 8.’s training allowance must be computed based on Article X. the “control test” is the most important. were selected for training during the effectivity of the June 1. v. 208890. KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT. C. Section 4 of the June 1. LABOR STANDARDS. 2014 Leonen. January 14. JANUARY 2015 Daraug vs. REGULAR EMPLOYMENT. Sr.” Applying the 240-day rule to this case. or work of similar nature. January 14. The line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it. Such being the case. DECEMBER 2014 Fuji Television vs. JUST CAUSES: The refusal of an employee to issue a public apology to his superior due to a pendency of criminal action arising therefrom shall not constitute insubordination if the employee honestly believed that the public apology shall incriminate him. 2015 Sereno. Montierro vs. No. It ended on 3 January 2011. PHILEC vs. No. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe.R. Lipio and Ignacio. 1997 collective bargaining agreement. 210634. DISABILITY BENEFITS: The CA correctly ruled that Montierro’s condition cannot be deemed a permanent total disability. December 10. 204944-45. we arrive at the same conclusion reached by the CA. The Court has already delineated the effectivity of the Crystal Shipping and Vergara rulings in the 2013 case Kestrel Shipping Co. As Daraug was never actually incapacitated. the SC ruled that since there appears to be a link between blood pressure and the development of glaucoma. 1997 collective bargaining agreement. the Court concluded that respondent’s glaucoma developed as a result of her hypertension.

WHEN COMPENSABLE: The nature of employment can possibly aggravate a pre-existing illness.R. January 21. PROJECT EMPLOYMENT: [For] an employee to be considered project-based. the terms and conditions contained in the contract of employment ceased to have force and effect. that he met an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence while on board the Rio Grande. 2015 Villarama. Jr. J. the employer may be exempt from liability if it can successfully prove that the seaman’s death was caused by an injury directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act. the death of the employee should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract. Texan Philippines G. . ILLNESS. Malipot G. January 28. pursuant to Section 20 (A) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated. Once it is established that the seaman died during the effectivity of his employment contract. the employer is liable. Even more. a seafarer must suffer an injury as a result of an accident.R. DEATH BENEFITS: It has been settled that in order to avail of death benefits. grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when. 2015 Leonen. However. the employer must show compliance with two (2) requisites. without intention and design.R.. Unicol Management Services vs. Manarpiis vs. the fact still remains that he died after the effectivity of his contract. No. Perforce. WHEN COMPENSABLE: Accident is an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence. 206562. which was within the 120-day period. LABOR STANDARDS. January 28.R. if he died after he pre-terminated the contract of employment. 2015 Villarama. 2015 Peralta. No. 192406. LABOR STANDARDS. the assessment by the company doctor was made on the 213th day. namely that: (a) the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking.] there is no proof that Perez met an accident and was injured. at the very least. granting that petitioners were made aware of the seaman’s prior heart ailment. the Court finds that the CA correctly granted respondents’ certiorari petition before it.R. Status Maritime Corp. ACCIDENT. KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT. No. [However. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe.R. to be entitled to the compensation under Section 21(a) of the CBA. and (b) the duration and scope of which were specified at the time they were engaged for such project. No. the same is true especially when there is no evidence to show that the illness was acquired during the term of his employment with petitioners and neither were there indications that he was already suffering from an ailment at the time he pre-terminated his employment contracts. G. and which is unexpected. 197011. including the payment of death compensation benefits to the heirs of a seafarer. J. an unforeseen and injurious occurrence not attributable to mistake. inter alia. J. 2015 Peralta. J. To stress. negligence. the causation between the nature of employment and the aggravation of the illness must still be proven before compensation may be granted. LABOR STANDARDS. vs. DEATH BENEFITS: Section 20 of the POEA “Standard Terms and Conditions 44 Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships. One Shipping Corp. J. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION. Jr. January 21. neglect or misconduct. 194885. Peñafiel G. Accident is that which happens by chance or fortuitously. January 26. 209499. However. unusual and unforeseen. since the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that petitioners were regular employees of Sykes Asia when the latter had established by substantial evidence that they were merely project-based.. However. It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or. Dayo vs. 210660. Gadia vs. For illness to be compensable. Alegre issued an interim disability grade of “10” on 3 September 2010. its findings and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported by substantial evidence. No. LABOR STANDARDS. CFSCMI vs.2011. the 91st day of Montierro’s treatment.” provides that the employer is liable to pay the heirs of the deceased seafarer for death benefits once it is established that he died during the effectivity of his employment contract. well within the 240day period. Tested against these considerations. The extension of the period to 240 days is justified by the fact that Dr. January 21. COURT OF APPEALS: In labor disputes. LABOR STANDARDS. No. J. Sykes Asia G.. it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer. aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had. Perez G.

thus. there is no cause to dismiss the petitioner. such as the petitioner Manarpiis. January 28. JUST CAUSES: The petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock is not a disgraceful or immoral conduct since she and the father of her child have no impediment to marry each other. January 28. the continuation of physical therapy and an increased Gabapentin dose were recommended. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE: G. LABOR STANDARDS. petitioner did not abandon her work but was told not to report for work anymore after being served a written notice of termination of company closure on July 27. No. Rebuilders failed to sufficiently prove its alleged serious business losses.R. SEPARATION PAY: Nevertheless. whichever is higher. LABOR STANDARDS. not a valid exercise of management prerogative. as already explained. No. J. 2015 Reyes. believing that its former customers seriously doubted its capacity to perform the same quality of service after the fire had partially damaged the building where it was renting space. negating the employer’s charge of abandonment. Eyana vs. entitled to permanent disability benefits. FEBRUARY 2015 Milan vs. Dr.J.R. Petitioner Garillo is therefore. Hence. J. whichever is higher. Ambos G. employers closing their businesses must pay the affected workers separation pay equivalent to one-month pay or to at least one-half-month pay for every year of service. AUTHORIZED CAUSES: Article 283 of the Labor Code allows an employer to dismiss an employee due to the cessation of operation or closure of its establishment or undertaking. Thus. 202961. Leus vs. LABOR STANDARDS. However. it must pay respondents their separation pay equivalent to one-month pay or at least one-half-month pay for every year of service. thereby proving that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. In this case. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. Alegre’s January 20. dismiss them if there is a valid cause to do so. it must show proof that the cessation of or withdrawal from business operations was bona fide in character. In the instant petition. G. 2000. regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body. LABOR STANDARDS. Trillana vs. No. SSCW’s dismissal of the petitioner is despotic and arbitrary and.J. 2015 Reyes. G. It is of no consequence that respondent was cured after a couple of years. Scholastica’s College G. if the business closure is due to serious losses or financial reverses. No. 2015 Leonen. undeniably has the right to discipline its employees and. the petitioner’s dismissal is not a valid exercise of SSCW’s management prerogative.T. St. that neither does such [a] situation contravene any fundamental state policy enshrined in the Constitution. WAGES: An employer is allowed to withhold terminal pay and benefits pending the employee’s return of its properties. However. 2007 report addressed to PTCI clearly indicated that the petitioner’s persistent back pains remained unresolved.T. Philippine Transmarine Carriers G. the employer must present sufficient proof of its actual or imminent losses. SSCW. LABOR STANDARDS. Rebuilders closed its machine shop. if need be.R.LABOR STANDARDS. J.R. DISABILITY BENEFITS: Permanent disability is the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days. What is important is that he was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability. 174184. Further. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE: Further.J. 45 . January 28.T. 193468. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement is proof enough of his desire to return to work. Such requirements were not complied with by the respondent company. LABOR STANDARDS. despite this management prerogative. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. Rebuilders’ decision to close its establishment is a valid exercise of its management prerogative. A written notice to the DOLE thirty days before the intended date of closure is also required and must be served upon each and every employee of the company one month before the date of effectivity to give them sufficient time to make the necessary arrangement. 2015 Leonen. 187226. February 4. LABOR STANDARDS. AUTHORIZED CAUSES: It is wellsettled that the filing by an employee of a complaint. J. The law does not require that the illness should be incurable. There is no law which penalizes an unmarried mother by reason of her sexual conduct or proscribes the consensual sexual activity between two unmarried persons. An employee who takes steps to protest his dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned his work. There being no valid basis in law or even in SSCW’s policy and rules. The decision to close one’s business is a management prerogative that courts cannot interfere with. as employer. NLRC G. thus.

Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure provides that in case the decision of the Labor Arbiter. 2015 Mendoza. respondent Solid Mills has the right to withhold petitioners’ wages and benefits because of this existing debt or liability. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines G. which shall either be in the form of cash deposit or surety bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award. while petitioner had the right to seek a second and even a third opinion. even if the modification is meant to 46 correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. however. APPEAL: Section 6. February 4. Gepanaga failed to observe the prescribed procedure of having the conflicting assessments on his disability referred to a third doctor for a binding opinion. No. August 31. No. the opinion of a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer to be the decision final and binding on them. On the other hand. NLRC G. Veritas Maritime vs. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. the same had already become immutable and unalterable. whether continuous or broken.The return of the property owned by their employer Solid Mills became an obligation or liability on the part of the employees when the employer-employee relationship ceased. with the award of the “other benefits pertaining to the position of Finance Manager” made by the CA in its August 31. 2001 Decision lapsing into finality. in line with [the] Sara Lee [case] and the objective that the appeal on the merits to be threshed out . Unfortunately. with respect to the activities in which they are employed. it was an error on the part of the CA to still consider. transportation. G. SS Ventures G. 205735. and cellular phone usage allowances. his fitness or unfitness for work shall be determined by the company-designated physician. [the Court has] no option but to declare that the company-designated doctor’s certification is the final determination that must prevail. namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Solid Mills allowed petitioners to use its property as an act of liberality. Thus.R. Batangas II Electric Coop. REGULAR EMPLOYMENT: [There] are two kinds of regular employees. 195109. If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment.R. Jr. RETIREMENT BENEFITS: The Court is not unaware of its rulings wherein it pronounced that retirement pay and separation pay are not mutually exclusive (unless there is a specific prohibition in the collective bargaining agreement or retirement plan against the payment of both benefits). Nos. 2015 Leonen. it is quite absurd for Villena to submit a “contemporaneous” claim for retirement pay on the execution phase of these proceedings. Basan vs. 174365-66.. an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a bond.R. J. However. the final determination of whose decision must prevail must be done in accordance with an agreed procedure. 206285. 2015 Peralta. DISABILITY BENEFITS: As in Dumadag. LABOR STANDARDS. it would not have allowed petitioners to use its property had they not been its employees.. with Villena’s entitlement to retirement pay not included as an issue in an illegal dismissal case which had already been finally decided. Thus. rule upon. 202961. Milan vs. the criteria above must first be established to the satisfaction of this Court. Gepanaga.R. February 4. on the entitlement of Villena to the benefits of representation. hence. the Court applies the following pronouncements laid down in Vergara: The POEA Standard Employment Contract and the CBA clearly provide that when a seafarer sustains a workrelated illness or injury while on board the vessel. LABOR STANDARDS. LABOR STANDARDS. Inc. J. and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service. February 4. February 4.R. KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION: As a general rule. 2015 Perez. No. Put in other words. respondent Solid Mills claims that its properties are in petitioners’ possession by virtue of their status as its employees. Consequently. February 4. G. No. or the Regional Director involves a monetary award.e. J. J. the petitioner did not avail of this procedure. and vary the previous CA Ruling. J. Balite vs. exclusive of damages and attorney’s fees. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION. 2001 CA Decision. The return of its properties in petitioners’ possession by virtue of their status as employees is an issue that must be resolved to determine whether benefits can be released immediately. Thus. While fixed term employment is not per se illegal or against public policy. Villena vs. In this case. […] a claim only need to be sufficiently connected to the labor issue raised and must arise from an employer-employee relationship for the labor tribunals to have jurisdiction. this means that they may no longer be modified in any respect. i.

What is important is that he was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability. Paz vs. DISABILITY BENEFITS: Dela Torre was repatriated and immediately underwent treatment and rehabilitation at the company-designated facility. No.P. as well as the filing of the memorandum of appeal. No.. February 18. The Court held that the POEA SEC must be read in harmony with the Labor Code and the AREC. 2015 Leonen. and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable. the first element of abandonment was not established. LABOR STANDARDS. JLFP Investigation 47 . which is to help the employee in making ends meet at the time when he is unable to work. which fact entitled him under the Dutch CBA to maximum disability benefits. With the employer’s demonstrated good faith in filing the motion to reduce the bond on demonstrable grounds coupled with the posting of the appeal bond in the requested amount. Northern Tabacco Redrying G. 207010. the contents of Captain Woodward’s e-mails do not establish that Avestruz’s conduct had been willful.R. 211454. Camoral G. February 11. separation pay may be granted. J. No. LABOR STANDARDS. JUST CAUSES: Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing vs. In this case. Insubordination. For a valid finding of abandonment.R. JUST CAUSES: It is well-settled that the burden of proving that the termination of an employee was for a just or authorized cause lies with the employer. that is. LABOR STANDARDS. he was eventually unable to go back to work as a seafarer. lawful. reinstatement and full backwages are mandated under Article 279. characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. Since there was a justifiable reason for Fuentes's absence. Marine Medical Services of the Metropolitan Medical Center. from his prison release to the time he actually reported for work. the right of the employer to appeal must be upheld.R. J. 199554. apart from Captain Woodward’s e-mails. Although Dela Torre was given a Grade 11 disability rating the assessment may be deemed tentative because he continued his physical therapy sessions beyond 240 days. February 11. J. Fuentes G. despite his long treatment and rehabilitation. as a just cause for the dismissal of an employee.000] which is equivalent to around 20% of the total amount of monetary bond is sufficient to perfect an appeal. and Agbayani maintain that Avestruz was dismissed on the ground of insubordination. only those injuries or disabilities classified as Grade 1 are considered total and permanent. Maunlad Trans. no other evidence was presented by the petitioners to support their claims. consisting of his repeated failure to obey his superior’s order to maintain cleanliness in the galley of the vessel as well as his act of insulting a superior officer by words or deeds. Inc. necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful. February 18. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. vs.R. or characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. Tatel vs. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. If reinstatement is no longer possible where the dismissal was unjust. Sealanes Marine Services vs. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. JUST CAUSES: Dismissals based on just causes contemplate acts or omissions attributable to the employee while dismissals based on authorized causes involve grounds under the Labor Code which allow the employer to terminate employees. 2015 Reyes. Under Section 32 of the POEA SEC. these two factors should be present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason. Protective Maximum Security Agency vs. February 18. made known to the employee. the Court holds that the appeal bond posted by the respondents in the amount of [P100. Dela Torre G. A termination for an authorized cause requires payment of separation pay. The intervening period when Fuentes failed to report for work. It is a form of neglect of duty.. There is no abandonment in this case. Yet. LABOR STANDARDS. A. Maersk.R. No. and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge. J. Moller. 2015 Leonen. and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship. 2015 Reyes. LABOR STANDARDS. No. was justified.soonest by the NLRC. When the termination of employment is declared illegal. hence. Avestruz G. DISABILITY BENEFITS: The law does not require that the illness should be incurable. Conversely. exceeding the 240 days allowed to declare him either fit to work or permanently disabled. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. 169303. J. a just cause for termination of employment by the employer. 214132. An award of a total and permanent disability benefit would be germane to the purpose of the benefit.

Following the teaching of Nacar v. the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful. which reasonably punishes acts of dishonesty. G. The Court held that infractions which respondent committed do not justify the severe penalty of termination from service. records are bereft of evidence to show that he was given another detail or assignment. CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL: In this case. as a staff nurse. Such act is obviously connected with Sanchez’s work. which Tatel acknowledged to have received on December 11. 2009 to October 12.R. 208908. that is. therefore. Sanchez G. However. co-employees. Gallery Frames that the computation of the monetary consequences (back wages and separation pay) of the illegal dismissal decision should be reckoned from its finality. [and] customers (external and internal)” with termination from employment. Hilongo G. LABOR STANDARDS. Thereafter. Verily in this case. MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASES: [The] petition for certiorari was not rendered moot despite petitioner’s satisfaction of the judgment award.. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. in this case. 2013. and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge. St.G. made known to the employee. JUST CAUSES: Based on the mystery guest shopper and duty manager’s reports.. As the "off-detail" period had already lasted for more than six (6) months.R. the additional back wages and separation pay of Hilongo should be computed from May 1. [Alleged] infractions do not amount to such a wrongful and perverse attitude. Thereafter. 2009. Seacrest Maritime vs. the legal interest computed from July 1. 2010 Decision of the Labor Arbiter became final on June 11. For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal.R. in accordance with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board’s Circular No. 2013. J. No. was . LABOR STANDARDS. the payment of legal interest of 12% per annum should also be from April 26. 2009 and then to IPVG from October 21 to 23. 212054. No.R. JUST CAUSES: Sanchez was dismissed due to theft. She alleged that she was illegal dismissed for there was not intent to gain on her part. February 25. pilferage of hospital or co-employee property. 2013 until the monetary awards were fully satisfied will be 6% per annum. J. respondents themselves claimed that after having removed Tatel from his post at Bagger Werken on August 24. or on May 4. Luke's Medical Center vs. March 9. The illegal dismissal ruling stands. No. March 11. Arenas G. 2015 Villarama. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. 2009 Memorandum. 2015 Mendoza. Jr.R. visitors. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. as the respondent had obliged himself to return the payment if the petition would be granted. LABOR STANDARD. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. J. 209383. “theft. No. Picar. lawful. The court ruled that Court finds that Sanchez was validly dismissed by SLMC for her willful disregard and disobedience of Section 1. [which]. 2013 up to June 30. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. he was not given any other postings or assignments. 206942. doctors. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION. and until Tatel filed the instant complaint for illegal dismissal six (6) months later. and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments. [involves] the proper stewardship of medical supplies. Rule I of the SLMC Code of Discipline.e. 48 LABOR STANDARDS. 2010 to April 26. J. Jr. J. they subsequently reassigned him to SKI from September 16. series of 2013. 2015 Brion. only the computation of monetary consequences of this dismissal is affected. 2013. as well as reckoning the date of the 12% legal interest. 2009. contrary to its own finding that it became final and executory on April 26. the equitable ruling in Career Philippines would certainly be unfair to petitioners in this case as they still have a remedy under the rules. RELIEF FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL: The re-computation of the consequences of illegal dismissal upon execution of the decision does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented. While it may be true that respondents summoned him back to work through the November 26. and the order violated must have been reasonable. Tatel is therefore deemed to have been constructively dismissed. 799. Coffee Bean vs. 2009 due to several infractions committed thereat. respondent was dismissed from employment. Thus. Further. 215630. […] or its attempt in any form or manner from the hospital. The CA. No. the CA incorrectly concluded that the April 30. i. 2013. petitioners satisfied the judgment award in strict compliance with a duly issued writ of execution and pursuant to terms fair to both parties. March 11. This led to its erroneous computation of the additional back wages and separation pay of Hilongo. 2010. characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. MARCH 2015 Metroguards Security vs. March 11.

(c) Mayor’s Permit. 2015 Reyes. if proven by substantial evidence. LABOR STANDARDS. however serious. Thus. No. LABOR STANDARDS. (f) Company Profile. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION. Pepsi-Cola G.C.in error in dismissing the petition for being moot and academic. its Agreement with Fonterra clearly sets forth that A. 2015 Reyes. and protection due them. Hocheng Philippines vs.76. J. 2015 Velasco. 138212. However. the same must occur during the term of his contract of employment. They merely alleged that respondent was a very casual worker because she only rendered work for 16 months. Times Transportation G . having assets totaling P5. J.R. 211497. J. (e)Certificate of Registration with the Department of Labor and Employment. KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT. Cabaobas vs. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. March 18. No. KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT.R. No. March 18. LABOR STANDARDS. (b) Certificate of Registration with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. premiums. No. DEATH BENEFITS: For the death of a seafarer to be compensable. Montero vs. Fonterra Brands Phils.R. (g) Certifications issued by its clients. J. seasonal workers who have worked for one season only may not be considered regular employees. Lorezo G. March 16. nevertheless. 176908. March 18. 190828. valid and legal cause for termination of employment. March 25. Largado G. (d) Certificate of Membership with the 49 . SEASONAL WORKERS: Petitioners failed to dispute the allegation that the respondent performed hacienda work.. A. is a cause analogous to serious misconduct. PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS: The filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal stops the running of the prescriptive period. as well as remittance to the proper government entities of all withholding taxes. vs. Farrales G..R. However. Absent such fact. They are in regular employment because of the nature of the job. Sicat shall be liable for the wages and salaries of its employees or workers. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. to wit: (a) Certificate of Business Registration. when the complainant withdraws the case. Wallem Services vs. 179640.R. Sicat has substantial capital. Too.R. such as planting sugarcane point and fertilizing. Jr. AUTHORIZED CAUSES: The notice requirement was also complied with by PEPSICOLA when it served notice of the corporate rightsizing program to the DOLE and to the fourteen (14) employees who will be affected thereby at least one (1) month prior to the date of retrenchment. 2015 Peralta. 2015 Peralta. Heirs of Padrones G. must. JOB CONTRACTING: The CA correctly found that A. But where there is no showing of a clear. JUST CAUSES: Theft committed by an employee against a person other than his employer. Social Security System. including benefits.C. LABOR STANDARDS. March 16. J. and not because of the length of time they have worked. be in connection with the employee’s work to constitute just cause for his separation. DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT. Such misconduct. 205300. Hacienda Cataywa vs. No.C. in accordance with relevant laws. the law considers the case a matter of illegal dismissal. Social Security Service. and Medicare premiums. No. Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employees.155. It was also consistently held that seasonal employees may be considered as regular employees when they are called to work from time to time. Furthermore. 2015 Peralta. J. respondent is considered a regular seasonal worker and not a casual worker as the petitioners alleged. LABOR STANDARDS. Sicat was able to prove its status as a legitimate job contractor for having presented the following evidence. Sicat is engaged in legitimate job contracting.C. he shall be considered to have not filed any case at all and the statute of limitations shall apply. his death will not be compensable.926. It duly noted that A.

SURETYSHIP: In suretyship. One Virtual still failed to pay its obligation. Dr. may be sued for damages by the intending buyer. In other words. Despite these compliances. but the latter.R. In a contract to sell. a third person buying such property despite the fulfilment of the suspensive condition such as the full payment of the purchase price. 2014 Perlas.” In this case. Nevertheless. 189563. April 7. He even specifically mentioned that permission is only being granted if the Department of Surgery has complied with all the requirements of the law.Bernabe. considering that he did not join the other defendants in their efforts to frustrate plaintiffs’ rights over the disputed properties and who might well be an unwilling victim of the fraudulent scheme employed by the other .CIVIL LAW APRIL 2014 Nieves vs. He becomes liable for the debt and duty of the principal obligor. although the contract of a surety is in essence secondary only to a valid 50 principal obligation. 2014 Sereno. it was established that the agricultural lessees willfully and deliberately failed to pay the lease rentals when they fell due. even without possessing a direct or personal interest in the obligations constituted by the latter. (RA) 3844. These grounds – the existence of which is to be proven by the agricultural lessor in a particular case – are enumerated in Section 36 of Republic Act No. April 21. but to a third person. Alano acted prudently by directing his subordinates to exhaust all reasonable means of locating the relatives of the deceased. Alano could not have been faulted for having full confidence in the ability of the doctors in the Department of Surgery to comprehend the instructions. April 7. After a thorough examination of the pieces of evidence presented by both parties. the oft-repeated rule is that a surety’s liability is joint and solidary with that of the principal debtor. and acting only in accordance with the requirements of the law. Aguado G. PURCHASE IN GOOD FAITH: While a third party may not be considered as innocent purchaser for value. No. April 2. of course. obeying all his directives. G. NEGLIGENCE: It also clearly stated that permission or authorization to retrieve and remove the internal organs of the deceased was being given only if the provisions of the applicable law had been complied with. Verily. J. 192669. J. AGRICULTURAL LEASE: Agricultural lessees. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. Saberon vs. J. No. 175540. Title to the property will transfer to the buyer after registration because there is no defect in the owner-seller’s title per se. for instance. the failure of One Virtual. 2014 Peralta. its liability to the creditor or “promise” of the principal is said to be direct. C. There is no doublesale in such case. Thus. 190276. No. being entitled to security of tenure. AGRARIAN LAW. SALES. primary and absolute. as the principal debtor. It may in fact be sued separately or together with the principal debtor. April 7. cannot be deemed a buyer in bad faith and the prospective buyer cannot seek the relief of reconveyance of the property.R. No. there being no previous sale of the property. as it presupposes the existence of a principal contract. Ventanilla.R. This undertaking makes a surety agreement an ancillary contract. Alano vs. the RTC found that Gilathad delivered all the goods to One Virtual and installed them. Duldulao G. triggering UCPB’s liability to Gilat as the former’s surety.R. to fulfill its monetary obligation to Gilat gave the latter an immediate right to pursue UCPB as the surety. Magud-Logmao G. Jr. He could not have made his directives any clearer. otherwise known as the “Agricultural Land Reform Code. CONTRACT TO SELL VIS-A-VIS CONDITIONAL SALE: It is essential to distinguish between a contract to sell and a conditional contract of sale specially in cases where the subject property is sold by the owner not to the party the seller contracted with. Such instructions reveal that Dr. [Note: provision of law tackled not part of this year's Civil Law bar syllabus. 193787.R. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. No. 2014 Mendoza.] Spouses Roque vs. a surety is not entitled to a separate notice of default or to the benefit of excussion. may be ejected from their landholding only on the grounds provided by law. J. a surety is directly and equally bound with the principal. which is one of the grounds for dispossession of their landholding as provided in said provision of law. Gilat Satellite vs. SALES. TORTS AND DAMAGES.J. he can still rightfully claim for actual and compensatory damages. UCPB General Insurance G. in other words.

June 2. J. Lot No. J. it can no longer be said that an original registration proceeding is proper. 182894. 2014 Brion. J. by present or previous occupants – is not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same land. FUNERALS: The duty and the right to make funeral arrangements are confined within the family of the deceased particularly the spouse of the deceased to the exclusion of a common law spouse. and produces no legal effects whatsoever. SALES.R. J. nemo dat quod non habet. MORTGAGE. Skunac Corporation vs. IMPLIED TRUST: The Court is in conformity with the finding of the trial court that an implied resulting trust was created as provided under the first sentence of Article 1448which is sometimes referred to as a purchase money resulting trust. 2014 Bersamin.R. because the Public Land Law applies only to lands of the public domain. Ortega. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. 2014 Peralta. not being land of the public domain as it was already owned by Aznar Brothers. over the entire property without his co-owners' consent is not necessarily void in its entirety. in the event of a division and liquidation of the subject property. Thus. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS.R. property or services. the petitioners have shown that the two elements are present. the latter has two options available: (1) they may exercise the right to appropriate after payment of indemnity representing the value of the improvements introduced and the necessary and useful expenses defrayed on the subject lots. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. 161380. exclusive. TRUST. No. not being an heir of Luis. PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS. or an equivalent. 2014 Mendoza.R. or (2) they may forego payment of the said indemnity and instead. even if when no bad faith can be ascribed to the parties alike. an equal footing of the parties necessarily tilts in favor of the superiority of the notice of levy and the constructive notice against the whole world which the original party to the contract of sale had produced and which effectively bound third persons. 51 . since Guido held that certificate of title are genuine and authentic. and (b) such consideration must be furnished by the alleged beneficiary of a resulting trust. and notorious possession. and it was Juan Tong who provided the money for the purchase of Lot 998 but the corresponding transfer certificate of title was placed in the name of Luis. JUNE 2014 PNB vs. was merely a trustee of Juan Tong and the petitioners in relation to the subject property. 167120. G. 2014 Reyes. In this case. Aznar Brothers Realty vs. April 23. The right of the PNB as mortgagee is limited though only to the portion which may be allotted to Jose Sr. Rojas G.R. J. Nonetheless. Garcia G. 171286. Sr.R. April 21.R. 2014 Peralta. Sr. REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE: The Amendment of Real Estate Mortgage constituted by Jose Sr. April 22. J. continuous. Valino vs. April 21. June 2. Sylianteng G. 182839. J. and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally. What is material is the time when the property was acquired. 205879. oblige the Saberons to pay the price of the land. REGISTRATION: A land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case. 18563. Private ownership of land – as when there is a prima facie proof of ownership like a duly registered possessory information or a clear showing of open. April 23. No. 196023. the elements of which are: (a) an actual payment of money. Go Tiat Kun G. Registration of a property alone in the name of one spouse does not destroy its conjugal nature. Francisco vs. CONTRACT OF SALE: Indeed.defendants. Spouses Ybañez G. No. Luis. was no longer subject to the free patent issued to the Spouses Ybañez. What the land registration court should have done was to dismiss the application for registration upon learning that the same property was already covered by a valid title. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell. It is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not have. TORRENS TITLE: The settled rule is that a free patent issued over a private land is null and void. No. No. 2014 Peralta. Romeo never acquired any right whatsoever over the subject lots even if he was able to subsequently obtain a title in his name. No. No. Tong vs. Sr. constituting valuable consideration. Adriano G. After the promulgation of the Guido. Campos vs.

The census. the CA found that the RTC lacked jurisdiction to order the reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. Jr.A.R. 77-0063. and the technical description appearing on that TCT No. Avelina was not in the right position to sell and transfer the absolute ownership of the subject property to respondents. J. in fine. J. As she was not the sole heir of Eulalio and her Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is void. 185092. informed her that her petition for the award of the lot was denied.R. J. No. ESSENTIAL REQUISITES. who must prove that the land is alienable or disposable. or a legislative act or a statute. of whatever extent. Paulino vs. the Court has repeatedly ruled that before jurisdiction over the case can be validly acquired. investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators. the respondent having duly proved that TCT No. the issuance of the tag number is not a guarantee for lot allocation. Republic vs. J. 194066. Florendo. The proceedings therein were therefore a nullity and the Decision was void. Such notation does not constitute a positive government act validly changing the classification of the land. did not have the absolute ownership of the subject property but only an aliquot portion. For non-compliance with the actual notice requirement to all other persons who may have interest in the property. 2014 Mendoza. the same must be strictly complied with. Santos G. CONSENT: The Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Avelina in favor of respondents was correctly nullified and voided by the RTC. over the property to respondents. The expectancy did not ripen into a legal title when the NHA. the reconstituted title is void and the court rendering the decision has not acquired jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of new title. While it is true that NHA recognizes Dolores as the censused owner of the structure built on the lot. TORRENS TITLE: It cannot be argued that Dolores had already acquired a vested right over the subject property when the NHA recognized her as the censused owner by assigning to her a tag number TAG No. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. No. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. 2014 Villarama.. 204029. tagging. 205065. petitioners cite a surveyor geodetic engineer’s notation indicating that the survey was inside alienable and disposable land. petitioners have not sufficiently proven that the land in question has been declared alienable. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. CA G. The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and disposable. In the case at bench. did not vest upon her a legal title to the lot she was occupying.LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. REGALIAN DOCTRINE: [The] evidence required to establish that land subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable are: (1) CENRO or . Rebusquillo vs. Sese G. the Deed of Absolute Sale is nothing more than a simulated contract. but a mere expectancy that the lot will be awarded to her. 2014 Peralta. 301617 was in the name of a different owner.. and Dolores’ petition. the subject property is still subject to partition. There must be an existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order. an administrative action. Jr. June 4. Millado G. Hence. RT-55869 (42532) in the name of Antonino. 301617 was similar to the technical description 52 appearing in Lot 939. Piedad Estate covered by TCT No. 301617. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. Republic vs. Avelina. 2014 Velasco. the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over L. TORRENS TITLE: Where the authority to proceed is conferred by a statute and the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is mandatory. By relying solely on the said surveyor’s assertion. June 4. June 4. June 4. TORRENS TITLE: In reconstitution proceedings. No. It is apparent from the admissions of respondents and the records of this case that Avelina had no intention to transfer the ownership. No. 191516. If a certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in the possession of another person. Spouses Gualves G.R. CONTRACTS. Republic vs.R. In this case. No. June 4. 2014 Mendoza. To overcome this presumption. it is a condition sine qua non that the certificate of title has not been issued to another person. there being no lost or destroyed title over the real property. REGALIAN DOCTRINE: The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration or claiming ownership. in this case the registered owners and/or their heirs.R. in accordance with Section 13 in relation to Section 12 of RA 26. or the proceedings will be void. J.R. A mere surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands of the public domain. incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land is alienable or disposable.

a mere certification issued by the Forest Utilization & Law Enforcement Division of the DENR is not enough. POSSESSION. PROPERTY. 202414. The issue of fraudulent alienation raised in the second application for registration of the subject property is collateral attack which should be directly raised in a separate proceeding filed for such purpose. TORRENS TITLE: Further strong proofs that the properties in question are the paraphernal properties of a spouse are the very Torrens Titles covering said properties. there is no question that she offered to sell to petitioners the portions of the subject properties occupied by them. 2014 Mendoza. June 9. Tuliao G. Republic is then correct that evidence on record is not sufficient to prove that subject lots had been declared alienable and disposable lands. A second decree for the same land would be null and void.R. 184148. No. and (2) a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. No. 205664. married to Elvira Berba Calalang” merely describes the civil status and identifies the spouse of the registered owner Pedro Calalang. the lone testimonial evidence the DepED presented is not sufficient to controvert the landowner’s case. Calalang-Parulan vs. The defendant in turn must show proof to controvert the plaintiff’s claim.. REGISTRATION: A land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case. In the present case. Calalang-Parulan by executing a Deed of Sale on February 17. A close perusal of the records of this case would show that the records are bereft of any concrete proof to show that the subject property indeed belonged to respondents’ maternal grandparents. OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL: In actions for recovery of possession. Wee vs. and the plaintiff showed as evidence tax declarations and a certificate of title over the property. June 9. this does not mean that the property is conjugal. At the time of the sale of the disputed property.R. the respondents have no right to question the sale of the disputed property on the ground that their father deprived them of their respective shares. EFFECTS OF POSSESSION: When it is shown that the plaintiff in a case of accion publiciana had a valid title issued in her name in 1967. Thus. and more importantly. an attack on the judgment or proceeding is nevertheless made as an incident thereof. fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence. in an action to obtain a different relief. June 9. 2014 Mendoza. 1989 that his heirs acquired their respective inheritances.R. There is no copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary. 2014 Villarama. Mardo G.. that she likewise appointed an administrator of the disputed lands. 2014 Mendoza. Gabriel. Crisologo G. As the sole and exclusive owner. June 4. No. then she deserves to be respected and restored to her lawful possession as provided in Article 539 of the New Civil Code. J. when a landowner filed an action for recovery of possession against a public school which built a gymnasium on a parcel of land which the owner allowed the school to use as an access road for the schoolchildren. The phrase “Pedro Calalang. As ruled by this Court.” Thus. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. OWNERSHIP. J. and when the landowner brought suit two years after he learned that the school is constructing a gymnasium over the property. Jr. J. otherwise the court will rule for the plaintiff. Well to remember. entitling them to their pro indiviso shares to his whole estate. And absent clear and convincing evidence that the sale was fraudulent or not duly supported by valuable consideration (in effect an officious donation inter vivos). that she has been paying the realty taxes on the said properties since l969. the plaintiff must show proof to support his claim of his right to possession of the property. the foregoing documents had not been submitted in evidence. It cannot be entertained in this proceeding. Pedro Calalang had the right to convey his property in favor of Nora B. in this case. GENERAL PROVISIONS: It is hornbook doctrine that successional rights are vested only at the time of death. 1984. the rights to the succession were not yet bestowed upon the heirs of Pedro Calalang. In several cases. Galalang-Garcia G. 204626. In addition. Jr. within the period which the Supreme Court held that titles issued over the same properties were valid. since the principle behind the original registration is to register a parcel of land only once.PENRO Certification. PROPERTY. it is only upon the death of Pedro Calalang on December 27. the landowner’s claim is not barred by laches when the school’s possession of the property is not adverse.R. DepED vs. The evidence respondents adduced merely consisted 53 . the Court has ruled that an attack is indirect or collateral when. Article 777 of the New Civil Code provides that “the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. Evidently. SUCCESSION. No. vs. J.

Jr. Laguna Estate Development Corp. AGRARIAN LAW. 200491. 2014 Del Castillo.R. for as long as the property covered by the application remains classified as agricultural. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. 2014 Villarama. 179535. DAMAGES: Moral damages are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the 54 victim. The court ruled that in reciprocal obligations. The testimony of the wife of the victim. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. J. when farmer-beneficiaries of PD 27 who are registered owners of agricultural lands filed a complaint for forcible entry against a person whose claim of ownership over the same parcels of land emanates from a donation by the heirs of the original owner. AGRICULTURAL LEASE: A case involving agricultural land does not immediately qualify it as an agrarian dispute. there are conditions or requisites before he can qualify as an agricultural lessee or tenant. Inc. Otherwise. PURE AND CONDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS: In reciprocal obligations. TORTS AND DAMAGES. Arribay G. No. June 11. June 9. No. June 9. REGALIAN DOCTRINE: In this case. In order to qualify as an agrarian dispute. actual damages may be awarded. Clearly. damages for loss of earning capacity may not be awarded absent documentary evidence except where the victim was either self-employed or a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.R. June 9. Pinkian Mining G. Nicolas G. No. 194818. No. 190080. owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide. . the records do not support the findings made by the RTC and the CA that the subject properties are part of the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain.R.R. The mere fact that the land is agricultural does not ipso facto make the possessor an agricultural lessee or tenant. 2014 Peralta. 210252.. Montallana with the annotation that the subject properties were "inside alienable and disposable land area Proj. OBLIGATIONS. It bears noting that in support of his claim that the subject properties are alienable and disposable. nor was she able to present any documentary evidence such as the tax declaration issued in the name of either of her parents. [Note: provision of law tackled not part of this year's Civil Law bar syllabus. Thus. J. G. Raneses merely presented the Conversion Subdivision Plan which was prepared by Engr. the approval of the subdivision application would serve no practical effect. No.] Golden Valley vs. 2623 certified by the Bureau of Forestry on January 3. The basis therefor is Article 1191 of the Civil Code. People G. Espineli vs.. If medical and funeral expenses were substantiated. Jr. and the subject matter being agricultural land constitutes simply one condition. J. June 9. either party may rescind the contract upon the other’s substantial breach of the obligation/s he had assumed thereunder.. PMC rescinded the operating agreement with GVEI due to failure of the latter to advance payment for actual cost. 2014 Velasco. 189970. as all the elements for an agrarian dispute are not present. 27-B as per LC Map No. Raneses failed to hurdle this burden and his reliance on the said annotation and Inter-Office Memorandum is clearly insufficient. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. No. J. Republic vs. Raneses G. there must likewise exist a tenancy relation between the parties. it could not be subdivided and developed for nonagricultural use. such as when the victim was gunned down in front of his house. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. REGALIAN DOCTRINE: The approval by city and municipal boards and councils of an application for subdivision through an ordinance should already be understood to include approval of the reclassification of the land. the pieces of evidence submitted by Raneses before the RTC in this case hardly satisfy the aforementioned documentary requirements. either party may rescind the contract upon the other’s substantial breach of the obligation/s he had assumed thereunder. covered by said application. vs. a Senior Desk Coordinator of a radio station. June 16. However. 2014 Del Castillo. Bumagat vs.of testimonial evidence such as the declaration of Rosario Calalang-Garcia that they have been staying on the property as far as she can remember and that the property was acquired by her parents through purchase from her maternal grandparents. she was unable to produce any document to evidence the said sale. as to the latter’s monthly salary without any documentary evidence will not suffice to substantiate the claim. However. Kasamaka-Canlubang. from agricultural to the intended non-agricultural use. it is a civil case within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.R. 1968" and the Inter-Office Memorandum from the LLDA. Quintos vs. J.R. No. J.

continuous. the threat to prosecute for estafa not being an unjust act. the exception thereto. No. pursuant to Section 55 of the Land Registration Act. a private person whose property right was invaded or unreasonably interfered with by the act. No. Fule G. June 18. OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL: A tax declaration is not a proof of ownership. Netlink Computer vs. 206806. 2014 Sereno.R. 2014 Bersamin. the remedies of abatement and damages are cumulative.PROPERTY. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. and (2) the deed. CONTRACTS. Petitioners’ inability to offer evidence tending to prove that Bienvenido and Escolastica Ibarra transferred the ownership over the property in favor of petitioners is likewise fatal to the latter’s claim. 55 . entered into a Contract of Lease with the Avico Lending Investor Co. PAYMENT OR PERFORMANCE: As a general rule. Van der Kolk G. omission. CONSENT: When a person was merely informed that she was convicted of an offense and that caused her to seek measures to avoid criminal liability. the declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove ownership. over the subject lot without any objection from the petitioners. threat or intimidation.R. Aside from the remedy of summary abatement which should be taken under the parameters stated in Articles 704 (for public nuisances) and 706 (for private nuisances) of the Civil Code. 164961. encumbrance. namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action. or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on the title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or efficacy. J. June 30. This means that all the transfers starting from the original rightful owner to the innocent holder for value – and that includes the transfer to the forger – must be duly registered. 192861-62. Heirs of Yabao vs. 2014 Bersamin. establishment. Heirs of Abalon G.R No.J. No. do not concur. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. 160827. June 25. 2014 Leonen. However. Rana vs. business or condition of the property of another may file a civil action to recover personal damages. NUISANCE: It is a standing jurisprudential rule that unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. two indispensable requisites must concur. June 30. PROPERTY. the practice of a company of paying its sales agents in US dollars must be taken into consideration. or the requisite that the nuisance is a nuisance per se. 2014 Mendoza. J. June 30. TORRENS TITLE: The standard is that for one to be a purchaser in good faith in the eyes of the law. Spouses Peralta vs. C. No. QUIETING OF TITLE: For an action to quiet title to prosper. the contracting parties may stipulate that foreign currencies may be used for settling obligations. NOVATION: Novation extinguishes an obligation between two parties when there is a substitution of objects or debtors or when there is subrogation of the creditor. Spouses Binua vs. June 25. hence. Lim G. and the title must be properly issued to the transferee. or interest in. but rather a valid and legal act to enforce a claim. and uninterrupted possession of the subject property is belied by the fact that respondents.R. cannot at all be considered as intimidation. J. The first requisite was not complied with. EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATIONS. claim.R. all obligations shall be paid in Philippine currency. This notwithstanding. 207266. it may not be summarily abated. OBLIGATIONS. in 2005. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. and adverse possession. J. June 18. Abatement may be judicially sought through a civil action therefor if the pertinent requirements under the Civil Code for summary abatement. the contracts entered into by the said person cannot be considered executed under duress. Wong G. Nos. To note. J. The consent of the creditor must be secured for the novation to be valid. OBLIGATIONS. ESSENTIAL REQUISITES. exclusive. Petitioners’ alleged open. Ong G. 2014 Reyes. EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATIONS. it is not a conclusive evidence of ownership of real property. OWNERSHIP. Delmo G. Also. denotes the registration of titles from the forger to the innocent purchaser for value. the qualifying point here is that there must be a complete chain of registered titles.R. PROPERTY. 207176. he should buy the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. Thus. Arco Pulp and Paper vs. 183448 & 183464. J. public. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. Nos.R. both may be demanded. In the absence of actual. TORRENS TITLE: The established rule is that a forged deed is generally null and cannot convey title. Uy vs.

July 9. Heirs of Luna G. OBLIGATIONS. has exclusive jurisdiction over the issuance. 2014 Leonen. Hence. “The well-entrenched rule is that solidary obligations cannot be inferred lightly. No. a purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts that should put a reasonable man on his guard and still claim he acted in good faith. and should pay a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase. consequently. the DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered EPs. J. when the law so provides or when the nature of the obligation so requires. RES IPSA LOQUITUR: For the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply. and not rely merely on the testimonies of handwriting experts. Upon satisfaction of this requirement. FOREIGN DIVORCE: Divorce between Filipinos is void and ineffectual under the nationality rule adopted by Philippine law. No. on the other hand. or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property. Soliman.such property. Josefa vs. because a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on their testimonies. applicable to this case is the presumption under the law that the nature of the obligation herein can only be considered as joint. July 2.R. JULY 2014 AFP-RSBS vs. July 7. [Note: provision of law tackled not part of this year's Civil Law bar syllabus. No. Novida G. recall or cancellation of EPs or Certificates of Land Ownership Awards that are not yet registered with the Register of Deeds. Lavadia vs. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. 177235. in contemplation of law. No. 2014 Peralta. Hence. force or efficacy for any purpose. contrary to petitioner’s claim that they have been cancelled. 182705.R. July 2. July 18. J. 171914. FORGERY: While the Court recognizes that the technical nature of the procedure in examining forged documents calls for 56 handwriting experts.R.’” Respondent was not able to prove by a preponderance of evidence that petitioners' obligation to him was solidary. AGRARIAN LAW. 2014 Sereno. Siapno G. 2014 Brion.] Mendoza vs. 1995 Orders are null and void. the DAR Region I Director had no jurisdiction to cancel their titles. 1991 and August 22. J. JOINT AND SOLIDARY OBLIGATIONS: As previous ruled by the Court. respondents’ EPs and titles subsists. TORTS AND DAMAGES. SALES. RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS OF THE DARAB AND THE DAR SECRETARY: In Heirs of Lazaro Gallardo vs. J. A liability is solidary ‘only when the obligation expressly so states. their respective January 30.J. 2014 Bersamin. and cannot be enforceable against the assets of the . 188944. Judges must also exercise independent judgment in determining the authenticity or genuineness of the signatures in question. resort to these experts is not mandatory or indispensable. No. the complainant must show that: (1) the accident is of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant’s negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured. July 23. they are nonexistent.R. any settlement of property between the parties of the first marriage involving Filipinos submitted as an incident of a divorce obtained in a foreign country lacks competent judicial approval. C. the same is true with respect to the DAR Secretary. Indeed.180086. It is incumbent upon the party alleging otherwise to prove with a preponderance of evidence that petitioners' obligation under the loan contract is indeed solidary in character. Fermin G. the DAR Secretary.R. Jose vs. J. PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS. MARRIAGE. 2014 Del Castillo. He buys the property with the belief that the person from whom he receives the property was the owner and could convey title to the property. The present case satisfies all the elements of res ipsa loquitur. MERALCO G. Void judgments or orders have no legal and binding effect. Republic G. 177374. REGISTRATION: [What] is important in computing the period of possession is that the land has already been declared alienable and disposable at the time of the application for registration. Spouses Berot vs. Thus. Thus. the computation of the period may include the period of adverse possession prior to the declaration that land is alienable and disposable. since certificates of title have been issued in the respective names of the respondents as early as in 1990. They must be positively and clearly expressed. No.R. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS.

Luna and Eugenia. Such that when the contract denominated as Resibo reveals that nothing therein suggests. and the new rate of 6% per annum shall be applied from July 1. 2014 Peralta. Luna’s subsequent marriage to Soledad was void for being bigamous. such defect in the SPA does not automatically render it invalid. absent any cogent reason to hold otherwise. 2013. J. AUGUST 2014 Lim vs. Domingo in the Dominican Republic but had subsisted until the death of Atty. The necessity of a public document for said contracts is only for convenience. on the ground that the marriage between Atty. Heirs of Dela Rosa vs. August 4. 799. 189061. J. thus. The partial invalidity of the subject real estate mortgage brought about by the forged status of the subject SPA would not. Luna. In case of nullity. said contract is a contract of sale and not an equitable mortgage. even remotely. the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to a duly-notarized document is dispensed with. Such intention is determined not only from the express terms of their agreement. However. Given the subsistence of the first marriage between Atty. SALES.R. August 6. REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE: When a bank relied on a forged SPA. which became effective on July 1. 179205. CONTRACT OF SALE: The primary consideration in determining the true nature of a contract is the intention of the parties. it is not essential for validity or enforceability. No. No. Consequently. No. Batongbacal G. Atty. J. The rules on legal interest in Eastern Shipping have. binding. 2013. provided its validity is established by preponderance of evidence. yet the failure to observe the proper form does not render the transaction invalid. The law requires that the form of a contract that transmits or extinguishes real rights over immovable property should be in a public document. been recently modified by Nacar in accordance with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board (BSP-MB) Circular No. the principal obligation which it guarantees is not thereby rendered null and void. the need for the recomputation of said loan obligation should be dispensed with.husband who contracts a subsequent marriage. and of the law books pertained to the respondents as the lawful heirs of Atty. MORTGAGE. that the subject property was given to secure a monetary obligation but an intent to sell his share in the property. Castro G. MORTGAGE. Melecio-Yap G. result into the partial invalidation of the loan obligation principally entered into by the parties. it amended the rate of legal interest in judgments from 12% to 6% per annum. the 12% per annum legal interest in judgments under Eastern Shipping shall apply only until June 30. the mortgage deed remains as evidence or proof of a personal obligation of the debtor and the amount due to the creditor may be enforced in an ordinary action. INTEREST RATE: Lim argues that legal interest in accordance with the case of Eastern Shipping must also be awarded. Security Bank G. 196118. allegations of forgery. Luna. Rural Bank of Cabadbaran vs. however. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. 57 . Luna and Eugenia had not been dissolved by the Divorce Decree rendered by the CFI of Sto. and the measure to test the validity of such document is preponderance of evidence. If the words of a contract appear to contravene the evident intention of the parties. It should then be justly concluded that the properties in litis legally pertained to their conjugal partnership of gains as of the time of his death. like all other allegations. Luna in the condominium unit. and convincing evidence by the party alleging it. 178451. where a mortgage is not valid due to a forged SPA. with the qualification that the new rate be applied prospectively. the latter shall prevail. 2014 Mendoza. Castillo vs. must be proved by clear. What is lost is merely the right to foreclose the mortgage as a special remedy for satisfying or settling the indebtedness which is the principal obligation. Luna acquired the properties out of his own personal funds and effort remained. but also from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties. therefore. 2014 Reyes. HMR Philippines G. No.R. J. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. July 30. 201483. July 30. REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE: In a real estate mortgage. the sole ownership of the 25/100 pro indiviso share of Atty. July 30. Defective notarization will simply strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument. J. No.R. positive. LOAN. Thus. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. Pertinently.R. it has the burden to prove its authenticity and due execution as when there is a defect in the notarization of a document. but nonetheless. Midway Maritime vs. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. But even if there is variation on the date of issuance of the Community Tax Certificate (CTC) as indicated on the notarization of the alleged SPA and on the day it was actually secured.R. the presumption that Atty. 2014 Perez. 2013 onwards.

JOINT AND SOLIDARY OBLIGATIONS: Solidary liability must be expressly stated. Rule 131 of the Rules of Court prohibits a tenant from denying the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. One of these requisites is a valid prior tender of payment. the lessee cannot by any proof. CONTRACTS. Under these circumstances. August 6. Krystle Realty vs. No. 171626. the rate provided in Article 2209 of the Civil Code. the joint and several liability of Subic Water and OCWD was nowhere clear in the agreement. OBLIGATIONS. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS.R. in the absence of an express contract as to such rate of interest. BCDA G. J. 212689. Spouses Sabordo G. and especially so after BCDA gave its assurance that it would respect the rights that accrued in SMLI’s favor arising from the same. ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE: An action for reconveyance 58 Del Carmen vs. Failure to comply strictly with any of the requisites will render the consignation void. J. 196117 & 196129. SMLI vs. No. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. No. 2013 provides: “The rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money. Subic Water G. when a complaint for reconveyance is filed beyond the 10-year reglementary period. 203655. J. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. No. Hence.PROPERTY. The law explicitly states that solidary liability is not presumed and must be expressly provided for. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. J. August 6. 181723. overturn the conclusive presumption that the lessor has a valid title to or a better right of possession to the subject premises than the lessee.. which goes beyond a mere invocation of the ordinary presumption of good faith. LOAN. reckoned from the date of registration of the deed or the date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property. 2014 Velasco Jr. Verily. however strong. OWNERSHIP. goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments.” Thus. for which reason the trial court was justified in awarding interest to Hernandez from the filing of his complaint. under Article 2209 the imposable rate is six percent (6%) by way of damages.R. In the instant case. BCDA could not validly renege on its obligation to subject the unsolicited proposal to a competitive challenge in view of this perfected contract. Hernandez G. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. The agreement simply and plainly stated that Olongapo City and OCWD were only requesting Subic Water to be a co-maker. EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATIONS. it had the burden of proving such status. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. Nos. in view of its assumption of OCWD’s water operations. PAYMENT OR PERFORMANCE: It is settled that compliance with the requisites of a valid consignation is mandatory.R. No.R. In the present case. such cause of action is barred by prescription. if the plaintiff is not in possession. the rate of interest to be imposed from finality of judgments is now back at six percent (6%). Further. This agreement is the law between the contracting parties with which they are required to comply in good faith. J. OBLIGATIONS. Not being a surety. Section 1 of Resolution No. ECE Realty vs. PURCHASE IN GOOD FAITH: One is considered a buyer in bad faith not only when he purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his seller but also when he has knowledge of facts which should have alerted him to conduct further inquiry or investigation. August 13. it is BCDA’s subsequent unilateral cancellation of this perfected contract which this Court deemed to have been tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Imbornal G. The agreement of the parties to submit the determination of the genuineness of . as one asserting the status of a buyer in good faith and for value. 182908. Subic Water is not an insurer of OCWD’s obligations under the compromise agreement. August 6.R. shall be six percent (6%) per annum. SALES. GENERAL PROVISIONS: BCDA and SMLI have agreed to subject SMLI’s Original Proposal to Competitive Challenge. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. Alibin G. August 11. Heirs of Narvasa vs.” Section 2(b). OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL: [It] is settled that “[o]nce a contact of lease is shown to exist between the parties. as Krystle Realty in this case. Olongapo City vs. 2014 Brion. 2014 Reyes. J. INTEREST RATE: There is no doubt that ECE incurred in delay in delivering the subject condominium unit. based on an implied trust prescribes in ten (10) years. Olongapo City cannot proceed after Subic Water for OCWD’s unpaid obligations.R. 796 of the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas dated May 16. There being no stipulation as to interest. the SC finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the CA and the RTC that Del Carmen and her coheirs failed to make a prior valid tender of payment to Sabordo. August 13. 2014 Peralta.

Noveras G. If the uncertainty consists in whether the day will come or not. 1193. INTEREST RATE: It is jurisprudential axiom that a foreclosure sale arising from a usurious mortgage cannot be given legal effect. An emancipation patent constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the grantee. therefore. Jr. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. Nos. C. 2014 Leonen. Pinzman Realty G. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. Thus. 192304. No. J. In the instant case.J. the wife obtaining a divorce decree in California where all properties in the USA were awarded to her. 172404. PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. the expert's function being to place before the court data upon which it can form its own opinion.The opinion of a handwriting expert. The surety. In no uncertain terms. 188289. 2014 Perez. EXPROPRIATION UNDER THE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM. Absent a valid recognition of the divorce decree.R. to begin with. 2014 Velasco. CONFLICT OF LAWS: [Even] if the Court applies the doctrine of processual presumption as the lower courts did with respect to the property regime of the parties [a married couple. August 20. F. It is from the issuance of an emancipation patent that the grantee can acquire the vested right of ownership in the landholding. does not mandatorily bind the court. is presumed to have acquiesced to the terms and conditions embodied in the principal contract when it issued its surety bond. Doctors of New Millennium Holdings G. SURETYSHIP: The liabilities of an insurer under the surety bond are not extinguished when the modifications in the principal contract do not substantially or materially alter the principal's obligations. and now filing a petition for judicial separation of conjugal properties with regard to their properties in the Philippines] the recognition of divorce is entirely a different matter because. but terminate upon arrival of the day certain.R. No. To be clear. 207348. No. the unlawful interest charge which led to the amount demandedwill result to the invalidity of the subsequent foreclosure sale. 2014 Villarama Jr. People's Trans-East Asia Insurance vs. subject to the payment of just compensation to the landowner.R. COA G. [The trial court thus erred in proceeding directly to liquidation. J.R. August 20. make the obligation to finish the reclamation project demandable. No. August 13. Noveras vs. EMANCIPATION PATENT: [The] date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just compensation should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the emancipation patents. unreasonable. The surety is jointly and severally liable with its principal when the latter defaults from its obligations under the principal contract. the principal contract of the suretyship is the signed agreement. it follows that the parties are still legally married in the Philippines. provided the decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner.” The lapse of six (6) years from the perfection of the contract did not. the obligation is conditional. August 13. August 19. J. 15 of the Contract of Reclamation states: “the project is estimated to be completed in six (6) years. MARRIAGE.] Land Bank vs. The presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. such as to put the obligor in a state of actionable delay for its inability to finish. OBLIGATIONS WITH A PERIOD: Obligations with a resolutory period take effect at once. and unconscionable interest charges. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. Lajom G. LOAN. This Court has previously struck down a foreclosure sale where the amount declared as mortgage indebtedness involved excessive. both US citizens. August 27.R. 2014 Sereno. Anchor Savings Bank vs. this Court ruled that a mortgagor cannot be legally compelled to pay for a grossly inflated loan. or termination of the contract was a mere estimate and cannot be considered a period or a “day certain” in the context of Art. owning properties in the USA and the Philippines. On the basis of petitioner’s own admissions. OBLIGATIONS.In the case at bar. 184982 & 185048. both the divorce decree and the 59 . divorce is not recognized between Filipino citizens in the Philippines. A day certain is understood to be that which must necessarily come.. [Note: provision of law tackled not part of this year's Civil Law bar syllabus.] Ando vs. No. DFA G.R. par.F.Domingo’s signature to a handwriting expert of the NBI does not authorize the RTC to accept the findings of such expert. J. Cruz cannot be deemed to be in delay. Salonte vs. a plain reading of the Contract of Reclamation reveals that the six-year period provided for project completion. therefore.. 195432. J. although it may not be known when. FOREIGN DIVORCE: [A] divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction. AGRARIAN LAW.

ESSENTIAL REQUISITES. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. they did not provide any sufficient evidence that would convince the courts that the proximity of relationships between/among the vendors and vendees in the questioned sales was not used to perpetrate fraud. In discharging the burden. PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS. deceit. the writings of the parties should be read and interpreted together in sucha way as to render their intention effective. Because our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgment. instead of filing a petition for the recognition of her second marriage as valid.02 of the ARD does not constitute pactum commissorium. September 3. Good faith among the parties to the series of conveyances is therefore hard if not impossible to presume. […] Petitioners have failed to discharge that burden. Philnico Industrial vs. HUMAN RELATIONS: Article 28 of the Civil Code provides that unfair competition in agricultural. No. although executed in separate written instruments. J. it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith that everyone is presumed to act in good faith. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. Second. August 27. Unfortunately for the petitioners. deliberately copied the latter’s products and . It was the intention of the parties to enter into and execute both contracts for a complete effectuation of their agreement. In the present case. our law on evidence requires that both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven and like any other fact. [However.R. SEPTEMBER 2014 ECE Realty vs. Heirs of Valles G. [However. The ARDA and the Pledge Agreement herein. oppressive or high-handed method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage. petitioner should have filed a petition for the judicial recognition of her foreign divorce from her first husband. while the Pledge Agreement only has the first element. such provision cannot be considered as one of pactum commissorium]. No. are integral to one another. PACTUM COMMISSORIUM: Petitioner assails the decision of the CA ruling that Section 8. such fraud however is not sufficient to nullify its contract with respondent. on the ground that since the ARDA and the Pledge Agreement are entirely separate and distinct contract and that neither contract contains both elements of pactum commissorium: [the ARDA solely has the second element. First. The SC ruled that though] petitioner was guilty of fraud. No. Hence. oppressive or highhanded methods which may deprive others of a fair chance to engage in business or to earn a living. CONSENT: [Petitioner questions the decision of the CA holding that it employed fraud to induce respondent to enter a contract with it. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS.R. 177616.] the agreement of the parties may be embodied in only one contract or in two or more separate writings. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. 196182. J. Jesichris Manufacturing G. commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force. machination or any other unjust. TORRENS TITLE: The petitioners assail the decision of the CA affirming in toto the decision of the RTC declaring that their predecessors-in-interest are not buyers in good faith and for value. when a manufacturer of plastic kitchenware products employed the former employees of a neighboring partnership engaged in the manufacture of plastic automotive parts. [The] burden of proving the status of a 60 purchaser in good faith and for value lies upon him who asserts that standing. 2014 Peralta. the fraud must be dolo causante or it must be fraud in obtaining the consent of the party. 2014 Del Castillo. August 27. respondent failed to prove that the misrepresentation made by petitioner was the causal consideration or the principal inducement which led her into buying her unit in the said condominium project. petitioner’s misrepresentation in its advertisements does not constitute causal fraud which would have been a valid basis in annulling the Contract to Sell between petitioner and respondent. 195549. [Such being the case. The good faith that is here essential is integral with the very status that must be proved. the fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and not merely by a preponderance thereof.R.] Willaware Products vs. This is referred to as causal fraud.R. there is nothing to dispel the notion that apparent anomalies attended the transactions among close relations. it must fulfill two conditions. September 1. Thus. What is being sought to be prevented is not competition per se but the use of unjust.governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven. Jurisprudence has shown that in order to constitute fraud that provides basis to annul contracts. No. Mandap G.] the transfers of the properties in question did not go far. PLEDGE. 2014 Peralta. but were limited to close family relatives by affinity and consanguinity. In case of the latter. intimidation. Thus. Privatization and Management Office G. Heirs of Manguardia vs. 199420. J. CONTRACTS. J.

Spouses Santos vs. does not involve acquiescence to the temporary use of a party’s money but a performance of a particular service. i. LOAN. petitioners' action is already barred by laches. to allow petitioners to assert their right to the subject properties now after their unjustified failure to act within a reasonable time would be grossly unfair to PSMB. as regards particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages. No. Foundation Specialists G. OBLIGATIONS. and it consists in the payment of a sum of money. the creditor cannot enforce payment of 6% monthly interest. permanent partial disability grading beyond the 120-day period but before the 240-day maximum. 2013).e. as case law holds. PRESCRIPTION. Dalusong vs. i. which. INTEREST RATE: When a person granted an unsecured loan without a maturity date in favor of a corporation and its president and general manager (who is a lawyer) without reducing the loan transaction in writing. petitioners should act with reasonable promptness. specifically the construction of the diaphragm wall. instead of the 12% imposed by the courts below. and perforce should not be sanctioned. yet the trial court awarded actual damages in the amount claimed by the plaintiff. Court of Appeals.R. however. from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code. As to the rate of interest due thereon. September 8.e. De la Paz vs. there is unfair competition. i. 2014 Carpio. a loan or forbearance of money.R. the matter of interest award arising from the dispute in this case would actually fall under the second paragraph of the above-quoted guidelines in the landmark case of Eastern Shipping Lines. from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code. the rate of interest. thus the award of attorney’s fees in favor of the seafarer is unwarranted. Gallery Frames. and the CA deleted such an award and awarded in its place nominal damages. September 3. L & J Development G.R.J. PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS: Since the complaint for annulment was anchored on a claim of mistake.even went to the extent of selling these products to the latter’s customers.e.. Verily. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. Federal Builders vs. Eagle Clarc Shipping G. In the absence of stipulation. capping beam. i. In addition. in the absence of any stipulation as to interest in the agreement between the parties herein. The payments of the debtor to the creditor must be considered as payment of the principal amount of the loan because Article 1956 was not complied with. Acting C. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe.e.. TORTS AND DAMAGES. Furthermore. NATURE AND EFFECT OF OBLIGATIONS: In the landmark case of Eastern Shipping Lines.R. that petitioners are the borrowers under the loan secured by the mortgage. 194507. then the latter is not entitled to permanent disability benefits. 799 (July 1. CONTRACTS. the award of attorneys’ fees must also be lowered. No. which necessitates the imposition of interest at the rate of 6%. TORTS AND DAMAGES. the action should have been brought within four (4) years from its discovery. when the company-designated physician gave the seafarer a final. September 8. as follows: “When the obligation is breached. Thus. The employer is not in bad faith in refusing to give the seafarer full disability benefits. operates not really to penalize neglect or sleeping on one's rights. is imposed. the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default. ATTORNEY'S FEES: When the plaintiff in a case of unfair competition under the Civil Code fails to satisfactorily prove that it had lost income. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. the Court has modified the guidelines in Nacar v. 2014 Del Castillo.. J. the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be computed from default. J. the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. Thus. ESSENTIAL REQUISITES. 204233. 197857. PAIC Savings G.. else its unreasonable delay may amount to ratification. Inc. 183360. September 10. ATTORNEY'S FEES: Attorney’s fees [are] not available when the defendant employer is not guilty of bad faith. but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation. 2014 Peralta. As such. v. and guide walls of the Trafalgar Plaza. CONSENT: One who 61 . it cannot be collected because it is unconscionable. however. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. the Court notes that the same should be reduced to 6% per annum considering the fact that the obligation involved herein does not partake of a loan or forbearance of money. As mortgagors desiring to attack a mortgage as invalid.” In line with the recent circular of the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas No. No. wherein “the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded and in the absence of stipulation. J. No. as well as the accrual thereof. even if the interest was in writing.” This case.

but of the renunciation of the credit where more convincing evidence would be required than what normally would be called for to prove payment. No. PNB. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. Cobarrubias G. Spouses Tajonera G. September 24. EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATIONS. J. as it arises from the same cause where one party is the creditor. Hizon G. Spouses Noynay vs.. That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted. 2014 Mendoza. not merely by preponderance of evidence. clear. the presumption loses efficacy when faced with evidence to the contrary. he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. September 10. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land. 187144. RRI Lending G. J. PNB vs.[Note: provision of law tackled not part of this year's Civil Law bar syllabus. J.R. 180144. CONTRACT OF LOAN: The agreement between PNB and [Spouses Tajonera] was one of a loan. Where mistake or error is alleged by parties who claim to have not had the benefit of a good education. No. LOAN. not having released the balance of the last loan proceeds in accordance with the 3rd Amendment had no right to demand from [Spouses Tajonera’s] compliance with their . LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. the creditor should release the full loan amount and the debtor repays it when it becomes due and demandable. this presumption is merely prima facie and is not conclusive. Provided. Bognot vs. OBLIGATIONS. and convincing evidence. 204160.R. the creditor should consent to the substitution of a new debtor. J. J. REGALIAN DOCTRINE: [One] of the requirements [for the issuance of a Townsite Sales Application by the DENR] is that the applicant must not own any other lot [but 62 petitioner herein is a registered owner of a residential lot]. Under the law.] Locsin vs. J. he cannot merely rely on the title and must look beyond to ascertain the truth as to the right of the seller to convey the property. Delfino vs. 2014 Mendoza. Anasao G.R. voluntary. he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. No. 2014 Brion. not of payment. The rule is that he who alleges mistake affecting a transaction must substantiate his allegation. TORRENS TITLE: A purchaser of property under the Torrens system cannot simply invoke that he is an innocent purchaser for value when there are attending circumstances that raise suspicions. on the condition that the same amount or quality shall be paid. however. Novation must be clearly and unequivocally shown. SALES. 195889. September 22. 2014 Peralta. This means that in a loan..R. The provision merely raises a presumption. the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATIONS. and the other the debtor. shall pertain to the landowner. Gahol vs. Loan is a reciprocal obligation. which shall be compact or contiguous. as in this case.R. AGRICULTURAL LEASE: The right to choose the area to be retained. September 17. In that case. AGRARIAN LAW.R. No. 2014 Villarama. Jr. The tenant must exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention. since it is presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns and that private transactions have been fair and regular. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. ASSIGNMENT OF CREDIT: The assignment of all contractual rights of an assignor in favor of an assignee relegates the former to the status of a mere stranger to the jural relations established under the contract to sell. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. they must establish that their personal circumstances prevented them from giving their free. 204369. The obligation of one party in a reciprocal obligation is dependent upon the obligation of the other. Citihomes G. a loan requires the delivery of money or any other consumable object by one party to another who acquires ownership thereof. No. NOVATION: In order to give novation legal effect. and the performance should ideally be simultaneous. and spontaneous consent to a contract. September 24. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area. PAYMENT OR PERFORMANCE: Although Article 1271 of the Civil Code provides for a legal presumption of renunciation of action (in cases where a private document evidencing a credit was voluntarily returned by the creditor to the debtor). 2014 Velasco Jr. 197486.alleges any defect or the lack of a valid consent contract must establish the same by full. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. and cannot be presumed. September 17. No. OBLIGATIONS.

J. J. because she was assured by the bank of its title to the property. OWNERSHIP. 2014 Reyes.R. No. “Where the vendor is not in possession of the property. 173632. and consequently.” Rovira. the contract to sell between Rotairo and Ignacio & Company was entered into in 1970. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. 957: In this case. TORRENS TITLE: More than the charge of constructive knowledge. September 29. If SBL cannot prove its loss.. 192973.R.” According to the CA. and that failure or action caused injury to the patient. for the latter to exercise their option to pay the installments directly to the mortgagee. P. [Since] casino chips are considered to have been exchanged with their corresponding representative value – it is with more reason that the Court should require SBL to prove convincingly and persuasively that the chips it confiscated from [Ludwin and Deoven. J. OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL: Though casino chips do not constitute legal tender. then Article 559 cannot apply. Subic Bay Legend Resorts and Casinos vs. The claimant must prove not only the injury but also the defendant's fault. OCTOBER 2014 Spouses Ocampo vs.the critical and clinching factor in a medical negligence case is proof of the causal connection between the negligence and the injuries. P. SALES. It was error for the CA to rule that the retroactive application of P.” A purchaser cannot simply close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on guard. who lives only fifty (50) meters away from the subject property. Alcantara G. however. Clearly. the other party cannot be obliged to perform what is expected of them while the other's obligation remains unfulfilled. if the subdivision is mortgaged before the lots are sold. DAMAGES: Medical malpractice or. TORTS AND DAMAGES. In order to successfully pursue such a claim. Spouses Pineda. is that type of claim which a victim has available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm.” But Rovira cannot rely solely on the title and assurances of Pilipinas Bank.” As the Court held in Spouses Flores v. if a party in a reciprocal contract like a loan does not perform its obligation. the CA's award of P48. the prospective vendees are obligated to investigate the rights of one in possession. Indeed. the presumption that the chips were exchanged for value remains.515. Causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. medical negligence.D. Dela Torre vs. et al. and thereafter claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor. the surrounding circumstances of this case show Rovira’s actual knowledge of the disposition of the subject property and Rotairo’s possession thereof. September 29. hence. claims that “she did not bother to inquire as to the legitimacy of the rights of the occupants. the purpose of Sec. 21 requires the owner or developer of the subdivision project to complete compliance with its obligations within two years from 1976. more appropriately. Rovira. his heirs. It is undisputed that after the contract to sell was executed […] Rotairo immediately secured a mayor’s permit […] for the construction of his residential house on the property. it was incumbent upon her to look beyond the title and make necessary inquiries because the bank was not in possession of the property. A verdict in a malpractice action cannot be based on speculation or conjecture. No. Rotairo vs. What the CA overlooked is that Sec.D. The two-year compliance provides the developer the opportunity to comply with its obligation to notify the buyers of the existence of the mortgage. then there are no buyers to notify. 2014 Reyes. September 29. Rotairo. either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done. No. in most cases a physician. “must prove that a health care provider. or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done. 2014 Del Castillo. Rovira cannot claim a right better than that of Rotairo's as she is not a buyer in good faith.58 is sustained. or his or her family as in this case. and the agreement was fully consummated with Rotairo’s completion of payments and the execution of the Deed of Sale in his favor in 1979. Fernandez G. Hence.R.D. and subsequently. No.own obligation under the loan.which the Court finds absent in the case at bar. knew that there were “structures built on the property. a patient. 193426. there is no law which prohibits their use or trade outside of the casino which issues them. the Fernandez brothers] were indeed stolen from it. in fact. 957 is “warranted only where the subdivision is mortgaged after buyers have purchased individual lots. and that such fault caused the injury. has been residing on the property since then. No. PROPERTY. 957 (Sale of Subdivision Lots and Condominiums) is applicable in this case. As regards the respondents’ counterclaim. Heirs of Dionisio 63 . 18 requiring notice of the mortgage to the buyers is to give the buyer the option to pay the installments directly to the mortgagee. Imbuido G.

October 8. No. Santos-Gran G.R. CIVIL LIABILITY: When the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto is instituted with the criminal action. If there is an actual need to reconvey the property as when the plaintiff is not in possession. CGAC. DONATION: In order to sufficiently substantiate her claim that the money paid by the respondents was actually a donation. 187061. SURETYSHIP: [In] a contract of suretyship. the donation of money as well as its acceptance should be in writing. No. J. SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE: The proper remedy for 64 a judicial declaration of presumptive death obtained by extrinsic fraud is an action to annul the judgment. J. No. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. 198636.R. Thus.e. Orimaco.” Mario [Ocampo] claimed that they have been in possession of the said parcel of land since 1969 and that cause of action of the Dionisios is already barred by laches. Santos G. no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. J. 192026. the case will be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor.R. execution pending appeal against NSSC means that the same course of action is warranted against its surety. the landowner’s consent to an agricultural tenancy relationship must be shown. 2014 Reyes.. October 8. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. the action for reconveyance based on implied trust prescribes in ten (10) years. 197380. Spouses Dela Cruz G. J. Jurisprudence consistently holds that “prescription and laches cannot apply to registered land covered by the Torrens system” because “under the Property Registration Decree. Ferro Chemicals G. October 1. Carinan vs.R. 189358. An affidavit of reappearance is not the proper remedy when the person declared presumptively dead has never been absent. October 8. Centennial Guarantee Assurance vs. TORTS AND DAMAGES.G. The same reason stands for CGAC’s other principal. petitioner should have also submitted in court a copy of their written contract evincing such agreement. Spouses Cueto G. As earlier ruled by the Court. PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS. the spouses refused to vacate unless they were paid compensation. Otherwise. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS.” The Court ruled that tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. TORRENS TITLE: Jurisprudence consistently holds that “prescription and laches cannot apply to registered land covered by the Torrens system” because “under the Property Registration Decree. The allegation of its existence must be proven by evidence. 172505. No. Universal Motors G. MARRIAGE. No. Accordingly. October 8. TORRENS TITLE: To determine when the prescriptive period commenced in an action for reconveyance.” Garcia vs. 2014 Leonen. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. Zuniga-Santos vs. who was determined to have permanently left the country with his family to evade execution of any judgment against him.R. October 1. Automat Realty vs. PROPERTY. the prescriptive period to recover title and possession of the property does not run against . no reservation is made or no prior filing of a separate civil action) or as required by the law or rules. whether by choice of private complainant (i. No. MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP. if the real owner of the property remains in possession of the property. and working on another’s landholding raises no presumption of an agricultural tenancy. the reference point being the date of registration of the deed or the issuance of the title. one lends his credit by joining in the principal debtor’s obligation so as to render himself directly and primarily responsible with him.] Santos vs. 2014 Reyes. AGRICULTURAL LEASE: When Automat asked the spouses to vacate the premises.R. no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. and without reference to the solvency of the principal. October 1. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. Article 748 of the NCC is applicable. J. the donation is invalid for non-compliance with the formal requisites prescribed by law. AGRARIAN LAW. 2014 Leonen. Consequently. J. the plaintiff’s possession of the disputed property is material. [Note: provision of law tackled not part of this year's Civil Law bar syllabus. On the other hand. They claimed “they were agricultural tenants [who] enjoyed security of tenure under the law. When the subject of donation is purchase money. 191101. The civil action cannot proceed independently of the criminal case. a donation must comply with the mandatory formal requirements set forth by law for its validity. 2014 Leonen. No. J.R.

J. Thus.000. No. the action for reconveyance would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title which is imprescriptible. considering that Eusebio already owned the subject property at the time he sold the one-third portion thereof. J. moral damages may be recovered where the defendant is shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith.R. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. This being the case and judging from the tenor of the CA. Spouses Marcos vs. TORTS AND DAMAGES. Loria retained the P2. However. the vendee steps into the shoes of the vendor as co-owner and acquires a proportionate abstract share in the property held in common. 2014 Reyes. Second. Muñoz was not subcontracted for the project. PNB G. after the death of Alipio. 2014 Leonen. The evidence presented by the parties indubitably show that. BPI Express Card Corp. Samson-Bico G. However.R. Heirs of Bangi G. Indeed. In other words.000. after a long possession in severalty. 65 . No. Loria vs. 173548. No. this should not signify that the vendee does not acquire anything at all in case a physically segregated area of the coowned lot is in fact sold to him. including the subject property. Extraordinary Dev’t vs. 187240. 163654. J. vs. which was assigned to Eusebio. October 15. J. 2014 Del Castillo. Tan Kit G.R. a person must have been benefited without a real or valid basis or justification.. PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS. Andres vs.000.000. Under Article 22 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. J. INTEREST RATE: Monetary interest refers to the compensation set by the parties for the use or forbearance of money. Such terms and conditions constitute the law between the parties. Albay. a conscious or intentional design need not always be present because negligence may occasionally be so gross as to amount to malice or bad faith. Nowhere in the terms and conditions requires the defendant to submit new application form in order to reactivate her credit card. Espedita and Jose Bangi – had orally partitioned his estate. 2014 Leonen.000.000. division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong. In this case. Sun Life vs.00 to Muñoz. Partition may be inferred from circumstances sufficiently strong to support the presumption. Nevertheless. BPI Express Credit did not observe the prudence expected of banks whose business was imbued with public interest. 2014 Bersamin. October 13.” On the other hand. compensatory interest refers to the penalty or indemnity for damages imposed by law or by the courts. Hence. In case of their breach. Since the coowner/vendor’s undivided interest could properly be the object of the contract of sale between the parties.00 from Muñoz for a subcontract of a government project to dredge the Masarawag and San Francisco Rivers in Guinobatan. He retained Muñoz’s money without valid basis or justification. 185745. the benefit was derived at another person’s expense or damage.R. his heirs – Eusebio. October 15. what the vendee obtains by virtue of such a sale are the same rights as the vendor had as co-owner. a deed of partition may be presumed. LOAN. DAMAGES: The relationship between the credit card issuer and the credit card holder is a contractual one that is governed by the terms and conditions found in the card membership agreement. “No such interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. In the case at bar. contrary to the parties’ agreement. 2014 Perez.him and in such case.R. No. October 15. Thus. First. No. PROPERTY.00. Loria received P2. there can be no other conclusion than that the interest imposed by the appellate-court is in the nature of compensatory interest.R. Muñoz G. October 15. Loria must return the P2. Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. in an ideal share equivalent to the consideration given under their transaction. Loria was unjustly enriched. Accordingly. 183272. bad faith in the context of Article 2220 of the Civil Code includes gross negligence. October 8. hence. However. HUMAN RELATIONS: The principle of unjust enrichment has two conditions. defendant is entitled to damages. CO-OWNERSHIP: A co-owner cannot rightfully dispose of a particular portion of a coowned property prior to partition among all the co-owners. PROVISIONS COMMON TO TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSION: Partition is the separation. J. Every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition. Armovit G. a reading of the allegations of the Amended Complaint failed to show that Eliza remained in possession of the subject properties in dispute. No. SUCCESSION. 191090.

2014 Bersamin. CREDIT TRANSACTONS. However. G. it must be devoted to rice or corn crops. For sure. the property is jointly owned by them in equal shares. The Robles vs. 2014 Bersamin. it shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts. the monthly amortizations represented the installment payments of a housing loan that BPI Family had extended to them as an employee’s benefit. In their case. Espiritu vs. namely: (1) that the land must be devoted to agricultural activity. MACEDA LAW: It bears emphasizing that Republic Act No. Yapcinco 66 . [Note: provision of law tackled not part of this year's Civil Law bar syllabus. and excluded the concept of bank financing that was a type of loan. In the case at bar since the former spouses both agreed that they acquired the subject property during the subsistence of their marriage. any] property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts.R. 2014 Bersamin. Efforts in the care and maintenance of the family and household are regarded as contributions to the acquisition of common property by one who has no salary or income or work or industry. Holy Trinity Realty vs. residential. In this case. In this case del Rosario failed to prove with substantial evidence that the subject property is industrial property and as such is not sufficient to rebut the findings of both the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Office of the President. J. should be construed only as a mode of payment vis-à-vis the seller of the real estate. commercial or industrial land. MORTGAGE. REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE: The effect of the failure of Apolinario Cruz [the predecessor-in-interest of Rolando Robles. October 15. 6657. 1998 are outside the coverage of the compulsory acquisition program of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Accordingly. petitioner to this case] to obtain the judicial confirmation was only to prevent the title to the property from being transferred to him.LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. For land to be covered under Presidential Decree No. AGRARIAN LAW. J. October 22. No. not borrowers or mortgagors who obtained a housing loan to pay the costs of their purchase of real estate and used the real estate as security for their loan. J. 204964. October 20.] LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. and there must be a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein. 4 and 5. PNB is considered as a mortgagee in good faith because it complied with the standard operating practice expected from banks. two requisites must be met.R. must be read as to grant certain rights only to defaulting buyers of real estate on installment. there has to be substantial evidence to prove that lands sought to be exempted fall within the non-agricultural classification. thus unduly disturbing judicial stability.R. prudence. TORRENS TITLE: A bank that accepts a mortgage based upon a title which appears valid on its face and after exercising the requisite care. the Dakila property did not meet these requirements. and (2) that the land must not be classified as mineral. 169569. REGALIAN DOCTRINE: [Before] land may be placed under the coverage of Republic Act No. however. 200454.R. To maintain otherwise would render nugatory the judicial foreclosure and foreclosure sale. 2014 Leonen. 176492. SALES. Del Rosario G. Sebastian’s insistence would have been correct if the monthly amortizations being paid to BPI Family arose from a sale or financing of real estate. 27. thus. Nor did such failure invalidate the foreclosure proceedings. PROPERTY RELATIONS OF THE SPOUSES: [Under the property regime in Art. No. such failure did not give rise to any right in favor of the mortgagor or the respondents as his successors-in-interest to take back the property already validly sold through public auction. 147 of the Family Code. supra. and diligence appropriate to the public interest character of its business can be deemed a mortgagee in good faith.R. forest. Spouses Sebastian vs. COMPREHANSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW: Lands classified as nonagricultural in zoning ordinances approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board or its predecessors prior to June 15. Unfortunately. No. BPI Family Bank G. October 22. Nonato G. work or industry. A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall be considered as having contributed to the same jointly if said party's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family household. No. 2014 Peralta. Dela Cruz G. The subsequent consolidation of title in its name after a valid foreclosure shall be respected notwithstanding later proof showing that the title was based upon a void transaction. Barrido vs. J. 160107. J. which rights are properly demandable only against the seller of real estate The Sps. No. 6552 aimed to protect buyers of real estate on installment payments. Sections 3. October 22. The “financing of real estate in installment payments” referred to in Section 3. PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS.

It does not in any way detract from our rulings in Republic v. 2014 Reyes. it is undisputed that the land subject of registration is part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. 190901. Sps.V. not an absolute sale.. not a sale transaction. Spouses Obrero G. Jr. Jaque G. 1529 must prove the following requisites: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain. 2014 Leonen. 2014 Velasco. J.R. 200894. Title is not involved. Jr. Spouses Revilla G. No. REGISTRATION: It must be emphasized that the present ruling on substantial compliance applies pro hac vice. Republic G. and (2) that the applicant has been in open. EQUITABLE MORTGAGE: A transaction is deemed to be an equitable mortgage.R. 2014 Leonen. Respondent Republic failed to make objections on the issue as well. T. J. the burden to prove these requisites rests on the applicant. SALE OF SAME THING(S) TO DIFFERENT VENDEES: The most prominent index of simulation is the complete absence of an attempt on the part of the vendee to assert his rights of ownership over the property in question. November 12. pro hac vice.. on the ground of substantial compliance showing that there has been a positive act of government to show the nature and character of the land and an absence of effective opposition from the government. November 12. November 10. and similar cases which impose a strict requirement to prove that the public land is alienable and disposable. except only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession. More vs.R. Suzuki G. San Mateo G. Sps. [the Court does] not see any reason to deviate from the findings of the lower courts. 2014 Brion. J.R. To establish that the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable public land. […] Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not involved in the action. J. Cotoner-Zacaria vs. Abadilla. Inc. and (2) a certified true copy of the original classification made by the DENR Secretary.. 199448. TORRENS TITLE: The rule in land registration law that the issue of whether the buyer of realty is in good or bad faith is relevant only where the subject of the sale is registered land and the purchase was made from the registered owner whose title to the land is clean. S. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. J. 203560. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL: Ejectment proceedings are summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of property. The Court of Appeals’ decision was silent on this matter. This exception shall only apply to applications for registration currently pending before the trial court prior to this Decision and shall be inapplicable to all future applications. November 12.N. MORTGAGE. SALES. As an exception. 1945.R. Thus. thereby giving rise to a lenderborrower relationship between BPI Family and the petitioners. especially in this case when the decisions of the lower court and the Court of Appeals were rendered prior to these rulings. 199852. when a party have remained in possession of the subject property and exercised acts of ownership over the lot even after the purported absolute sale and it could be gleaned from the intention of the parties that the transaction is intended secure the payment of a debt. OWNERSHIP.. Republic vs. Properties. vs. NOVEMBER 2014 Resources’ report sufficient to prove the existence of the first requisite. the general rule remains: all applications for original registration under the Property Registration Decree must include both (1) a CENRO or PENRO certification.monthly amortizations they were liable for was derived from a loan transaction. however. November 12. PROPERTY. the courts – in their sound discretion and based solely on the evidence presented on record – may approve the application. 205487.R. The trial court found the Department of Environment and Natural Orion Savings Bank vs. Canlas vs. No. Concomitantly.A. With regard to the first requisite. or earlier. REGISTRATION: An applicant for land registration or judicial confirmation of incomplete or imperfect title under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. No. No. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. evidence thereon is not admissible. Solitarios and Torda vs. No. No. exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12. J. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. The sole issue to be resolved is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises or possession de facto. 2014 Velasco. continuous. November 10. Jr. Drugmakers Laboratories 67 .

G. compassion. More could contract the services of another manufacturer. 166790. This course of action is hinged on Article 2224 of the Civil Code. TORRENS TITLE: Marietta could acquire valid title over the whole . Hence. and that the other co-owners agree that the part subject of the contract to sell vests in favor of the co-owner’s buyer.V. J. November 12. 2014 Velasco. the Court deems it proper to. More. Cabrera vs. it became a direct attack on the title. LEASE: Under Article 1715 of the Civil Code. to demand a rectification of the work. J. RESCISSION: The failure of TSEI to pay the consideration for the sale of the subject property entitled the Sanchezes to rescind the Agreement. No. No. J. DAMAGES: The existence of contractual breach in this case revolves around the exclusive status of Drugmakers as the manufacturer of the subject pharmaceutical products.V. instead. RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY: Article 453 of the Civil Code clearly reads that a landowner is considered in bad faith if he does not oppose the unauthorized construction thereon despite knowledge of the same. being the exclusive manufacturer of the subject pharmaceutical products. TORTS AND DAMAGES. credence must be given to the latter’s claim that they looked for said Mackay 68 PROPERTY. although the case was originally an action for rescission. And in view of the finding that the intervenors acted in bad faith in purchasing the property. CONTRACT OF SALE VIS-A-VIS CONTRACT TO SELL: Unless all the co-owners have agreed to partition their property. Without the fulfillment of these suspensive conditions. 2014 Leonen. subject to suspensive conditions. 203080.R. Contrary to the contention of BPI. he may be required to remove the defect or execute another work. DBP G.. if the work of a contractor has defects which destroy or lessen its value or fitness for its ordinary or stipulated use. Sanchez G. November 17. none of them may sell a definite portion of the land. Such contract is still subject to the suspensive condition of the partition of the property. Jr. No. GROSS MISCONDUCT: A physician is guilty of gross misconduct when he chose to conduct a normal delivery and deliberately left her patient to a midwife and two inexperienced assistants despite knowing that the patient was under prolonged painful labor and about to give birth to a macrosomic baby by vaginal delivery which resulted to a stillborn baby and the loss of her reproductive capacity. The agreements notwithstanding.. A co-owner could enter into a contract to sell a definite portion of the property. the agreement between Juan [Cabrera] and Henry [Ysaac] is a contract to sell. but said Mackay and his group were nowhere to be found. Spouses Caswell G. J. Heirs of Lopez vs. S. Bondoc vs.R. No. 179518. TORTS AND DAMAGES. certainly there is no indication that when the Sanchezes filed their complaint with the RTC they already knew of the existence of TCT 383697. Nos. At best.R. had to first give its written consent before S. J. November 12.000 in the form of temperate damages. More’s breach of contract. Ysaac G. In particular. independence and respect for human dignity. Subsequent to Zameco II’s disapproval to supply the spouses Caswell electricity for several reasons. The co-owner may only sell his or her proportionate interest in the co-ownership.R. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. A physician should be dedicated to provide competent medical care with full professional skill in accordance with the current standards of care. If he fails to do so. A contract to sell is a promise to sell an object. 193551. the subsequent transfer in their favor did not and cannot bar rescission. 179835. the co-owners’ consent is an important factor for the sale to ripen. In the case at bar. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. 2014 Leonen. 200416. contracted the services of Hizon Laboratories to manufacture some of the pharmaceutical products covered by the said contracts. 2014 Del Castillo. November 19. Mantala G. through the CMPP and absent the prior written consent of Drugmakers. J.R.V. the sale does not operate to determine the obligation of the seller to deliver the object. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. November 19. award in their favor the sum of P100. Mackay vs. the Contract Manufacturing Agreement states that Drugmakers. A contract of sale which purports to sell a specific or definite portion of unpartitioned land is null and void ab initio. SALES. ACCESSION. Mackay was given the opportunity to rectify his work. Considering that Drugmakers palpably suffered some form of pecuniary loss resulting from S. not a contract of sale. BPI vs. Jr. he shall be liable for the expenses by the employer for the correction of the work. No. November 19.R. 2014 Villarama. & 179954. SALES. 183872.

No. 192446. Spouses Embisan G. and (b) they must continue to cultivate the homestead land. G. It is the continued cultivation by the original grantees or their direct compulsory heirs that shall exempt their lands from land reform coverage. J. Marietta cannot claim the protection to innocent purchasers for value because the circumstances do not make this available to her. loss or injury sustained. [the SC finds] it just and proper to award temperate damages in the amount of P200. 2014 Leonen. What was available was only a tax declaration issued under the name of “Heirs of Lopez. INTEREST RATE: The compounding of interest should be in writing. J. as the direct compulsory heir of the original homestead grantee. November 19.R. No. J. 199008. the following conditions must be satisfied: (a) they must still be the owners of the original homestead at the time of the CARL's effectivity. 161589. That parcels of land are covered by homestead patents will not automatically exempt them from the operation of land reform. No. 2014 Brion. Indeed.R.014 per month. definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced. It is elementary that to recover damages. No. DAMAGES: Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of. An innocent purchaser for value purchases a property without any notice of defect or irregularity as to the right or interest of the seller. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. 2014 Perez. November 26. Torres. In this case. 2014 Velasco. TORTS AND DAMAGES.. GMA Veterans had not shown that the security guards were not assigned to another employer.000 in lieu of actual damages. The suit remains an accion interdictal. No. REGALIAN DOCTRINE: In order for the homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs to retain their homestead. is superior to that of the other. there was no certificate of title to rely on when she purchased the property from Enrique. Eagle Ridge Dev’t Corp. adduced by one side. a co-owner has an absolute ownership of his undivided and proindiviso share in the co-owned property. J. Spouses Albos vs. no evidence was presented by GMA Veterans establishing the actual amount of loss suffered by reason of the pre-termination. or in recompense for. CO-OWNERSHIP: Under Article 493 of the New Civil Code. Article 1956 of the New Civil Code. as a whole. which refers to monetary interest provides that No interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. 204700. Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case. J.. LOAN.R. He or she is without notice that another person holds claim to the property being purchased. EXTINGUISHMENT OF DEBT: Under the circumstances of this case. Even when the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership. SALES. Snow Mountain Dairy vs. vs. firearms with ammunitions. Hence.R. uniforms and other necessary things before their deployment to Snow Mountain.property if she were an innocent purchaser for value. 210831. As mandated by the foregoing provision. 187987. In this case. Ley Construction G. even to the extent of substituting a third person in its enjoyment provided that no personal rights will be affected. POSSESSION. EFFECTS OF POSSESSION: Defendant's claim of possession de jure or his averment of ownership does not render the ejectment suit either accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. At the time of the sale. 2014 Bersamin.. vs. In this case. PROPERTY. there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered. November 26. Lapinid G.R. Heirs of Pacquing G.” Almero vs. November 24. the 30-day period under Article 1634 within which Eagle Ridge Developments could exercise their right to extinguish their debt should begin to run only from the time they were informed of the actual price paid by the assignee for the transfer of their debt. assign and mortgage it. and that it was compelled to pay the guards despite the pre-termination of the security agreement to be entitled to the amount of P16. The SC also take into consideration that GMA Veterans certainly spent for the security guard's training. No. although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss. PROPERTY. November 24. is no longer cultivating the homestead land. Penta Pacific Realty vs. 2014 Peralta. Cameron Granville 3 Asset Mgmt. GMA Veterans G. The burden is to establish one's case by a preponderance of evidence which means that the evidence. J. Jr. the issue of ownership is to be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. a summary proceeding that can proceed independently of any claim of ownership. He has the right to alienate. Linda. the property was still unregistered. November 19. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. Jr. Actual damages are not presumed.R. payment of monetary 69 .

In addition. Davao Holiday Transport vs. 2014 Mendoza. Emphasis G. No. 204926. the property registration of a corporation merely relying on the CENRO Certification must be dismissed for failure to prove that the land had been declared alienable and disposable. Thus. compounding it beginning June 1986. 183161.interest shall be due only if: (1) there was an express stipulation for the payment of interest. the silence of the agreement on the manner of earning interest is a valid argument for prohibiting them from charging interest at a compounded rate. then actual damages are not proven. TORTS AND DAMAGES. inscription of possessory information titles and the like. is immoral and unjust. This is apparent from the Statement of Account prepared by the spouses Embisan themselves. TORTS AND DAMAGES. along with the consignee. [Where there is failure] however [on the part of the employer] to establish the modes and measures it adopted to ensure the proper selection and supervision of its employees. J.J. the stipulation to that effect put in writing. November 26. J. Thus. December 3. respondent spouses decided to alter the agreement by changing the manner of earning interest rate. When the petitioners defaulted. The reason for this exceptional rule is that possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of ground before it can be said that he is in possession. there arises the juris tantum presumption that his employer is negligent. Ugay G. having imposed. The imposition of an unconscionable rate of interest on a money debt. Loadstar Shipping vs. ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION: Possession can be acquired by juridical acts. NEGLIGENCE: [When] an employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own duties. 2014 Reyes. including the 5% simple interest. POSSESSION.R. No. No. had the correlative duty of clarifying and reducing in writing how the said interest shall be earned. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. Thus. execution and registration of public instruments.R. Having failed to do so. November 26. These are acts to which the law gives the force of acts of possession. the period for payment was extended. November 26. rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family. the compounded interest rate. and who failed to refute expert testimony from the common carrier as regards the lack of any adverse effect of seawater on copper concentrates. 2014 Sereno. Republic G. In the case at bar. it is undisputed that the parties have agreed for the loan to earn 5% monthly interest.R. unilaterally at that. the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. DAMAGES: Actual damages are not presumed. PROPERTY. . 2014 Mendoza.R. The claimant must prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable. DMCConstruction G. who. and (2) the agreement for such payment was reduced in writing. DECEMBER 2014 Mangaser vs. 185565. 211424. 188494. J. Mallari G.R. C. December 3. even if knowingly and voluntarily assumed. No. However. No. Spouses Embisan.R. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable. Malayan Insurance G. Seven Brothers Shipping vs. DAMAGES: Temperate or moderate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot. No. J. 2014 Reyes. TORTS AND DAMAGES. be provided with certainty. [it should] therefore should be held liable for the damages cause by its employee. J. Ombudsman vs. 2014 Reyes. November 26. by the third extension of the loan. It is sufficient that petitioner was able to subject the property to the action of his will. Sps. 193914. carrying over the terms of the original loan agreement. succession. an insurer of copper concentrates which were contaminated by 70 seawater while at sea. Remman Enterprises vs. arbitrarily fixed the salvage value of the cargo. from the nature of the case. Examples of these are donations. REGALIAN DOCTRINE: It is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO.

2014 Velasco. TORTS AND DAMAGE. The signatures of the petitioners were present on both the PNB checks and the cash disbursement vouchers. the elements necessary to establish a quasi-delict case are: (1) damages to the plaintiff. among others. and (3) the connection of cause and effect between such negligence and the damages. 178169. called the obligee. Thus. J.R. Such fault or negligence.. is obliged to pay for the damage done. Republic vs. (2) negligence. guarantees the performance by another party. The ownership of thing sold is considered acquired by the vendee once it is delivered to him. LOAN. 208462. and the assumption of the same by the vendee. Heirs of Sanchez G. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. Keyser Mercantile G. 209605. December 10. No. December 3. precaution. Del Socorro vs. December 10. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. he should not have signed the attestation clause as the required underwriting work had not been diligently complied with. December 10. J. Rapanan G. In the same way. CONFLICT OF LAWS: Under the doctrine of processual presumption. if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved. Lightbringers G.R. J.R.CREDIT TRANSACTIONS.R. January 12. […] Mallari was duty-bound [by applicable GSIS internal rules] to ensure that the procedural and documentary requisites were duly complied with before affixing his signature on the bond. is a quasi-delict. In the law on sales. our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law. No. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. The Court pointed out that a check functions 71 . TORRENS TITLE: An innocent purchaser for value refers to someone who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in it. No. SALES. and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. 199886. 2014 Mendoza. of the defendant or by some person for whose acts the defendant must respond. TORRENS TITLE: Before a certificate of title which has been lost or destroyed may be reconstituted. Leong vs.R. but both forms of delivery contemplate “the absolute giving up of the control and custody of the property on the part of the vendor.R. 193707. Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that “[w]hoever by act or omission causes damage to another. G & L Assoc.” Under this provision. December 3. His failure to act accordingly was a gross and inexcusable violation of the GSIS-avowed policy on strict underwriting. the surety becomes liable for the debt or duty of another although it possesses no direct or personal interest over the obligations nor does it receive any benefit therefrom. DELIVERY: Under the Civil Code. as well as warrant the thing which is the object of the sale. 2014 Leonen. 2015 Peralta. Brokerage G. No. Spouses Suntay vs. pleading a foreign law without proving the same will bar its application in the Philippines. NEGLIGENCE: Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person that degree of care. by act or omission. J. 2015 Mendoza. Although the contract of a surety is secondary only to a valid principal obligation.” Aguilar vs. was guilty. 194077. or an obligation or undertaking in favor of another party. January 12. JANUARY 2015 NFF Industrial vs. CHECKS: The Court holds that there was indeed a contract of loan between the petitioners and respondent. 2014 Peralta. The checks were also made payable to the order of the petitioners. 212388. called the principal or obligor..R. J. No. called the surety.. No. TORRENS TITLE: Every person dealing with a registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. J. ownership does not pass by mere stipulation but only by delivery. 2014 Villarama. the vendor is bound to transfer the ownership of and deliver. See G. whereby such other person suffers injury. delivery may be either actual or constructive. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of another person’s claim. vs. it must first be proved by the claimants that said certificate of title was still in force at the time it was lost or destroyed. SURETYSHIP: A contract of suretyship is an agreement whereby a party. Hence. No. Cagayan Electric Coop. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. Jr. Jr. there being fault or negligence. Van Wilsem G. J.

January 14. The psychological problem must be grave. 2015 Leonardo-De Castro. 1917 while Bonifacio’s title shows that that it likewise originated from OCT No. 2015 Perez. January 14. January 14. Corollary thereto. incurred in delay when he failed to pay on or before 31 December 1995. 994.R. No.R. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. J. The reciprocal prestations must necessarily emanate from the same cause that gave rise to the existence of the contract. but the prestations of these obligations are not necessarily reciprocal. No. This case affirmed the earlier finding that “there is only one OCT No. 994 which reflects the date of 19 April 1917 as its registration date is null and void.. 148748. J. the registration date of which had already been decisively settled as 3 May 1917 and not 19 April 1917” and categorically concluded that “OCT No. admitted that it was not the owner of the land on which the mining patent was issued as the same was owned and registered in the name of Rapu Rapu Minerals Inc. January 14. 994. (2) where the law so provides. RESCISSION: For Article 1191 [on rescission] to be applicable […] there must be reciprocal 72 prestations as distinguished from mutual obligations between or among the parties. and must be incurable. J. In this case. The burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the plaintiff. Rivera vs. TORRENS TITLE: The persons who can file the petition for reconstitution of a lost certificate are the registered owner. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. shows that it originated from OCT No. it is not sufficient that the law or obligation fixes a date for performance.” Ungay Malobago Mines vs.R. The rule on the incontrovertibility or indefeasibility of title has no application in this case given the fact that the contending parties claim ownership over the subject land based on their respective certificates of title thereon which originated from different sources. Republic vs. NATURE AND EFFECT OF OBLIGATIONS: There are four instances when demand is not necessary to constitute the debtor in default: (1) when there is an express stipulation to that effect. based on his or her actions or behavior. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. 2015 Del Castillo. J. thus it has no legal capacity to institute a petition for reconstitution of a lost certificate. 167519. or to give. No. January 14. The Syjucos’ title. 2209 solidifies the consequence of payment of interest as an indemnity for damages when the obligor incurs in delay.. 203384. and (4) where demand would be useless. 2015 Peralta. TORRENS TITLE: The filing of an action to quiet title is imprescriptible if the disputed real property is in the possession of the plaintiff. 166357. The Wellex Group vs. and it is the conduct required by the parties to do or not to do. sufficient to ensure payment upon its presentation to the bank. it must further state expressly that after the period lapses.more than a promissory note since it not only contains an undertaking to pay an amount of money but is an “order addressed to a bank and partakes of a representation that the drawer has funds on deposit against which the check is drawn. In the first two paragraphs. A prestation is the object of an obligation. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. Ungay Malobago Mines. Bonifacio G. MARRIAGE. but registered on April 19. Parties may be mutually obligated to each other. default will commence. Syjuco vs. J. 2209 is specifically applicable in this instance where: (1) the obligation is for a sum of money. must have existed at the time of marriage. J. 1917. No. PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY: Psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations.R. Art. Fernandez G. Inc. Republic G. January 14. OBLIGATIONS. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS.R. No. 2015 Carpio. No. 184458.R. Spouses Chua G. 2015 Leonen. PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS. suffers a serious psychological disorder that completely disables him or her from understanding and discharging the essential obligations of the marital state. (3) when the period is the controlling motive or the principal inducement for the creation of the obligation. (2) the debtor. Rivera. U-Land Airlines G. Art. Spouses Castuera G. 994 registered on May 3. and that the land subject of the application for registration .” Kalaw vs. The plaintiff must prove that the incapacitated party. REGALIAN DOCTRINE: The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable. 187892. and (3) the Promissory Note provides for an indemnity for damages upon default of Rivera which is the payment of a 5% monthly interest from the date of default. his assigns or persons in interest in the property. CONTRACTS.

As such. J. No. PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY: The lack of personal examination or assessment by a psychologist or psychiatrist is not necessarily fatal in a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage. 2015 Reyes.R. 204702. emotional immaturity and irresponsibility. Nowhere in the Agreement. the essence of which is the transfer by the licensor. and the like. using the amount provided by Honrado on the witness stand (P100. January 14. No. the assessment of the psychological incapacity of the wife was based solely on the information provided by the husband –whose bias in favor of his cause cannot be doubted. 191540. it is an accepted doctrine that the award thereof as an item of damages is the exception rather than the rule. as the same may only be due to a person’s refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage and not due to some psychological illness that is contemplated by said rule. MORTGAGE. The power of the court to award attorney’s fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual. Verily. and not only in the decretal portion thereof. DAMAGES: In a licensing contract. Honrado vs. DAMAGES: In awarding damages in libel cases. did the parties stipulate that Honrado signed the contract in such capacity. Stipulations for payment of “commission” to the licensor [are] incongruous to the nature of such contracts unless the licensor merely acted as agent of the film owners. the legal reason for the award of attorney’s fees. its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture. However. 179491.” Considering that respondent sufficiently justified his claim for damages (i. GMA Films. the declaration of the nullity of the marriage cannot be obtained. depending upon the facts of the particular case. Article 2219 of the Civil Code expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of libel.000). is considered to have stepped into the shoes of PNB. Undoubtedly. TORTS AND DAMAGES. Spouses Gatuslao vs.e. then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36. one of the rights that PNB acquired as purchaser of the subject properties at the public auction sale. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. Hence. he testified that he was “embarrassed by the said letters [and] ashamed to show his face in [sic] government offices”). must be fully elaborated in the body of the ruling. 3135. J. 2015 Sereno. Jr. and counsel’s fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. negates the nature of attorney’s fees as a form of actual damages. Honrado to the licensee. 73 . vs.J. testimony and conclusions deserve the application of a more rigid and stringent set of standards. the Court equitably reduce the amounts awarded because even though the letters were libelous. No. C. however. legal and equitable justification. if the totality of the evidence presented provides inadequate basis to warrant the conclusion that a psychological incapacity existed that prevented her from complying with the essential obligations of marriage. In the case at bar. REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE: Yanson. Almendras. Viñas vs. The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to Honrado as it “deemed it just and reasonable” to do so. without more.R. If the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.R. attorney’s fees may be awarded if the trial court “deems it just and equitable. In all events. of the exclusive right to telecast the films listed in the Agreement. January 21.000. as a transferee or successor-in-interest of PNB by virtue of the contract of sale between them. January 14. her report. January 21.R. GMA Network Films G. Its mere invocation. “while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded. TORTS AND DAMAGES. the Court finds him entitled to moral and exemplary damages. respondent has not suffered such grave or substantial damage to his reputation to warrant receiving P5. Yanson G. 2015 Carpio. the court must explicitly state in the text of the decision. PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS. J. [] it is nevertheless essential that the claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis of damages and its causal connection to defendant’s acts.falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. they are not entitled to complain of any breach by Honrado of his contracts with the film owners than the film owners are for any breach by a stranger of its Agreement with aforementioned. sexual infidelity or perversion.” Such ground. It has been settled that irreconcilable differences. however. As to the award of attorney’s fees. 208790. without which the award is a conclusion without a premise. Being a stranger to such arrangements. he is necessarily entitled to avail of the provisions of Section 7 of Act No. 2015 Del Castillo. the court is given ample discretion to determine the amount. MARRIAGE. Parel-Viñas G. However.000 as exemplary damages. for a fee. slander or any other form of defamation.. While this circumstance alone does not disqualify the psychologist for reasons of bias. No.000 as moral damages and P100. Almendras G.

in itself. respondent became the owner thereof and consolidation of title becomes a right. filiation shall be proved by (1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child. (3) the tenant-lessee must actually and personally till. PARTERNITY AND FILIATION. guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs. No. the ejectment of any occupant of the [p]roperty. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. both contractors were fully aware that the foundation for the billboard was weak. (2) the size of the landholding is such that it is susceptible of personal cultivation by a single person with the assistance of the members of his immediate farm household. Aguilar vs. like legitimate children. its production and the instances when the landholding was struck by drought definitely established that the lessee personally cultivated the land. TORTS AND DAMAGES. 2015 Bersamin. 74 Ruks Konsult & Construction vs. a statement before a court of record. TORTFEASORS: Pursuant to Article 2194. or in any authentic writing is. or (2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. solely or with the aid of labor from his immediate farm household. Hence. whereby such other person suffers injury. or (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. even if he was not the actual buyer thereof at the public auction sale. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. NEGLIGENCE: [Negligence is] the omission to do something which a reasonable man. Further. 200169. and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS. yet. Being already then the owner. it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a separate action for judicial approval. to the same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves. When a construction of a billboard’s lower structure without the proper foundation by the first contractor. TORTS AND DAMAGES. January 21. Paglas. and no further court action is required. the sharing of the harvest in proportion to the respective contributions of the landholder and tenant (share tenancy) was abolished. to date. would do. one’s knowledge of and familiarity with the landholding. at […] his expense.R. a relationship wherein a fixed consideration is paid instead of proportionately sharing the harvest as in share tenancy. LEASE: By virtue of Republic Act No. there is no doubt that a land with a total area of 7. J. January 28. Yanson filed the contentious ex parte motion for a writ of possession to eject Spouses Gatuslao therefrom and take possession of the subject properties. Jusayan vs.9 hectares were susceptible of cultivation by a single person with the help of the members of his immediate farm household.R. joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable. Worse. 3844.which it could validly convey by way of its subsequent sale of the same to respondent. Petitioner already lost his possessory right over the property after the expiration of the said period. respondent may rightfully take possession of the subject properties through a writ of possession. the only permissible system of agricultural tenancy is leasehold tenancy. a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child. J. 2015 Del Castillo. but none was done at all. This can be deduced from the stipulation that “[t]he [v]endee further agrees to undertake. They are each liable as principals. cultivate or operate the land. is established by (1) the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment. The Court ruled that after the expiration of the redemption period without redemption having been made by petitioner.” Accordingly.R. or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. who is either the lawful owner or the legal possessor of the land. They merely relied on each other’s word that repairs would be done to such foundation. a will. any authentic writing is treated not just a ground for compulsory recognition. It is the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person that degree of care. leases the same to the tenant-lessee for a price certain or ascertainable either in an amount of money or produce. the fact that an agricultural lessee has a regular employment does not render his ability to farm physically impossible. Adworld G. Also. and that of the second contractor’s finishing its upper structure and just merely assuming that the first would reinforce the weak foundation are the two successive acts which were the direct and proximate cause of the damages sustained by the company who hired their services. Siasat G. Moreover. No. and (4) the landlord-lessor. In the absence thereof. January 21. In the case at bar. 163928. respondent became entitled to possession. in consonance with the Court’s ruling in Ermitaño v. 204866. Its elements are: (1) the object of the contract or the relationship is an agricultural land that is leased or rented for the purpose of agricultural production. precaution. PROOF OF FILIATION: The filiation of illegitimate children. Sombilla G. is the availment of a writ of possession. neither of them took any positive step to reinforce the same. It must be . The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth. No. In fact. J.

DAMAGES: The filing alone of a civil action should not be a ground for an award of moral damages in the same way that a clearly unfounded civil action is not among the grounds for moral damages. EARNEST MONEY: In a potential sale transaction. because either they are entered into without or in excess of authority or they do not comply with the statute of frauds or both of the contracting parties do not possess the required legal capacity. (3) the possession or occupation was under a bona fide claim of ownership. Since the person supposedly transferring ownership was not authorized to do so. to cite a well-worn cliché. This case clearly falls under the category of unenforceable contracts mentioned in Article 1403. 199990. 2014 Peralta. thus: (1) Those entered into in the name of another person by one who has been given no authority or legal representation. Article 2220 of the New Civil Code provides that to award moral damages in a breach of contract. by itself. paragraph (1) of the Civil Code. Roasa G.R. UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACTS: Unenforceable contracts are those which cannot be enforced by a proper action in court. Heirs of Taeza G.R. 1982. 2015 Mendoza. there is no dispute that the subject lot has been declared alienable and disposable on March 15. which was filed on Iglesia Filipina Independiente vs. an act is deemed to have been performed within the scope of the agent's authority. 2000. No. FEBRUARY 2015 Republic vs. however.R. had already obtained a transfer certificate of title in his name over the property in question. the unchallenged testimonies of two of Roasa's witnesses established that the latter and her predecessorsin-interest had been in adverse. the carriage cannot be placed before the horse. No. exclusive and notorious possession.concluded that Rodolfo – who was born during the marriage of Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar and before their respective deaths – has sufficiently proved that he is the legitimate issue of the Aguilar spouses. unless they are ratified. what is important in computing the period of possession is that the land has already been declared alienable and disposable at the time of the application for registration. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. Alfredo Aguilar’s SSS satisfies the requirement for proof of filiation and relationship to the Aguilar spouses under Article 172 of the Family Code. said document constitutes an “admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. February 2.R. FORC can never be made to push through a sale which they never agreed to in the first place. Upon satisfaction of this requirement. Securitron’s sending of the February 4. Spouses Rabaja G. February 3. They required her presentation of the power of attorney before they transacted with her principal. KINDS OF CONTRACTS. SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY: According to Article 1990 of the New Civil Code. January 28. open. continuous. SALES. This is more than eighteen (18) years before Roasa's application for registration. Moreover. FORC vs. 2005 letter to FORC which contains earnest money constitutes a mere reiteration of its original offer which was already rejected previously. AGENCY. continuous. and cannot be used to bind the owner to the obligations of a seller under an otherwise perfected contract of sale. In the present case. He correctly argues. REGISTRATION: An applicant for original registration of title based on a claim of exclusive and continuous possession or occupation must show the existence of the following: (1) open. In the present case. J. No. In this case. the computation of the period may include the period of adverse possession prior to the declaration that land is alienable and disposable. TORTS AND DAMAGES. the prior payment of earnest money even before the property owner can agree to sell his property is irregular. which provides. J. (2) the land possessed or occupied must have been declared alienable and disposable agricultural land of public domain. by themselves or through their predecessors-ininterest. or who has acted beyond his powers. Securitron Security G. the defendant must act fraudulently or in bad faith. February 4. 2015 Peralta. 75 . Bernardino Taeza. 176022. 1945. 179597. and notorious possession in the concept of an owner even before June 12. insofar as third persons are concerned. Spouses Rabaja did not recklessly enter into a contract to sell with Gonzales. J. 2015 Del Castillo. And when Gonzales presented the SPA to Spouses Rabaja. (4) possession dates back to June 12. as written. 1945 or earlier. if such act is within the terms of the power of attorney. the latter had no reason not to rely on it. J. the property had evidently been acquired by mistake. 199648. CONTRACTS.” December 15. respondents' predecessor-in-interest. No. of land. Spouses Salvador vs. Therefore. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS.

2015 Leonen. It contemplates a situation where a debtor pays a “possessor of credit” i. under the circumstances. The principal object of a notice of sale in a foreclosure of mortgage is to notify the mortgagor and to inform the public generally of the nature and condition of the property to be sold. 192718. as required by law. two indispensable requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the action. Crisologo G. Furthermore. No. PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY: The alleged failure of Luz to assume her duties as a wife and as a mother. 2015 . Ibrahim G. No. PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS. 2015 Leonardo-De Castro. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. EASEMENTS. February 4. Hence. (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. Reyes vs. Tabangao Realty G.. 174581. PROPERTY. someone who is not the real creditor but appears. 2015 Reyes. 605-92 and Civil Case No. a cause not of psychological nature under Article 36 of the Family Code. Mallilin vs. 175863. 154262. February 11. Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 must be characterized by (a) gravity. 2015 Peralta. and as a result. J. February 18. No. Dumagpi G.R.R. OBLIGATIONS.R. MORTGAGE. mere convenience for the dominant estate is not what is required by law as the basis of setting up a compulsory easement. notorious and continuous possession of the land for more than 30 years. the mortgagee became the sole bidder. place. and (2) the deed. February 18. No. February 18. QUIETING OF TITLE: For an action to quiet title to prosper. No. as well as her emotional immaturity.R. Access to the public highway can be satisfied without imposing an easement on the spouses' property. cannot rise to the level of psychological incapacity that justifies the nullification of the parties' marriage. 195412. exclusive.Caubang vs. If the disputed land is non-agricultural. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. irresponsibility and infidelity. while not controlling or decisive. and of the time. petitioner's property had another outlet to the highway. Thus. REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE: In an extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage. J. 194488. the law considers the payment to the “possessor of credit” as valid even as against the real creditor taking into account the good faith of the debtor. PAYMENT OR PERFORMANCE: Article 1242 of the Civil Code is an exception to the rule that a valid payment of an obligation can only be made to the person to whom such obligation is rightfully owed. will invalidate the notice and render the sale voidable. or proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. should be given great respect by our courts. These are given to secure bidders and prevent a sacrifice of the property. adverse possession cannot ripen into ownership. claim. based on 76 the Ocular Inspection Report. A cause of psychological nature similar to Article 36 is covered by the third paragraph of Canon 1095 of the Code of Canon Law. and terms of the sale. February 4. 2015 Mendoza. J. REGISTRATION: [Respondent claims that he is the owner of the disputed parcel of land by virtue of his open. No. encumbrance. The interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines. Yulim International vs. failure to comply with the publication requirement by the mortgagee brought by the failure of its lawyer to make an effort to inquire as to whether the Oriental Daily Examiner was indeed a newspaper of general circulation. Jamesolamin G. MARRIAGE. RIGHT OF WAY: The convenience of the dominant estate's owner is not the basis for granting an easement of right of way. J. In such scenario.e. De Guzman vs. The decision of the NAMT was based on the second paragraph of Canon 1095 which refers to those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted. Spouses Ramos G. to be the real creditor. 2015 Perez.R. J. No. DAR Secretary vs. NAPOCOR’s payment to Mangondato of the fees and indemnity due for the subject land as a consequence of the execution of Civil Case No. 610-92 could still validly extinguish its obligation to pay for the same even as against the Ibrahims and Maruhoms. EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATIONS. The Supreme Court ruled that] adverse possession can only ripen into ownership when the land adversely owned is classified as an agricultural land.R. February 11. Yu G. J. especially if the owner's needs may be satisfied without imposing the easement. PROPERTY. NAPOCOR vs.R. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. 203133.

2015 Peralta. 2227 of the New Civil Code. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. The amount deposited was deemed by the trial court to be just. [In] the sphere of personal and contractual relations governed by laws. taking into account the well-established factors in assessing the value of land. Series of 2013. [The Court] cannot abide by the prayer for the further reduction of the liquidated damages. No. DAMAGES: Liquidated damages: [With regard to Art. J. The records of this case reveal that DPWH did not delay in its payment of just compensation as it had deposited the pertinent amount in full due to respondent on January 24. J. 211666. 205867. In an action for reconveyance. Soriano G. and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. which was when the RTC ordered the issuance of a Writ of Possession and a Writ of Expropriation on May 27. [Also. effective July 1. No.R. the Court finds that the imposition of interest thereon is unjustified and should be deleted. February 23.R. where life expectancy = 2/3 (80 . seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner. C. rules and regulations created to promote justice and fairness. Nos. Contrary to the pronouncements of the MCTC and the CA.living expenses (50% of gross annual income)]. 187606. for “[h]e who seeks equity must do equity. March 9. AMA G. Exemplary damages: "Exemplary damages are designed by our civil law to permit the courts to reshape behavior that is socially deleterious in its consequences by creating negative incentives or deterrents against such behavior. in line with the recent circular of the Monetary Board of the BSP-MB No. location. the prevailing rate of interest for loans or forbearance of money is six percent (6%) per annum. or iniquitous or unconscionable would depend on factors including but not limited to the type. 2015 Sereno. TORTS AND DAMAGES.the age of the deceased).Reyes. Spouses Tiotuico G. J.R. or four (4) months before the taking thereof. New World Developers vs. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. SURETYSHIP: A surety is considered in law as being the same party as the debtor in relation to whatever is adjudged touching the obligation of the latter.R. 799. 2015 Mendoza. an action in personam. it means that the obligation is solidary.R. Republic vs. Hortizuela vs. The appreciation of these factors is essentially addressed to the sound discretion of the court. not demanded.” Persons in dire straits are never justified in trampling on other persons’ rights. the nature of the obligation. No. Litigants shall be denied relief if their conduct has been inequitable. J. TORTS AND DAMAGES. 2013. an action for reconveyance is a recognized remedy. the] resolution of the question of whether a penalty is reasonable. 187930 & 188250. the prompt payment by the DPWH of the full amount of just compensation as determined by the RTC. the complaint of petitioner was not a collateral attack on the title warranting dismissal. and equitable. fair." As such. TORTS AND DAMAGES. condition. 2011. 212565. equity is deserved. 2015 77 . however. the supervening realities. tax declaration. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. Tagufa G. Casas G.] when the obligor or obligors undertake to be “jointly and severally” liable. and the standing and relationship of the parties. As a matter of fact. the mode of the breach and its consequences. in the absence of an express contract as to such rate of interest. Nevertheless. MARCH 2015 Javate vs. unfair and dishonest as to the controversy in issue. such as its size. and zonal valuation as determined by the BIR. No. February 23. February 25.J. DAMAGES: [The] debt incurred by the government on account of the taking of the property subject of an expropriation constitutes a forbearance which runs contrary to the trial court’s opinion that the same is in the nature of indemnity for damages calling for the application of Article 2209 of the Civil Code. respecting it as incontrovertible and no longer open to review. Considering. TORRENS TITLE: [The Court] is not unmindful of the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title and that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. The application of equity necessitates a balancing of the equities involved in a case. they may be awarded even when not pleaded or prayed for. available to a person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in another’s name. extent and purpose of the penalty. DAMAGES: The formula for the computation of loss of earning capacity is as follows: net earning capacity = life expectancy x [gross annual income . February 25. People vs. 2011. as in this case. It does not seek to set aside the decree but. therefore. and their liabilities are interwoven as to be inseparable. the decree is not sought to be set aside.

March 18. DONATION: The Daclans lament the supposed . Asian Terminals G.R. This intention is to be derived from a consideration of the whole instrument. 2015 78 Republic vs. the obligations between assignor and assignee will depend upon the judicial relation which is the basis of the assignment. ASSIGNMENT OF CREDIT: In every case. nonetheless. PROPERTY. the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is proper. institute proceedings to enforce its lien. Yu G. 178407. EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE: The insolvency court has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the property of the insolvent. the obligee may seek rescission and.R. the court shall decree the rescission. UCPB G. 2015 Reyes. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. 2015 Leonen. NEGLIGENCE: Negligence […] is defined as the failure to observe that degree of care. a hearing must be conducted to determine whether possession over the subject property is still with the mortgagor or is already in the possession of a third party holding the same adversely to the defaulting debtor or mortgagor. demand a refund and payment of damages. found to overlap titles to said properties of Phil-Ville. a mortgagee may not. Consequently. March 23. the primary object being always to ascertain and carry out the intention of the parties. No. and is to be sought in the words and language employed. there is no dispute that petitioner remained in possession of the subject property prior to the issuance of the questioned writ of possession. PROPERTY. No. in the absence of any just cause for the court to determine the period of compliance. OBLIGATIONS. Carpio. 205492. MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP. When the obligor cannot comply with what is incumbent upon it. and (2) TCT No. J.Peralta. POSSESSION AND THE KINDS THEREOF: If the purchaser is a third party who acquired the property after the redemption period.F. as a subsequent or third-party purchaser. No. 2015 Del Castillo. the respondents did not prove that the land sought to be registered is an alienable and disposable land. Spouses Benigno G. precaution and vigilance that the circumstances justly demand. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. It is. the [delays] in the completion of the project. MORTGAGE.R. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. Thus.R. conducted when the RTC gave petitioner her day in court by giving her the opportunity to file various pleadings to oppose respondent's petition. 2015 Peralta. POSSESSION. All applications for original registration under the Property Registration Decree must include both (1) a CENRO or PENRO certification and (2) a certified true copy of the original classification made by the DENR Secretary. March 11. while respondents' petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed ex parte.R. T -177013. Naguiat Enterprises G. An assignment will be construed in accordance with the rules of construction governing contracts generally. The breach contemplated in the said provision is the obligor’s failure to comply with an existing obligation. S. all parts of which should be given effect. CLASSIFICATION OF OBLIGATIONS. after the mortgagor-debtor has been declared insolvent and the insolvency court has acquired control of his estate. Phil-Ville Dev't G. 207133. TORTS AND DAMAGES. 195661. 160728. Moreover. PROPERTY. March 9. as well as […] of the delivery of the unit are breaches of statutory and contractual obligations which entitle respondent to rescind the contract. J. No. No. No. Spouses Chua vs. clear that respondents' resort. Swire Realty vs. was previously declared invalid. REGISTRATION: The State is not estopped from the acts of the Clerk of Court in land registration cases. 197115.R. In the instant case. J. J. without the permission of the insolvency court. Illegal acts of government agents do not bind the State. No. J. Assuming that it is. March 11. Metrobank vs. a “hearing” was. J. SALES. CLT Realty vs. 2015 Leonardo-De Castro. March 11. 207747. whereby another suffers injury. 2015 Del Castillo. Republic vs. Unknown Owner of the Vessel M/V China Joy vs. Daclan G. J.R. thus. J. PURE AND CONDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS: The right of rescission of a party to an obligation under Article 1191 of the Civil Code is predicated on a breach of faith by the other party who violates the reciprocity between them. March 11. QUIETING OF TITLE: [Both] requisites in order for an action for quieting of title to prosper have been met in this case: (1) Phil-Ville had established its equitable title or interest in the 16 parcels of land subject of the action.

constituted a violation of the stipulation contained in the deeds of donation to develop and improve the livestock industry of the country. Even then.failure of the Province to provide “agricultural extension and on-site research services and facilities” as required under the IRR of the LGC of 1991. have terminated and ceased. Banguis” when. (3) when any error. Tambuyat married to Rosario E. which owned registered land and has been dissolved. the Court held that the payment of lease rentals does not involve a prestation “to do” envisaged in Articles 1266 and 1267 which has been rendered legally or physically impossible without the fault of the obligor-lessor.R. NOVATION BY SUBROGATION: By virtue of the Deed of Assignment. March 25. To be sure. OBLIGATIONS. registered as married. 2015 Peralta. or amendment of a certificate of title may be resorted to in seven instances: (1) when registered interests of any description. No. 2000. NOVATION. alteration. REDEMPTION: The right of redemption should be exercised within the period required by law. Accordingly. The general rule is that an assignee of a nonnegotiable chose in action acquires no 79 . petitioner invokes the 1997 Asian currency crisis as causing it much difficulty in meeting its obligations. 202989. whether vested. 184301. Fixing a definite term within which a property should be redeemed is meant to avoid prolonged economic uncertainty over the ownership of the thing sold. which failure they believe. more than three years after it began. It is irrelevant whether the mortgagor is diligent in asserting his or her willingness to pay. 2015 Reyes. they could not directly participate in the operations of the breeding station. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. No. the assignee is deemed subrogated to the rights and obligations of the assignor and is bound by exactly the same conditions as those which bound the assignor.R. and by then petitioner had known what business risks it assumed when it opened a new shop in Iloilo City. LOSS OF THE THING DUE: Relying on Article 1267 of the Civil Code to justify its decision to pre-terminate its lease with respondent. Yet this cannot be made a ground for the reversion of the donated lands. The present case falls under (3) and (7). What counts is that the full amount of the redemption price must be actually paid. otherwise. or inchoate. but petitioner cannot be permitted to blame its difficulties on the said regional economic phenomenon because it entered into the subject lease only on August 16. CA. an assignee cannot acquire greater rights than those pertaining to the assignor. on the contrary. (4) when the name of any person on the certificate has been changed. MORTGAGE. Santos Car Check G. Banguis-Tambuyat vs. J. the proceeding for the erasure. No. Fort Bonifacio Dev’t vs. 202805. Fong G. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. J. CANCELLATION OF TITLE: Under Sec. OBLIGATIONS. 2015 Del Castillo. Spouses Dizon G. omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate. where the Registrar of Deeds of Bulacan committed an error in issuing TCT T-145321 in the name of “Adriano M. and that in case of non-use. 108 of PD 1529. (6) when a corporation. In Philippine National Construction Corporation v. March 25. March 23. the offer to redeem will be ineffectual and the purchaser may justly refuse acceptance of any sum that is less than the entire amount. Balcom-Tambuyat G. to allow such an argument would condone undue interference by private individuals in the operations of government. the marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected. March 23. (5) when the registered owner has been married. EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATIONS. GE Money Bank vs.R. contingent. in truth and in fact. which should be counted not from the date of foreclosure sale but from the time the certificate of sale is registered with the Register of Deeds. Comglasco vs. the Asian currency crisis befell the region from July 1997 and for [some time] thereafter. expectant. It was never stipulated that they may interfere in the management and operation of the breeding station. J. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. (2) when new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate.R. The deeds of donation merely stipulated that the donated lands shall be used for the establishment of a breeding station and shall not be used for any other purpose. respondent Wenifreda – and not Banguis – is Adriano’s lawful spouse. and (7) when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of title. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. 209370. or. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS. possession or ownership shall automatically revert to the Daclans. […] Redemption within the period allowed by law is not a matter of intent but a question of payment or valid tender of the full redemption price. Article 1267 speaks of a prestation involving service which has been rendered so difficult by unforeseen subsequent events as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties. No. has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution. J. abandonment or cessation of the activities of the BAI. EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATIONS.

possession is not exclusive and notorious as to give rise to a presumptive grant from the State. REGISTRATION: A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant. obligations. No. Saulog G. Applying the foregoing. and the raising thereon of cattle.R. the Court finds that MS Maxco. 2015 Del Castillo. March 25. 183511. 200759. the Supreme Court held that it is] not a trier of facts and [does] not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during trial. DAMAGES: [With regard to the issue of whether the trial and appellate courts correctly decided the amount of damages. cannot assign or transfer any of its rights. In that sense. FAJ Construction vs. J.R. 2015 Peralta. Lualhati G. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. do not constitute possession under claim of ownership. J.greater right than what was possessed by his assignor and simply stands into the shoes of the latter. TORTS AND DAMAGES. March 25. No. or liabilities under the Trade Contract without the written consent of FBDC. as the Trade Contractor. Republic vs. 80 .

where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court. stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled.33 as tax refund. Hence. FRANCHISE TAX: A corporation that has been ordered to pay franchise tax delinquency but which facilities. the CTA based its assailed decision on the doctrine enunciated by the Court in the said case. the second option works by applying the refundable amount against the tax liabilities of the petitioner in the succeeding taxable years. Team [Phils. Rule 39 thereof. provided that a taxpayer properly applies for the refund. J. JUNE 2014 CIR vs. 179260.R." The Court has pronounced in Republic of the Philippines v. Accordingly. including its nationwide franchise. 197192. under Section 199. CIR 81 . even though the parties may be different. Thus. since the implementation of the tax refund will effectively be a return of funds by the City of Manila in favor of petitioner while a tax credit will merely serve as a deduction of petitioner’s tax liabilities in the future.TAXATION APRIL 2014 CIR vs. instead of moving for the issuance of a writ of execution relative to the aforesaid decision. it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same. the transferee being the one liable. a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same. June 4. whichever is appropriate. petitioner should have merely requested for the approval of the City of Manila in implementing the tax refund or tax credit. 180654. any tax on income that is paid in excess of the amount due the government may be refunded. 197561. registration with the CDA is not necessary in order for it to be exempt from the payment of both percentage taxes on insurance premiums.R. to wit: (1) the claim is filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the two-year period from the date of payment of the tax; (2) it is shown on the return of the recipient that the income payment received was declared as part of the gross income; and (3) the fact of withholding is established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of the tax withheld therefrom. Coca-Cola Bottlers vs. HSBC vs. Insular Life G. April 21. Provincial Gov't of Bataan G. absent any powerful countervailing considerations. like cases ought to be decided alike. Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION: "Time and again. No. or (2) to issue a tax credit certificate in the same amount which may be credited by petitioner from its future tax liabilities due to the respondent City of Manila. J. J.R. the issuance of the Writ of Execution relative thereto was superfluous. 2014 Abad. Hence. the rule of stare decisis[is] a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue. under Section 121.R. In other words. On the other hand.” The CTA observed that the factual circumstances obtaining in Sunlife and the present case are substantially the same. 2014 Perez. April 7. the Court has held that it is a necessary judicial practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain facts. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada“that under the Tax Code although respondent is a cooperative. No. TAX REFUND/CREDIT: There are three essential conditions for the grant of a claim for refund of creditable withholding income tax. had been transferred to the National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) by operation of law during the time of the alleged delinquency. NAPOCOR vs. and documentary stamp taxes on policies of insurance or annuities it grants. TAX REFUND/CREDIT: Under the first option. no writ was necessary to cause the execution thereof. April 2. G. while we find merit in petitioner’s contention that there are two (2) ways by which respondents may satisfy the judgment of the RTC-Manila: (1) to pay the petitioner the amount of Php3. Stare decisis et non quieta movere.887.036.Rule 39 of the Rules of Court nor a special judgment under Section 11.] Operation Corp. No. 2014 Peralta. No. J. cannot be ordered to pay as it is not the proper party subject to the local franchise tax. City of Manila G. because the judgment of the RTCManila can neither be considered a judgment for a specific sum of money susceptible of execution by levy or garnishment under Section 9. 2014 Reyes. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that.

197525. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR RECOVERY OF TAX: When a taxpayer seeking refund or tax credit under VAT files a judicial claim beyond the 30-day period provided by the law. Section 112 which applies specifically with regard to claiming a refund or tax credit for unutilized creditable input VAT. Fraud is never presumed. VALUE-ADDED TAX: The 2-year period under Section 229 does not apply to appeals before the CTA in relation to claims for a refund or tax credit for unutilized creditable input VAT. CIR G. No. DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX: [An] electronic message containing instructions to debit their respective local or foreign currency accounts in the Philippines and pay a certain named recipient also residing in the Philippines is not transaction contemplated under Section 181 of the Tax Code. 2014 Villarama. Absent fraud. Thus. DA-489-03) to October 6. The petitioner CIR therefore had only until September 27. TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE: The onus probandi to establish the existence of fraud is lodged with the Bureau of Customs which ordered the forfeiture of the imported goods. VALUE-ADDED TAX: A claim for tax refund or credit. 185432. They are also not bills of exchange due to their non-negotiability.G. 166018 & 167728. a VAT-registered taxpayer claiming refund for input VAT may not wait for the lapse of the 120day period when the claim is filed between December 10. The reason is that forfeitures are not favored in law and equity. No. it only filed its claim for tax refund ten (10) months from the issuance of the aforesaid Ruling. 2003 (the time of promulgation of BIR Ruling No. consisting of deception willfully and deliberately done or resorted to in order to induce another to give up some right. 181459. No. MERALCO G.R. the . 2014 Perez. the claim shall be barred. or after the effectivity of the Atlas doctrine.R. No. Jr. like a claim for tax refund exemption. Section 229 pertains to the recovery of taxes erroneously. A taxpayer seeking refund or tax credit under VAT must strictly follow the “120+30” rule to be entitled thereof. June 9. 189440. strict compliance with the 120+30 day periods is necessary for such a claim to prosper. June 4. at the time the input VAT is collected. Miramar Fish vs. CIR G. and following the petitioner’s inaction. The fraud contemplated by law must be intentional fraud. J. CIR vs. In the present case.. 2014 Perez. except for the period from the issuance of BIR Ruling No. 2010 (the time of promulgation of the Aichi case). J. or excessively collected. Taganito Mining vs. J.” In the case at bar. compliance with the 120-day period stated in Section 112(D) of NIRC is mandatory. J. the Bureau of Customs cannot forfeit the shipment in its favor. CIR G. the same shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR RECOVERY OF TAX: As a general rule. CIR vs. 197591.R. Nevertheless. they must do so within a prescribed period.” It is. which again reinstated the 120+30 day periods as mandatory and jurisdictional. Mindanao II Geothermal G.R. 163055. MERALCO had ample opportunity to verify on the tax-exempt status of NORD/LB for purposes of claiming tax refund. No. 82 but also his compliance with the procedural due process as non-observance of the prescriptive periods within which to file the administrative and the judicial claims would result in the denial of his claim. June 4. STATUTORY BASIS FOR TAX REFUND UNDER THE TAX CODE. Hence. 2003. 2014 Peralta. Visayas Geothermal vs. New Frontier Sugar G. the respondent had until October 27. TAX REFUND/CREDIT: Tax refunds are based on the general premise that taxes have either been erroneously or excessively paid. 2003 to decide the claim. June 18. during. the amount paid is correct and proper. June 4. San Roque stressed that “input VAT is not ‘excessively’ collected as understood under Section 229 because.R. J. therefore. June 18. However. DA489-03 on 10 December 2003 to 6 October 2010 when the Aichi doctrine was adopted. whether before. 2003. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. illegally. STATUTORY BASIS FOR TAX REFUND UNDER THE TAX CODE. No. It must be proved. is construed strictly against the taxpayer.R. No. J. June 11. 2014 Mendoza. CIR vs. Further. otherwise. Though the Tax Code recognizes the right of taxpayers to request the return of such excess/erroneous payments from the government. the respondent filed its administrative claim on May 30. J. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. Failure of proof of fraud is a bar to forfeiture. “a taxpayer must prove not only his entitlement to a refund. they are not subject to DST. One of the conditions for a judicial claim of refund or credit under the VAT System is compliance with the 120+30 day mandatory and jurisdictional periods.R.

while the reconsideration cannot. CIR vs. As the records indicate. A reinvestigation which entails the reception and evaluation of additional evidence will take more time than a reconsideration of a tax assessment. the exhaustion of administrative remedies would have been an exercise in futility because it was already the Commissioner of Customs demanding the payment of the deficiency taxes and duties. the respondent filed its judicial claim with the CTA only on March 31. appeal the unacted claim with the CTA. it has another three (3) years within which to collect the tax due by distraint. 2014 Bersamin. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. No. In that instance. 2014 Peralta. Worse. San Roque Power vs. COLLECTION. However. as well as Section 3. the Commissioner of Customs already decided to deny the protest by Oilink and stressed then that the demand to pay was final. since no evidence of positive identification of such Preliminary Assessment Notices by petitioner’s witnesses was presented. J. 2014 Carpio. JULY 2014 GOVERNMENT REMEDIES. Hence. Team Sual G. this justifies why the reinvestigation can suspend the running of the statute of limitations on collection of the assessed tax. CIR G. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD: There is a distinction between a request for reconsideration and a request for reinvestigation.R. United Salvage and Towage G. No. July 2. Instead. No. However. CIR vs. VALUE-ADDED TAX: Section 112(A) and (C) must be interpreted according to its clear. and unequivocal language. such “inaction shall be deemed 83 . No. which did not suspend the running of the prescriptive period to collect. GOVERNMENT REMEDIES. 161759. JUDICIAL REMEDIES: The Commissioner of Customs posits that only when the ensuing decision of the Collector and then the adverse decision of the Commissioner of Customs would it be proper for Oilink to seek judicial relief from the CTA. June 30. 700. J. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF ASSESSMENT: It is clear that the assailed deficiency tax assessment for the EWT in 1994 disregarded the provisions of Section 228 of the [NIRC]. [Petitioner CIR] has three (3) years from the date of actual filing of the tax return to assess a national internal revenue tax or to commence court proceedings for the collection thereof without an assessment. 181836.1.4 of the Revenue Regulations No. July 9. the respondent's judicial claim has prescribed and the CTA did not acquire jurisdiction over the claim. 205543. the period for BIR to collect the deficiency DST already prescribed as the protest letter of BPI was a request for reconsideration. Oilink International G. July 18. the taxpayer affected may. 197515. the taxpayer still has 30 days to file his judicial claim with the CTA. July 2.R. 205055. No. If he files his claim on the last day of the twoyear prescriptive period.R. The statute of limitations on assessment and collection of national internal taxes was shortened from five (5) years to three (3) years by virtue of Batas Pambansa Blg. JUDICIAL REMEDIES: The CIR categorically admitted that it failed to formally offer the Preliminary Assessment Notices as evidence. COMMISSIONER’S ACTION EQUIVALENT TO DENIAL OF PROTEST: Under Section 112(C) of the NIRC. as amended. levy. within 30 days after the expiration of the 120-day period. J. This is not only the plain meaning but also the only logical interpretation of Section 112(A) and (C). TAX REMEDIES. BPI vs. Thus. 2004 or 155 days late. or court proceeding. The taxpayer can file his administrative claim for refund or credit at anytime within the two-year prescriptive period. it advanced no justifiable reason for such fatal omission. Clearly. or does not decide it on that day. If the Commissioner fails to decide within “a specific period” required by law. The Court ruled that the principle of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies was not an iron-clad rule because there were instances in which the immediate resort to judicial action was proper. 2014 Carpio. J. We CIR vs. in case of failure on the part of the CIR to act on the application. the formal letter of demand and the notice of assessment issued relative thereto are void. If the Commissioner decides the claim on the 120th day.last day of the 30-day period to file its judicial claim. The Commissioner will have 120 days from such filing to decide the claim. Hence. his claim is still filed on time. plain. when it validly issues an assessment within the three (3) year period. CIR G. it merely alleged that the existence and due execution of the Preliminary Assessment Notices were duly tackled by CIR’s witnesses. hold that such is not sufficient to seek exception from the general rule requiring a formal offer of evidence.R.R. J. which will be limited to the evidence already at hand. 12-99 by not providing the legal and factual bases of the assessment.

CIR vs. the CIR had a period of 120 days. 6837.a denial” of the application for tax refund or credit. assignment.e. J. No. PAL G. all the taxes – being imposed on the privilege of doing business in the City of Manila in order to make the taxpayers contribute to the city’s revenues – were imposed on the same subject matter and for the same purpose. and the retailer (Section 17). The Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions touching on the seizure and forfeiture of dutiable goods. the CIR failed to act on TSC’s claim within this 120-day period. GOVERNMENT REMEDIES. and papers evidencing the acceptance.R. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION: For double taxation to take place. during the same taxing period. As such. to act on the claim. 6837 during the period. Jr. The transfer of real properties from SPPC to PSPC is not subject to DST considering that the same was not conveyed to or vested in PSPC by means of any specific deed. to be more precise. 180651. loan agreements. cannot interfere with his exercise thereof or stifle or put it at naught. as amended by Sec. only CTA Case No. when TSC filed its administrative claim on 21 December 2005. DA-489-03 was in place. Commissioner. from December 10. September 17. when BIR Ruling No. instruments. DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX: It should be noted that a DST is in the nature of an excise tax because it is imposed upon the privilege. opportunity or facility offered at exchanges for the transaction of the business. CIR vs.R. within the same jurisdiction.R. ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES:It is well-settled that the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedings. the judicial claim was not prematurely filed. distributor or dealer (Section 15). 158150. There was no deed of assignment and transfer separately executed by the parties for SEPTEMBER 2014 Agriex vs. DST is thus imposed on the exercise of these privileges through the execution of specific instruments. CIR vs. 2014 Bersamin.. Thus. CE Luzon filed its administrative and judicial claims for refund in CTA Case No. 192398. Acevedo G. 13 of PD 1590 has not been revoked by Sec. CE Luzon failed to comply with the 120day period as it filed its judicial claim in CTA Case No. 2014 Bersamin. Hence. and the taxes must be of the same kind or character. 6792 four (4) days after the filing of the administrative claim. 2014 Villarama. Pilipinas Shell G. and regular courts 84 . J. J. Regional trial courts are devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the BOC and to enjoin or otherwise interfere with these proceedings. Nursery Care vs.R. right or property incident thereto. 2014 Velasco. or until 20 April 2006. 131 of the NIRC of 1997. CE Luzon Geothermal G. the judicial claim was filed a day after the filing of the administrative claim. the aforementioned rule on equitable estoppel operates in its favor. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. independently of the legal status of the transactions giving rise thereto. EXCISE TAX: PD 1590 has not been revoked by the NIRC of 1997. Nos. Regional trial courts are precluded from assuming cognizance over such matters even through petitions for certiorari. thereby shielding it from any supposed jurisdictional defect which would have attended the filing of its judicial claim before the expiration of the 120-day period. September 10. 6792 should be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for being prematurely filed. DST is a tax on documents.. September 29. instrument or writing. 212536-37. as amended […] or. 6 of RA 9334. i. for the same purpose. Jr. No. namely. No. In contrast. July 30. by the same taxing authority.R. However. BOC G. TSC filed its petition for review with the CTA on 24 April 2006 or within 30 days after the expiration of the 120-day period. while Section 15 and Section 17 likewise imposed the tax on a person who sold goods and services in the course of trade or business but only identified such person with particularity. No. AUGUST 2014 VALUE-ADDED TAX: While both claims for refund were filed within the two (2)-year prescriptive period. Because Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila imposed the tax on a person who sold goods and services in the course of trade or business based on a certain percentage of his gross sales or receipts in the preceding calendar year. August 27. prohibition or mandamus. the tax privilege of PAL provided in Sec. 2003 to October 6. J. 2010. the wholesaler. Proceeding from the aforementioned jurisprudence. while in CTA Case No. 190198. or transfer of an obligation. J.. In this case. the two taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter.

PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR RECOVERY OF TAX: The Atlas doctrine. PSPC is not liable to pay DST. the income payment basis of the tax withheld. 112(A) in computing the two-year prescriptive period in claiming refund or credit of input VAT. LOCAL TAXATION: The City’s yearly imposition of the 25% surcharge. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR RECOVERY OF TAX: Section 112(A) provides for a two-year prescriptive period after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made. The conveyance of real properties not being embodied in a separate instrument but is incorporated in the merger plan. J. or until November 18. Court of Appeals. that is. That being said.as earlier stated . Notably. and notwithstanding the fact that respondent's administrative claim had been timely filed. the fact of withholding. October 22.R. Burmeister and Wain G. OCTOBER 2014 NAPOCOR vs. to another corporation. Since the CIR did not act at all. No. No. and not merely from the payee. J. this court declared that a certificate is complete in the relevant details that would aid the courts in the evaluation of any claim for refund of excess creditable withholding taxes. was already effective on January 1. While it is true that imposing a higher amount may be a more effective deterrent. No. 202066.R.R. 183421. 2001 and. No. as its judicial claim therefore was filed beyond the 120+30-day period. which held that claims for refund or credit of input VAT must comply with the two-year prescriptive period under Sec. R. 2014 Leonen. the CIR had 120 days from the filing of the administrative claim on July 21. In the [San Roque case]. and must indicate the name of the payor. the last day of the 30-day period. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. 9243.R. 1999. Respondent filed its petition for review with the CTA only on January 9. 2004. Aichi Forging G. A surcharge regardless of how it is computed is already a deterrent. which was sustained by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. STATUTORY BASIS FOR TAX REFUND UNDER THE TAX CODE. PNB G.J. Since July 23. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR RECOVERY OF TAX: Section 112 (D) (now renumbered as Section 112[C]) of RA 8424. J. 2014 Leonen. which is a party to the merger or consolidation. 1999. 2014 Leonen. 2014 Sereno. to file its judicial claim. CIR vs. The Mirant ruling. entitled “An Act Rationalizing the Provisions of the Documentary Stamp Tax of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997” was enacted and took effect on April 27. CIR vs. was one (1) year and 22 days late. adopted the verba legis rule. October 01. hence . and. the Court is nonetheless constrained to deny the averred tax refund or credit. thus. should be effective only from its promulgation on June 8. STATUTORY BASIS FOR TAX REFUND UNDER THE TAX CODE. thus applying Sec. 177332. CBK Power Company vs. CIR G. 1998. the Court clarified that the two- 85 . As the records would show. CBK’s administrative claim for the second quarter of 2006 was filed on time considering that it filed the original VAT return for the second quarter on July 25. from the payment of DST. The Atlas doctrine was limited to the reckoning of the two-year prescriptive period from the date of payment of the output VAT. No. 180290 September 29. which abandoned the Atlas doctrine. which is also a party to the merger or consolidation.the conveyance of the real properties. C. TAX REFUND/CREDIT: The certificate of creditable tax withheld at source is the competent proof to establish the fact that taxes are withheld. City of Cabanatuan G.deemed to be filed out of time. CIR vs.R. J. the amount of the tax withheld and the nature of the tax paid. In fine. 2006. 229. 190021. within which a VAT-registered person whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax. to decide on respondent's application. the document which may be accepted as evidence of the third condition. which is explicit on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30-day period. 2008 falls within the window of effectivity of Atlas. 2007 until its abandonment on [September 12. thus. 1999. must emanate from the payor itself. September 30. it cannot be done in violation of law and in such a way as to make it confiscatory. which exempts the transfer of real property of a corporation.A. STATUTORY BASIS FOR TAX REFUND UNDER THE TAX CODE. October 22. No. resulted in an aggregate penalty that is way higher than NAPOCOR’s basic tax liabilities. respondent had until December 18. It is not necessary for the person who executed and prepared the certificate of creditable tax withheld at source to be presented and to testify personally to prove the authenticity of the certificates. In Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. 2008] in Mirant.

Finally. The removal of the stem or midrib from the leaf tobacco makes the resulting stemmed leaf tobacco a prepared or partially prepared tobacco. not contradict. No. importation of stemmed leaf tobacco is not included in the exemption under Section 137. DA-489-03 allowed the premature filing of a judicial claim. 2014 Perez. and be consistent with. neither does . 148605. & 165499. insofar as it restricts the definition of "goods" as basis of transitional input tax credit under Section 105 is a nullity. CIR G. J. 175707. 2014 Leonen. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. An implementing rule or regulation cannot modify. petitioner had one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application within which to decide on the administrative claim. AT&T Communications has indeed properly and timely filed its judicial claim covering the Second. and comprehensive sense. The VAT invoice is the seller's best proof of the sale of the goods or services to the buyer while the VAT receipt is the buyer's best evidence of the payment of goods or services received from the seller. NOVEMBER 2014 La Suerte Cigar vs. ordinary. with the exception of claims made during the effectivity of BIR Ruling No. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION: The Court has consolidated these 3 petitions as they involve the same parties. Since the Tax Code contained no definition of “partially prepared tobacco. No. November 11. It is of course axiomatic that a rule or regulation must bear upon. Determining the proper category of tax that 86 should have been paid is not an assessment. the former must prevail. In case of conflict between a statute and an administrative order. [It must be noted that the] Court ruled in San Roque that BIR Ruling No. […] In accordance with Section 112(D) of the NIRC of 1997. RR 7-95. the provisions of the enabling statute if such rule or regulation is to be valid. similar facts and common questions of law. within the bounds of the law and existing jurisprudence. To be valid. However. and on goods imported. as it fell within the period during which the Court recognized the validity of BIR Ruling No. Thereafter. November 19. Thus. GOVERNMENT REMEDIES. FBDC vs. a taxpayer-claimant needs to wait for the expiration of the one hundred twenty (120)-day period before it may be considered as "inaction" on the part of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). STATUTORY BASIS FOR TAX REFUND UNDER THE TAX CODE. CA G. J. 158197. J. 125346. 185969. AT&T vs.R. The transaction contemplated in Section 137 does not include importation of stemmed leaf tobacco for the reason that the law uses the word “sold” to describe the transaction of transferring the raw materials from one manufacturer to another. Third. and Fourth Quarters of taxable year 2003. Certainly. To recapitulate. However. the Court of Tax Appeals may determine whether there are taxes that should have been paid in lieu of the taxes paid. because the specific tax is imposed by explicit provisions of the Tax Code on two different articles or products: (1) on the stemmed leaf tobacco. expand.year period refers to the filing of an administrative claim with the BIR. or subtract from the law it is intended to implement. the High Court concluded that VAT invoice and VAT receipt should not be confused as referring to one and the same thing. CIR G.R. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR RECOVERY OF TAX: As a general rule. Any rule that is not consistent with the statute itself is null and void. Nos. there is no double taxation in the prohibited sense despite the fact that they are paying the specific tax on the raw material and on the finished product in which the raw material was a part. which means non-exhaustion of the 120-day period for the Commissioner to act on an administrative claim […] Respondent's filing of the judicial claim barely two days after the administrative claim is acceptable. the provisions of the enabling law. excise taxes are essentially taxes on property because they are levied on certain specified goods or articles manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sale or consumption or for any other disposition. JUDICIAL REMEDIES: [In] an action for the refund of taxes allegedly erroneously paid.” then the term should be construed in its general. It is a partially prepared tobacco. 144942. In this case. and (2) on cigar or cigarette. 136328-29. and the Court En Banc has resolved them in two separate. This is not the first time that Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation (FBDC) has come to this Court about these issues against the very same respondents (CIR). DA-489-03. recent cases that are applicable here. November 19. an administrative rule or regulation must conform. It is incidental to determining whether there should be a refund. DA-48903 (from 10 December 2003 to 5 October 2010).R. EXCISE TAX: Stemmed leaf tobacco is subject to the specific tax under Section 141(b). the taxpayerclaimant is given only a limited period of thirty (30) days from said expiration to file its corresponding judicial claim with the CTA.

A petition filed prior to the lapse of the 120-day period prescribed under said Section would be premature for violating the doctrine on the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thereafter.A. 201195. J. ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: There could be no presumption of the regularity of any administrative action which resulted in depriving a taxpayer of his property through a tax sale. 2003 or from the issuance of BIR Ruling No. ASSESSMENT: [Tax] evasion is deemed complete when the violator has knowingly and willfully filed a fraudulent return with intent to evade and defeat a part or all of the tax. Taganito Mining vs. GOVERNMENT REMEDIES. J. which. 208740. the fact that a tax is due must first be proved before one can be prosecuted for tax evasion. Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the CTA. thus. expressly stated that the “taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the lapse of the 120 -day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of Petition for Review. 2014 Mendoza.A. No. Municipal Gov’t of Navotas G. There is. where it was held that the 120+30-day period was mandatory and jurisdictional.A. therefore. in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Secretary of Finance G. No. the taxpayer may file. ruling or resolution may be further reviewed by the CTA En Banc pursuant to Section 2. NAPOCOR vs. the two to be used Corporate Strategies vs. 2014 Del Castillo. such decision. VALUE-ADDED TAX: [The] jurisdiction of the CTA over decisions or inaction of the CIR is only appellate in nature and. City of Lapu-Lapu vs. we clarified that although a deficiency assessment is not necessary.” Hence. However. This is an exception to the rule that administrative proceedings are presumed to be regular. DA-489-03. 2003 up to its reversal by this Court in Aichi on October 6. No. 2014 Peralta. No. GOVERNMENT REMEDIES. No. DA-489-03. The Court in San Roque noted that BIR Ruling No. In the present case. Philamlife vs. Section 7(a)(3) of R. 2010. but also to allay any possible suspicion of collusion between the buyer and the public officials called upon to enforce the laws. November 24. up to October 6.R. This jurisprudential tenor clearly demonstrates that the burden to prove compliance with the validity of the proceedings leading up to the tax delinquency sale is incumbent upon the buyer or the winning bidder. J. however. within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assailed decision. JUDICIAL REMEDIES: [The] CTA can now rule not only on the propriety of an assessment or tax treatment of a certain transaction. clearly within the period of exception of December 10. not prematurely filed and should not have been dismissed by the CTA En Banc. When the appeal comes from a judicial remedy which questions the authority of the local government to impose the tax. JUDICIAL REMEDIES: In fine. GOVERNMENT REMEDIES. DA-489-03 from the time of its issuance on December 10. an exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30 day period.R. necessarily requires the prior filing of an administrative case before the CIR under Section 112. 2010 or the reversal of the ruling in Aichi. In cases where the question involves the amount of the tax or the correctness thereof. CA G. 9282.R. Strict adherence to the statutes governing tax sales is imperative not only for the protection of the taxpayers. taxpayers can rely on BIR Ruling No.the law intend interchangeably. Agojo must be reminded that the requirements for a tax delinquency sale under the LGC are mandatory. 197590. need not wait for the lapse of the 120+30 day period in consonance with the principle of equitable estoppel. J. PEZA 87 . STATUTORY BASIS FOR TAX REFUND UNDER THE TAX CODE. November 26. 192300. a petition for review with the CTA pursuant to Section 7(a) of R. 2003 to October 6. November 24. if a taxpayer is not satisfied with the decision of the CBAA or the RTC. the steps required by law must be strictly followed. 2014 Velasco. In order to be valid. J. as the case may be. Its judicial claim was. in this case. but also on the validity of the revenue regulation or revenue memorandum circular on which the said assessment is based. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR RECOVERY OF TAX: As an exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30 day period.R. BIR vs. 9282 applies. dated December 10. 9282. Taganito filed its judicial claim with the CTA on February 19. Jr. Agojo G. November 24. CIR G. Court of Appeals. is Agojo. Corollarily. 2010. judicial claims filed between December 10. 2003. 210987. November 19. the appeal will be pursuant to Section 7(a)(5) of R. This is premised on the rule that a sale of land for tax delinquency is in derogation of property and due process rights of the registered owner.R. 2014 Mendoza. 2004. an assessment of the tax deficiency is not required in a criminal prosecution for tax evasion. TAX REMEDIES..

No. J. the running of the three-year period to assess respondent was not suspended and has already prescribed. ASSESSMENT. the fact remains that petitioner became aware of respondent's new address as shown by the documents replete in its records. STATUTORY BASIS FOR TAX REFUND UNDER THE TAX CODE. 187589.e. the EPZA. No. which operate within economic zones. the PEZA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation taxable for real property taxes. 2014 Sereno. December 3. DA-489-03 was in place.e. 2014 Leonen. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. 2010). the EPZA was explicitly declared exempt from real property taxes under its charter. Since the PEZA assailed a judgment. December 10. not a petition for certiorari. December 8. which was timely filed.R. The Stanley Works Sales (Phils. 2010 […] it need not wait for the expiration of the 120-day period before filing its judicial claim before the CTA. the PEZA cannot be taxed by local government units.e. taxpayers-claimants need not observe the 120day period before it could file a judicial claim for refund of excess input VAT before the CT A. November 26. J. However. C. 165451.R. Before and after the aforementioned period (i. the observance of the 120-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional to the filing of such claim).. The party unsatisfied with the decision of the Regional Trial Court shall file an appeal. 198677. of the Regional Trial Court. J. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION: The claim of a taxpayer under a tax amnesty shall be allowed when the liability involves the deficiency in payment of income tax. STATUTORY BASIS FOR TAX REFUND UNDER THE TAX CODE. JUDICIAL REMEDIES: In case of an illegal assessment where the assessment was issued without authority. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. and maintenance. 2003 to October 6. 2014 Leonen. exhaustion of administrative remedies is not necessary and the taxpayer may directly resort to judicial action. Although a body corporate vested with some corporate powers. 2003 (when BIR Ruling No. As a consequence. No. November 26. GOVERNMENT REMEDIES. Mindanao II Geothermal vs. 2014 Peralta. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR RECOVERY OF TAX: The period to assess and collect deficiency taxes may be extended only upon a written agreement between the Commissioner and the taxpayer prior to the expiration of the three-year prescribed period. BASF Coating + Inks G. CIR G. The appeal shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the trial court’s decision. 2005 and April 18. DA-489-03 was issued) to October 6. The PEZA may only lease its lands and buildings to PEZA-registered economic zone enterprises and entities. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR RECOVERY OF TAX: [Applying Aichi and San Roque as reconciled by Taganito (i. 204745. REAL PROPERTY TAX: Being an instrumentality of the national government. the PEZA’s proper remedy was an appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. In this case. ASSESSMENT PROCESS: [Despite] the absence of a formal written notice of respondent's change of address. the petition for injunction filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay was a local tax case originally decided by the trial court in its original jurisdiction. it must be disallowed when the taxpayer is assessed on his capacity as a withholding tax agent because the person who earned the taxable income was another person other than the withholding agent.) G. .R. improvement. Nos. CBK Power vs. not an interlocutory order.G. 88 DECEMBER 2014 LG Electronics vs. The BIR cannot claim the benefits of extending the period when it was the BIR’s inaction which is the proximate cause of the defects of the waiver. respectively or during the period when BIR Ruling No. 2003 to October 6. J.J. CIR vs. Even the PEZA’s lands and buildings whose beneficial use have been granted to other persons may not be taxed with real property taxes. December 3. are not subject to real property taxes. 2010 (when the Aichi case was promulgated).R. No. No. that during the period December 10. TAX REMEDIES. CIR G.R.. 184203 & 187583. 2005. before the Court of Tax Appeals. December 3. from December 10. The PEZA’s predecessor. Consistent with this non-profit character. CIR vs. The taxpayer shall file a complaint for injunction before the Regional Trial Court to enjoin the local government unit from collecting real property taxes. CIR G. was declared non-profit in character with all its revenues devoted for its development. 198928. J. the complaint being a local tax case decided by the Regional Trial Court. i. These PEZA-registered enterprises and entities. being that] CBK Power filed its administrative and judicial claims for issuance of tax credits on March 29.R.

J. FINAL WITHHOLDING TAX: Should there have been a simultaneous sale to 20 or more lenders/investors. by excluding petitioner from the enumeration of GOCCs exempted from corporate income tax.. January 14. 1869. J. and (3) Petitioner’s income from other related services is subject to corporate income tax only. Republic G. the proper procedure was for the Bureau of Treasury to pay the face value of the PEACe Bonds to the bondholders and for the BIR to collect the unpaid FWT directly from RCBC Capital. Samar-I Electric Coop. No. 2014 Villarama. In addition. as amended. JUDICIAL REMEDIES: A VAT-registered taxpayer need not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period to file a judicial claim for unutilized VAT inputs before the CTA when the claim was filed on December 10. that under Section 242 of the 1997 NIRC.R.A. BIR G. should the PEACe Bonds be found to be within the coverage of deposit substitutes. i. 8082 on December 28. No. amending Section 27(c) of R. The legal provision speaks of two periods: the period of 120 days. 2015 Sereno. respectively. whether in whole or part. As such. from December 10.A. December 10. land. C. CIR G. Any exception to the express prohibition under Section 133(j) of the LGC should be just as specific and unambiguous. as the withholding agents.R. the obligation to withhold the 20% final tax on the corresponding interest from the PEACe Bonds would likewise be required of any lender/investor had the latter turned around and sold said PEACe Bonds. and the period of 30 days. 2003 up to October 6. VALUE-ADDED TAX: Section 112(D) of the 1997 Tax Code states the time requirements for filing a judicial claim for the refund or tax credit of input VAT. the same is not true for the LGUs to whom the power must be delegated by Congress and must be exercised within the guidelines and limitations that Congress may provide. approve. is not repealed or amended by Section 1(c) of R. No. is deemed timely filed. In view of the foregoing. or any lender or investor if such be the case. records disclose that petitioner filed its administrative and judicial claims for refund/credit of its input VAT in CTA Case No. as amended. December 10. Section 21(B) of the Manila Revenue Code. December 10. No. which enabled the latter to file an effective protest. 120051. is valid and constitutional. No. 2010. Further. vs. TAX REMEDIES. and hence. INCOME TAXATION: Section 1 of R. the sanggunian of the municipality or city cannot enact an ordinance imposing business tax on the gross receipts of transportation contractors.R. 168950. 9337. 193100.. 215427. January 13. 9337. Jr. No. both the CTA Division and the CTA En Banc erred in dismissing outright petitioner’s claim on the ground of prematurity. the same shall not be considered prematurely filed. CIR G. and implement under the LGC. which serves as a waiting period to give time for the CIR to act on the administrative claim for a refund or credit. Rohm Apollo vs. No. (2) Petitioner’s income from gaming operations is subject to the five percent (5%) franchise tax only. when said sanggunian was already specifically prohibited from doing so. is null and void for being beyond the power of the City of Manila and its public officials to enact. DA-489-03 was in place. simultaneously to 20 or more lenders or investors. or during the period when BIR Ruling No. or water. we hold that: (1)Petitioner’s tax privilege of paying five percent (5%) franchise tax in lieu of all other taxes with respect to its income from gaming operations. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. 2009 and March 30.e. In this case.. persons engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight by hire. 2014 Peralta. PAGCOR vs. ASSESSMENT: The notice requirement under Section 228 of the NIRC is substantially complied with whenever the taxpayer had been fully informed in writing of the factual and legal bases of the deficiency taxes assessment. 198756. Judge Colet G. 2010. and common carriers by air. J. which refers to the period for filing a judicial claim with the 89 . 8424. J. 22(Y) of the 1997 NIRC and RCBC Capital would have been obliged to pay the 20% FWT on the interest or discount from the PEACe Bonds. The Court notes. City of Manila vs.A. LOCAL TAXATION: It is already well-settled that although the power to tax is inherent in the State. interest income received by individuals from long-term deposits or investments with a holding period of not less than five (5) years is exempt from the final tax. J.R. If the claim is filed within those dates. pursuant to P. JANUARY 2015 Banco de Oro vs. however. 2003 to October 6.D. No. 2010. Thus. In the case at bar. 2015 Leonen.GOVERNMENT REMEDIES. the Poverty Eradication and Alleviation Certificates or the PEACe Bonds are deemed deposit substitutes within the meaning of Sec. it need not wait for the expiration of the 120day period before filing its judicial claim before the CTA.R.

Team (Phils. 193383-84. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR RECOVERY OF TAX: Reconciling the pronouncements in the Aichi and San Roque cases. 2015 Bersamin. 2010 (when the Aichi case was promulgated). 185666. JUDICIAL REMEDIES: The CIR has 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the administrative claim within which to decide whether to grant a refund or issue a tax credit certificate. No. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. Hence. the Court adopts the findings of the CTA in Division. showing the amount paid and income tax withheld from that amount. 2015 Perez. 203351. the taxpayer has only has 30 days after the expiration of the 120-day period to appeal the unacted claim with the CTA. duly issued by the payor to the payee. having complied with the requirements for refund. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. No. and without the CIR showing contrary evidence other than its bare assertion of the absence of the quarterly ITRs. J. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF ASSESMENT: The assessment of the tax is deemed made and the three-year period for collection of the assessed tax begins to run on the date the assessment notice had been released. No.) Energy Corp. the burden of proof of establishing the propriety of the claim for refund has been sufficiently discharged. but likewise must prove that no carry-over has been made in cases where refund is sought. FEBRUARY 2015 China Banking vs. December 10.J.. 2010). Inc. TAX REFUND/CREDIT: Those who claim for refund must not only prove its entitlement to the excess credits. failure of the BIR to file a warrant of distraint or serve a levy on taxpayer's properties nor file collection case within the three-year period is fatal. TAX REMEDIES. proving that no carryover has been made does not absolutely require the presentation of the quarterly ITRs. C. CIR G. 2003 (when BIR Ruling No. 206526. 188016. and (3) When the fact of withholding is established by a copy of the withholding tax statement. TAX REFUND/CREDIT: The requirements for entitlement of a corporate taxpayer for a refund or the issuance of tax credit certificate involving excess withholding taxes are as follows: (1) That the claim for refund was filed within the twoyear reglementary period pursuant to Sec.CTA. ASSESSMENT. CIR G. Panay Power vs. especially since said tax treaties do not provide for any prerequisite at all for the availment of the benefits under said agreements. which the CTA En Banc concurred with. copies of which are easily verifiable by its very own records. mailed or sent by the BIR to the taxpayer. Thus. G. J. February 4. DA-489-03 was issued) to October 6. No. 2015 Sereno. 172509. GOVERNMENT REMEDIES. January 14. CIR G. as found by the courts a quo. February 4. In case of failure on the part of the CIR to act on the application within the 120-day period prescribed by law. Nippon Express vs. or that the taxpayer shall not go to court before he is notified of the Collector’s action. January 21. the rule must therefore be that during the period December 10. the observance of the 120-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional to the filing of such claim. Nowhere and in no wise does the law imply that the Collector of Internal Revenue must act upon the claim. However.. the grant of refund is proper. CIR G.R.R. Winebrenner & Iñigo vs. Before and after the aforementioned period (i. it is fundamental that the findings of fact by the CTA in Division are not to be disturbed without any showing of grave abuse of discretion considering that the members of the Division are in the best position to analyze the documents presented by the parties.R. 2003 to October 6. 2015 Mendoza. Consequently. (2) When it is shown on the ITR that the income payment received is being declared part of the taxpayer’s gross income. Nos. With Winebrenner & Iñigo Insurance Brokers. Republic vs.e. taxpayers-claimants need not observe the 120day period before it could file a judicial claim 90 for refund of excess input VAT before the CTA. It is the 30-day period that is at issue in this case. January 14. Relevant to the instant case is requirements numbers 2 and 3. January 28. ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: [The] BIR should not impose additional requirements that would negate the availment of the reliefs provided for under international agreements. J. 229 of the NIRC. J. Since petitioner’s judicial claim was filed . No. STATUTORY BASIS FOR TAX REFUND UNDER THE TAX CODE.R. the attempt of the BIR to collect the tax through its Answer with a demand for the taxpayer to pay the assessed DST in the CTA is not deemed compliance with the Tax Code. which were duly proved by TPEC. With regard to the second requirement. CBK Power vs. J.R. Also. GOVERNMENT REMEDIES. CIR G.R.

February 25. issued by DPWH itself on December 4.R. VALUE-ADDED TAX: [During] the period [from] December 10. Consequently. COA G. March 18. taxpayersclaimants need not observe the 120-day period before it could file a judicial claim for refund of excess input VAT before the CTA. and registration fee due on the transfer of the title of land in the name of the Republic shall be shouldered by the implementing agency of the DPWH. even if the claims were made prior to the effectivity of R. we find merit in petitioner’s posture that pursuant to Sections 24(D) and 56(A)(3) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). it is the seller.R. 211666. 2015 Sereno. the CTA has no jurisdiction over its judicial appeal considering that its Petition for Review was filed out of time. As a general rule. including claiming the creditable tax imposed on the foreclosure sale as tax credit and utilizing such amount to offset its tax liabilities. No. therefore.R. To do such would run roughshod over Gotesco’s firm stance that PNB’s foreclosure on the mortgage was invalid and 91 . 2010). Consequently.e. J. 206019. MARCH 2015 Cargill Philippines vs. Soriano G. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe.. As to the sufficiency of a Northern Mindanao’s company invoice to prove the sales of services to NPC. J. Demaala vs. 199752.R. It is consistent with the guiding constitutional principle of local autonomy. December 10. unless they agree among themselves on who shall be liable for the same. 203774. who generally would shoulder the tax. there is no agreement as to the party liable for the documentary stamp tax due on the sale of the land to be expropriated. PNB vs. In this case. J. 185115. 2013. while a VAT receipt is the buyer’s best evidence of the payment of goods or services received from the seller. C. any of the parties to a transaction shall be liable for the full amount of the documentary stamp tax due.5% rather than at 1%. No. this Court must take note of petitioner’s Citizen’s Charter. CIR G. transfer tax. The Citizen’s Charter. capital gains tax due on the sale of real property is a liability for the account of the seller. while the capital gains tax shall be paid by the affected property owner. It has been held that since capital gains is a tax on passive income.rated” proceeds from the rule-making authority granted to the Secretary of Finance by the NIRC for the efficient enforcement of the same Tax Code and its amendments. Before and after the aforementioned period (i.R. March 11. A VAT invoice is the seller’s best proof of the sale of goods or services to the buyer. which functions as a guide for the procedure to be taken by the DPWH in acquiring real property through expropriation under RA 8974. not the buyer. 2015 Leonen. 2003 to October 6. But while DPWH rejects any liability for the same. who generally would shoulder the tax. the claim for refund must be denied.. 2015 Peralta.before the CTA only way beyond the mandatory 120+30 days to seek judicial recourse. DA-48903 was issued) to October 6. No. J.J. VALUE-ADDED TAX: This Court has consistently held as fatal the failure to print the word “zerorated” on the VAT invoices or official receipts in claims for a refund or credit of input VAT on zero-rated sales. explicitly provides that the documentary stamp tax. 2015 Velasco. CIR G. such noncompliance with the mandatory period of 30 days is fatal to its refund claim on the ground of prescription. Jr. No.A. CAPITAL GAINS TAX: Capital gains is a tax on passive income. Also. Section 112(A) specifically provides for a twoyear prescriptive period after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made within which such taxpayer may apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax. not the buyer. February 18. the observance of the 120-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional to the filing of such claim. The requirement of imprinting the word “zero. the Court finds that this claim is without sufficient legal basis. A VAT-registered person whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated. it is the seller. February 17. Northern Mindanao Power vs. 2010 (when the Aichi case was promulgated). with respect to the capital gains tax. Republic vs. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR RECOVERY OF TAX: Gotesco’s relentless refusal to transfer registered ownership of the Ever Ortigas Commercial Complex to PNB constitutes proof enough that Gotesco will not do any act inconsistent with its claim of ownership over the foreclosed asset. LOCAL TAXATION: Setting the rate of the additional levy for the special education fund at less than 1% is within the taxing power of local government units. STATUTORY BASIS FOR TAX REFUND UNDER THE TAX CODE. CIR G. It was well within the power of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan to enact an ordinance providing for additional levy on real property tax for the special education fund at the rate of 0. 9337. 2003 (when BIR Ruling No. No.

2307 is the only evidence that may be adduced to prove such non-use. there is no basis in law or jurisprudence to say that BIR Form No. March 25.that it remained the owner of the subject property. Hence. its factual findings.R. 183531. Eastern Telecom vs. when supported by substantial evidence. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR RECOVERY OF TAX: For failure of Silicon to comply with the provisions of Section 112(C) of the NIRC. and are not mere technical requirements. While perhaps it may be necessary to prove that the taxpayer did not use the claimed creditable withholding tax to pay for his/its tax liabilities. The Court stresses that the 120/30-day prescriptive periods are mandatory and jurisdictional. 2015 Leonardo-De Castro. Furthermore.R. the CTA is a highly specialized court dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of revenue-related problems. STATUTORY BASIS FOR TAX REFUND UNDER THE TAX CODE. CIR G. No. Silicon Philippines vs. CIR G. its judicial claims for tax refund or credit should have been dismissed by the CTA for lack of jurisdiction. 92 . No. J. 173241. VALUE-ADDED TAX: The failure to indicate the words “zero-rated” on the invoices and receipts issued by a taxpayer would result in the denial of the claim for refund or tax credit. 2015 Reyes. March 25. will not be disturbed on appeal. in which it has necessarily developed an expertise. J. The Court has consistently ruled on the denial of a claim for refund or tax credit whenever the word “zero-rated” has been omitted on the invoices or sale receipts of the taxpayer-claimant.

Alabang Hills Village Association G. Based on a SEC Rule and DOJ Opinion. 2014 Brion. J. 187769. the Grandfather Rule or the second part of the SEC Rule applies only when the 60-40 Filipino-foreign equity ownership is in doubt (i. J. RIGHT TO INSPECT: A criminal action based on the violation of a stockholder's right to examine or inspect the corporate records and the stock and transfer hook of a corporation under the second and fourth paragraphs of Section 74 of the Corporation Code can only he maintained against corporate officers or any other persons acting on behalf of such corporation. minutes and the stock and transfer book of such corporation. To allow ADC to initiate the subject complaint and pursue it until final judgment. In this case.foreign equity ownership is not in doubt. it is clear that at the time of the filing of the subject complaint petitioner lacks the capacity to sue as a corporation. 195580. CORPORATION LAW. Here. 2014 Abad. 195615. denies the right of any of its stockholders to inspect the records. be reversed. June 2.R. it is clear that no merger took place between Bancommerce [i. ordering him to pay Gutierrez. The absence of the defense. Bank of Commerce vs. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE: Arguing that Gutierrez is not a holder in due course. All the requirements specified in the law must be complied with in order for merger to take effect. June 2. Gutierrez has no right to enforce payment against Patrimonio. No. 187456. J. STOCKHOLDERS AND MEMBERS. MERGER AND CONSOLIDATION: Indubitably. Bank of Commerce] and TRB as the requirements and procedures for a merger were absent.R. Violations of Section 74 contemplates a situation wherein a corporation. June 4. April 21. is the essential element of good faith. 93 .MERCANTILE LAW APRIL 2014 Narra Nickel Mining vs.R. Thus. Ruling in favor of the Patrimonio the SC ruled that Section 52(c) of the NIL states that a holder in due course is one who takes the instrument "in good faith and for value. CORPORATION LAW. Stated differently. Bancommerce and TRB remained separate corporations with distinct corporate personalities. DISSOLUTION AND LIQUIDATION: ADC filed its complaint not only after its corporate existence was terminated but also beyond the three-year period allowed by Section 122 of the Corporation Code. There is no law that prohibits this kind of transaction especially when it is done openly and with appropriate government approval. CORPORATION LAW. 2014 Peralta. NATIONALITY OF CORPORATIONS. The complaint and the evidence Quiambao and Sumbilla submitted during preliminary investigation do not establish that Quiambao and Pilapil were acting on behalf of STRADEC. Patrimonio vs. GRANDFATHER RULE: The Grandfather Rule is a method to determine the nationality of the corporation by making reference to the nationality of the stockholders of the investor corporation. No. J. the dismissal is valid. No. ADC vs.. Patrimonio filed the instant petition praying that the ruling of the CA. where the 60-40 Filipino. 180416. in cases where the joint venture corporation with Filipino and foreign stockholders with less than 60% Filipino stockholdings [or 59%] invests in other joint venture corporation which is either 60-40% Filipino-alien or the 59% less Filipino). Gutierrez G. What happened is that TRB sold and Bancommerce purchased identified recorded assets of TRB in consideration of Bancommerce’s assumption of identified recorded liabilities of TRB including booked contingent accounts. A merger does not become effective upon the mere agreement of the constituent corporations. J. JUNE 2014 Yujuico vs. would be to circumvent the provisions of Section 122 of the Corporation Code. 2014 Velasco. when the instrument was taken. Radio Philippines G. 2014 Perez. Jr..e. No." Acquisition in good faith means taking without knowledge or notice of equities of any sort which could be set up against a prior holder of the instrument. CORPORATION LAW.R. No.R. It means that he does not have any knowledge of fact which would render it dishonest for him to take a negotiable paper. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW. acting thru one of its officers or agents. on the ground that such complaint was filed for the sole purpose of liquidating its assets. Quiambao G. after having been found out that the blanks were not filled up in accordance with the authority the Patrimonio gave. Redmont Consolidated Mines G. April 21. Thus. the Grandfather Rule will not apply.e.

No. validity cannot be given to it by estoppels if it is prohibited by law or public policy. CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY. . PNB violated the Truth in Lending Act or Republic Act No. or to justify a wrong. Arco Pulp and Paper vs. ATI blamed COSCO but when the damages were discovered. CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY. 185964. JULY 2014 Commissioner of Customs vs. J. she not only issued an unfunded check but also contracted with a third party in an effort to shift petitioner Arco Pulp and Paper’s liability. defend crime. DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY: [The] doctrine of piercing the corporate veil has no application here because the Commissioner of Customs did not establish that Oilink had been set up to avoid the payment of taxes or duties. or for purposes that would defeat public convenience. for estoppels cannot be predicated on an illegal act. to shield or perpetrate fraud or to carry out similar or inequitable considerations. 161759. CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY. confuse legitimate legal or judicial issues. No. June 25. In case of collision of motor vehicles. LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF OTHERS: The operator of a bus company cannot renege on the obligation brought about by collision of vehicles by claiming that she is not the true owner of the bus. July 2. 2014 Del Castillo. the person whose name appears in the certificate of registration shall be considered the employer of the person driving the vehicle and shall be directly and primarily liable with the driver under the principle of vicarious liability. and petitioner Santos may be held solidarily liable with petitioner Arco Pulp and Paper. J. the element of consent or agreement by the borrower is now completely lacking. Witnesses also testified that the shipment was left in an open area exposed to the elements. which makes [PNB’s] unlawful act all the more reprehensible. In the case at bar. It must prove that the losses were not due to its negligence or to that of its employees. the goods were already in ATI’s custody for two weeks. J.thus.R. In this instance.R. 2014 Perez. 185100. other unjustifiable aims or intentions. Mendoza vs. 2014 Bersamin.R. in which case. No. June 16. She unjustifiably refused to honor petitioner corporation’s obligations to respondent.R. thieves and vandals. DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY: To hold a director or officer personally liable for corporate obligations. CORPORATION LAW. Systems Technology Institute G. These acts clearly amount to bad 94 faith. 3765 which was enacted to protect citizens from a lack of awareness of the true cost of credit to the use by using a full disclosure of such cost with a view of preventing the uninformed use of credit to the detriment of the national economy. PNB G. 160110. with the subject credit agreement.R. the latter cannot be obliged to pay the face value of the check. Lim G. 2014 Reyes. J. No. perpetrate deception or otherwise circumvent the law. The Court held that ATI failed to discharge its burden of proof. As between the parties to a contract. VIGILANCE OVER GOODS: The shipment received by the ATI from the vessel of COCSCO was found to have sustained loss and damages. Ico vs. Spouses Gomez G. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance G. and (2) there must be proof that the officer acted in bad faith. the fiction will be disregarded and the individuals composing it and the two corporations will be treated as identical. It appears that by its acts. CORPORATION LAW. protect fraud. Spouses Silos vs. TRANSPORTATION LAW. TRANSPORTATION LAW. An arrastre operator’s duty is to take good care of the goods and to turn them over to the party entitled to their possession. No. such as to evade a just and due obligation. justify wrong. June 18. 181045. when petitioner Arco Pulp and Paper’s obligation to Lim became due and demandable. SPECIAL COMMERCIAL LAWS: Plainly. CORPORATION LAW. Oilink International G. July 2. Asian Terminals vs. the corporate veil may be pierced. [the Spouses Silos] are correct in arguing that estoppels should not apply to them. 2014 Del Castillo.R. No. J. July 9. DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL: The corporate existence may be disregarded where the entity is formed or used for non-legitimate purposes. 206806. Accordingly. J. 2014 Leonen. two requisites must concur: (1) it must be alleged in the complaint that the director or officer assented to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or that the officer was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith.

protect fraud. However. July 18.R. or services for those of the one having established such goodwill. 2014 Brion. 205. 95 . otherwise known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines” (IP Code). 176694. CORPORATION LAW. CORPORATION LAW. such as the GMA Network. 187812. No.O. provides for the rules and regulations on unfair competition. the Central CATV. In this case. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW. OCWD is just a ten percent (10%) shareholder of Subic Water. the liability of Heung-a is limited to $500 per package or pallet because in case of the shipper’s failure to declare the value of the goods in the bill of lading. should be carried in full by the cable antenna television (CATV) operator. Heung-a Shipping G. the Court finds the element of fraud to be wanting. July 23. July 21. That is. was found not to have violated the must. TRANSPORTATION LAW. DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY: OCWD and Subic Water are two separate and different entities. are presumed to have been at fault or negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or got lost or destroyed. they have the burden of proving that they observed such diligence.. Sandiganbayan G. unless they prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting the goods. the failure to implead these corporations as defendants and merely annexing a list of such corporations to the complaints is a violation of their right to due process for it would be. 2014 Reyes. It is basic incorporation law that a corporation is a juridical entity vested with a legal personality separate and distinct from those acting for and in its behalf and. 2014 Peralta. in general. or perpetrate a deception. Section 4. describing forthwith who may be found guilty of and subject to an action of unfair competition – that is. No. August 6. OCWD’s juridical personality cannot be equated [or] confused with that of Subic Water. 171626. without alteration or deletion. paragraph 5 of the COGSA provides that neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with the transportation of goods in an amount exceeding $500 per package. Philam Insurance vs. J.GMA Network vs. Such solicitation and showing of advertisements did not constitute an infringement of the “television and broadcast markets” under Section 2 of E. No. Olongapo City vs. 173082. from the people comprising it.R. Shang Properties vs. As the carrier of the subject shipment. CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY. or who shall commit any acts calculated to produce said result […]” In this case. DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY: The writ of sequestration issued against the assets of the corporation is not valid because the suit in the civil case was against the shareholder in the corporation and is not a suit against the latter. or his business. CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY. Heung-a was bound to exercise extraordinary diligence in conveying the same and its slot charter agreement with Dongnama did not divest it of such characterization nor relieve it of any accountability for the shipment. No. Central CATV G. Inc. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. Inc. the sequestration order issued against the corporation is deemed automatically lifted due to the failure of the Republic to commence the proper judicial action or to implead them therein within the period under the Constitution. Thus. J.R.R. AUGUST 2014 Palm Avenue Holding vs. therefore. The corporate veil should not and cannot be pierced unless it is clearly established that the separate and distinct personality of the corporation was used to justify a wrong.carry rule when it solicited and showed advertisements in its cable television (CATV) system. in effect. there can be no unfair competition. J. Subic Water clearly demonstrated that it was a separate corporate entity from OCWD. Subic Water cannot be held liable for OCWD’s corporate obligations in the same manner that OCWD cannot be held liable for the obligations incurred by Subic Water as a separate entity. Under this corporate reality. 8293. Subic Water G. disregarding their distinct and separate personality without a hearing.R. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW. J. “any person who shall employ deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which he shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals.2 proceeds to the core of the provision. No. August 6. 190706. No. hence. as a general rule. 2014 Brion. As a mere shareholder. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT: The must-carry rule mandates that the local television (TV) broadcast signals of an authorized TV broadcast station. Francis Dev't G. St. Section 168. Furthermore. UNFAIR COMPETITION: Section 168 of Republic Act No. STIPULATION FOR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: Common carriers. In order to avoid responsibility for any loss or damage. J.

together with the Laus. Manpalaz G. If the drawee did not pay according to the original tenor of the instrument.R. PWRDC G. September 10. 182770. WPM Int’l Trading vs. committed unfair competition. it violates the terms of the check. CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY. J. September 17. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION: The authority of the SEC and the manner by which it can issue cease and desist orders are provided in Section 64 of the SRC. Co vs. SEC G. CORPORATION LAW. The drawee. DERIVATIVE SUIT: A derivative suit cannot prosper without first complying with the legal requisites for its institution. No. It is beyond dispute that Primasa plans were not registered with the SEC.R. the right to deduct the erroneous payment it made from the drawer’s account which it was expected to treat with utmost fidelity. still has recourse to recover its loss. 174353. No. thereby giving rise to the presumption of fraudulent intent. The requirement of this allegation in the Complaint is not a useless formality which may be disregarded at will. then it has no right to claim reimbursement from the drawer. it has been established that Co conspired with the Laus in the sale/distribution of counterfeit 96 Greenstone products to the public. as directed by the drawer. however. STOCKHOLDERS AND MEMBERS.R.R. J. It cannot further pass the liability back to Cesar and Lolita absent any showing in the negligence on the part of Cesar and Lolita which substantially contributed to the loss from alteration. 212705. A prior hearing is also not required whenever the Commission finds it appropriate to issue a cease and desist order that aims to curtail fraud or grave or irreparable injury to investors. DISSOLUTION AND LIQUIDATION. 2014 Reyes. The law is clear on the point that a cease and desist order may be issued by the SEC motu proprio. as well as its duty to charge its client’s account only for bona fide disbursements he had made. No. it is thus clear that Co. J.Primanila Plans vs. Puerto Azul vs. No. they should have stated the same in the Complaint and specified the reasons for such opinion. This takes place where the defendant gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of his competitor with the intention of deceiving the public that the goods are those of his competitor. SEPTEMBER 2014 Ching vs. even motu proprio. be held liable therefor. 193791. September 10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW. which were even packaged in bottles identical to that of the original. and would cause grave or irreparable injury or prejudice to the investing public. Here. it being unnecessary that it results from a verified complaint from an aggrieved party. August 6. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. 184000. Yeung G. MATERIAL ALTERATION: When the drawee bank pays a materially altered check. CORPORATE REHABILITATION: The validity of PALI’s rehabilitation was already raised as an issue by PWRDC and resolved with finality by the Court […] The Court sustained therein the CA’s affirmation of PALI’s Revised . J. Express Savings Bank G. No. J. 176697. CORPORATION LAW. much less. Primanila was then barred from selling and offering for sale the said plan product. Areza vs. A continued sale by the company would operate as fraud to its investors. grounds which could justify the issuance of a cease and desist order under Section 64 of the SRC. 2014 Perez. 2014 Brion. In light of the foregoing definition. and should. Indeed. the Court deems it apt to clarify that Co was properly exculpated from the charge of trademark infringement considering that the registration of the trademark “Greenstone” – essential as it is in a trademark infringement case – was not proven to have existed during the time the acts complained of were committed.R. Thus. The collecting banks are ultimately liable for the amount of the materially altered check. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW. Subic Bay Golf and Country Club G.R. CORPORATION LAW. J. UNFAIR COMPETITION: Unfair competition is defined as the passing off (or palming off) or attempting to pass off upon the public of the goods or business of one person as the goods or business of another with the end and probable effect of deceiving the public. DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL: When an officer owns almost all of the stocks of a corporation. a complaint which contained no allegation whatsoever of any effort to avail of intracorporate remedies allows the court to dismiss it. consequently. it does not ipso facto warrant the application of the principle of piercing the corporate veil unless it is proven that the officer has complete dominion over the corporation. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. September 10. Although liable for unfair competition. even if petitioners thought it was futile to exhaust intra-corporate remedies. No. September 17.

1990. 1990 shows that the GSIS denied Hollero Construction’s indemnity claims. INSURANCE LAW. A perusal of the letter dated April 26. 172843.R. Jr. and (2) paralyzation of its business operations that may be prejudicial to the interest of the minority stockholders. J. Robinson's Bank vs. These incidents include applications for the appointment of receivers or management committees. 152334. September 29. the review of any order or decision of the rehabilitation court or on appeal therefrom shall be in accordance with the Rules of Court. 1990 denying Hollero Construction’s indemnity claim. Management committees: Management committees and receivers are appointed when the corporation is in imminent danger of (1) dissipation. he admitted that there was no encumbrance annotated on Calinico’s title at the time of the latter’s loan application. Holler's causes of action for indemnity respectively accrued from its receipt of the letters dated April 26.R. the suit is an action for specific performance of an obligation. wastage or destruction of assets or other properties. J. SPECIAL COMMERCIAL LAWS: In the present case. In fact. there is no visible objection to RBC’s participation in said case. Hollero Construction vs. Philippine Amanah Bank vs. to assist its rights of action when the corporation has been put in default by the wrongful refusal of the directors or management to adopt suitable measures for its protection. September 24. TIDCORP’s Petition for Review sought to nullify the pari passu sharing scheme directed by the trial court and to grant preferential and special treatment to TIDCORP over other WGC creditors.R. No. owed by the corporation to the stockholders. […] nothing in the documents presented by Calinico would arouse the suspicion of PAB to prompt a more extensive inquiry. CORPORATION LAW. September 24. as it was not a privy to this agreement. PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION: The prescriptive period for the insured’s action for indemnity should be reckoned from the “final rejection” of the claim. If Calinico violated the terms of his agreement with Contreras on the turn-over of the proceeds of the loan. 1990 and June 21. CORPORATE REHABILITATION: Under Rule 3. they presented as collateral a parcel of land evidenced by an OCT issued by the Office of the Register of Deeds […] and registered in the name of Calinico. No. When the Ilogon spouses applied for a loan. Section 5 of the Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. given that it allowed more than twelve (12) months to lapse before filing the necessary complaint before the RTC on September 27. This being the case. unless otherwise provided. Contreras G. H. This is because appointed receivers and management committees will immediately take over the management of the corporation and will have the management powers specified in law. Gaerlan G. or the date the GSIS rejected its claims in the first instance. loss. September 24. The Regional Trial Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide intra-corporate controversies. This document did not contain any inscription or annotation indicating that Contreras was the owner or that he has any interest in the subject land. as it stands to be injured or benefited by the outcome of TIDCORP’s Petition for Review – being both a secured and unsecured creditor of WGC. Jurisdiction to appoint receiver: The Court of Appeals has no power to appoint a receiver or management committee. DISSOLUTION AND LIQUIDATION. “Final rejection” simply means denial by the insurer of the claims of the insured and not the rejection or denial by the insurer of the insured’s motion or request for reconsideration. 2014 Brion. Any private arrangement between Calinico and him regarding the proceeds of the loan was not the concern of PAB. No. GSIS G. J. 195289. Villamor. In effect. parties-litigants. namely. vs. such as RBC. J. including incidents of such controversies. including those terms which its creditors had found objectionable. 173168. No. 2014 Leonen. In the case at bar.Rehabilitation Plan.. The same conclusion obtains for the letter dated June 21.H. Consequently. 1991. or even the Securities Regulation Code.R. its causes of action had already prescribed. 2014 Del Castillo. then the 97 . Applicants for the appointment of a receiver or management committee need to establish the confluence of these two requisites. Umale G. or the general public. CORPORATION MEMBERS: LAW. the 50% “haircut” reduction of the principal obligations and the condonation of accrued interests and penalty charges. but is impliedly recognized when the said laws make corporate directors or officers liable for damages suffered by the corporation and its stockholders for violation of their fiduciary duties. STOCKHOLDERS AND Derivative suit: The Court has recognized that a stockholder's right to institute a derivative suit is not based on any express provision of the Corporation Code. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe.

and reflected the purposes and intentions of the incorporators. vs. Gardpro G. Basic Polyprinters G. The by-laws were selfimposed private laws binding on all members. A director or officer shall only be personally liable for the obligations of the corporation. SEC vs. CORPORATION LAW. the financial commitments presented by Basic Polyprinters were insufficient for the purpose of rehabilitation. October 20. In the present case. 2014 Brion. October 22. CA G. October 1. willingness and ability to contribute funds or property to guarantee the continued successful operation of the debtor corporation during the period of rehabilitation. DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY: A corporation’s representatives are generally not bound by the terms of the contract executed by the corporation. determination. They are not personally liable for obligations and liabilities incurred on or in behalf of the corporation. BF Corporation G. the articles of incorporation of Forest Hills defined its charter as a corporation and the contractual relationships between Forest Hills and the State. BY-LAWS: The relevant provisions of the articles of incorporation and the by-laws of Forest Hills governed the relations of the parties as far as the issues between them were concerned. They did not specifically allege in their complaint that Rana and Burgos willfully and knowingly assented to the petitioner's patently unlawful act of forcing the respondents to sign the dubious employment contracts in exchange for their salaries. October 22. Indeed. there could be no gainsaying that the contents of the articles of incorporation were binding not only on Forest Hills but also on its shareholders. No. 174938. 200857. CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY.R. they established norms of procedure for exercising rights. acting through its directors. No. CORPORATION LAW. J. SKILLEX vs. No. PB-COM vs. The by-laws constituted a binding contract as between Forest Hills and its members. or that the officer was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith. the by-laws were a continuing rule for the government of Forest Hills and its officers. directors and officers of Forest Hills. 2014 Sereno.R. 187702. 187581. On the other hand. Jr.latter's proper recourse was to appropriate criminal action in court. negligence or bad faith. hence. the proper function being to regulate the transaction of the incidental business of Forest Hills. earnestness and good faith of the distressed corporation in financing the proposed rehabilitation plan.. Seva G. between its stockholders and the State. file the OCTOBER 2014 Lanuza. and would function. DISSOLUTION AND LIQUIDATION. Until repealed. The respondents also failed to prove that Rana and Burgos had been guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation. INCORPORATION AND ORGANIZATION. In this case. CORPORATION LAW. 2014 Bersamin. 2014 Bersamin. J. C. are its sole liabilities. officers and employees. SECURITIES REGULATION CODE. and between Forest Hills and its stockholder. No. the 98 respondents failed to show the existence of the first requisite. 2014 Leonen. No. Forest Hills vs. CORPORATION LAW.R. and as between the members themselves. PROXY SOLICITATION: The power of the SEC to investigate violations of its rules on proxy . J. if the following conditions concur: (1) the complainant alleged in the complaint that the director or officer assented to patently unlawful acts of the corporation.R. The general rule is that. DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY: A corporation is a juridical entity with legal personality separate and distinct from those acting for and in its behalf and. in general. October 22. obligations incurred by the corporation. the by-laws were the private “statutes” by which Forest Hills was regulated.J. J. The charter and the by-laws were thus the fundamental documents governing the conduct of Forest Hills’ corporate affairs. Every stockholder governed by the by-laws was entitled to access them. the by-laws were the selfimposed rules resulting from the agreement between Forest Hills and its members to conduct the corporate business in a particular way. This commitment may include the voluntary undertakings of the stockholders or the would-be investors of the debtor-corporation indicating their readiness. CORPORATE REHABILITATION: A material financial commitment becomes significant in gauging the resolve. In that sense. The prevailing rule is that the provisions of the articles of incorporation and the by-laws must be strictly complied with and applied to the letter. and (2) the complainant clearly and convincingly proved such unlawful acts. CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY.R. its petition for corporate rehabilitation must necessarily fail. 164686. from the people comprising it. Thus.

No.R.R. 2014 Perez. the fact that there was no actual voting did not make the election any less so. may be appealed to the SEC En Banc. J. Clearly. J. such Order was merely issued by the SEC-CFD as one of the SEC’s operating departments. Malayan Insurance G. should be properly seen as an election controversy within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the trial courts by virtue of Section 5. and accordingly. Perforce. the Enforcement and Investor Protection Department. SEC G. the resulting controversy. TRANSPORTATION LAW. LIABILITIES OF COMMON CARRIERS: Under the Code of Commerce. TRANSPORTATION LAW. a presumption arises against the carrier of its failure to observe that diligence. In this case. it is erroneous for Malayan to reimburse PASAR as though the latter suffered from total loss of goods in the absence of proof that PASAR sustained such kind of loss. CORPORATION LAW. J. Rather. DILIGENCE REQUIRED OF COMMON CARRIERS: There is no dispute that the custody of the goods was never turned over to the consignee or his agents but was lost into the hands of unauthorized persons who secured possession thereof on the strength of falsified documents. 199028. Nonetheless. inter alia. the common carrier must establish by adequate proof that it exercised extraordinary diligence over the goods. Chiok G. it failed to adduce sufficient evidence they exercised extraordinary care to prevent unauthorized withdrawal of the shipments. Manager’s and cashier’s checks are still the subject of clearing to ensure that the same have not been materially altered or 99 . as the insurer of PASAR. the SEC was given the authority to delegate some of its functions to. especially since Astra had never denied that an election of directors took place. prescribed by its charter or by the general law. such as the SECCFD. Hence. CHECKS: Clearing should not be confused with acceptance. when proxies are solicited in relation to the election of corporate directors. Loadstar Shipping vs. Indeed. Nedlloyd failed to prove that they did exercise the degree of diligence required by law over the goods they transported. No. the carrier is bound to pay only the difference between its price on that day and its depreciated value as provided under Article 364. there is no basis for the goods’ rejection under Article 365 of the Code of Commerce.2 of the SRC in relation to Section 5 (c) of Presidential Decree No. 175302 & 175394. the remedies to be pursued by the consignee depend on the extent of damage on the goods. NOVEMBER 2014 Lopez Realty vs. November 26. 902-A. BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND TRUSTEES.R. November 12. the Revocation Order is properly deemed as a decision issued by the SEC-CFD as one of the Operating Departments of the SEC.R. as such. Glow Laks G. the Court disagrees with the findings of both the SEC En Banc and the CA that the Revocation Order emanated from the SEC En Banc. it is a quorum for the election of the directors. 185565. if any. neither stated nor proved that the goods are rendered useless or unfit for the purpose intended by PASAR due to contamination with seawater. November 19. 902-A. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION: As an administrative agency with both regulatory and adjudicatory functions. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW. Nos. Cosmos Bottling vs. Metrobank vs. and there need not be an express finding of negligence to hold it liable. 172652. J. In other words. To overcome the presumption of negligence. Malayan. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. and. 2014 Reyes. No. However. If the effect of damage on the goods consisted merely of diminution in value. Spouses Tanjangco G. which requires the presence – in person or by proxy – of the owners of the majority of the outstanding capital stock of Omico. However. the actions taken in such a meeting by the directors or trustees may be ratified expressly or impliedly. November 12. its various operating departments. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. November 26. In the present case. 156330. J. if the goods are delivered but arrived at the destination in damaged condition. Nedlloyd Lijnen vs. and the Company Registration and Monitoring Department. even if it ostensibly raised the violation of the SEC rules on proxy solicitation. Also.solicitation is unquestioned when proxies are obtained to vote on matters unrelated to the cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. MEETINGS: [The] general rule is that a corporation. the validation of proxies in this case relates to the determination of the existence of a quorum. 2014 Reyes. through its board of directors. When the goods shipped are either lost or arrived in damaged condition. 154291.R. No. the SEC En Banc and the CA erred in deeming Cosmos’s appeal as a motion for reconsideration and ordering its dismissal on such ground. as what Cosmos properly did in this case. should act in the manner and within the formalities.

D. the fault is attributable to ESLI. Phil. JANUARY 2015 Eastern Shipping vs. Jr. In this case. BPI/MS Insurance G. No. No. Comm. No.R. 201931.R. J. and (e) in cases of violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act. or destruction of the goods happened.. a further investigation as to the nationality of the personalities with the beneficial ownership and control of the corporate shareholders in both the investing and investee corporations is necessary. or for similar reasons such as a condition not appearing on the face of the check. INTRA-CORPORATE DISPUTE: Upon the enactment of Republic Act No. 182864. STOCKHOLDERS AND MEMBERS. FEBRUARY 2015 Doña Adela Export Int’l vs. 205469. J. TRANSPORTATION LAW. Satellite Corp. Narra Nickel Mining vs.A. MARCH 2015 Abad vs.R. GRANDFATHER RULE: A corporation that complies with the 60-40 Filipino 100 to foreign equity requirement can be considered a Filipino corporation if there is no doubt as to who has the “beneficial ownership” and “control” of the corporation. NATIONALITY OF CORPORATIONS. Long-standing and accepted banking practices do not countenance the countermanding of manager’s and cashier’s checks on the basis of a mere allegation of failure of the payee to comply with its obligations towards the purchaser. 2015 Villarama.. “Doubt” refers to various indicia that the “beneficial ownership” and “control” of the corporation do not in fact reside in Filipino shareholders but in foreign stakeholders. March 25. 2015 Velasco. No. 2014 Peralta. 2015 Perez. 195580. while manager’s and cashier’s checks are still subject to clearing. the jurisdiction of the SEC over intra-corporate controversies and the other cases enumerated in Section 5 of P. 193108. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan has been held not to extend even to a case involving a sequestered company notwithstanding that the majority of the members of the board of directors were PCGG nominees. (d) when the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. CORPORATION LAW. No. BILL OF LADING: Mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common carrier and of their arrival in bad order at their destination constitutes a prima facie case of fault or negligence against the carrier. December 10. DECEMBER 2014 Victorio-Aquino vs. BPI Family Savings Bank vs. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. the Anti-Money Laundering Council may inquire into a bank account upon order of any competent court. Jr. 2015 Villarama. J. they cannot be countermanded for being drawn against a closed account. CORPORATION LAW. J. If no adequate explanation is given as to how the deterioration. J.otherwise completely counterfeited. the accepted banking practice is that such checks are as good as cash. However. In this case. the interests of all stakeholders is the ultimate and prime consideration. J. Pacific Plans G. No. However. SPECIAL COMMERCIAL LAWS: Section 2 of R. January 28. CORPORATE REHABILITATION: It is well to emphasize that the remedy of rehabilitation should be denied to corporations .R. 902-A was transferred to the Regional Trial Court. DISSOLUTION AND LIQUIDATION. No. No. 200620. March 18. loss. as they stand to benefit or suffer in the implementation thereof.R. Michael Medical Center G. Thus. On the contrary. the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits. These are under any of the following instances: (a) upon written permission of the depositor. the transporter shall be held responsible. (c) upon order of a competent court in the case of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials or. CORPORATION LAW. [the Court is] constrained to set aside the foregoing concepts and principles in favor of the exercise of the right to rescind a contract upon the failure of consideration thereof. for being drawn against insufficient funds. Redmont Consolidated Mines G. G. January 12. St. G. February 11. in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case at bench. Trade and Investment Dev't Corp. provides for exceptions when records of deposits may be disclosed. 8799. Jr. (b) in cases of impeachment.R. manager’s and cashier’s checks are pre-accepted by the mere issuance thereof by the bank. 1405. DISSOLUTION AND LIQUIDATION. CORPORATION LAW.. CORPORATE REHABILITATION: While the voice and participation of the creditors is crucial in the determination of the viability of the rehabilitation plan. which is both its drawer and drawee.

the Court is constrained to rule in favor of BPI Family and hereby dismiss SMMCI’s [i. prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark by others on unrelated articles of a different kind. not only has the petitioning debtor failed to show that it has formally began its operations which would warrant restoration. and goals. Neither should it be allowed to corporations whose sole purpose is to delay the enforcement of any of the rights of the creditors. Thus. without more. Jr. It is hornbook doctrine that emphasis should be on the similarity of the products involved and not on the arbitrary classification or general description of their properties or characteristics.e. The mere fact that one person has adopted and used a trademark on his goods would not. In this case. ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP OF MARK: In trademark registration.R. Michael Medical Center's] Rehabilitation Petition. 101 . No. and (c) speculative capital infusion or complete lack thereof for the execution of the business plan. for all the reasons hereinabove explained. J.that do not qualify under the Rules. while both competing marks refer to the word “KOLIN” written in upper case letters and in bold font. registration of the said mark could be granted. 2015 Velasco. which is rendered obvious by: (a) the absence of a sound and workable business plan. the purpose of which are vital in determining the propriety of rehabilitation.. St. but one is italicized and colored black while the other is white in pantone red color background and there are differing features between the two. but also it has failed to show compliance with the key requirements under the Rules. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW. Kolin Electronics G. March 25. Taiwan Kolin vs. (b) baseless and unexplained assumptions. 209843. targets.

the accused necessarily admitted carnal knowledge of ABC.CRIMINAL LAW APRIL 2014 Consigna vs. Jr. but also after the prosecution has successfully established a prima facie case. 2014 Villarama. 2014 Del Castillo. No. Santiago is guilty only of simple. was a public officer discharging official functions when she misused such position to be able to take out a loan from Moleta. mother. Jr. including the government. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. Abat G. 2014 Perez. J. for it is not only an affirmative defense that needs convincing proof. San Gaspar G. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. RAPE: Statutory rape is committed when (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age and (2) the accused has carnal knowledge of her. 180496. 175750-51. April 2. as municipal treasurer. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS.R. No. threat or intimidation; whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness; or whether it was done through fraud or grave abuse of authority. or the legitimate spouse of the accused. the first element of rape. as her Certificate of Birth showed that she was born on 102 People vs. 3(e) of R. 2014 Leonen. No. This admission makes the sweetheart theory more difficult to defend. who has to adduce evidence that the intercourse was consensual. judicial or official functions; (2) he must have acted with manifest partiality. was shot and killed by the latter based on the eyewitnesses’ account. 202704. People vs. April 2. RAPE: The elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age […] In this case. J. RAPE: In adopting the sweetheart theory as a defense.R. evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and (3) that his action caused any undue injury to any party. says that she has been raped.R. or giving any private party unwarranted benefits. other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. People vs. Santiago G.A. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. Alejandro G. particularly if she is a minor. the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused. was acting on behalf of the municipality. J. No. J. who is the legitimate spouse of Roy San Gaspar. April 2. J.R. No. J. there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim. 1991.. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. .R. not statutory rape. 2014 Villarama. Nos. People vs. or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant. April 2.205382. People vs. In this case. since when a girl. There is no doubt that Consigna. April 2. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS.R. No. Gutierrez G. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS.. although the Informations alleged that “AAA” was 11 years of age when the rape incidents transpired. No. 196970. No. 2014 Del Castillo. People vs. RAPE: Impregnation of a woman is not an element of rape. there being no showing that said eyewitnesses were impelled by any ill motive to testify against him. being a municipal treasurer. April 2. In statutory rape. Dioquino G. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT: The following are the essential elements of violation of Sec. 205227. PARRICIDE: Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father. advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.R. or child. the prosecution was able to satisfactorily establish that the victim. whether legitimate or illegitimate. J.R. who was misled into the belief that she. People G. Thus. People vs. 208007. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. 191390. RAPE: Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit. April 7. 2004 and January 21. April 2. J. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. she was actually 13 years of age when the rape incidents transpired on December 25. 3019: (1) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative. 2005. Hallarte G. March 10. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS. regardless of whether there was force.

the denial and alibi are weak defenses. People vs. to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. did not compromise the integrity of the seized evidence. It also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti. the following essential elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. the Court shall conclude that there may have been switching of evidence in the selling charge. No. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: When there is variation of the supposed marked item from the one actually presented in court for identification. the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. April 21. People vs. this Court has consistently ruled that even in instances where the arresting officers failed to take a photograph of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of R. HOMICIDE/MURDER: For the defense of alibi to prosper. coupled with the presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or regulated drug as evidence. failing in which the State would not have proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. J. 196753. 194629. Hence. the phrase “marking upon immediate confiscation” contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. And. indeed. it must be proved with certainty by satisfactory and convincing evidence which excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. 200358. such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence. April 21. making the plea of self-defense dubious.R. as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.R. April 21. the object. Guilt in that charge has not. it is indispensable for the prosecution to show that the dangerous drugs subject of the sale and examined in the police laboratory are the same drugs presented in court as evidence. No. the claim of an accused that he stabbed the victim at the back portion of the latter’s body (Lumbar area) while the former was lying down is not only uncorroborated by any other evidence but it is improbable and contrary to the physical evidence especially when the victim was lying on the ground while the accused was on top and at the same time choking him. when the accused was not able to prove that he was in a certain place when the crime was committed. therefore. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: The fact that the marking on the seized item was done at the police station. No. the State does not only carry the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense.R. 9165. 193856. People vs. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. Dulay G. April 21.R. What is important is that the seized item marked at the police station is identified as the same item produced in court. No. 2014 Perez.CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: Firmly established in our jurisprudence is the rule that in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. This is true as in a prosecution for the sale and possession of the prohibited drugs known as shabu. J. the prosecution was able to establish the integrity of corpus delicti and the unbroken chain of custody. and the witness positively identified him as the assailant. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: To avail of self-defense as a justifying circumstance so as not to incur any criminal liability. People. 2014 Abad. Delen G. No. What determines if there was. 2014 Reyes. which cannot prevail against positive identification. No. People vs. Implicit in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. Thus. It cannot be entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but is also doubtful. 2014 Del Castillo. Yable G. to prove the corpus delicti. 103 . As correctly ruled by the CA. and not at alleged crime scene. a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. Lalog G. 194446. J. J. Furthermore. As ruled by this Court in Marquez v. J. been proved beyond reasonable doubt. People vs. and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. PO1 Vargas identified in open court the sachet of shabu that was offered in evidence against Gerry as the same one she seized from the latter and marked immediately thereafter in the presence of the police investigator.R. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.A. Junaide G. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. April 7.

goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust. The prosecution was able to prove the existence of all the elements of the crime. coupled with the medical findings attesting to her non-virgin state. J.CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. 2014 Perez. the term “child abuse” is defined as the maltreatment of a child. ESTAFA: The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: (a) that money. whether habitual or not. 2014 Peralta. Arellano that the victim’s hymen had “complete healed lacerations at 1. G. April 21. misconstrued. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. Jr. 187495. ESTAFA: [The CA affirmed the conviction of the accused for estafa. 104 People vs.R. MURDER/HOMICIDE: For treachery to be considered. or to return the same. as a form of sexual violence. People G. two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of . AAA positively identified Delen as the person who kicked her in the buttocks. April 23. May 5. Feliciano. 2014 Mendoza. 196735. the Court finds no cogent reason to disbelieve AAA’s testimony. or for administration.A. No. No. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. The definition of rape in Sec. J. No. Although it was shown during the trial that Barcela was the common law spouse or live-in partner of the mother of victims AAA and BBB. April 29. as shown in the receipt dated May 2. J. (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt.A. J. 208760. Rivamonte and Dr.” Jurisprudence provides that the eloquent testimony of the victim. 6. No. or on commission basis. No. 180016. Barcela G. obligates the spouses to love one another but this rule sanctions affection and sexual intimacy. 3. and smashed her head on the wall on. failed to return the same pieces of jewelry within or after the agreed period despite demand from Tangcoy to the prejudice of the latter. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. RAPE: Under Section 3(b). and misinterpreted. Corpuz vs. 2014 Reyes. which was corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. as a State Party to the CEDAW and its accompanying Declaration. as expressions of love.R. that are both spontaneous and mutual and not the kind which is unilaterally exacted by force or coercion. which includes the physical abuse of a child. 8353. No. Its effect is merely to put into question the actual amount misappropriated and the damage sustained by TFS Pawnshop. April 21. J. among other acts. this fact would not alter the crimes in their qualified form inasmuch as the two separate informations did not specifically allege such relationship as aqualifying circumstance. ignored. Otherwise. 188052. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of. and the Philippines. Article I of Republic Act No.] The Court has ruled that findings of fact of the trial court when affirmed by the CA [are] binding upon it unless there is proof that such facts where overlooked. hit her head with a hammer. defines and penalizes the act as rape under R. 1 of R. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. The single definition for all three forms of the crime shows that the law does not distinguish between rape committed in wedlock and those committed without a marriage. People vs. People G. A man who penetrates her wife without her consent or against her will commits sexual violence upon her. it is now acknowledged that rape. Gamboa vs. as traditionally known. It is true that the Family Code. 9 o’clock positions. In this case. 7610. should be enough to confirm the truth of her charges of rape.R. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY. There was misappropriation when Corpuz failed to remit the proceeds of those pieces of jewelry sold. RAPE: Clearly. MAY 2014 People vs. if unsold. No. exists within marriage.R. QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: The special qualifying circumstance such as the minority of the victim and relationship with the offender must be alleged in the criminal complaint or information and must be proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself. Jumawan G. The fact of misappropriation cannot be refuted by the mere allegation that the amount claimed against Gamboa is unliquidated. (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another. or on commission. (b) sexual assault. The relationship alleged in the information is different from that actually proven. Tangcoy gave Corpuz the pieces of jewelry in trust. and (c) marital rape or that where the victim is the perpetrator's own spouse. he would be deprived of his right to be informed of the charge lodged against him. Furthermore. 8353 pertains to: (a) rape. 2014 Leonen. and (d) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.R. Gamboa denied the allegations. 1991 with an obligation to sell or return the same within sixty (60) days. or if no sale took place.

were also attacked with lead pipes and baseball bats. the death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is below 18 years of age and the offender is a parent. Furthermore. No. as long as they recognize the latter’s faces. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY. J. People vs. JUNE 2014 People vs. RAPE: AAA was only ten (10) years old when Traigo raped her in September 2004. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. J.R. as private complainants were able to establish. when suddenly the accused stabs him. No. the accused is only liable for homicide.R. No. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY. PENALTIES. therefore. for a fee. People vs. 2014 Sereno. Watamama’s theory of mistaken identity is not persuasive. who were unarmed. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. The also evidence showed that the she was 12 years old when she was raped on March 2006. The evidence also established that the Traigo was the common-law spouse of BBB. They were not at a place where they would be reasonably expected to be on guard for any sudden attack by rival fraternity men. C. June 2. can deploy private complainants abroad for employment. raised the crime from statutory rape to qualified rape. 208781. The victims. that appellant acted in conspiracy with his coaccused to mislead private complainants into believing that appellant and his co-accused. 197539. The evidence also established that the appellant was the brother of the victims' father. absent any other qualifying circumstance. The minority of the victims and their relationship to the appellant in the present case raised the crime from statutory rape to qualified rape. Daud G. The only way they could parry the blows was with their arms. and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. People vs. step-parent. it would be impossible for them to fight back against the attackers. The attack also happened in less than a minute. QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: A sudden attack which is not preconceived by the accused belies the holding of treachery. June 2.R. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. 188710. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. Baraga G. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW: [In] applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Salipada G. The Court cannot interchange the law applicable just on the basis of the victim’s age. however. J. impose the death penalty in view of Republic Act No. No. RAPE: The modification of the crime committed by [Valentin Sabal] from statutory rape to qualified rape is proper. Likiran G. June 4. guardian. Treachery. Traigo G.R. 201861. the perpetration of an attack with treachery cannot be presumed. 9346. In a situation where they were unnamed and outnumbered. For treachery to be considered. June 2. QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: Without any evidence to appreciate the aggravating circumstance of treachery in the killing of Calim. June 4. No. 2014 Reyes. through their positive and credible testimonies. J. 18.R. 2014 Reyes. Sabal G. The victims in this case were eating lunch on campus. the crime as alleged in the criminal complaint must be followed. witnesses need not know the names of the assailants.J. People vs.” People vs. or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. respondent can only be held liable as principal for the crime of homicide. relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree.execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate. 201858. Roderick’s contention that he cannot be convicted of estafa because the element of deceit is lacking is without merit. entitled “An Act Prohibiting the imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines. it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. The minority of the victim and her relationship to Traigo. June 2. ESTAFA: It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa. 2014 Brion.R. [The SC] cannot. 1993. qualified rape is statutory rape in its qualified form. was present in this case. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. No. J. The fact that the victim is beyond 12 years old when the act of lasciviousness 105 . Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began. When the victim is merely a bystander in an altercation. 199096. 2014 Brion. Simply put. ascendant. however. which would preclude any possibility of the bystanders being able to help them until after the incident. The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for the victims to retaliate or even to defend themselves. as evidenced by her Certificate of Live Birth showing that she was born on November.

J. a 17-year old girl who was the house helper of the sister of the accused. As long as the inaccuracies concern only minor matters. 205202.R. No. Abetong G. June 4. positive and categorical testimony relative to the circumstances surrounding her rape. the courts will give credence to her testimony and convict the accused regardless of the pregnancy of the victim. RAPE: On pregnancy not being an essential element: Pregnancy is not an essential element of rape. Inaccuracies may even suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed. 209785. Syhunliong vs. J. and the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim. categorically and consistently testified that the accused had carnal knowledge of her while pointing a gun in her mouth. . if what was proven is only the minority of the victim and not the relationship between accused and the victim. MODIFICATION AND EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY. What is important and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latter's will or without her consent. or continue prosecuting. No. No. Thus. is of no moment. No. JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT: In determining the age for purposes of exemption from criminal liability under R. two elements must be proven: the victim is a female under 12 years of age or is demented. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro.R. Gamata G. RAPE: To convict an accused for statutory rape. 200148. Jr.. and the physical evidence consistent with AAA’s assertion that she was raped. 9344. Truth-telling witnesses are not always expected to give error-free testimonies considering the lapse of time and treachery of human memory. yet this rule is not always of absolute application in criminal cases. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence. J. where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession.occurred. Roxas G. when the victim. Rivera G. Sec. Thus. in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received. Thus.R. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. Paras G. 192912. or continue punishing. June 4. PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES: Although the general rule is that the defense of prescription is not available unless expressly set up in the lower court. On inconsistencies in irrelevant details: Inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal.A.R. a person who is eighteen years old at the time of the commission of the crime of rape is not exempt from criminal liability despite having a mental age of nine years old. June 9. Besmonte G. as in that case it is presumed to have been waived and cannot be taken advantage of thereafter. the court must so declare. 2014 Reyes. June 4. the unbroken chain of custody was not established and the accused must be acquitted. or by some unknown individual. No. and not the mental age of the accused. People vs. for the State not having then the right to prosecute. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS.R. Mere allegation that the victim is the niece of the accused is insufficient unless proven. Thus. J. the offense. 200793. if the prosecution failed to present the testimony of a police inspector who had the only keys to the evidence locker where the sachet of shabu. People vs. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. the same do not affect the credibility of witnesses. No. such fact does not exclude it from the application of the Anti-Child Abuse Law. Thus. the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful 106 manner. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. J. the accused must be held guilty of statutory rape. June 4. only minority will be considered as the aggravating circumstance. 2014 Reyes. 2014 Velasco. 6 thereof clearly refers to the age as determined by the anniversary of one’s birth date. People vs. such as that in which prescription of the crime is expressly provided by law. nor to punish. No. People vs. or to continue holding the defendant subject to its action through the imposition of the penalty.R. June 4. 196228. where the prosecution was able to present a 7-year old girl’s credible. It would include testimony about every link in the chain. People vs. J. Whether the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused.

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS.R. 2014 Leonen. are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed. testified that Esteban succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her and. the Court finds that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS.R. In short. the latter was able to evade Umawid’s attacks. PO2 Aseboque. Esteban G. 208719. J. RAPE: No sane girl would concoct a story of defloration. allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not in truth. If the victim of rape is a person with mental abnormality. People vs. Minor children. 107 . second. because it is possible for a woman’s hymen to remain intact even after having been raped if it is lax. the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. No. 2014 Reyes. The absence of fresh lacerations in the hymen cannot be a firm indication that the complainant was not raped. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. should still be designated as simple rape under paragraph 1(b). is presumed to have employed force and/or intimidation. 208173. June 9. J. RAPE: [The] foremost consideration in a rape case is the victim’s testimony which. Further. in this case. thus. People vs. been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. qualifies Maureen’s killing to murder. Absence of physical evidence does not necessarily negate commission of rape. Buclao G. 203086. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.00 marked money to the accused-appellant in exchange for the shabu. and thus. while akin to statutory rape under Article 266-A.buyer himself. June 11. when an adult person illegally attacks a minor. It is settled that hymenal lacerations are not an element of rape. The Court has time and time again ruled that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses as these are self-serving. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. June 11. J. deficiency. the means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted. or retardation. No. was candid and straightforward. cannot be expected to put up a defense. No. No. While it was not shown that Umawid consciously employed treachery so as to insure the death of Maureen. Dalan G. who was then only 13 years old. June 9. Umawid G. delays in the reporting of the rape does not destroy the credibility of the rape victim. 2014 Reyes. Buenvinoto G. especially on the credibility of the rape victim. the crime committed is simple rape under Article 266-A. RAPE: The term statutory rape should only be confined to situations where the victim of rape is a person less than 12 years of age. Carnal knowledge is the element of rape. who was then just two (2) years old at the time.R. MURDER/HOMICIDE: The defense of insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance because an accused invoking the same admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of such insanity. Thus. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. being AAA’s father. People vs. carnal knowledge with a mental retardate whose mental age is that of a person below 12 years. AAA. It is doctrinally settled that the factual findings of the trial court. treachery exists. thick and elastic. the absence of hymenal laceration does not preclude rape. convincing and credible. 200920. who positively testified that the illegal sale took place when he gave theP500. J.R. The Court agrees in this case with the findings of the RTC and the CA that treachery was attendant in the killing of Maureen. People vs. who by reason of their tender years. People vs. Both the lower courts found AAA’s testimony in this matter clear. J. 2014 Brion. and the victim had clearly and categorically testified that he had penetrated her vagina. No. the presence of both requisites was clearly established by the testimony of the poseur. it is well to reiterate that the killing by an adult of a minor child is treacherous. Two (2) conditions must concur for treachery to be appreciated: first. resulting in Maureen being inadvertently hit and killed in the process. paragraph (1) (b) as she is considered "deprived of reason" notwithstanding that her mental age is equivalent to that of a person under 12. not hymenal laceration. paragraph 1(d). CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. especially when the accused had performed acts of violence on the victim. which are enough to cow the 13-year old victim into silence. After a thorough perusal of the records of this case. The facts of this case show that Umawid suddenly appeared at the terrace of Vicente’s house and started attacking Vicente with panabas. RAPE: When a de facto foster father was alleged to have raped his de facto minor adopted child. However.CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: As correctly ruled by the courts a quo in this case.R. 207990. and. June 9.

which was found to be the direct cause of his death. J. 207513. [the Court again finds] that there is no evidence that could possibly lead to a conclusion that respondents committed abuse of confidence in 108 dealing with Madrigal. June 16. Consequently. 1638. The accused was found guilty of murder. MURDER/HOMICIDE: The accused shot the victim in the head. In its prosecution. 2014 Perez.R. it is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced coitus. People vs. DOJ G. It is settled that not every form or degree of aggression justifies a claim of self-defense. before one could validly contract a subsequent marriage. The ratificatory religious wedding ceremony could not have validated the void marriage. The Court ruled that there was treachery since the sudden attack of the accused upon the victim was clearly without warning and unexpected on the part of the victim. 201043. Lasanas should have first secured a judicial declaration of the nullity of his void marriage to Patingo before marrying Josefa Eslaban. J. 2014 Sereno. 2014 Reyes. therefore. C. J.A. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS.J. a surety. 190620. Abayan G. Republic vs. giving him no chance for defense.People vs. Velasco . all the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage should be present. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 8(g) of R. First. RAPE: [Testimonies] of victims of tender age are credible. ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN: Despite the provision of exemption of funds provided in PD No. On the charge of abuse of confidence. 192432. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. should be construed as laying down an exception to the general rule that retirement benefits are exempt from execution. As such. 2014 Reyes. Warriner G. RAPE: Rape is essentially committed in relative isolation or even secrecy. June 18. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. June 16. No. No. No. June 23. 2014 Villarama. CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS. 2014 Bersamin. the credibility of the victim is almost always the single and most important issue to deal with. The Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. Baculanta G. J. being a later enactment.. It is unlikely that FEBTC officers would make it appear that she was personally liable as surety of a loan without her knowledge and authority. A plain reading thereof shows that the signatory guarantees the punctual payment of indebtedness that may have been due or owed by the borrower. No.R. Jr.R. Yahon G. Actually. considering the accountability of the signatory upon signing the CSA. People vs. Lasanas vs. Madrigal ought to have read the terms of the CSA before she signed it. the Prosecution must prove the corpus delicti. On its face. Neither can the church wedding be treated as a marriage in itself for to do so. J. he must first secure a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage although such first marriage is void ab initio. more so if they are without any motive to falsely against their offender. Madrigal vs. J. 208678. Hence. he did just that but after his marriage to Josefa Eslaban. Mendoza G. June 23. 9165 when the dangerous drugs are missing but also when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs. or a witness. June 16. Madrigal failed to overcome the presumption in favor of respondents that the ordinary course of business has been followed.R No. It was not a case of self-defense since there was no unlawful aggression from the victim. 159031.R. Second. No. 168903. he violated the law on bigamy. as the law and jurisprudence say. People vs. But then. the Court finds that there was neither abuse of confidence nor deceit in this case. Madrigal must have observed prudence in order to protect her interests. People vs. the CSA was a standard preprinted form. the Court held that Sec. ESTAFA: As regards the first element. No. 9262. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. June 18.R.R. she should have personally indicated her own terms in the CSA whether she was signing as a representative. a perusal of the evidence reveals that Madrigal did not sign a blank document nor was she deceived by respondents regarding the terms of the CSA. People G. 2014 Bersamin. No. BIGAMY: The marriage between Lasanas and Patingo was void because of the absence of a marriage license or of an affidavit of cohabitation. To reiterate.

R. that laceration. The Court's discretion to grant probation is to be exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused. 207763. No. civil liability should include the return of the amounts paid as placement. then.G. Hence. training and processing fees. as amended. and (2) his performance of an illegal marriage ceremony. 352 of the RPC. ILLEGAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY: Art. the prosecution has proven. there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge. No. People vs.R. the Department of Justice and an elected official. People G. [The Court affirmed his conviction and ruled that] substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item is sufficient. July 7. The court held that] as probation is a mere discretionary grant. JULY 2014 Suyan vs. Ronulo admitted that he has authority to solemnize a marriage. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. June 25. RAPE: Delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief. 352 of the RPC. June 30. 2014 Bersamin. No.R. J. No. Further. 195668. the Court found Ronulo guilty of violation of Art.J. Having the power to grant probation. through the testimony of Florida that the contracting parties personally declared that they take each other as husband and wife. J.R.R. is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. however. the stark absence of any vaginal tear or laceration will have to be medically explained. 178145. whether healed or fresh. People vs. is inherently in fraud of the former. Hence. July 2. when the victim says that the accused inserted his penis into her vagina and pushed and pulled inside her “for a long time. [Suyan] was bound to observe full obedience to the terms and conditions pertaining to the probation order or run the risk of revocation of this privilege. finds no physical evidence of sexual penetration and no corroboration of other vital details in AAA’s narration of the rape. or else. J. Ortega G. People G. C. 2014 Sereno. CIVIL LIABILITY: Considering that the crime of illegal recruitment. July 2. CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS. Rondina G. The accused argued that] there was there was lack of inventory. June 30. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. PROBATION LAW: [Suyan has been apprehended twice for drug possession while on probation. and each debtor may be compelled to pay the entire obligation. In the present case. as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 109 . Ronulo vs. 2014 Brion. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant. The nature of the obligation of the coconspirators in the commission of the crime requires solidarity. People vs. J. 207392. 207774. and the marking of the items was not done in his presence. As a coconspirator. 2014 Bersamin. when it involves the transfer of funds from the victims to the accused. a representative of media. Inovero’s civil liability was similar to that of a joint tortfeasor under the rules of the civil law. No. No. No. Ronulo admitted that the parties appeared before him and this fact was testified to by witnesses. Inovero and her co-accused were liable to indemnify the complainants for all the sums paid. Alhambra G. penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony. People G. it follows that the trial court also has the power to order its revocation in a proper case and under appropriate circumstances. 182438. This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny. the Court is left with no inference other than that the charge of rape may have been a mere fabrication. The Court.” and she felt pain and blood oozed from her organ. J. 2014 Reyes. 2014 Perez. RAPE: It has been held that when the victim’s testimony is corroborated by the physician’s finding of penetration. 2014 Reyes. July 2. 189644.R. J. Such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: [A buy-bust operation was conducted wherein accused was caught selling illegal drugs. Mariano vs.R. The elements of this crime are as follows: (1) authority of the solemnizing officer.

CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: A person apprehended or arrested who [is] to be subject of confirmatory drug test cannot literally mean any person apprehended or arrested for any crime. No. PENALTIES. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS. the accused's act that caused the serious physical injuries.R. APPLICATION: At any rate. J. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. People G. People vs. People vs. Cicera vs. July 14. the Court would not be barred from holding him liable for the intentional crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents because his appealing the convictions kept the door ajar for an increase in his liability. July 7.A. 9165. It is axiomatic that by appealing he waived the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. On the other hand. 199100. or reputation; (2) that she is taken against her will; and (3) that the abduction is with lewd designs. or form of attack to secure his unfair advantage. In this case. July 23. J. July 18. Zapata G. No. 181843. only the following elements need to be satisfactorily established: (1) the death of the deceased; (2) that he or she was killed by the accused; and (3) that the deceased was a legitimate ascendant or descendant. People G. No. 176317. civil status. People G. Moreover. The phrase must be read in context and understood in consonance with R. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY. Instead. the accused appellant was arrested in the alleged act of extortion. or the legitimate spouse of the accused.R. J. C. 2014 Del Castillo. J. The unexpectedness of an attack cannot be the sole basis of a finding of treachery even if the attack was intended to kill another as long as the victim’s position was merely accidental. even if it were assumed that the findings by the CA warranted his being guilty only of malversation through negligence. hence. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS.R. His claim that he accidentally pulled the trigger while attempting to catch the same when it fell from the cabinet is incredible. In this case. Section 15 comprehends persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law. all these elements have been proven beyond doubt. the drug test conducted to him despite his objection is rendered illegal and is therefore . and should not have imposed the penalty at arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period. or (3) when she is under twelve years of age. July 23. FAILURE TO RENDER ACCOUNT: [A] prior notice or demand for liquidation of cash advances is not a condition sine qua non before an accountable public officer may be held liable under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. as defined in Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code. The court ruled that] the CA incorrectly considered the Mariano's act as a grave felony had it been intentional.” Such evidence must be as conclusive as the fact of killing itself. 2014 Del Castillo. prosecution was able to prove all these elements in this case. 2014 Perez.R. rape under Article 266-A is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman by: (1) force or intimidation. 2014 Bersamin. Both the trial court and the appellate court correctly found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide. regardless of her age. July 21. are: (1) that the person abducted is any woman. J.R. The 110 Dela Cruz vs.J. 197046. QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: Treachery as a qualifying circumstance must be deliberately sought to ensure the safety of the accused from the defensive acts of the victim. Lumauig vs. there is no doubt that the accused George Zapata intentionally killed his wife; the shooting was not accidental. People G. no evidence was presented to show that petitioner consciously adopted or reflected on the means. Zafra vs.R.166680. leaving him open to being convicted of whatever crimes the Court would ultimately conclude from the records to have been actually committed by him within the terms of the allegations in the informations under which he had been arraigned. 2014 Leonen. APPLICATION: [The CA modified the felony committed by Mariano from frustrated homicide to reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries. RAPE VIS-A-VIS FORCIBLE ABDUCTION: The elements of the crime of forcible abduction. In this case. had it been intentional. No. PARRICIDE: In the crime of parricide.PENALTIES. or (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or is unconscious. Amaro G. No. No. 200748. A finding of the existence of treachery should be based on “clear and convincing evidence. would be a less grave felony under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code. 2014 Sereno. method.

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. In the case at bar. thereby ensuring its accomplishment without the risk to the aggressor. The mere fact that the drugs obtained were more. and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. J. this would ideally include testimony about every link in the chain. The records show that appellant was arrested in a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted after a week of surveillance. and affords the hapless. the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession. from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered into evidence. No. number and location of the wounds sustained by the victim disprove a plea of self-defense. July 23.” “It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one’s life. July 23. While non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid. all these elements were duly established. whether complete or incomplete. J. Fang G. any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items. the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. 2014 Perez. deliberate and unexpected. 203434. Pertinently. In context. and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. the following essential elements must be established: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller. MURDER/HOMICIDE: Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. No. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. Since the drug test was the only basis for his conviction. that can validly be invoked. The essence of treachery lies in the attack that comes without warning. whose offer was accepted by the appellant. People vs. As long as a police officer or civilian asset went through the operation as a buyer.] People vs. in turn. the prosecution has amply proven all the elements of the drug sale with moral certainty. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon. militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [the Court ordered the acquittal of the accused. This is because liability under Section 5 of Republic Act No.” It has been repeatedly ruled that the nature. 9165 is without regard to the quantity of the drugs seized. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu. Without it. People vs. A punctilious examination of the records in this case shows that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the substance allegedly confiscated from the accused-appellants.R. it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which must be proven to establish the corpus delicti. “There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent danger the life. in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received. the crime is already consummated. J. 207818. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu. Viterbo G. 2014 Perez. unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. July 23.R. the object of the sale. The police officers comprising the buy-bust team positively identified appellant as the one who sold the plastic sachet of shabu to their civilian asset who. and the attack is swift. 205741. the condition in which it was received. had no bearing on the crime charged. handed the marked money to appellant. De Los Santos G. Endeya G. The concurrence of all elements of the illegal sale of shabu was proven by the prosecution.inadmissible. without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti in court as evidence. followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former. July 23.R. 199874. No. and the consideration for the sale. The commission of illegal sale merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction. there can be no self-defense. Hence.R. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: As a mode of authenticating evidence. Both the sachet of shabuand the marked money were presented as evidence in court. this is true only when (a) there is a justifiable ground for such noncompliance. No. J. 111 . The prosecution herein was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said illegal drugs. People vs. limb. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Indeed. the object and the consideration. What is material in the prosecution of an illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. 2014 Reyes. or right of the person invoking self-defense.

Las Piñas G. (2) that the accused killed him or her. Benjamin and Carlito.R. the rule now is: Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention. Her relationship with the Juan was likewise not established. the same was not proved during trial.R. In this case. affording the hapless. but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. nor be treated as separate crimes. regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought. the Court adds that the accused-appellants are not eligible for parole. 9346 had suspended the imposition of the death penalty. which does not obtain in this case. People vs. No. and after the commission of the crime – indicative of a joint purpose.A. No.What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. People vs. Dionaldo G.e. 207949.” such relationship was not proved during trial.A. No. To this. People vs. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. (2) the accused appellants were three of the eight perpetrators who killed them. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY. July 23. 191723. concerted action.R. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. In conspiracy. Bunagan] will have sexual intercourse with her. KIDNAPPING: Amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept of “special complex crime” of kidnapping with murder or homicide. Although the Information alleged that Juan is an uncle of “AAA. J. guardianship cannot be considered as a qualifying circumstance and the accusedappellant can only be convicted of simple rape. It does not need to be proven by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct – before. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. during. July 23. People vs. unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. 2014 112 Del Castillo. the following elements must be established: (1) that a person was killed. July 30. which carries the penalty of death. This means that the accusedappellants could. and (4) the killing of Edgardo. Benjamin and Carlito’s killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery as testified to by prosecution eyewitness. 196786. In this case.R. According to “AAA. her mother and grandmother. J. As earlier intimated. accusedappellants’ conviction must be modified from Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention to the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide. firing successive shots at the four victims and immediately followed by clambering up the platform and resuming their shooting of Roger. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as . (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248of the Revised Penal Code. No. J. as the CA and trial court properly ruled. July 23. the enactment of R. 267. No. Based on Juan’s testimony. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. 7659. 2014 Perez. as amended by R. the act of one is the act of all. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. J. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning. further taking into account the fact that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom. Their acting in concert was manifest not only from their going together to the fishpen located offshore on board the same boat. Benjamin and Carlito were neither parricide nor infanticide. 208623. It effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts between those cases where the killing of the kidnapped victim was purposely sought by the accused. No. J. he was never married to “AAA’s” relative. Bunagan G. neither was her Birth Certificate submitted in evidence. RAPE: Rape may be committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman through threat or intimidation. (3) Edgardo. July 23. and those where the killing of the victim was not deliberately resorted to but was merely an afterthought. Although “AAA’s” minority was alleged. People vs. 48. all the accused/accused-appellants were convincingly shown to have acted in concert to achieve a common purpose of assaulting their unarmed victims with their guns. Ineluctably. Edgardo. Benjamin and Carlito were shot and killed.R. Consequently. but also from their joint attack commenced simultaneously. MURDER/HOMICIDE: To successfully prosecute the crime of murder. done in a swift and unexpected way. the prosecution was able to clearly establish that (1) Edgardo. 188707. Thus. he would issue threats that he would kill her. only be sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Roger. and concurrence of sentiments as in conspiracy. RAPE: Jurisprudence strictly dictates that the guardian must be a person who has a legal relationship with his ward. Antonio G. No.” every time Juan [i. 2014 Reyes. Ampatuan G.

The accused in this case. July 30. to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. weighing 46. AUGUST 2014 People vs. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. between the appellant and the offended party that might create a high degree of confidence between them which the appellant abused. Applying the foregoing elements. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: [Failure] to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs does not render the arrest of the accused-appellants illegal or the item seized/confiscated from them inadmissible. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS. People G. (1) the orders issued by the respondents to his complaint were unjust. People vs. and disbursing” money from complainant-depositors and other funds. In other words. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT: Violation of Sec. or vigilance. Ombudsman G. No. 2014 Reyes. No. receiving. were not unjust. and (2) the object of the transaction. 2014 Carpio. No. No. the object and the consideration. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. 113 . The prosecution was able to establish the (1) identity of accusedappellants as the sellers. the poseur-buyer. and the buyer. The essential thing to consider is “the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. must present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case. THEFT AND QUALIFIED THEFT: Grave abuse of confidence. in granting the motion to quash. (2) That the said property belongs to another. evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence. THEFT AND QUALIFIED THEFT: The elements of qualified theft. the Ombudsman correctly held that LA’s order for the quashal of the writ of execution. On this matter. were guards and drivers with access to the entrance and exit of the CEO premises. (4) That it be done without the owner’s consent. Applying this. J.R. Cahilig G.R. August 6. Araullo vs. guardianship. Dujon. and the NLRC’s resolution affirming it. must be the result of the relation by reason of dependence. did not violate the said law considering that there could have been no undue injury suffered by Araullo notwithstanding the labor officials’ rulings as he was not left without any remedy to enforce the final judgment in his favor. (2) he must have acted with manifest partiality. 206 of the RPC which penalizes the issuance of unjust interlocutory orders. and (6) That it be done with grave abuse of confidence. judicial or official functions. including the government. The corpus delicti is the seized illegal drugs. It was this trust and confidence that was gravely abused by them that makes the theft qualified. Yongco vs. it was necessary to show that. 204911. Battad G. 194157. J. can simply be enumerated as follows: (1) Taking of personal property. 2014 Perez. (3) That the said taking be done with intent to gain. and (2) the said orders were knowingly rendered or rendered through inexcusable negligence or ignorance. they enjoyed the trust and confidence reposed on them by their employer to have access throughout the CEO premises on account of their respective duties. it bears stressing. 206368. Cahilig’s act of deliberately misleading the board of directors into authorizing disbursements for money that eventually ended up in her personal account makes him guilty of the crime of qualified theft considering that his position was one reposed with trust and confidence as it involves “handling. which is the jumbo sachet of shabu. for being in accordance with law and the rules of the NLRC.R. and (3) that his action caused any undue injury to any party. managing. 3(e) of R.follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. The prosecution. The NLRC’s endorsement of his case to the arbitration branch of origin was merely for the resolution of pending incidents in the case. No. J. and the delivery of the sold illegal shabu to Dujon. 2014 Reyes.R. 199208. as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. or gave any private party unwarranted benefits. July 30.. 2014 Velasco. July 30.R. the Ombudsman. to hear these matters first in order to ensure that all the parties to the case were afforded due process.4490 grams. This Court is convinced that the prosecution has sufficiently discharged its burden to establish the elements in the illegal sale of shabu. J. as an element of qualified theft. 3019 has the following elements: (1) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative. August 6.A. J. (5) That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons. UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER: Specifically for the charge of violation of Art. Basman G. 209373. nor of force upon things. committed with grave abuse of discretion. Jr. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS. advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. No.” People vs.

R.” the provision does not. The conduct of the buy-bust operation was already established by the testimonies of PO3 Espiritu and SPO1 Daraman who were the very participants of such operation. J. 2014 Leonen. the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. 2014 Reyes. No. designated as a quasi-offense. seizure and marking. more so if she is a minor. People vs. non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a failure to establish an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Holgado G. Balderama’s [i. in [the RPC]. RAPE: Under the Revised Penal Code.R. 207992. AAA was able to narrate her harrowing experience in the hands of the two accused. Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court. make PDEA’s participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. People vs. The poseurbuyer. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 206366. August 13. People vs. it may however be said that a conviction for the former can be had under an information exclusively charging the commission of a willful offense. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST. as amended. the object and the consideration. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti. RAPE: The precise date or time of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime of rape. J.R. 203048. No. Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. Balaquiot G. turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Closa G.[A]victim who cries rape. 2014 Perez. Despite her low mentality. J.e. Sevilla vs. J. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. J. and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility. and turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist) has been cast in doubt. who took turns in raping her. August 13. and (b) that the same was committed by using force and intimidation. 2014 Perez. rape is committed when: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman. The integrity of three (3) of the four (4) links (i. August 6. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: Coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. when the Information only charged the intentional felony of falsification of public documents. . A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA. upon the theory that the greater includes the lesser offense. No. 2014 Reyes. documents. almost always says all that is needed to signify that the crime has been committed. No. positively testified that the sale took place and appellant was one of the authors of the illegal sale of drugs. All these elements were duly established. is untenable. This doubt must be resolved in favor of accusedappellants Holgado. This is especially true when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the accused.R.. A buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5. the fact that the victim could not remember the exact dates when each of other rapes occurred will not affect the conviction of the accused. PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain “close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-related matters. August 11.e. 194390. It follows that this noncompliance suffices as a ground for acquittal. 211049. Hence.CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. No. Reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents is an offense that is necessarily included in the willful act of falsification of public documents. the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu.R. While a criminal negligent act is not a simple modality of a willful crime. but a distinct crime in itself. FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICERS: Sevilla’s claim that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated when the Sandiganbayan convicted him of reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public 114 People vs. 9165 in support of the PDEA. Bala G. PO1 Fernandez. People G. Eduardo Balaquiot's] qualm regarding the absence of coordination between the Camiling PNP and the PDEA is also immaterial. August 13. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation. Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy bust operation conducted by members of the Malabon Drug Enforcement Unit. the latter being the greater offense. While it is true that Section 8615 of Republic Act No.

Marcelo G. J. 2014 Perez. and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation. 210619. Sanico G. No. and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant. the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant. (b) the identity of the accused. Baturi G. the task of the prosecution is always two-fold. J. the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. the prosecution successfully proved the existence of all the essential elements of the illegal sale of shabu. and photographs. coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti” or the illicit drug in evidence. No. 2014 Del Castillo. People vs. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: In a prosecution for illegal sale of shabu. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: Arguing that the failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the procedure governing the handling. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: A buy-bust operation was conducted by police operatives based on a tip. considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12. Independent proof is required – such as tokens. or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. People vs. At that age. 2014 Perez.R. 181541. intimidation or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape. August 20. The Court ruled that the failure to present the buy-bust money is not fatal to the prosecution’s cause. and (2) to establish with the same quantum of proof the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor. The accused alleges that the prosecution failed to proof that the money presented during trial is the money he allegedly received in exchange for drugs. […] What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. No. People vs. July 23. No. August 13. (1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged. 2014 Del Castillo.R. as in the instant case. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. Thus. KIDNAPPING: In every criminal case. Bayan G.R. or is demented.People vs. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation. 2014 Reyes. No. or (c) when the victim is twelve years of age. J. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.R No. 200987. to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape. RAPE: [The] “sweetheart theory” is an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on the accused the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence.” it is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests the Court’s patience. In this case. RAPE: For conviction to be had in the crime of rape. the following elements must concur: “(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. J. 207949. the object. and the absence thereof does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution provided the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. People vs. that is. No. there was positive identification by the victim of the accused as the kidnapper. 189812. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. It is not indispensable in drug cases since it is merely corroborative evidence. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY.] SEPTEMBER 2014 People vs. 208469. Ocdol G. or the lack of it. to the sexual act. and the consideration.R. September 1. there can be no conviction without the identity of the malefactor being likewise clearly ascertained. RAPE: [Statutory] rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent. Otherwise called as the “sweetheart defense. J. custody and disposition 115 .R. August 20. mementos. People vs. 2014 Reyes. Proof of force. 200645. Appellant presented no such evidence to substantiate his claim. J. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory. Dionaldo G. because. even if the commission of the crime is a given. August 20. the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim. [In this case. J.R. August 18. Reyes G.

September 3. De La Trinidad G. J. subjected to qualitative examination at the crime laboratory. and the inventory of the seized marijuana. Once they were outside. The chain of evidence is . the appellant contends that the RTC and the CA erred in finding him guilty of violating Section 5. No. People vs. the sweetheart theory. Besides. for circumstantial evidence could also sufficiently and competently establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Article II of RA No. Its identity. he must be convicted for possession of illegal drugs. and dragged her outside of the house. J. 182794. No apparent irregularity is sufficiently shown to have attended the chain of custody of the shabu. 194946. forced her to get up from her sleep. as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Yaba G. September 10. the chain of custody is preserved. integrity and probative value were preserved and kept intact by the police officers. 199898. absent any substantial evidence as proof of a relationship between the victim and the accused. 9165. Besides its failure to identify the corpus delicti with moral certainty. 2014 Perez. and finally introduced in evidence against appellant was the same illegal drug that was confiscated from him when he was caught in flagrante delicto selling the same. is sufficient to convict. such findings are binding upon the Supreme Court. threat and intimidation in order to commit carnal knowledge of AAA. No.of the illegal drugs resulted to the failure of the prosecution to establish the corpus delicti. Thus.R. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: When there are doubts on whether the seized substance was the same substance examined and established to be the prohibited drug.” People vs. in its execution and arrest of [Trinidad]. RAPE: According to Article 266-A (1) (a). “What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. Proof of the commission of the crime need not always be by direct evidence. People vs. Belgar G. Such is the case at bar. 2014 Perez. the failure of the police officers to comply strictly with the chain of custody rule is not fatal. Balibay G. Upon regaining her consciousness. The illegal drug that was inventoried at the PDEA office. rape is committed: (1) by a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (a) through force. and threatened to stab her and her sleeping sisters. Trinidad failed to present any evidence to overcome such presumption.R. September 3.R. She resisted and would have shouted but he warned her against shouting. standing alone. J. Here. 202701. People vs. shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. Revised Penal Code. handling. Belgar poked a knife at her neck. September 8. In addition. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. J. It will not render the arrest of appellant illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. custody and examination of the shabu. RAPE: When the rape victim had testified in a straightforward and categorical manner that the accused had used force and intimidation to insert his penis into her vagina. she was already naked and had blood in her vagina. he injected a substance into her belly. thereby causing her to lose consciousness. 2014 116 Perez. Failure to prove that the specimen allegedly seized from the accused was the same one presented in court is fatal to the prosecution’s case. 2014 Bersamin. Indeed. the prosecution also failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. if the police were accompanied by the witnesses who were present since the briefing for the execution of the search warrant. as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. there can be no crime of illegal possession or illegal sale of a prohibited drug. he is deemed to be in full control and dominion of the drugs found in his house. and the trial court gave credence to her testimony. the fact that both parties are sweethearts does not negate rape. [The SC found] no hiatus or confusion in the confiscation.R. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof which. threat or intimidation […] In the instant case. and when the witnesses also signed the bags where the marijuana were placed. will not be a sufficient defense for rape. the Court affirmed convictions for rape based on circumstantial evidence. No. He merely insisted that he was framed and had no knowledge of where the prohibited drugs came from. Belgar employed force. The commission of the rape was competently established although AAA had been unconscious during the commission of the act. Thus. No. In the absence of any contrary evidence. according to AAA. Besides. Noncompliance with the requirements for the custody and handling of seized dangerous drugs is permitted under justifiable grounds.

MURDER/HOMICIDE: To escape liability. Accused mounted himself on top of AAA. the sweetheart defense should be substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of relationship such as notes. People vs. pictures. harass. provided the proven circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused. Robert dela Cruz and Felomina dela Cruz positively and consistently identified the accused and relayed the sequence of events. Lascivious conduct is the intentional touching.R. Japson G. 202838. J. People vs. anus. People G. September 10. Campos vs. To be a conspirator. Hao vs. J. degrade.R. humiliate. [The Court held that] there was only an act of lasciviousness on the second incident. gifts. Even without direct evidence. 2014 Perez. J. 187401. Tria vs. September 17. The records of this case show that the prosecution witnesses Eduardo Oyando. touched and sucked her nipple and kissed her on her lips. RAPE: The behavior of a rape victim in reacting to the incidents of rape after the offense varies from one victim to another. either directly or through clothing. as the guilty person. circumstances indicate that the bloodied vagina was a result of insertion of the accused’s penis to the vagina of the victim. lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person. 2014 Perez.R. People G. No. People G.] Half of the jewelries were returned. 2014 Reyes. 183345. September 17. The Court held that] all elements of estafa through misappropriation or conversion are present. 204755. (b) there was reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. RAPE: [The Court ruled that] as to the first incident. RAPE: To be credible. September 17. The words “convert” and “misappropriate” connote the act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own. J. and the like. defense of relatives and absence of conspiracy. with the intent to abuse.] when the said corporation was made to solicit from the public. 2014 117 . CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS.constructed by proper exhibit handling. he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. mementos. of the genitalia. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. September 17. ESTAFA: [Tria received pieces of jewelry from Seven Sphere for her to sell on the condition that she will deliver the proceeds and to return if unsold. but [she] failed to pay the remaining value. 2014 Carpio. September 17. J. 2014 Reyes. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. 2014 Brion. storage. No. the offense shall be syndicated estafa. labelling and recording.R.R. September 17. Gerandoy G. accused is guilty of rape. No. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. ESTAFA: A person who induced another to invest his money to a corporation which does not exist or dissolved shall be liable for estafa[. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. 205298. breast. Acting C. Quintos vs. His argument revolves mainly on selfdefense. satisfactory and convincing evidence that: (a) the victim committed unlawful aggression amounting to an actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the accused claiming self-defense.J. inner thigh. Ramos G. Despite the absence in AAA’s testimony that there was actual carnal knowledge considering that she lost consciousness before that. People G. No. or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. masturbation.R. to the exclusion of all others. 200077. The act of the victim of going back to the place where the crime was committed does not ipso facto make the sexual intercourse consensual. and (c) there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused claiming self-defense or at least any provocation executed by the accused claiming self-defense was not the proximate and immediate cause of the victim’s aggression. People vs. or buttocks. groin. [She argued that the element of fraud is missing since she returned the jewelry. bestiality.R. and must exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in evidence. 210658. the Court is not persuaded in the allegations of the petitioner Leopoldo that his conviction was not supported by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No. In this case. No. [Tria’s] argument implies an admission of her receipt of the jewelry items and her failure to account for all of them. the accused may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. one need not participate in every detail of the execution. No. the accused must show by sufficient.

September 24. People vs. 2014 Perez. People G. goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission. PO1 Mendoza told him that he was able to buy one plastic sachet of shabu from Guinto. People vs. it is an utmost importance to prove the identity of the narcotic substance itself as it constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. A vital point of contention. In cases when the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that homicide was committed for the purpose of robbing the victim. Guinto G. prosecution must be able to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation – from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher. 205561. Dangerous drugs: In illegal sale of dangerous drugs. “she has in her favor evidence to show that she was in good faith and indeed made arrangements for the payment of her obligations subsequently after the dishonor of the checks. the object and consideration of the sale and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 2014 Brion. 2014 Leonen. the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and the seller. that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender. On the other hand. it is apparent that there is an inconsistency on the identity and number of plastic sachets bought from the accused. and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. It is therefore imperative for the prosecution to first establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drug before asserting other arguments. Carganillo vs. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same. BOUNCING CHECKS LAW: The Court. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. 3(e) of R. the prosecution’s evidence places in reasonable doubt the identification of the dangerous drug that was presented in court. J. J. 198314.A. Chavez G. the prosecution failed to prove that each and every element that constitutes an illegal sale of dangerous drug was present to convict the accused. Coloma vs. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT: Anent the third element of violation of Sec. the promise or payment of the consideration.” Clearly. ESTAFA: The offense of estafa committed with abuse of confidence requires that money. Hence. No.Reyes. No. this statement was a confirmation that she actually received the required notice of dishonor from FWCC. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. 182424. Inconsistency of testimonies: In this case. J. or denial on his part of such receipt that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another. In his statement. the offer to purchase the drug. The manner by which the initial contact was made. 3019. Upon evaluation of the testimonies of PO1 Familara and PO1 Mendoza. the payment of the buy-bust money. J. Credibility of a witness: One of the means used by the Court in determining the credibility of the prosecution witnesses is the objective test. September 22. or for administration.R. Sandiganbayan G. in order to establish the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operation. J.R. ROBBERY: [What] is imperative and essential for a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide is for the prosecution to establish the offender’s intent to take personal property before the killing. 2014 Mendoza. Campos would not have entered into the alleged arrangements beginning January 1996 until May 1998 if she had not received a notice of dishonor from her creditor. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS.R. September 22. and had no knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds with the bank and the dishonor of her checks. No. regardless of the time when the homicide is actually carried out. PO1 Mendoza recalled that he was able to buy two plastic sachets instead of one. the offer to purchase.R. no accused can be convicted of robbery with homicide. until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal subject of sale. considers Campos' defense that she exerted efforts to reach an amicable settlement with her creditor after the checks which she issued were dishonored by the drawee bank. the Sandiganbayan aptly explained: By . No. No. The pointed inconsistency is not a minor one that can be brushed aside as the discrepancy taints the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal sale. Following this test. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND PROHIBITED DRUGS: 118 OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS. however. and that there is demand by the offended party to the offender. PO1 Familara recalled that upon arrival at the place of arrest. September 24. 207950. to establish a concrete case. Campos categorically declared in her petition that.

engender the People vs. an essential element of the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. of a motor vehicle belonging to another without consent.500. September 24. depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself. No. (2) the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle. (b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. thus. non-compliance will. he must rely on the strength of his own evidence to prove that the facts that the legal avoidance requires are present. 2014 Perez. People G. He then successfully had a carnal knowledge of her by inserting his penis into her vagina. The owner of the vehicle. the Prosecution was able to prove the existence of undue injury by giving a detailed background of the estimate for facilities and materials for the construction of the project. he who alleges must prove. In this case. No. he carries the burden of evidence to prove that he satisfied the elements required by law. The significance of complying with Section 21’s requirements cannot be overemphasized. Benjamin Bauzon. with intent to gain. 2014 Del Castillo. J. Conspiracy can be inferred from and established by the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design.R. By failing to establish an element of these offenses. October 1. 205821. AAA positively identified her father Lumaho as the person who had carnal knowledge of her in his shanty. Fieldad G. and (d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented. 196005. the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence is immaterial after he admitted the commission of 119 . The elements of the crime of carnapping are that: (1) there is an actual taking of the vehicle. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. All the elements of carnapping are present in this case. The substantial difference between the cost estimate given by the accused and that of Engineer Vacnot caused injury to the government in the amount of approximately PP2. and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means. No. (3) the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself. it is also admitted that no physical inventory and taking of photographs in the presence of Dela Cruz or of any of the other persons specified by Section 21 were conducted. the victim was not in a position to defend himself. 196970. J. despite being armed. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim. viz: (a) at the time of the attack.R. RAPE: Rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (a) Through force. In the case at bar. J. She narrated that when she visited her father. Both appellants admitted that they boarded the Tamaraw jeep and drove away in it. he brought her to a shanty and while inside. Lumaho G. or by using force upon things. 2014 Carpio. the jail officers were not afforded any chance of defending themselves.making himself a signatory to the current accounts and presenting a cost estimate significantly higher than that submitted by Engineer Vacnot. In the instant case. OCTOBER 2014 People vs. from her shirt up to her panty. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. the accused also caused undue injury to the PPSC when the latter lost control of the funds for RTS 9. or by using force upon things. Sabay vs. PHYSICAL INJURIES: Since the accused alleges self-defense. 208716. concerted action and community of interest. acquittal of an accused. he removed all her pieces of clothing. or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. or it was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons.J. October 1. and only the authorized signatories could enter into transactions with regard to the project. 2014 Leonen. Dela Cruz G. October 1. People vs.R. testified that he did not consent to the taking of his vehicle by appellants. Noncompliance is tantamount to failure in establishing identity of corpus delicti.000 becomes more evident in light of the fact that the fifty capacity barracks have not been constructed. Acting C. and (4) the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof.R. MURDER/HOMICIDE: There is treachery when the following essential elements are present. threat or intimidation. (c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: Apart from the blatantly irregular handling by PO1 Bobon of the seven (7) sachets. No. Once conspiracy is shown the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. Carnapping is the taking. method or form of attack employed by him. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. By admitting the commission of the act charged and pleading avoidance based on the law. even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

J. Spouses Aldaba G. People G. a school teacher may be convicted of the said crime and. if the arresting lawmen arrested the accused based on the pre-arranged 120 Rimando vs. 2014 Bersamin. a ruling in a BP Blg. The felony of attempted rape requires such intent. violent and excessive. Villalba G. Cruz vs. 22: While a BP Blg. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence. Sabay failed to substantiate his claimed self-defense because he did not even present any medical certificate as supporting evidence. As pointed out. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. No. Rosales vs. even if both cases were founded on the same factual circumstances. the maltreatment may consist of an act by deeds or by words that debases.R. 203583. the case at bar involves a liability traceable from being an accommodation party. The rule is that conviction is proper upon proof that the accused acted in concert. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS. 166441. they nevertheless present different causes of action. However.P. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out. As such. RAPE VIS-A-VIS ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS: The intent of the offender to lie with the female defines the distinction between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness. the infliction of the physical injuries on the child was unnecessary. 22 case and an estafa case may be rooted from an identical set of facts.R. J. and independent” from each other. Therefore. Hence. both cases can proceed to their final adjudication – both as to their criminal and civil aspects – subject to the prohibition on double recovery. which.the act charged. No. the felony of acts of lasciviousness does not. Verily. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. merely climbing on top of a naked female does not constitute attempted rape without proof of his erectile penis being in a position to penetrate the female's vagina. The Family Code has even expressly banned the infliction of corporal punishment by a school administrator. No. 22 case concerning the criminal and civil liabilities of the accused cannot be given any bearing whatsoever in the criminal and civil aspects of a related estafa case.38 caliber gun by Jessie was refuted by the prosecution eyewitnesses – Rodolfo and Dina – who both testified that it was the petitioner who had attacked Godofredo. People vs. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. the lower court correctly upheld the same despite her acquittal in the estafa case. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. all the more when her propensity for violence has been established clearly by the prosecution. His contention. October 8.R. October 22. 207629.e. teacher or individual engaged in child care exercising special parental authority (i. J. People vs.. However. each of them doing his . CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL: Jurisprudence requires that conspiracy must be proven as the crime itself. There being no deceit employed to induce another for the investment of money. under the law. Although a school teacher could duly discipline her pupil. 22 cases had no effect in the estafa case. 2014 Bersamin. FELONIES. need not be habitual. October 8. the simultaneous filing of BP Blg. October 13. No. Only the direct overt acts of the offender establish the intent to lie with the female. degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. Perforce. CHILD ABUSE: In the crime of child abuse. J. Thus. too. his non-presentation must be credibly explained and the transaction established by other ways in order to satisfy the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt because the arresting lawmen did not themselves participate in the buy-bust transaction with the accused. that he was attacked by Godofredo and was shot with a . as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. October 13. Clearly. the civil liability did not arise from any purported act constituting the crime of estafa. 22 and estafa cases do not amount to double jeopardy. distinct. Andaya G. in loco parentis). notwithstanding his claim that he consulted a doctor. an acquittal and subsequent exoneration in the BP Blg. are considered “separate. ESTAFA VIS-A-VIS B. No. 183700. Such act. J. 173988. as settled.R. 2014 Bersamin. signal from the confidential informant who acted as the poseur buyer. People G.R. not being based upon the crime she is charged with. Nor did he ever present the doctor he allegedly consulted. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: The non-presentation of the confidential informant as a witness does not ordinarily weaken the State's case against the accused.

October 22. testimonial pieces of evidence for their exoneration. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. NOVEMBER 2014 CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS. the Court explained that there are two ways for a public official to violate this provision in the performance of his functions. who was clinically diagnosed to be a mental retardate. Josephine testified that accused-appellant Randy held only Maximillian's left hand. People G. In its consolidated comment. Thus. madness. deficiency. and Frederick narrated that accused-appellant Randy held both of Maximillian's hands. There was no proof that accused-appellant Randy had prior knowledge that accused-appellant Arnel carried a sharp weapon with him or that accusedappellant Arnel intended to stab Maximillian. 121 . but neither of these witnesses was able to describe the extent that Maximillian's ability to defend himself or flee was impaired by accused-appellant Randy's hold on his hand/s. But surely Sydeco’s act of exercising one’s right against unreasonable searches to be conducted in the middle of the night cannot. advantage.R. 188487.R. The Sandiganbayan shelved Luspo’s claim that he was authorized by Domondon to sign the ASAs in the former’s behalf. There can be no quibble that P/Insp. AAA. In that case. or retardation. can be properly classified as a person who is “deprived of reason.” and not one who is “demented. 2006 near Gaisano Mall. To recall. Aguilar and his apprehending team are persons in authority or agents of a person in authority manning a legal checkpoint. harks back to the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion and lobbies for its affirmation. in context. or (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefits.part to fulfill the common design to kill the victim. characterized by marked decline from the individual's former intellectual level and often by emotional apathy. to Maximillian's insulting remark to Jenny. Given the circumstances. 2014 Nachura. People G. or preference. No. and tagged the same as self-serving and unsubstantiated. the Court has serious doubts that accused-appellant Randy so acted to ensure that accused-appellant Arnel would be able to stab and kill Maximillian. it would not have arrived at divergent conclusions regarding the two accused. be equated to disobedience let alone resisting a lawful order in contemplation of Art. represented by the OMB through the OSP. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. Sandiganbayan. and to accused-appellant Arnel's stabbing of Maximillian. which is a condition of deteriorated mentality.R. It is completely reasonable and plausible that accused-appellant Randy was merely stepping in to stop Maximillian from further attacking his cousin accused-appellant Arnel. It was at this point that prosecution witnesses saw accused-appellant Randy block Maximillian's way and hold Maximillian's hand/s. 196315. 202692. Maximillian's group and accused-appellants' group completely met by chance that fateful early morning of April 29. J. 151 of the RPC are: (1) That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender. including the government. viz. respondent People of the Philippines. evident bad faith. No. On the other hand. The Court disagrees with the Sandiganbayan. Cataytay G. October 22. and (3) [h]is action caused undue injury to any party. the phrase deprived of reason under paragraph 1 (b) has been interpreted to include those suffering from mental abnormality. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT: In Cabrera vs. It bears emphasis that the charge against Luspo’s co-accused Domondon consisted of the same omissions. but the same were appreciated only in Domondon’s favor. Luspo vs. advantage.” Sydeco vs. (2) [h]e must have acted with manifest partiality. or preference in the discharge of his functions. in a matter of minutes. to the scuffle between Maximillian and accused-appellant Arnel. A perusal of the records […] the Sandiganbayan’s wherewithal reveals the contrary and had the trial court expanded the range of its probing.: (1) [t]he accused must be a public officer discharging administrative. The events swiftly happened. There is no clear evidence that accusedappellants had a common design to kill Maximillian. November 12. and (2) That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person or his agent. or official functions. or insanity. 2014 Velasco. or gave any private party unwarranted benefits. or gross inexcusable negligence. 151 of the RPC. RAPE: [The Court differentiated the terms “deprived of reason” and “demented” as follows:] the term demented refers to a person who has dementia. from the meeting of the two groups. The scuffle between Maximillian and accused-appellant Arnel broke out because the former tried to grab the latter's arm. [the Court] enumerated the essential elements of the offense. Both offered similar documentary and People vs. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER. RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR AGENTS OF SUCH PERSON: The two key elements of resistance and serious disobedience punished under Art. J. J. judicial. namely: (a) by causing undue injury to any party. No. including the government. They did not know each other before this meeting.

Dela Cruz vs. that which is more favorable to the accused is to be adopted. 1975. are incapable of giving consent to a sexual act. Considering that the crimes were committed in 1969. 1982. the longer prescriptive period of 15 years pursuant to BP Blg. Ombudsman G. or at least fell short of the norm expected of peace officers. A person making a defense has no more right to attack an aggressor when the unlawful aggression has ceased. No. DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE: In the case at bar.” As such. J. . Ombudsman G.A. J. Even assuming that the aggression with use of the gun initially came from the victim. 195]. November 12. 2014 Velasco. November 12. 189405. No. the applicable prescriptive period thereon is the ten-year period set in R. November 19.A. the Court must uphold his conviction. they inspected the vehicle. 195 cannot be applied to crimes committed prior to the effectivity of the said amending law on March 16. No. he must so state in the form of an objection. Pacificador. Cabrera should have raised the said issue before the trial court. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST. 1973. that Jeffrey pulled a gun from his chair and tried to shoot petitioner but failed – an assault which may have caused Dela Cruz to fear for his life. 206357.A. that the longer prescriptive period shall apply to all violations of [R. the fact remains that it ceased when the gun was wrested away by the accused from the victim. 197567.. People G. J. Moreover. This does not mean. objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. People G. 2014 Leonen. FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER: The absence of such allotment not only renders invalid the release of funds therefor but also taints the legality of the project’s appropriation as well as the Province’s contract with a contractor. 9165 particularly the lack of physical inventory of the seized specimen and the non-taking of photograph thereof on appeal after the CA rendered a decision. 2014 Del Castillo. J. They then signaled him to stop which he obeyed.R. 190175. 3019. Instead.R. No. Following the Court’s pronouncements in People vs. 29 of R. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY. which took effect on March 16. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: The essential requisites of self-defense are the following: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Truly. either in chronological or mental age. November 19. Children. No. 2014 Peralta. November 12. 21 of the IRR of R. People vs. the defense did not adduce evidence to show that Jeffrey condescendingly responded to Dela Cruz’s questions or initiated the confrontation before the shooting incident. No. No. and 122 1977. Without such objection. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: When an accused raises the issue of non-compliance by the police officers with Sec. November 19. when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered. Sec. 4136 (Driving under the Influence of Liquor). ordered [Sionzon] and his companions to step down of their pick up and concluded that [Sionzon] was then drunk mainly because of the cases of beer found at the trunk of the vehicle.A. 11 provides that all offenses punishable under said law shall prescribe in ten (10) years. (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression. J. No. People vs. PCGG vs. retaliation and not self-defense is committed. 204589.SPECIAL PENAL LAWS. 199402.R. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. Quintos G. They spotted [Sionzon’s] purported swerving vehicle. and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to selfdefense. But they did not demand the presentation of the driver’s license or issue any ticket or similar citation paper for traffic violation as required under the particular premises by Sec. the men manning the checkpoint in the subject area and during the period material appeared not to have performed their duties as required by law. No.R. the defender no longer has any right to kill or wound the former aggressor. otherwise. Garcia. 1970. It is settled that when unlawful aggression ceases. Jr. the prescriptive period commences to run at the time of the discovery of the offense. Sanchez vs. the law in force at that time. the rule is that “in the interpretation of the law on prescription of crimes.A.R.. Cabrera G. 2014 Mendoza. 3019]. No. 1982. however. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. RAPE: [A] person commits rape when he sexually assaults another who does not consent or is incapable of giving consent to a sexual act. Jr. he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. J. 3019. vs. This period was later increased to fifteen (15) years with the passage of [BP Blg.R. Other than Dela Cruz’s testimony. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT: R. No.

the prosecution for possession or for drug pushing under R.R.R. The Court notes that there were several lapses in the law enforcers’ handling of the seized item which. November 19. and the consideration. November 19. People vs. more so if she is a minor. November 19. J. SPO2 Ancheta. No. even without a warrant. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: In a prosecution for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Section 5 of R. 2014 Peralta. the object. [Here. gathering. VIOLATIONS OF THE FORESTRY CODE: The DENR personnel had the authority to arrest [Cresencio].R. Whether or not the lumber comes from a legal source is immaterial because the Forestry Code is a special law which considers mere possession of timber or other forest products without the proper documentation as malum prohibitum. It is deemed committed in large scale if 123 . the prosecution failed to account for each and every link in the chain of custody of the shabu. November 24. J. considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Suliman vs. 2014 Brion. especially a minor. 2014 Reyes. J. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. 190863. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 2014 Reyes. the requirements of time and place must be strictly met. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. RAPE: It is wellsettled rule that when a woman. No photographs or certificate of inventory of the confiscated items appear in the records. No. J. all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed. No. 205015.A. Mere possession of forest products without the proper documents consummates the crime. No. courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired. and Armando all showed that the police did not inventory or photograph the seized shabu either at the place where it was seized or at the police station. People vs. ESTAFA VIS-A-VIS ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT: Illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate carried out by a group of 3 or more persons conspiring with one another. when taken collectively. Ducay G. 209590. When the offended party is of tender age and immature. No. November 19. from the moment it was allegedly confiscated up to the time it was presented before the court as proof of the corpus delicti. 186455. People G. any person who has committed or is commit-ting in his presence any of the offenses defined by the Forestry Code and to seize and confiscate the tools and equipment used in committing the offense or the forest products gathered or taken by the offender. People vs. 9165. says she has been raped. subject herself to a public trial and expose herself to public ridicule for no reason other than her thirst for justice. For alibi to prosper. for it is most unnatural for a young and immature girl to fabricate a story as sordid as her own defilement. No. Sato G. render the standards of chain of custody seriously breached. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. AAA’s clear. 2014 Del Castillo. otherwise. To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug.R. even without a warrant. Sec. candidly and spontaneously testified that she was raped by Sato. RAPE: What is clear in this case is that the nine-year old victim.A.] The Court entertains doubts whether the shabu allegedly seized from Sanchez was the very same item presented during the trial of this case. collecting and removal of the forest products are legal or not. Courts give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault. Casabuena G. It is immaterial whether the cutting.R. People G. she says in effect. evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from Casabuena. No. 9165 fails. J. the Court upholds the RTC in giving full faith and credence to AAA’s testimony rather than the mere denial and alibi of Ducay. Based on the foregoing guiding principle. Cresencio vs. and (2) the removal of unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence. 190970. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. straightforward and candid narration sufficiently established the fact of rape and the identity of Ducay as the perpetrator.CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: [The] chain of custody requirement has a two-fold purpose: (1) the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that Sato committed the crime. 80 of the Forestry Code authorizes the forestry officer or employee of the DENR or any personnel of the PNP to arrest. allow a medical examination of her genitalia. the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. The testimonies of SPO1 Balolong.

Without proof of such intent. 2014 Reyes. Jr. MURDER/HOMICIDE: Frustrated homicide requires intent to kill on the part of the offender. 2014 Bersamin. Viscarra G. then the accused had no criminal intent when he mistakenly cut the trees of the complainant. (2) they failed to actually deploy the private complainants without valid reasons. (1) and (m) of RA 8042 when: (1) they separately charged the private complainants placement fees.R. will be extinguished. and. However. The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following. November 26. No. leaves the Court in the . MODIFICATION AND EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY: The criminal and civil liability ex delicto of a person convicted for murder who moved for reconsideration of his conviction and died pending resolution. This. and (d) that. or by the nature. Alfredo wielded and used a knife in his assault on Alexander. J. during and after the assault. 2014 Del Castillo. 2014 Mendoza. 207175. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY. fraudulent act. Both the RTC and the CA found that the prosecution has established that petitioner and her co-accused committed the acts enumerated under the provisions of Section 6 (a). J. [] Contrary to the Alfredo’s submission. When [Magsumbol] was ordered by his brotherin-law to cut down coconut trees on the latter’s property. Magsumbol vs. location and number of the wounds inflicted on the victim. the wounds sustained by Alexander were not mere scuffmarks inflicted in the heat of anger or as the result of a fistfight between them. and the fact that even the land owner was unsure as to the position of the boundary of his land. vs. as a result thereof. credit.R. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. the offended party suffered damage. People G. (3) they failed to reimburse the said complainants after such failure to deploy. People G. People vs. agency. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. ESTAFA: When the accused in an estafa case is acquitted due to reasonable doubt as to her criminal liability. Consorte G. J. November 26. thereafter. Saudi Arabia and Canada. civil liability may still be proven by preponderance of evidence. specifically.. 190322. It was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Suliman and her co-accused misrepresented and falsely pretended that they had the capacity to deploy the private complainants for employment either in South Korea. influence. 124 De Guzman.R. There is also to be no doubt about the wound on Alexander’s chest being sufficient to result into his death were it not for the timely medical intervention. 205144.: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power. People G. business or imaginary transactions. It was the misrepresentation and false pretenses made by petitioner and her co-accused that induced the private complainants to part with their money. 194068.R. that Alexander sustained two stab wounds. qualifications. Intent to kill may be established through the overt and external acts and conduct of the offender before. indeed. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable that the accused maliciously damaged the property belonging to another and. or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property. (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense. Timonera made references to the alleged falsifications and misappropriations committed by Balerta. In the instant case. QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: [The] appellant’s sudden attack on the victim amply demonstrates that treachery was employed in the commission of the crime. The medical records indicate. removed or used the fruits or object thereof. with intent to gain. 2014 Reyes. the felony may only be serious physical injuries. November 26. It further held that It is of no consequence that appellant was in front of the victim when he thrust the knife to his torso for even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. People vs. J. November 26.committed against 3 or more persons individually or as a group. No. THEFT AND QUALIFIED THEFT: To warrant a conviction for theft of damaged property. No. one on his upper left chest and the other on the left side of his face. property. No.R. he denied specific knowledge of where exactly the falsifications and misappropriations were shown and recorded. viz. and he asked permission from the barangay captain to do so. plus the fact that the prosecution made no formal offer of documentary evidence. November 26. Balerta vs. all the elements are present. No. 178512. As a result the private complainants suffered damages as the promised employment abroad never materialized and the various amounts of money they paid were never recovered. (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. J.

No. No. 190834. No. J. In this case. 2014 Mendoza.A. November 26.P. There is then no doubt that Velayo had sole possession and control of the missing funds intended for payment of the capital gains and documentary stamps taxes. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT: [There] are two ways by which a public official violates Sec. PENALTIES. (2) that there is conversion or diversion of such property by the person who has so received it or a denial on his part that he received it. if any. 176102. when he was convicted at age 23. they took away with them his airgun. the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (2 years. Blg. the conviction of the accused would prove to be abhorrent to society's sense of justice. The spirit of the law which. November 26. only the full payment of the value of the dishonored check during the five-day grace period would exculpate the accused from criminal liability under B. J. It was to her that all the above checks were handed in payment for the lots. 968. Neither the RPC. 22 the Court acknowledges the existence of extraordinary cases where.R. Then. No. is the protection of the credibility and stability of the banking system. and she alone opened a deposit account with UCPB. To yield to his insistence would be to impose an illegal penalty. nor any other relevant law or rules support or justify the further reduction of the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. it was Velayo alone who transacted with WJA and AIMS in behalf of ARDC. through her own representations. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS. 128 of the RPC is composed of only two. DECEMBER 2014 Rivera vs. 315(1)(b) of the [RPC] are: (1) that personal property is received in trust. No. People G. APPLICATION: Under Art. J. namely: by causing undue injury to any party. 2014 Peralta. 22. although in the name of ARDC.P.A. 2014 Bersamin. not three. This argument is bereft of legal basis. No. periods. and thus she alone was the sole authorized signatory for the said account. J. The penalty prescribed by Art. including the Government. Lim vs. November 26. only her signature is in the UCPB signature cards. PENALTIES. BOUNCING CHECKS LAW: [Although] generally. on commission. however. 2014 Peralta. The Court found that the petitioners committed undue injury to the government and gave unwarranted 125 . Velayo vs. would not be served by penalizing people who have evidently made amends for their mistakes and made restitution for damages even before charges have been filed against them. the suspension of his sentence is not available.R. 2014 Reyes. for administration or under any other circumstance involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same. 4 months and 1 day to 6 years) if violation of domicile be committed at night time or if any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after the search made by the offender. November 26. No. 65 of the same Code requires the division into three equal portions the time included in the penalty. forming one period of each of the three portions. J. shall be determined. 204025. that the maximum of his indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prison mayor should be reduced to only six years of prision correccional to enable him to apply for probation under P. its obligation was to pay the same to the BIR itself. 179080. Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner. or by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit. People G. In this case. even though the obligation is guaranteed by a bond. 3019 in the performance of his functions. and (4) that there be demand for the return of the property.D. WJA had no obligation to pay to ARDC the withholding tax. for B. 3(e) of R. In which case. the payment of the checks before the filing of the informations has already attained the purpose of the law. December 3. ESTAFA:The elements of estafa through conversion or misappropriation under Art.R. petitioners barged in the house of Baleriano while they were sleeping at night and. People G. Geroche vs. Hubilla vs. Thus. People G. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW: Hubilla insists. where she deposited all the check payments she received from WJA. Blg. nor R. diversion or denial is to the injury of another. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS.R. No. It was only due to Velayo’s own representations that she was able to get hold of the money. 9344. (3) that such conversion. People G. and would cause the Court to deliberately violate the law. even if all the elements of the crime or offense are present. 156577. In effect. in addition.dark as to how Balerta's civil liability.R. Art. advantage or preference. Velayo did not receive the missing funds in behalf of ARDC. but received it for herself. 128 of the RPC.

209346. Valencerina clearly extended. he shall be liable for qualified rape and not simple rape. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. therefore. J. PVB was merely used to show that GSIS has an insurable interest in the loan. to the detriment of the government. Fantastico vs. January 12. the reactions of rape victims after the commission of the offense may vary and shall not be confined to one classification. In finding Valencerina guilty of giving undue advantage or preference to Ecobel. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. No. the Sandiganbayan was convinced that the elements of the crime were duly established. 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. to be successfully invoked. Also. RAPE: When the crime of rape was committed by a father to his daughter. Minors should spend their adolescence molding their character in environments free of the vilest motives and the worse of other human beings. The truth. A man’s carnality is not hindered by time or place – his prurient desire impels him to commit rape even in the most public of places. They also did not impose retention money and taxes against PAL Boat. 3019 based upon the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution. his claim of self-defense cannot stand.R. is that BSIL was the funder and obligee of the credit sought to be guaranteed by the bond. Castrodes G. His act of endorsing Ecobel’s application to the PGM despite his knowledge that the obligee of the loan was not PVB but a foreign lender. however.R. No. ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT: [Casio alleged that the minor victims were willing to engage in prostitution. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS.R. 3(e) of R. December 10. abduction.R. must be proven by clear and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. 2014 Perez. to be trafficked. 2014 Del Castillo. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS. Sr. Malicse.R. People vs.R. as it appeared in a report before the Sandiganbayan. Thus.] Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case to the crimes of seduction.A. RAPE: [Castrodes argued that it was highly improbable that AAA was raped in broad daylight and in a very highly visible area surrounded by eight houses. The government was obligated to use more funds and effort to rehabilitate the vessels. 190349. The manifest reluctance to hold a public bidding and award the contract to the winning bidder indicates of favoritism and partiality toward PAL Boat. Bosito G. Casio G. in violation of Sec. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS. No. J. No. No. assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. January 12. Delfin G. QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: Selfdefense. In the observation of the GSIS audit team. Petitioners pre-qualified PAL Boat despite its financial inability to undertake the project. J. The Court upheld his conviction. December 10. Prodenciado G. J.benefits to PAL Boat through manifest partiality. 206768. December 10. with evident bad faith. J. 190912.R. 2014 Mendoza. In this case. 2014 Del Castillo. 2015 Peralta. rape.] There is no rule that rape is committed only in seclusion. December 3. 2015 Carpio. People vs. No. undue advantage to Ecobel in the process of issuing and negotiating the subject bond. 192232. People G. No. People vs. or other lascivious acts. JANUARY 2015 People vs. J. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT: The Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan in finding Valencerina guilty of violating Sec. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY. The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength. Valencerina vs. . RAPE: The failure of the prosecution to prove that the rape victim is below 12 years old does not exonerate the convict from the offense but shall only be liable for simple rape. 211465. Regardless of the willingness of AAA and BBB. [the Court affirms] the text and spirit of our laws. December 3. G. J. No. 206162. People vs. 2014 Leonen. Bosito failed to present adequate evidence to prove otherwise. clearly 126 shows his disregard for the policy of GSIS requiring the existence of governmental interest in the transaction.

or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public. No. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. A written letter containing libelous matter cannot be classified as privileged when it is published and circulated among the public. 209655-60. Almendras vs. 179491. January 12. Malice can also be presumed inasmuch as the letters are not privileged in nature. J. January 14.R. Thus. Respondent’s contention that he has the legal. No.5%). and strength of the parties. 2015 Sereno. LIBEL: In determining whether a statement is defamatory. People vs. J. Opinana G. January 12. the CA correctly held that accused-appellants.” [sic] a vengeful family member who filed cases against his mother and siblings.R. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. as defined in Arts. unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense. 2015 Perez. known under R. size. January 14. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. they cannot comply with their guarantee and had to simply abscond with their investors’ money. (b) the estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five (5) or more persons. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR. This rigorous requirement. As such. However. or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage.R. “samahang nayon(s). natural. the object and the consideration. Almendras G. is committed. 127 . moral or social duty to make the communication cannot be countenanced because he failed to communicate the statements only to the person or persons who have some interest or duty in the matter alleged.R. Tibayan G. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain. for when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped. The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought the advantage. Doria G. People vs. C. What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. thereby affecting that person’s reputation. No. performs the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. J. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: For the violation of Section 5. People vs. or members of rural banks. and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by the persons reading them.J. and with nefarious designs. Under such lucrative promise. and who have the power to furnish the protection sought by the author of the statement. No. RAPE: It is a wellentrenched principle that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit. 2015 Del Castillo. No. 2015 Mendoza. Even an impartial mind reading these descriptions would be led to entertain doubts on the person’s character. cooperative. 200797. In the instant case. used TGICI to engage in a Ponzi scheme. The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age. January 14. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. as the directors/incorporators of TGICI knew from the start that TGICI is operating without any paid-up capital and has no clear trade by which it can pay the assured profits to its investors. To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. Suarez G. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. resulting in the defraudation of the TGICI investors. the investing public are enticed to infuse funds into TGICI. 9165 as the chain of custody. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material if not indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.A. ESTAFA: The elements of syndicated estafa are: (a) estafa or other forms of swindling. 212196. 201151. 315 and 316 of the RPC. People vs. the prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller.there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim. J. a judicious review of the records reveals TGICI’s modus operandi of inducing the public to invest in it on the undertaking that their investment would be returned with a very high monthly interest rate ranging from three to five and a half percent (3%-5. the letters tag respondent as a “reknown black mailer. In this case. and (c) defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders.R. along with the other accused who are still at large. coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence.” or farmers’ associations. the identity of the dangerous drugs should be established beyond doubt by showing that the items offered in court were the same substances bought during the buy-bust operation. Nos.

No. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. People vs. prepared by Police Inspector and Forensic Chemist. credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers..People vs. 2015 Carpio. Willful. 2015 Leonen. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: The Court gives full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and upholds the presumption of regularity in the apprehending officers’ performance of official duty. 189272. unless there is evidence to the contrary. To constitute the offense of reckless driving.” The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is “the insertion of the penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice. RAPE: The failure of the victim to shout for help or resist the sexual advances of the rapist is not tantamount to consent. into another person’s genital or anal orifice. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS.R. People G. J. Chi Chan Liu G. No. belying the claim of the accused.R.” 128 People vs. No. People vs. constitute the latter. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.R. it is just right for the Court to acquit the appellant. MURDER/HOMICIDE: In order to establish a motorist’s liability for the negligent operation of a vehicle.” “genderfree rape. People G. January 21. or with knowledge of facts which would disclose the danger to any reasonable person. as this is alleged in the complaint or information. the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged. J. the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish who had custody of the illegal drug from the moment it was allegedly transmitted to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory on 27 May 2004 until it was allegedly delivered to the Regional Crime Laboratory on 4 June 2004. thus. January 21. January 21. J. or any instrument or object. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. Dilla G. wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others within the meaning of reckless driving statutes has been held to involve a conscious choice of a course of action which injures another. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. 2015 Peralta. not only must the essential elements of the offense be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 202837.R. Joson G. While appellant admitted during the pre-trial the authenticity and due execution of the Chemistry Report. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: Charging appellants with illegal possession when the information filed against them charges the crime of importation does not violate their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation brought against them. 2015 Perez. 2015 Villarama. when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former. the testimonies of prosecution witnesses established without a shadow of doubt that it was accused who mercilessly killed his brother. for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.” or “homosexual rape. MURDER/HOMICIDE: The records show that there was direct proof identifying the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. this admission merely CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. either with knowledge of serious danger to others involved. but likewise the identity of the prohibited drug. J. Furthermore. it must be shown that there was a direct causal connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages complained of. An offense charged necessarily includes that which is proved. People vs. 211002. J. 2015 Del Castillo. January 21. Ricalde vs. 206393. No. No. Gonzaga vs. and that proved or established by the evidence. Enumerable G. J.R. No. 200333.R. January 21. 195671. RAPE: Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as “instrument or object rape. No. The rule is that when there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: It is settled that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drug. 207993. and the offense as charged necessarily includes the offense proved. Jr. the act must be something more than a mere negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle – a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required. J. Hence. January 21. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. January 21. affirms the existence of the specimen and the request for laboratory examination and the results thereof. Minanga G. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim .R.

With nothing to substantiate appellants’ malicious accusation that the police officers were improperly motivated. 2015 Del Castillo. The foregoing principle applies with equal. during or after the robbery. it offered no evidence that the arresting officers had been improperly or maliciously motivated in effecting the arrest of appellants. or on the occasion. 2015 Perez. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. force in prosecutions involving violations of [R. took the latter’s mobile phone. the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another. No. 203026. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: It is a well-entrenched rule that full faith and credence are given to the narration of police officers who testify for the prosecution on the entrapment or buy-bust operation. credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses.A. while the defense denied having violated [R. the means.R. Had the Anti-Hazing Law been in effect then. or (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. the CA correctly upheld the RTC’s finding that the prosecution was able to establish the fact that Balute poked his gun at SPO1 Manaois. (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot. swift and sudden. shot him. January 28. People vs. of the robbery. as used in its generic sense. This presumption is overturned only if there is clear and convincing evidence that the officers were not properly performing their duty or that they were inspired by improper motive. Even if an act is viewed by a large section of the populace as immoral or injurious.” Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on occasion of robbery if.J. A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose. Rape victims show no uniform reaction. the crime of homicide. 151258.R. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. Ibañez. denying him the opportunity to protect or defendhimself. because as police officers. The assault upon Agon was deliberate. For treachery to be properly appreciated.A.submits herself to her attackers of because of fear. methods. ROBBERY.] 9165. absent any law prohibiting its commission. No. and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. G. resulting in his death despite surgical and medical intervention. After all. The Revised Penal Code also punishes felonies that are committed by means of fault (culpa). these five accused fraternity members would have all been convicted of the crime of hazing punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment). physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman voluntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. FEBRUARY 2015 Villareal vs. the victim was not in a position to defend himself. however. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS: Although courts must not remain indifferent to public sentiments. In this case. In the instant case. they are presumed to have regularly performed their duties. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before. Moreover.R. C. (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person. 189272. that the accused fraternity members are ultimately devoid of criminal liability. or forms of attack employed by him. and [the] objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. it cannot be considered a crime. He was unarmed and unaware of the plot of appellants to kill him. J. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. two conditions must be present: (1) at the time of the assault. Jr. it was committed: (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit. they are still bound to observe a fundamental principle in our criminal justice system. These conditions were present in the killing of Agon. No. and thereafter. 9165]. MURDER/HOMICIDE: The fatal shooting of Agon was attended by treachery. Nullum crimen.R. the Court exhaustively explained that “[a] special complex crime of robbery with homicide takes place when a homicide is committed either by reason. January 21. No. J. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. resistance is not an element of rape. nulla poena sine lege. (2) with intent to gain. This is buttressed by Cristita and Blesilda’s positive identification of Balute as the one who committed the crime […] People vs. February 1. ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE: In People vs. J. 191060. People vs. in this case the general condemnation of a hazingrelated death. especially those originating from buy-bust operations. alleged in the Information. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide. for instance. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery. method or 129 . No. 2015 Sereno. Pasion G. February 2. Balute G. No act constitutes a crime unless it is made so by law. was committed. No. and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means. Besides. People G. The absence of malicious intent does not automatically mean. a qualifying circumstance listed under Article 248 and notably. if not greater. Dimacuha.

manner of execution of the attack was
deliberately and consciously adopted by
appellants, the same being in accordance with
their group’s plan to liquidate Agon. There is
conspiracy “when two or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. It arises on the
very instant the plotters agree, expressly or
impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith
decide to pursue it.” Here, the evidence is
sufficient to prove that appellants conspired to
murder Agon. In this case, upon their arrival
thereat, the members of the group which
included appellants positioned themselves
according to their plan and waited for Agon to
leave. Later on, Caballero signaled Vitan and the
other alleged gunman, accused Theo, that the
target had left the arena and that his vehicle
was already approaching their position. When
Agon’s vehicle came, Vitan and Theo fired at
him. Vitan, Caballero, Alvarez, who acted as one
of the back-ups, and the rest of the group then
fled the scene of the crime.

Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 which
are also known as the Rule on Chain of Custody.

People vs. Sumili
G.R. No. 212160, February 4, 2015
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS: When there was delay in
the turn-over of the corpus delicti to the PNP
Crime Laboratory as it was alleged that the date
the illegal sachet was seized falls on a Friday
and therefore the PNP Crime Laboratory was
closed but it appears that said date falls on a
Wednesday, not on a Friday, conviction must be
immediately set aside. It must be emphasized
that in criminal prosecutions involving illegal
drugs, the presentation of the drugs which
constitute the corpus delicti of the crime calls
for the necessity of proving with moral certainty
that they are the same seized items.

CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS: The prosecution’s failure to
submit in evidence the physical inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs as required
under Article 21 of R. A. No. 9165, will not
render the accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized from him inadmissible. Clearly, the chain
of custody is not established solely by
compliance with the prescribed physical
inventory and photographing of the seized drugs
in the presence of the enumerated persons.
However, the exoneration of an accused from
the charge of illegal sale of dangerous or
prohibited drugs, does not spell freedom from
all criminal liability as she may still be convicted
for illegal possession of dangerous or prohibited
drugs. It is settled that possession is necessarily
included in the sale of dangerous or prohibited
drugs.

People vs. Dacuma
G.R. No. 205889, February 4, 2015
Perez, J.

People vs. Espejon
G.R. No. 199445, February 4, 2015
Perez, J.

CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS: In the prosecution of illegal
sale, what is essential is to prove that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled
with the presentation in court of evidence of the
corpus delicti. The consummation of sale is
perfected the moment the buyer receives the
drug from the seller. In this case, the
prosecution failed to prove that the four sachets
which tested positive for shabu and eventually
presented in court were the same ones
confiscated by the police officers due to its nonmarking at the place where the buy-bust
operation was committed at the police station.
This non-marking violated the measures defined
under Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 and
Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS; RAPE: The mere
fact that AAA did not tell her parents about what
happened to her immediately after the first
incident on 10 August 2003 does not discredit
her accusations of rape and sexual molestation
against Espejon. Delay or vacillation in making a
criminal accusation does not necessarily impair
the credibility of witnesses if such delay is
satisfactorily explained. In this connection, fear
of
reprisal,
social
humiliation,
familial
considerations, and economic reasons have all
been considered by this Court as sufficient
explanations for such delay.

130

People vs. Usman
G.R. No. 201100, February 4, 2015
Perez, J.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS: A buy-bust operation is a
legally effective and proven procedure,
sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug
peddlers and distributors. Since accusedappellant was caught by the buy-bust team in
flagrante delicto, his immediate arrest was also
validly made. Accused-appellant’s arrest being
valid, we also hold that the subsequent
warrantless seizure of the illegal drugs from his
person is equally valid.

People vs. Dasigan
G.R. No. 206229, February 4, 2015
Perez, J.

People vs. Sevillano
G.R. No. 200800, February 9, 2015
Perez, J.

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS; MURDER/HOMICIDE:
[The] defense of denial […] cannot prevail over
the eyewitnesses’ positive identification of him
as the perpetrator of the crime. Denial, like
alibi, if not substantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving
evidence undeserving of weight in law.
People vs. Colentava
G.R. No. 190348, February 9, 2015
Del Castillo, J.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS; RAPE: [Testimonies]
of child-victims are normally given full weight
and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she
is a minor, says that she has been raped, she
says in effect all that is necessary to show that
rape has in fact been committed. When the
offended party is of tender age and immature,
courts are inclined to give credit to her account
of what transpired, considering not only her
relative vulnerability but also the shame to
which she would be exposed if the matter to
which she testified is not true.

Benito vs. People
GR. No. 204644, February 11, 2015
Leonen, J.
FELONIES; CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL:
Conspiracy must be proven with evidence that
can convince a trial court of its existence
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, when the coaccused stated in open court that her fellow co
-accused had no participation in the crime of
estafa, such statement was an admission against
her interest. The statement negated the alleged
“common design or purpose”of conspiracy
between her and Benito. It also means that she
admitted that her companion’s acts can never
be attributed to her.

People vs. Tagupay
G.R. No. 200336, February 11, 2015
Perez, J.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS: [The] defense of denial or
frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed
by the courts with disfavor for it can just as
easily be concocted and is a common and
standard defense ploy in most prosecution for
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

People vs. Santos
G.R. No. 205308, February 11, 2015
Carpio, J.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS;
alibi, which are self-serving
and
easily
fabricated,
uncorroborated, cannot be
evidentiary weight than the

RAPE: Denial and
negative evidence
especially
when
accorded greater
positive testimony

of a credible witness. Appellant’s denial and
uncorroborated defense of alibi cannot prevail
over the credible and positive testimony of AAA
that appellant raped her and committed acts of
lasciviousness against her. As found by the trial
court and the appellate court, AAA categorically
identified appellant as the person who
repeatedly molested her. AAA’s testimony was
replete with delicate details which she could not
have concocted herself. She was consistent in
her testimony and never wavered even during
cross-examination.

People vs. Gabuya
G.R. No. 195245, February 16, 2015
Del Castillo, J.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED
DRUGS:
The
prosecution
convincingly proved that the police operatives
indeed complied with the required unbroken
chain in the custody of the subject illegal drugs.
It bears stressing that [the SC] has already
brushed aside an accused’s belated contention
that the illegal drugs confiscated from his person
is inadmissible for failure of the arresting
officers to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
This is considering that whatever justifiable
grounds may excuse the police officers from
literally complying with Section 21 will remain
unknown, because Gabuya did not question
during trial the safekeeping of the items seized
from him. Objection to evidence cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal; when a party
desires the court to reject the evidence offered,
he must so state in the form of an objection.

People vs. Bio
G.R. No. 195850, February 16, 2015
Del Castillo, J.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS: To sustain a conviction
under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, all that
is needed for the prosecution to establish are (1)
the identity of the buyer, seller, object and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment therefor. In illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, on the other
hand, it is necessary to prove that: (1) the
accused is in possession of an item or object
which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)
such possession is not authorized by law; and,
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed
the drug. In his testimony, PO2 Salonga, the
poseur-buyer, positively identified Abola as the
seller of the plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance which was later identified
by the PNP Forensic Chemist to be positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The
same sachet and substance was identified in
court by PO2 Salonga as the shabu sold to him by
Abola for the sum of P200.00. Therefore, all the
elements of the offense of illegal sale of shabu
are obtaining in this case. In the same vein,

131

Abola,
upon
being
frisked
after
his
apprehension, was found possessing another
plastic sachet containing 0.15 gram of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
There is no evidence on record showing that he
was legally authorized to possess the same.
Neither was there any explanation that he did
not freely or consciously possess the said illegal
drug. Settled is the rule that “possession of
dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie
evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi,
which is sufficient to convict an accused in the
absence of a satisfactory explanation of such
possession.” Clearly, all the elements of the
offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
are likewise present in this case.

People vs. Rosauro
G.R. No. 209588, February 18, 2015
Perez, J.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS: Equally important in every
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous or
prohibited drugs is the presentation of evidence
of the seized drug as the corpus delicti. The
identity of the prohibited drug must be proved
with moral certainty. It must also be established
with the same degree of certitude that the
substance bought or seized during the buy-bust
operation is the same item offered in court as
exhibit.In the case at bar, after the sale was
consummated, the confidential informant gave
the seized item to SPO4 Larot who placed tape
on the sachet and marked it “Exhibit A.” Upon
reaching the police station, SPO4 Larot executed
the Certificate of Inventory, as well as the
request for laboratory examination. The
request, the specimen, as well as the marked
money and Rosauro were then brought to the
PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. They
were received by SPO2 Ricardo Maisog, the
Receiving Clerk of the PNP Crime Laboratory
Office, who then forwarded them to Police
Inspector Ma. Leocy Jabonillo Mag-abo, the
Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime
Laboratory. Moreover, the seized item was duly
identified by SPO4 Larot in open court as the
same item seized from Rosauro. Hence, the
prosecution was able to prove the corpus delicti.

People vs. Dela Peña
G.R. No. 207635, February 18, 2015
Villarama, Jr., J.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS: In the prosecution of a case
for violation of R.A. 9165, both for illegal sale
and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
primary consideration is to ensure that the
identity and integrity of the seized drugs have
been preserved from the time they were
confiscated from the accused until their
presentation as evidence in court. The

132

prosecution must establish with moral certainty
that the specimen submitted to the crime
laboratory and found positive for dangerous
drugs, and finally introduced in evidence against
the accused was the same illegal drug that was
confiscated from him. All the elements of the
crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of
shabu, a dangerous drug, were clearly proven by
the prosecution through the credible testimony
of IO1 Kintanar.

People vs. Largo
G.R. No. 193855, February 18, 2015
Del Castillo, J.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS: In a successful prosecution
for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements
must concur (1) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object, and the consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. In this case, the prosecution
successfully proved the existence of all the
essential elements of illegal sale of shabu.
Perondo was positively identified by the police
officers who conducted the buy-bust operation
as the person who sold the shabu to the poseur
buyer. The Court is not impressed with Perondo’s
insistence that the failure to present the poseurbuyer is fatal to the prosecution. The Court finds
no reason to doubt the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses and their testimonies. The
RTC and the CA are one in finding that their
testimonies were direct, definite, and consistent
with one another in relevant points and also
with the physical evidence.

People vs. Reyes
G.R. No. 194606, February 18, 2015
Del Castillo, J.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS: The delivery of the illicit
drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the
seller of the marked money successfully
consummate the buy-bust transaction. […] To
deliver a dangerous drug is an act that is […]
punishable under the same Section 5, Article II
of R.A. 9165.

People vs. Nical
G.R. No. 210430, February 18, 2015
Reyes, J.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS; RAPE: It is settled
that the absence of physical injuries or fresh
lacerations does not negate rape, and although
medical results may not indicate physical abuse
or hymenal lacerations, rape can still be
established since medical findings or proof of
injuries are not among the essential elements in
the prosecution for rape.

People vs. Bayabos

all those who took part shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide whether they actually participated in the killing. and even armed himself with a bamboo pole. for unlawful aggression to be appreciated. however. then the qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be appreciated. Casas cannot successfully claim that there was unlawful aggression.as against the one claiming self-defense. People vs. February 18. especially when the occurrence of the crime has in fact been established. 9165 provides for the immediate marking of the seized item. People vs. The indictment merely states that psychological pain and physical injuries were inflicted on the victim. the contrary happened in this case. or even the latter’s acquittal. Casas G. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: While R. 212151. as the ultimate facts it presents do not constitute the crime of accomplice to hazing. and. Should it appear. the Sandiganbayan erred when it dismissed outright the case against respondents Bayabos. C. Joel knew that Casas was armed with a knife and had just used the same on Eligio. Nonetheless. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS. brought it to bear on Eligio. [the Supreme Court affirmed the findings and decision of the trial court and appellate court that petitioner had indeed committed the crime of qualified theft. As shown by the records. J. No. 2015 Del Castillo.R. and (6) that it was done with grave abuse of confidence. Hinlo G. Further.G. (3) that the said taking was done with intent to gain. No. and overbearing with a deadly weapon.R. J. Hence.A. Evidently. 212565. Verily. (4) that it was done without the owner’s consent. then on Joel as he lay prostrate. there must be an actual. (2) that said property belongs to another. 185774. No. Basilio G. There is no allegation that the purported acts were employed as a prerequisite for admission or entry into the organization. 2015 Sereno. J. there can be no self-defense unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. when a homicide takes place by reason of or on occasion of the robbery. cannot outweigh the testimony of eyewitnesses establishing that accused -appellants committed the crime. considering the prosecution’s failure to prove the existence of treachery. conspiracy having been established. thus. February 18. No. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. and again on Eligio as he was fleeing.R. instead of fleeing from it he met it and was killed as a result. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. Moreover. the information must be quashed. 171222. unless there is proof that there was an endeavor to prevent the killing. Thus.R. acting in 133 .R. on the sole ground that the case against the purported principals had already been dismissed. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: The accused failed to prove any unlawful aggression on the part of either Joel or Eligio. People vs. However. In this case. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. Joel elected to intervene. February 23. For having established all the elements abovementioned.J. the victim must not have known the peril he was exposed to at the moment of the attack. the Court disagrees that the accused should be convicted of the crime of murder with respect to the death of Joel. that the victim was forewarned of the danger he was in. it was Casas who was actually the aggressor. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. which is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense to obtain. February 23. No. as he was the one who wielded a knife. As case law puts it. Accordingly. the SC affirmed the quashal of the Information against respondents Bayabos. 200308. Being the party initiating the attack. Failure to aver this crucial ingredient would prevent the successful prosecution of the criminal responsibility of the accused. for the crime of hazing. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY. THEFT AND QUALIFIED THEFT: The elements of qualified theft are as follows:(1) taking of personal property. sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof. or of force upon things. In order to appreciate treachery. No.] People vs. it does not specify a time frame when and where said marking should be done. 2015 Del Castillo. Nielles G. it is rather obvious that Joel was aware of the danger to his life. the dismissal of the case against the latter. February 25. J. ROBBERY: It is settled that the positive identification of accused-appellants prevails over their defense of alibi considering that in this jurisdiction the latter is considered as inherently weak and. hazing – is insufficient and incomplete. Plain reference to a technical term – in this case. either as principal or as accomplice. as it is but a characterization of the acts allegedly committed and thus a mere conclusion of law. (5) that it was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons. ANTI-HAZING LAW: It is a settled rule that the case against those charged as accomplices is not ipso facto dismissed in the absence of trial of the purported principals.

or for administration. These two requisites must be both alleged and proved with absolute certainty. Otherwise. prompts this Court to discount treachery as a qualifying circumstance. CA G. if the testimony of the police who was the poseur-buyer and who marked the sachets of shabu are supported by documents such as the marked buy-bust money. (c) the misappropriation. The trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses. 315 of RPC are: (a) the offender's receipt of money. Also. arbitrary.A. No. despite the failure to faithfully observe the requirements provided under Section 21 of R. two requisites must be met. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. 203466. People vs. J. 9346. In order that the accused is convicted of qualified rape under Article 266-B (1) of the Revised Penal Code. No. having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. People G. Gallano was guilty only of simple rape. As such. and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. or denial of receipt of the money or property. Moreover. No. It bears to stress that a sum of money received by an employee on behalf of an employer is considered to be only in the material possession of the employee. J. chemistry report. an accused may still be found guilty.R. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. consistent and convincing. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. Evidently. This is because from the nature of the offense. by itself. and (2) the offender must either be related to the victim by consanguinity of by affinity within the third civil degree. conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another.R.R. and (d) demand by the offended party that the offender return the money or property received. J. goods. No. In addition. and where her testimony passes the test of credibility.the heat of the moment. to a recognition of . People vs. for as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken. 2015 Peralta. RAPE: Rape is a crime that is almost always committed in isolation or in secret. she says in effect all that is necessary to mean that she has been raped. the same. the accused may be convicted of rape on the basis of the victim's sole testimony provided such testimony is logical. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. gross misapprehension of facts. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: Prosecution of cases involving illegal drugs depends largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.R. or other personal property in trust. J. namely: (1) the victim must be a less than 18 years old. and there being no showing that no appreciable interval of time had elapsed from Joel’s mishap to his stabbing so as to allow for the assailant’s careful reflection. by reason of his employment. The accused's civil liability depends on the mode of rape he committed. this lack of deliberation on the part of Casas. 9165. credible. 183652. the accused could only be held guilty of simple rape. or on commission. or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver. usually leaving only the victim to testify about the commission of the crime. Diaz G. it is beyond cavil that the prosecution was able to establish the necessary links in the chain of custody of the subject specimen from the moment it was seized from Diaz up to the time it was presented during trial as proof of the corpus delicti. it has been established that when a woman declares that she has been raped. as well as Joel’s obvious awareness of the danger to his life. it does not equally appear that Casas deliberately adopted means in order to ensure that Joel had no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. or speculative. which all clearly attest to the fact that a sale of shabu took place between him and Diaz. among others. RAPE: In reviewing rape cases. the lone testimony of the victim is and should be. 2015 Del Castillo. sufficient to warrant a judgment of conviction if found to be credible. the sole evidence that can usually be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the complainant’s testimony itself. People vs. The qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority remain to be relevant in the crime of rape despite the abolition of the death penalty under R. Benabaye vs. February 25. affidavit of arrest. No. February 25. Gallano G. Here. the accused can be convicted on that basis alone. 197818. February 25. The material possession of an employee is adjunct. the testimony of a young rape victim is given full 134 weight and credence considering that her denunciation against him for rape would necessarily expose herself and her family to shame and perhaps ridicule. No. or is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. (b) misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the money or property received. It is fundamental that the factual findings of the trial court and those involving credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors. February 25.A. the conviction will be upheld. 184762. or to return. not of qualified rape. thus. ESTAFA: The elements of estafa under this Art. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA. 2015 Bersamin.

R. Art.the juridical possession of the employer. she cannot be convicted of the said crime. The third element was also proved by the showing that Madarang suffered prejudice by her failure to collect from Villanueva the balance of P995. No. and (2) the delivery of the nothing sold and the payment therefor. 1. Possession: A person carrying an illegal drug without authorization to do so shall be liable for violation of RA 9165 for possession of dangerous drug. 163662. In this case. which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug. David vs. (2) such possession is not authorized by law. No. J. Agbay G. she had no juridical possession over the missing funds but only their physical or material possession. No. Villanueva G. J. insisting that her possession of the collected loan payments was merely material and not juridical. (3) the payee has been defrauded. Records show that Benabaye was merely a collector of loan payments from Siam Bank's clients. The deceit here should be the efficient cause of the defraudation. when: (1) the offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance. There is no question that Madarang accepted the checks upon the assurance of Villanueva that they would be funded upon presentment. ESTAFA: The estafa charged in the information may be committed. there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another. who confirmed that she had issued the checks to Madarang in exchange for the jewelry she had purchased. or the funds deposited are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. 2015 Bersamin. plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence. In other words. The second element was likewise established because the checks were dishonored upon presentment due to insufficiency of funds or because the account was already closed. and should either be prior to. MARCH 2015 Tionco vs. Tupag. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. 9165. People G. The first element was admitted by Villanueva.A.R. People vs. the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object. 171 of the RPC refers to falsification by a private individual. Benabaye maintains that the first element of estafa through misappropriation has not been established. the prosecution must prove the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller. the object and consideration. FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL: Falsification of documents under par. its temporary cash custodian whose tasks are akin to a bank teller. if the person sells the drug. 172 in relation to Art. March 18. March 11. (2) actual delivery of the thing sold and payment thereof. 5. therefore.000. 2015 Del Castillo. On the other hand. she was required to remit all cash payments received together with the corresponding cash transfer slips to her supervisor. 199113. J.192284. At the end of every banking day.R. Mere possession of the same shall be prima facie evidence of possession. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: [The] failure of the arresting officers to strictly comply with the law is not fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. Mercado G. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND PROHIBITED DRUGS: OTHER Illegal sale: The Court has consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Sec. as an employee of Siam Bank. or simultaneously with. the act of the fraud. People vs.R. The Court agrees. specifically. All the elements of estafa were present in this case. 2015 Villarama. 2015 Perez. J. Article II of R. It is clear that Madarang would not have parted with and entrusted the pieces of valuable jewelry to Villanueva whom she barely knew unless Villanueva gave such assurance to her. the money merely passes into her hands and she takes custody thereof only for the duration of the banking day. and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller. No. Hence. and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug. what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. March 11.. (2) at the time of postdating or issuance of said check. or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage 135 . 11 of the same law. To reiterate. No. the object and consideration. Jr. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST. As such. [the Court] have adhered to the time-honored principle that for illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs under Sec. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. 207988. therefore. February 25. On the other hand. the offender has no funds in the bank.

Sorin G. J. (RA) 8294. J. private.. No. the Court can only accord full credence to such factual assessment of the Regional Trial Court which had the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses at the trial. No. QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: Presidential Decree No. that he is a Filipino citizen at the time of the filing of said application. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. Jacaban vs. 8294. No. […] treats the unauthorized use of a licensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of homicide or murder as a special aggravating circumstance. a public document. ROBBERY. The homicide may take place before. with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.R. PO3 Sarte identified all the seized items in open court. 209227. March 25. Animus possidendi is a state of mind. when in fact he was then still a Canadian citizen. No. No. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. The MTC therefore did not err in finding probable cause for falsification of public document under Art. preventing switching. J. March 23. thus. par. as well as the surrounding circumstances.R. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings. the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery. 8294): Once the prosecution evidence indubitably points to possession without the requisite authority or license. There was an inventory of the items seized which was made in the presence of the petitioner and the three barangay tanods who all voluntarily signed the inventory receipt.R. March 25. Jr. March 25. 136 CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS: [Absent] any missing link in the chain of custody of the seized drug items and absent any showing that substantial or relevant facts bearing on the elements of the crime have been misapplied or overlooked. People G. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY. the presence or determination of which is largely dependent on attendant events in each case. during or after the robbery. 2015 Perez. planting. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS.A.R. People vs. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS (R. Hence. 212635. (PD) 1866. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. People vs. Matibag G.A. 1. March 25. 2015 Villarama. Here.of his official position. Orosco G. the Court should acquit the accused on the ground of failure to mark the plastic sachets confiscated during the buy-bust operation. the prosecution had proved the essential elements of the crime charged under PD 1866 as amended by R. coupled with animus possidendi or intent to possess on the part of the accused. 206381. People vs. 211199. conviction for violation of the said law must follow. or contamination of evidence. as amended by Republic Act No. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. . People vs. The existence of the seized firearm and the ammunitions was established through the testimony of PO3 Sarte.R. J. ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE: In robbery with homicide. In the case at bar. 2015 Peralta. It may be inferred from the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused. David made the untruthful statement in the Miscellaneous Lease Application. No. Rollo G. or commercial documents. of public. 184355. 172. J.

Consigna vs. whether or not the court a quo committed grave abuse of discretion. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. PWCTUI vs. it is proper that the cancellation of the decree was filed before [the RTC of Las Piñas].R. MODES OF APPEAL: [The Rule 45] petition was timely filed. and may no longer be modified in any respect. Bracewell G. entry of judgment may only be made if no appeal or motion for 137 . shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. No. 179155.R. CIVIL PROCEDURE. In this case. Under the Rules of Court. or more than four (4) months from notice. 206770. IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENTS: It is well-settled that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable.R. 182153. RTC) of the province or city where the land is situated. People G. 173802. As such. Prajes G. APPEAL. JUDGEMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS. Ting Guan Trading G. No. PLEADINGS. EVIDENCE. No. it may avail of a petition for certiorari if the ground raised in the motion to dismiss is lack of jurisdiction over the person of the Tin Guan or over the subject matter. CIVIL PROCEDURE. DESIGNATION OF OFFENSES: [What] is controlling is not the title of the complaint. 199595. People vs.R. Since the land is situated in Las Piñas. the grounds raised by the petitioner were jurisdictional errors purportedly committed by the Sandiganbayan i. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. 2014 NHA vs. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. April 2. J. CA G. 2014 Reyes. No. CIVIL PROCEDURE.. 2014 Perez. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ALLEGATIONS AND COUNTERCLAIMS: The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a particular action is determined by the plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint and the principal relief he seeks in the light of the law that apportions the jurisdiction of courts. even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. the court a quo’s judgment had already lapsed into finality. Tung Ho Steel vs. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: Noncompliance with the Chain of Custody Rule under justifiable grounds. As evidenced by the registry return receipt on record. What is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. J. J.REMEDIAL LAW APRIL 2014 Reyes. PROHIBITION.e. to file an answer and to subsequently appeal the case if he loses the case. as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. As the motion was filed way beyond the 15-day reglementary period prescribed therefor. moved for reconsideration therefrom only on March 11. 17575051. TRY Foundation G. CERTIORARI. Lozada vs.R. As exceptions. Nos. recovery of possession and ownership of the subject property cannot be settled by filing a mere petition for cancellation of title under Section 108 of P. 1999. April 2. However. the Court concurs with the CA’s view that the Assailed Order had already become final and executory at the time when the NHA sought to have it reconsidered before the court a quo. AND MANDAMUS: The trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss is not a license for Tin Guan to file a Rule 65 petition before the CA. An order denying a motion to dismiss cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari as Tin Guan still has an adequate remedy before the trial court – i. 1529. No. VENUE: [Jurisdiction] over an application for land registration is still vested on the CFI (now. is the proper subject of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.. April 7. No. April 2. J. April 7.R. CIVIL PROCEDURE.e. J. the NHA however.D. J. as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. nor the designation of the offense charge or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. In this case. April 2. because it was filed within 15 days from notice of judgment. TRY Foundation is actually seeking to recover the possession and ownership of the subject property from PWCTUI and not merely the cancellation of PWCTUI’s TCT. 2014 Brion.

In the instant case. 199070. declaration. 198022. had no time to contrive his identification of the assailant.R. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed. was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the startling occurrence. No. the Order of RTC was received by private complainants on 14 October 2010. as a defense. perpetrated by appellant. the original copies containing the signatures of the private prosecutors. In the present case. execution of the CA’s judgment or final resolution shall be stayed. if a motion for reconsideration is timely filed by the proper party. No. the verification and certification against forum shopping. Given the circumstances. 198059. a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death must be entered by the declarant. it was not impossible for him to be at the crime scene. the utterances made by Januario could not be considered as a dying declaration. or exclamation. in answer to the question of SPO3 Mendoza. People vs. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE: It appears that not all the requisites of a dying declaration are present. is so interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY: It has been held. order or resolution. he was at the public market of Don Carlos. J. Gatarin G. 2014 Del Castillo. would of course cause unfair and unjustified injury to Tung Ho. Lujeco G.R. April 7. counsel for private complainants submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor General the draft petition for certiorari. 182153). On 30 November 2010.R. 2014 Del Castillo. The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on death as certainly impending. whether the act. Then the Petition for Certiorari was filed one day after the 60-day reglementary period for filing the Petition for Certiorari. It should be noted that for alibi to prosper. This rule is applicable even to proceedings before the Supreme Court. J. His utterance about appellant and his co-accused having stabbed him. However. J. he was referring to a startling occurrence which is the stabbing by appellant and his co-accused.R. Abaigar G. J. 2014 Carpio. the killing of Januario. that alibi. . April 7. April 7. the statement is relevant because it identified the accused as the authors of the crime. looking back at the records. However. the 60-day period may be extended under any of the circumstances. Rule 56 of the Rules of Court. [the Court holds] that the CA-Cebu should have applied the rules liberally and excused the belated filing.R. 2014 Peralta. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is. Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. EVIDENCE. He must likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. and thus. in violation of Section 4. No. whether such motion is required or not. To now recognize the finality of the Resolution of [the] Ting Guan petition (G. 138 EVIDENCE. Bukidnon. It clearly shows that they were able to do so promptly.R. Espinosa G. 176110) based on its entry of judgment and to allow it to foreclose the present meritorious petition of Tung Ho.reconsideration was timely filed. When Januario gave the identity of the assailants to SPO3 Mendoza. and the certified copies of the annexes. it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was in another place when the crime was committed. People vs. therefore. No. These documents were received by the OSG on 3 December 2010 only. People vs. Definitely. and also whether it clearly negates any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. Undoubtedly. PROHIBITION. In the proceedings before the CA. AND MANDAMUS: The petition for certiorari shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment. 199442. At that time. April 7. It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders a dying declaration admissible. No. Thus. CERTIORARI. no questions relative to the second requisite was propounded to Januario. as provided in Section 4. instead of 13 December 2010. time and again. Januario and the witness were in the vehicle that would bring him to the hospital. As testified by Lujeco. The rule is that. since the letter evidencing that the OSG received the documents erroneously stated that the deadline for filing was 14 December 2010. is adequately proven by the prosecution. People vs. No. is inherently weak and crumbles in light of positive identification by truthful witnesses. Tung Ho timely filed its motion for reconsideration with the CA and seasonably appealed the CA’s rulings with the Court through the present petition (G. in order to make a dying declaration admissible. Verily. From the records. the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion. since private complainants had to transmit documents to the OSG. It does not appear that the declarant was under the consciousness of his impending death when he made the statements.

In this case. including its nationwide franchise. Hence. when the facilities of a corporation. in the prosecution of one’s fundamental right to liberty.e. J. 197293. No. No. mandamus cannot be sustained. 181792. Such that. 2014 Leonen. Arabit vs. had been transferred to another corporation by operation of law during the time of the alleged delinquency. April 21. NAPOCOR vs. CIVIL PROCEDURE. AND MANDAMUS: A resort to the remedy of mandamus is improper if the standard modes of procedure and forms of remedy are still available and capable of affording relief.R.D. Also. causing the temporary cessation of its banking operations in that branch and putting the bank in an unwarranted danger of a run. Bank of Commerce’s] action fell within the recognized exceptions to the need to file a motion for reconsideration before filing a petition for certiorari. of the NLRC decision challenged before it. if upon a personal assessment of the evidence. while the information filed by the Prosecutor was valid. Judge Umali still had the discretion to make her own finding of whether probable cause existed to order the arrest of the accused and proceed with trial. Mendoza vs. Hence. PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION: An indispensable party is one who has an interest in the controversy or subject matter and in whose absence there cannot be a determination between the parties already before the court which is effective. She has no reason to impute on him the heinous crime of murder had she not witnessed the actual killing of the victim. In this case. and adequate remedy in the course of law. 2014 Brion. J. 1445. it finds that the evidence does not establish probable cause. In other words.R. So that when the COA still retained its primary jurisdiction to adjudicate money claim. the COA's refusal to act did not leave the petitioners without any remedy at all. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. CIVIL PROCEDURE.520. Provincial Gov’t of Bataan G.EVIDENCE. WHO MAY CONDUCT DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE: While the determination of probable cause charge a person of a crime is the sole function of the prosecutor. April 21. People vs. April 21. CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS: It is settled that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province and expertise of the trial court. In this case. the appellate court found Relecita to have positively identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. the failure of Relecita to warn the victim of the appellant’s impending attack should not be taken against her. the trial court may. PROHIBITION. J. CERTIORARI. the records amply show that Bancommerce’s [i.R. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. dismiss the case.R. the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case? Star Special vs. Similarly. AND MANDAMUS: Section 1. speedy. April 21. Sabdula 139 .000 and deposited the same with the Landbank. and monitors. Since remedy is still available to petitioner. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for certiorari may only be filed when there is no plain. No. not a review on appeal. the transferees are certainly the indispensable parties to the case that must be necessarily included before it may properly go forward. PROHIBITION. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review. the former cannot be ordered to pay as it is not the proper party to the case. 195615. petitioners should have filed a petition for certiorari with this Court pursuant to Section 50 of P. Bancommerce had valid justifications for skipping the technical requirement of a motion for reconsideration. we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. 2014 Abad. J. Radio Philippines G. April 21.R. 2014 Abad. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it. APPEAL. Clearly. Puerto Princesa G. MODES OF APPEAL: In ruling for legal correctness. printers. In question form. He also seized the bank’s computers. 2014 Mendoza. we find no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the trial court. People G. complete or equitable. 180654. Bank of Commerce vs. Jardine Pacific G. not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. Neither should it be taken as a blemish to her credibility. No. No. J. 181719. The Sheriff forcibly levied on Bancommerce’s Lipa Branch cash on hand amounting to P1. No. The court below categorically found that Relecita had no ill motive to testify against appellant. CERTIORARI.

the trial court may. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. by clever and adroit manipulation of the technical rules of pleading and evidence. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. it is not error for the trial court to rely on parol evidence. the Supreme Court. Jadewell Parking G. CIVIL PROCEDURE. may issue. April 23. 160025. on motion. J. the Shariah Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over it.R. Heirs of Bihag vs. judgments or orders must become final at some point in time. No. EVIDENCE. AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS: [Pursuant] to Sec. OFFER AND OBJECTION: It is the duty of each contending party to lay before the court the facts in issue–fully and fairly. C. In Neypes. CIVIL PROCEDURE. had no intention whatsoever of complying with the directive of this Court. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link. APPEAL. declared that an aggrieved party has a fresh period of 15 days counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration. As a matter of course.R. Allied Banking G. 188832. 5 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. the oral testimonies of witnesses Simeon Juan Tong and Jose Juan Tong. In cases where one of the parties is a non-muslim. April 21. 2014 Brion. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. April 23. on appeal or otherwise. Republic vs. No. 188881. Parol evidence that is required to establish the existence of an implied trust necessarily has to be trustworthy and it cannot rest on loose. the members of the buy-bust team did not also mention that they marked the seized plastic sachet in their Joint Affidavit of Arrest. PAROLE EVIDENCE: Contrary to the claim of the respondents. at the risk of occasional errors. Article 1457 of our Civil Code authorizes the admission of parol evidence to prove their existence. No. April 21. It would immediately divest the Shariah court jurisdiction over the subject matter. issue such orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity and justice may warrant under the circumstances. MODES OF APPEAL: [The] doctrine of finality of judgment dictates that. hence. 180105. No. in an action for injunction. JURISDICTION: Article 143 of the Muslim Code would reveal that Sharia courts has jurisdiction over real actions when the parties are both Muslims. i. 5th Shari'a District Court G.R..R. The fact that the Sharia courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the regular courts in cases of actions involving real property means that jurisdiction may only be exercised by the said courts when the action involves parties who are both Muslims. at the very outset. to present to the court all the material and relevant facts known to him. No. The records in the present case do not show that the police marked the seized plastic sachet immediately upon confiscation.e. J. 2014 Sereno. 2014 Del Castillo. whether prohibitory or mandatory. the main action for injunction . in order to standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases. 196023. where the executed judgment is reversed totally or partially. J. SATISFACTION. April 23. Go Tiat Kun G. EVIDENCE. 184758. from also presenting all the facts within his knowledge. Under the law. No. Sandiganbayan G. CIVIL PROCEDURE. J. suppressing or concealing nothing. Republic’s failure to offer a plausible explanation for its concealment of the main bulk of its exhibits even when it was under a directive to produce them and even as the defendants were consistently objecting to the presentation of the concealed documents gives rise to a reasonable inference that the Republic. No.J. 2014 Abad. Spouses Eserjose vs. to arrive at the conclusion that an implied resulting trust exists.R.. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES. within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. Tong vs. April 21.G. 2014 Reyes.R. or annulled. J. J. the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction. 2014 Sereno. or at the police station. nor preventing another party. Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Baguio City vs. April 23.R. it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference.e. EXECUTION. 181949. 2014 140 Leonen. equivocal or indefinite declarations. Villagracia vs. EVIDENCE. Heirs of Bathan G. Because an implied trust is neither dependent upon an express agreement nor required to be evidenced by writing. Notably. i.

2014 Leonardo-De Castro. People G. J. CERTIORARI. violating the best evidence rule. A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. 2014 Peralta. thus. and to participate in the preliminary investigation. No. as reflected in the Information. 180016. No. such objection shall be considered as waived. The order of dismissal is thus beyond appellate review. and (j) of Republic Act No. Corpuz’s argument that the Information filed against him is formally defective because the Information does not contain the period when the pieces of jewelry were supposed to be returned and that the date when the crime occurred was different from the one testified to by private complainant Tangcoy is untenable. 2014 Perez. The CA also correctly pointed out that Corpuz also failed to raise an objection in his Comment to the prosecution's formal offer of evidence and even admitted having signed the said receipt. the exclusion of the period and the wrong date of the occurrence of the crime. 1991 marked as Exhibit “A” and its submarkings. and Junia under Section 3(a). Cajipe vs. the sole object of which is to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard. According to Corpuz. People G. It implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify conviction. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. 203605 . belong to Junia. the petition was filed out of time. WHO MAY CONDUCT DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF PROBABLECAUSE: Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt. Ombudsman G. However. April 23. and should not be confused with. hence. Agdeppa’s accusations were mere suspicions that do not support a finding of probable cause to criminally charge Jarlos-Martin.R. It goes against the very nature and purpose of preliminary investigation to still drag the respondent/accused through the rigors of such an investigation so as to aid the complainant in substantiating an accusation/charge that is evidently baseless from the very beginning. bearing in mind that the rights to be informed of the charges. Hercules Agro 141 . 2014 Abad. Laurezo.seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from. A complainant cannot insist that a preliminary investigation be held when the complaint was dismissed outright because of palpable lack of merit. April 29. marked and testified upon in court by private complainant. SC therefore. the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction. CONTROL OF PROSECUTION: Founded on the power of supervision and control over his subordinates. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.R. the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the trial court. J. 189596. EVIDENCE. the records show that Corpuz never objected to the admissibility of the said evidence at the time it was identified. to file a comment to the complaint. Clearly. 3019 Corpuz vs. NATURE OF RIGHT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: Agdeppa’s assertion that he had been denied due process is misplaced. the right to preliminary investigation is a component of the right of the respondent/accused to substantive due process. J. (e). although the same was merely a photocopy. No. DOJ vs. subparagraph (b) of the RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner and that the time of occurrence is not a material ingredient of the crime. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 146376. J.R. AND MANDAMUS: Since the OSG filed its petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on behalf of the People 112 days from receipt of the dismissal order by the city prosecutor of Parañaque. April 23.R. PROHIBITION. admitting in evidence a receipt dated May 2. Agdeppa vs. (f). OFFER AND OBJECTION: The established doctrine is that when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered in evidence. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. April 23. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ruled that the CA did not commit any error in treating Jadewell’s Petition for Certiorari as an original action for injunction. JUNE 2014 De Leon vs. the Secretary of Justice did not act with grave abuse of discretion when he took cognizance of BBB’s letter and treated it as a petition for review from the provincial prosecutor’s resolution. Alaon G. No. do not make the latter fatally defective. However. Therefore. It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final injunction. SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION: It is true that the gravamen of the crime of estafa under Article 315. paragraph 1. The.

June 3. 183202. 2014 Brion. De Leon’s motion for time praying for an additional 10 days to file his motion for partial reconsideration is validly denied by the RTC. was the author of the crime. Edwin Sr. Lim G. Jr. if supported by substantial evidence. People vs. and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. June 2. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. June 4. J. to the exclusion of all others. in recognition of their expertise on the specific matters under their consideration.R. J. CIVIL PROCEDURE. EVIDENCE. Barcelona is mistaken.R. No. the victim was last seen in the presence of the appellant Solano. Soliman vs. No. 2014 Perez. C. 189171.G. As found by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. CIVIL PROCEDURE. 176652. June 2. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: A finding of guilt is still possible despite the absence of direct evidence. The Court emphasizes that in the absence of a . APPEAL. J. Fernandez G. APPEAL.J. 2014 Del Castillo.R. and that this Court has the authority to review matters not specifically raised or assigned as error by the parties. EVIDENCE.R. People G.R. Solano G. and Nestor whom he even considered as friends. Barcelona must present evidence to prove that the evidence relied on by the CSC was unsubstantial. it passes beyond review. MODES OF APPEAL: The CA correctly ordered that De Leon's appellant's brief be stricken off the records. An appeal. No. No. MODES OF APPEAL: It is well-settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies such as the Civil Service Commission are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court and the Supreme Court. 199871. The autopsy report showed that “AAA” was raped and strangled. No. the case is deemed terminated once and for all. CIVIL PROCEDURE. if their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just resolution of the case.” In this case. throws the entire case open to review. to the exclusion of all others. 191906. Nestor also saw appellant Solano dragging the motionless 142 body of “AAA. failure to perfect the same renders the judgment final and executory. In this case. hence. SATISFACTION. and payment or satisfaction of the obligation thereby established produces permanent and irrevocable discharge. since such motion is a transgression of the mandatory prohibition on the filing of a motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration. 183239. In order to overcome the validity of these Resolutions. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. the instant Petition is rendered moot and academic. CIVIL PROCEDURE. The satisfaction of the judgment in full has placed the case beyond the Court’s review. Edwin Jr. June 2. An appeal throws the entire case open for review. committed the crime. J. With the development in the case. June 2. 2014 Del Castillo. Doctrinallyentrenched is that the right to appeal is a statutory right and the one who seeks to avail that right must comply with the statute or rules. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence may result if sufficient circumstances. And when a judgment has been satisfied. G. Barcelona vs. hence. it is beyond doubt that all the circumstances taken together point to the singular conclusion that appellant Solano. The perfection of appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well. 2014 Sereno. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: “Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance. Likewise. satisfaction being the last act and the end of the proceedings. Jacinto vs. (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. Solano could not ascribe any ill–motive on the part of prosecution witnesses Edwin Jr. Barcelona claims that only the issues raised by the parties may be resolved by the Court. J. AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS: It is axiomatic that after a judgment has been fully satisfied. No. PRE-TRIAL: [Respondent] had the option to move for pre-trial and if he fails to do so as he did. EXECUTION. proven and taken together. create an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that the accused. Gumaru. this Court rule that the findings of fact and conclusions of the CSC have passed the test of substantiality.. 2014 Peralta. once accepted by this Court.R. the branch clerk of court had the duty to have the case set for pre-trial. a judgment debtor who acquiesces to and voluntarily complies with the judgment is estopped from taking an appeal therefrom. Almojuela vs. saw appellant Solano chasing the victim.” The body of the victim was eventually found buried in the mud near the place where she was last seen with Solano. Solano admitted holding a grudge against the family of “AAA” because he believes that a relative of “AAA” had raped his sister.

Ombudsman G. at the very least. as in the case at bar. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. PAROLE EVIDENCE: The failure of the Deed of Absolute Sale to express the true intent and agreement of the contracting parties was clearly put in issue in the present case. SATISFACTION. Inaccuracies may even suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed. June 4.R. June 4. The RTC is justified to apply the exceptions provided in the second paragraph of Sec. Clearly therefore. People vs. But where the official act in question is irregular on its face. No. CIVIL PROCEDURE. Paras G. Thus. the retroactive application of the AO does not prejudice the rights of the accused. 2014 Velasco.R. EVIDENCE. Abetong G. J.R. People vs. 143 .. EXECUTION. No. CIVIL PROCEDURE. J. People vs. 9. 192912.R. Sara Lee vs. (2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond. says that she has been raped. Jr. Spouses Gualvez G. & 180685. June 4. 200793. EVIDENCE. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. J. having been rendered by a court without jurisdiction over the reconstitution proceedings. No. Rebusquillo vs. 2014 Perez. EVIDENCE. when it is clear that the police officers were remiss in showing that they preserved the chain of custody when they failed to present the testimony of the inspector who had the only keys to the evidence locker where the sachet of shabu was kept. Paulino vs. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS: The presumption of regularity obtains only when nothing in the records suggests that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. particularly if she is a minor. J. 209785. APPEAL. June 4. MODES OF APPEAL: [The] Court did relax the rule respecting the bond requirement to perfect appeal in cases where: (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules. 2014 Mendoza. petitioners are not precluded from presenting evidence to modify. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. June 4. since when a girl. No. Macatlang G. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course. CIVIL PROCEDURE. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. J. ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT: The Court agrees with the CA that LRA was not estopped from assailing the RTC Decision because it never attained finality for being null and void.. exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period. CA G. Dela Cruz G. J. 180149. June 4. Compliance with the two conditions stops the running of the period to perfect an appeal provided that they are complied[with] within the 10-day reglementary period. AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS: [Decisions] of the Ombudsman are executory pending appeal. (3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits. Rule 130 to ascertain the true intent of the parties. 180147. That said. June 4. or (4) the appellants. 180150. explain or add to the terms of the written agreement. 180319.R. No. No.pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to observe the mandatory requirement of the rules on the part of the plaintiff. which shall prevail over the letter of the document. People vs. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. Jr.R. Roxas G. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE: Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit. 205065. J. the presumption of regularity shall not apply. since there is no vested right in a public office. 202303. CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS: [Inconsistencies] and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal. As long as the inaccuracies concern only minor matters.R. No. EVIDENCE. 192820. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. 204029. 2014 Velasco. June 4. considering that the Deed of Absolute Sale has been shown to be void for being absolutely simulated. Truth-telling witnesses are not always expected to give error-free testimonies considering the lapse of time and treachery of human memory. Villaseñor vs. 2014 Mendoza. J. Nos. the same do not affect the credibility of witnesses.R. the Rules only allow the filing of a motion to reduce bond on two (2) conditions: (1) that there is meritorious ground and (2) a bond in a reasonable amount is posted. courts should decide to dispense with rather than wield their authority to dismiss. Moreover.

if the purpose of placing the statement on the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement. there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to. 187843. was made. if during the pendency of a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the CA’s issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in a case for patent infringement. the trial court correctly denied the notice of appeal for having been filed out of time. the same should not be dismissed. a petition for relief from judgment may be filed on the ground of fraud. admitting what appears solely on its face to be correct.R. so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. 2014 Leonen. while they were armed with firearms and boarding a car. The double period required under Section 3. In this case. This is because the trial court has had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness and was in the best position to discern whether they were telling the truth. Rule 38 is jurisdictional and should be strictly complied with. 2010. EVIDENCE. Even if we assume that petitioners filed their petition for relief from judgment within the reglementary period. No. final order. Spouses Morales G. the findings of the trial court. the issue before the Supreme Court is moot because the CA decision makes permanent the assailed preliminary injunction. the statement of an NBI Agent that a witness confided to him that the latter heard the accused in a murder case tell the other suspect that “ayoko nang abutin pa ng bukas yang si [victim]”. and not the truthfulness or falsity of the statement. A petition for relief of judgment filed beyond the reglementary period is dismissed outright. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS: A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events. PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT: A petition for relief from judgment must be filed within 60 days after petitioner learns of the judgment. June 9. as already well put in the prior Chua Suy Phen case. the Supreme Court will not tackle the merits of the case as it is premature. 199283. 2014 Del Castillo. June 9. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Conviction based on circumstantial evidence can . the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown.R. as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. People G. Further. EVIDENCE. mistake. or the tenor of such statement. J. when what is relevant is the fact that such statement has been made. 2014 Perez. the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for. accident. Espineli vs. or excusable negligence. No. HEARSAY: Under the Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statement. J. Warner Lambert G. petitioners failed to prove that their former counsel’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal was due to a mistake or excusable negligence.EVIDENCE. Accordingly. Capitol Sawmill vs. Gaw G. Thus. is independently relevant and proves what the witness heard. the RTC dismissed the main case but the CA ruled that the respondent is guilty of patent infringement. J.R. Under Section 1. have a right to share in the ownership of the corporation. CIVIL PROCEDURE. 2010 to file a notice of appeal. CIVIL PROCEDURE. In such instance. CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS: Jurisprudence instructs that when the credibility of a witness is of primordial consideration. A motion for reconsideration is required before a petition for certiorari is filed to grant the court which rendered the assailed judgment or order an opportunity to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case.R. and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Since petitioners filed their notice of appeal only on August 11. CIVIL PROCEDURE. June 9. Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement. respondents. petitioners had until July 9. J. 194872. Thus. or proceeding and within six (6) months from entry of judgment or final order. considering that their former counsel received a copy of the order denying their motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s decision on June 24. June 9. They are themselves determining that the issue is whether the properties of the corporation can be included in the inventory of the estate of the decedent when the only question to be resolved in a demurrer to evidence is whether based on the evidence. 2010. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. 179535. CAUSE OF ACTION: A complaint is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if. if the allegations furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained. No. as in this case. its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof. 144 Madarang vs. Sahar International vs. No. regardless of the defenses that may be averred by the defendants. Petitioners are pushing the case too far ahead of its limits. Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. 189532. No. The alleged discrepancy between the testimony of P02 Aseboque that he placed the marking REA on the seized item. Dio vs. In the instant case. (2) the getaway vehicle was properly identified by the previous owner.” Thus. Judge Rubia A. the Court gives more weight to the allegations and testimony of the complainant and her witnesses who testified clearly and consistently before the Investigating Judge. Gamata G. VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING: This Court has. 2014 Perez. 190253. In these cases. PO2 Aseboque. (3) the statement of the medico-legal officer that high-powered firearms were used in the killing of the victim. particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized. ALLEGATIONS AND COUNTERCLAIMS: [As] the rule now stands. LRTA vs. Sison-Barias vs. 2260 or the Civil Service Law of 1959. 2014 Brion. RTJ-14-2388. [it has been] held that the rules 145 .R. No. the jurisdiction of the court over the counterclaim that appears to be valid on its face.R. No.. relaxed the application of the Rules of Procedure when the party has shown substantial compliance with it. there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY: In administrative proceedings. on its own. 205202. including the grant of any relief thereunder. appeals ”by the respondent” were allowed on “the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service rendered in an administrative case involving discipline of subordinate officers and employees. June 11. the strongest corroborative evidence to support complainant Emilie’s allegations was the exchange of text messages between her and respondent Pecaña regarding the dinner meeting. the forensic chemist's report stating that the specimen was marked “R. June 10. CIVIL PROCEDURE. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: Non-compliance with Section 21 of Article II of Republic Act (R. as the guilty person.R. the nature of the counterclaim notwithstanding.e. For evidence to be inadmissible. At the same place. i. the quantum of proof required to establish a respondent’s malfeasance is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but substantial evidence. These text messages were admitted by respondent Pecaña. and (4) the escape from detention of the accused. and the latter may remain for independent adjudication of the court. If there is no such law or rule.R. 2014 Per Curiam EVIDENCE. testimonial and documentary evidence show that the poseur-buyer.” and the absence of any such. evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. Stated differently. In this case. J. 2014 Reyes. APPEAL. marked the seized illegal drug at the crime scene with his initials “REA”. J. in proper instances. EVIDENCE. The court’s authority to proceed with the disposition of the counterclaim independent of the main action is premised on the fact that the counterclaim. J.be upheld provided that the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused. 9165. raises a novel question which may be aptly adjudicated by the court based on its own merits and evidentiary support. description in the Spot Report of P02 Castillo did not cause a gap in the chain of custody.A. No. 2014 Leonen. to the exclusion of all others. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court.M. June 11. June 9. Trajano vs. J. 192074. is required. the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will accorded it by the courts. Subic Bay G. In Republic Act No. is not abated by the dismissal of the main action. states a sufficient cause of action and does not labor under any infirmity that may warrant its outright dismissal. the dismissal of the complaint does not ipso jure result in the dismissal of the counterclaim. LRTA had standing to appeal the modification by the Civil Service Commission of its decision.) No. the court may convict the accused in a murder case on the basis of the (1) independently relevant statement of the NBI Agent that a witness heard the accused utter statements as to the killing of the victim. Thus. will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. PLEADINGS. No.A. June 10. Uniwide G. Salvaña G. CIVIL PROCEDURE. MODES OF APPEAL: The present rule is that a government party is a “party adversely affected” for purposes of appeal provided that the government party that has a right to appeal must be the office or agency prosecuting the case. he also prepared an Acknowledgment Receipt of the items seized from the accused-appellant whose refusal to sign was duly noted in the same document. that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. CIVIL PROCEDURE. Faced with conflicting versions of complainant and respondent.E. The grant of the right to appeal in administrative cases is not new. People vs. provided that such counterclaim.

Asian Construction vs. No. People vs.R. J. which is made applicable to extrajudicial foreclosures of real estate mortgages. 2014 Leonen. 194560. UNLAWFUL DETAINER: [Unlawful detainer] is not the same as annulment of contract. 2014 Perez. Garay G. CIVIL PROCEDURE. the issue is who between the parties has a better right to physical possession over the property or possession de facto and the principal relief prayed for is for Stop and Save to vacate the property for failure to pay the rent. June 11. June 18.e. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS. An answer fails to tender an issue if it does not comply with the requirements of a specific denial as set out in Sections 8 and 10. the appeal shall be dismissed despite payment of a substantial amount. CIVIL PROCEDURE.R. People G. if. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. It contemplates a situation in which a third party holds the property by . 196950.R. 2014 Brion. to ensure the orderly. J. J. J. Sannaedle G. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J. Garay is not a ground to defer the issuance of the Writ of Possession.R.. PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES: The Court may only grant liberal application of technical rules to the party seeking the same only on meritorious grounds and upon proof. 186657. EVIDENCE. the possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last redemptioner unless a third party is actually holding the property in a capacity adverse to the judgment obligor. Salamanca G. the issue is the validity of the lease contract. In the unlawful detainer suit. 2014 Brion.of procedure should not be applied in a very technical sense when it defeats the purpose for which it had been enacted. No. 2014 Brion. J. The doctrine of immutability of judgments bars courts from modifying decisions that have already attained finality. June 11. resulting in the admission of the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. Lumapas G. 190177. Spouses Sombilon vs. No. 2014 Del Castillo.177425. i. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: In the prosecution of a case for sale of illegal drugs punishable under Section 5. or do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of 146 defense he has or will assume are considered merely as formal amendments. Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In contrast. Gadrinab vs. It has the effect of res judicata. otherwise. FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE: Once the one-year redemption period has lapsed from the foreclosure sale and once title is consolidated under the name of the purchaser. No. FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE: Under Section 33. June 18. Article II of Republic Act No. Mendez vs. Cabling vs. Stop & Save G. AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION: [Amendments] that do not charge another offense different from that charged in the original one. the issuance of the writ of possession becomes ministerial on the part of the court. just and speedy dispensation of cases. No. COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS: [A] judgment on compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. J. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS: Judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender an issue. and is immediately final and executory unless set aside because of falsity or vices of consent. No. 9165. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER. June 11. there will yet be basis for the establishment of the guilt of the accused.R. June 11. Southern Luzon Institute G.R. the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items is preserved. CIVIL PROCEDURE. No. Gipa vs.R. 179962. nonetheless. even if the purpose of the modification is to correct errors of fact or law. 181676. noncompliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of the law is not necessarily fatal as to render an accused's arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible as evidence of his guilt.R. The alleged invalidity of the sale of PNB to Atty. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS. June 16. in the annulment of lease contract. 179914. Bulotano G. June 11. The full payment of docket fees is mandatory to perfect an appeal and the rules on payment may only be relaxed after the party has proven that a valid ground exists to warrant the liberal application of the rules. 2014 Peralta. or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading. 2014 Del Castillo. J. Quito vs. No.

June 23. However. it was held that petitioner] has the better right of possession de facto over the subject lot and that the spouses’ stay on the subject lot was only made possible through the mere tolerance of the petitioner. They filed a complaint against defendant Lim for Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession to restore them to their possession of the subject property. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Tancinco G. 193478. the present action arose from a case for quieting of title where the plaintiff must show or prove legal or equitable title to or interest in the property which is the subject-matter of the action. People vs. June 18. 194234. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER.R. While there is identity of parties and subject matter between the instant case and the matter before the DENR and later the OP. incident. and not possession de jure. Spouses Gurieza G. 2014 Perez. J. Spouses Ligon G. On the other hand. J. SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST: It is important to note that the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. EVIDENCE. No. J. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE: In cases of rape. SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST: The accused cannot claim that the evidence obtained from a search conducted incident to an arrest is inadmissible because it is violative of the plain view doctrine. The plain view doctrine only applies to cases where the arresting officer is not searching for evidence against the accused. Piedad vs. such as that of a co-owner.. 203984. (b) the court that rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. No. the Spouses Ligon were evicted from the subject property. this is not true to all rape cases as the Supreme Court may consider other circumstances and evidence present in the case such as behavior of the victim and her family during and after the People vs. No. the administrative proceedings before the DENR and now the OP. June 18. CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS: A few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not actually touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair their credibility. No. Calantiao G. and causes of action. who possesses the property in his own right. Instead of weakening their testimonies. and (d) between the first and the second actions. No. the following requisites must concur: (a) the former judgment was final. Jr. June 18. 207525. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS.R. Fernandez G. In the case at bar. UNLAWFUL DETAINER: [In a case where an action for unlawful detainer was filed petitioner against respondents who were the assigned caretakers of the property concerned. the causes of action are not the same.R.J. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER. such inconsistencies tend to strengthen their credibility. were instituted on behalf of the Director of Lands. EVIDENCE. but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.R. despite the finality of the ruling in the ejectment case. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. 2014 Reyes. IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENTS: For a judgment to constitute res judicata. J. is that the concept of possession or prior possession which was established in favor of defendant’s predecessorsin-interest in the ejectment case pertained merely to possession de facto. FORCIBLE ENTRY: [As a result of the finality of the judgment in the ejectment case. 2014 Sereno.R. J. after demand to vacate. June 18. there was an identity of parties.adverse title or right. in order to investigate any allegation of irregularity in securing a patent and the corresponding title to a public land under Section 91 of the Public Land Act. and the corresponding testimony of the arresting officers on the buy-bust transaction. CIVIL PROCEDURE. tenant or usufructuary. 2014 Villarama. People vs. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. People vs.R. 183589. (c) the judgment was based on the merits. the intent of the accused to flee and the medico-legal report submitted. or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive. C. Lim vs. 200598. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed. The favorable judgment in favor of defendant’s predecessors-in-interest cannot therefore bar an action between the 147 . 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. subject matters. Cruz G. and is not merely the successor or transferee of the right of possession of another co-owner or the owner of the property. the testimony of the victim alone may be sufficient to obtain a conviction. No. can only be overcome through clear and convincing evidence showing either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty.] The legal limitation. June 25.

et sq. The factors to balance are the following: (a) duration of the delay. J. and the Court of Appeals all ruled that Miaque does not have any right to continue in possession of the said premises. the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction upon the application of the spouses Borbon was improper. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES. SPEEDY TRIAL: Speedy trial is a relative term and necessarily a flexible concept. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: [What] Section 21 of the IRR of R.R. Co vs. 2014 Bersamin. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. Jr.A. as such. In this case. ATO vs.” BPI vs. however. This means that the MTCC. Benigno Aquino III G. they were fully aware of the consequences on their rights in the properties 148 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. SATISFACTION. Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the accused to speedy trial. No. 2014 Bersamin. No. the RTC. It is therefore puzzling how the Court of Appeals justified its issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction with the sweeping statement that Miaque “appears to have a clear legal right to hold on to the premises leased by him from ATO at least until such time when he shall have been duly ejected therefrom by a writ of execution of judgment caused to be issued by the MTCC. even if the latter does not exercise judicial. EVIDENCE. the decisions of the MTCC. AND MANDAMUS: With respect to the Court. 2014 Peralta. and that particular regard must be given to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. given as collaterals should the loan secured be unpaid. and the writ of certiorari or prohibition may be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal. CERTIORARI. board or officer exercising judicial. June 25. JULY 2014 Araullo vs. CA G. 9165 requires is “substantial” and not necessarily “perfect adherence.” as long as it can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. No. mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not suffice as the realities of everyday life must be regarded in judicial proceedings which. CIVIL PROCEDURE. CIVIL PROCEDURE. To avoid such immediate execution. PROHIBITION. Under the circumstances averred in the complaint. 157163. the defendant may appeal said judgment to the CA and therein apply for a writ of preliminary injunction. No. G. Thus. and (c) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. corporation. J.same parties with respect to who has title to the land in question. of the RTC. the delay should be considered in view of the entirety of the proceedings. No. 2014 De Castro. June 25. petitions for certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit or nullify the acts of legislative and executive officials. J. EXECUTION. June 30. In determining whether the accused's right to speedy trial was violated. Rule 70 provides that the judgment of the RTC in ejectment cases appealed to it shall be immediately executory and can be enforced despite the perfection of an appeal to a higher court. This application is expressly authorized by the text of the second paragraph of Section 1. undo and restrain any act or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the Government. 173616. we cannot deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals. unanimously recognized the right of the ATO to possession of the property and the corresponding obligation of Miaque to immediately vacate the subject premises. While the Court recognizes the accused's right to speedy trial and adheres to a policy of speedy administration of justice.R. do not exist in a vacuum. and (d) prejudice caused by such delay. in discharging its duty under [the subject constitutional duty] to set right and undo any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of . (c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it. Necessarily.R. 209287.R. 183994. and. after all. quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. J. quasi-judicial or ministerial functions but also to set right. AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS: Section 21. Surely. (b) that the act sought to be enjoined is violative of that right. Judge Hontanosas. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: The conditions for the issuance of the injunctive writ are: (a) that the right to be protected exists prima facie.. New Prosperity G. July 1. They had admittedly constituted the real estate and chattel mortgages to secure the performance of their loan obligation to the BPI. (b) reason therefor. [Article VII of the 1987 Constitution]. the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are necessarily broader in scope and reach. and of the CA.

Moreover. No. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. Jr. This entrustment is consistent with the republican system of checks and balances. Thus. which is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues raised by the parties and to take the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering. July 2. a review of the instant petition under Rule 45 is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. it reveals that Erlinda did not only pray that BCCC be enjoined from denying her access to the cottage and be directed to provide water and electricity thereon. However. J. In such cases. 2014 Del Castillo. in appropriate cases. it paves the way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of the case. the validity of any assailed legislative or executive action. City of Dagupan vs. July 2. mandatory is the notice requirement in a motion. Hailed as the most important procedural innovation in AngloSaxon justice in the nineteenth century. July 2. Parañaque Kings clearly trifled with the mandatory character of a pre-trial. MODES OF APPEAL: As correctly pointed out by the respondents. [The] Court finds that no special and important reasons exist to warrant a thorough 149 . 2014 Perlas-Bernabe.R. The Court has been thereby entrusted expressly or by necessary implication with both the duty and the obligation of determining. 188035. In such a case. moral and exemplary damages because her proprietary right was violated by the respondents when they denied her of beneficial use of the property. J.] The Court has indeed held time and time again that. the Court is not at all precluded from making the inquiry provided the challenge was properly brought by interested or affected parties. July 2. In the exercise of its power of review. mandatory for the trial court to conduct pre-trial in civil cases in order to realize the paramount objective of simplifying. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. there is no actual substantial relief to which the plaintiff would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the complaint. Maramba G. Ilusorio vs. APPEAL. Santos G. 179571. Jose vs. CIVIL PROCEDURE.R. 194638.the Government. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. It is. No. 177374. a case should not be dismissed simply because one of the issues raised therein had become moot and academic by the onset of a supervening event. if there are other causes which need to be resolved after trial. Parañaque Kings vs.R. In this case. APPEAL. such ruling is no longer in issue. whether intended or incidental. No. July 2. for failure of respondent to assail the validity of her dismissal. PRE-TRIAL: The pattern of delay the pre-trial of the instant case is quite evident from the foregoing. When a case is dismissed without the other substantive issues in the case having been resolved would be tantamount to a denial of the right of the plaintiff to due process. J. the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding and consequently. Novida G. thus. which is rendered defective by failure to comply with the requirement. More significantly. a petition for review under Rule 45 covers questions of law only. abbreviating. Immaculate Concepcion Academy vs. CIVIL PROCEDURE. MODES OF APPEAL: It is axiomatic that a party who does not appeal or file a petition for certiorari is not entitled to any affirmative relief. Camilon G. 2014 Leonen. CIVIL PROCEDURE. CIVIL PROCEDURE. a motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma and does not affect the reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading. and expediting trial. a pre-trial has been institutionalized as the answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases.R. [The] Court is not a trier of facts. but she also sought to be indemnified in actual. the Court should not have dismissed the complaint and should have proceeded to trial in order to determine the propriety of the remaining claims. PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT: [The city government thru its handling attorney filed its motion for reconsideration which was opposed by respondent Maramba on the ground that the motion for reconsideration was not set for hearing. Baguio Country Club G. under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. 2014 Perez.R. 2014 Villarama. No. DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS: The Court previously ruled that an issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value. As a rule.. it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. J. CIVIL PROCEDURE. J. No. An appellee who is not an appellant may assign errors in his brief where his purpose is to maintain the judgment but he cannot seek modification or reversal of the judgment or claim affirmative relief unless he has also appealed. 174411.

It is settled that when the victim’s testimony is straightforward. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the case on the ground of improper venue. Lobingier. the trial court found the testimony of AAA to be clear. CERTIORARI.e. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. and. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. convincing. J. that Felicisimo migrated to the U. For petitioners to question these identical findings is to raise a question of fact. especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape. Edano G. CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS: Contending that the inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness affected her credibility as such. in both Cudiamat vs. but even finality. one which could not be considered as a common child’s tale. respondents were illegally dispossessed of their landholdings through force and intimidation by the petitioners after Felicisimo returned from abroad. the implementation of an 150 award on a public bidding for the supply of a police call and signal box system for the City of Manila. in Samar Mining Co. UNLAWFUL DETAINER: [The] date of unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession is to be counted from the date of the demand to vacate.A. and that as between petitioners and respondents. 2014 Del Castillo. in NAWASA. No. Inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony do n ot impair her credibility. in the resolution of rape cases. 193796. Thus. the victim is left to testify for herself. . J. 194833. the losing bidders succeeded in securing an injunctive writ from the CFI of Rizal in order to restrain. 2014 Perez. in Iligan City) is null and void. 188133. The SC ruled that due to its intimate nature. v. more often than not. No. These identical findings are not only entitled to great respect.. Quite the contrary. Samar and to enjoin said respondents from conducting further proceedings thereat. the conduct of the public bidding for the supply of steel pipes for its Manila and Suburbs Waterworks Project. Section 4. Atlanta G. a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction was filed in the CFI of Manila to question the authority of the Regional Administrator and Labor Attorney of the Department of Labor in Cebu City to hear a complaint for sickness compensation in Catbalogan. and became a naturalized American citizen. and. the accused-appellant filed the instant petition arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Rule 65 of the Rules. DARAB Quezon City and the CA – as well as the very admission of the petitioners themselves – to the effect that respondents fulfilled all the requirements under the agrarian laws in order to become entitled to their EPs. it passes the test of credibility. No. Reyes (NAWASA). applying the aforementioned precepts and pronouncements to the instant case. and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. PROHIBITION. and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. i.review of the assailed CA Decision. Pro-Guard Security vs. People vs. EVIDENCE. holding that the CFI of Manila had no authority to issue writs of injunction.S. unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency. that the power to administer justice conferred upon judges of the Regional Trial Courts. Tormil Realty G. July 2. Land Bank vs. July 2.e. as the same was outside the territorial boundaries of the issuing court. The Court held in both cases that the injunction issued by the CFI of Rizal purporting to restrain acts outside the [P]rovince of Rizal was null and void for want of jurisdiction. Arnado. July 7. the Court is satisfied with and can simply rely on the findings of the DARAB Urdaneta. the writ of prohibition issued by the Manila RTC in order to restrain acts beyond the bounds of the territorial limits of its jurisdiction (i. People vs. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER. in Cudiamat. rape is usually a crime bereft of witnesses. and prohibition affecting persons outside its territorial boundaries. that in 1991. Undoubtedly. the Court held in said case that the CFI of Leyte had no power to issue writs of injunction and certiorari against the Justice of Peace of Manila. that Felicisimo voluntarily surrendered and abandoned the subject property in favor of his creditors.. can only be exercised within the limits of their respective districts. candid. who took over the land and tilled the same until 1987. Balino G. 2014 Brion.R. formerly Courts of First Instance (CFI). J. the victim’s credibility becomes the primordial consideration. Applying previous legislation similar to [Section 21] of BP 129 and its complementary provision. J. Also. 176341. Torres (Cudiamat) and National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority v. beginning with the very early case of Castaño vs.. Inc. No.R. Further. The trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility is given great weight and is even conclusive and binding. AND MANDAMUS: The Court already ruled in numerous cases. certiorari. In the case at bar.R. and straightforward. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. outside of which they have no jurisdiction whatsoever. July 7.R. the latter are legally entitled to the subject property.

EVIDENCE. it is understandable that there would be instances where the parties in the original case and in the subsequent action for revival of judgment would not be exactly the same. What is important is that. During trial. It isnot intended to re-open any issue affecting the merits of the judgment debtor's case nor the propriety or correctness of the first judgment. As explained in Saligumba v. No.” Definitely. Spouses Berot vs. different and distinct fromeither the recovery of property case or the reconstitution case [in this case. CIVIL PROCEDURE. otherwise stated. Although the Court has recognized that minor deviations from the procedures under R. However. Palanog. her legal personality ceased. “An action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural means of securing the execution of a previous judgment which has become dormant after the passage of five years without it being executed upon motion of the prevailing party. the test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending. No. in addition to his being impleaded as an individual respondent in the case. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused. Olivarez Realty vs. operate as res judicata on a subsequent case. 188944. rights or causes of action. compromised the identity of the item seized.R. PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION: It should be borne in mind that the action for revival of judgment is a totally separate and distinct case from the original civil case for partition. Thus. the plaintiffs in the case for revival of judgment would be benefited by the enforcement of the decision in the partition case. the Court have also declared that when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R. J.R. Jalmanzar G. No. or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. No. An action for revival of judgment is a new and independent action. the original action for partition]. July 9. It is also true that her death opened to her heirs the succession of her estate. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: Edano was acquitted because the shabu purportedly seized from him is inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. July 9. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS. and of causes of action. (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits. leading to the failure to adequately prove the corpus delicti of the crime charged. July 9. (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Article II of R. prior judgment or res judicata bars a subsequent case when the following requisites concur: (1) the former judgment is final. wherein the cause of action is the decision itself and not the merits of the action upon which the judgment sought to be enforced is rendered. as the prevailing parties in the previous case for partition.” With the foregoing in mind. it has been settled that the dismissal for failure to state a cause of action may very well be considered a judgment on the merits and. thereby. Castillo G. No. they are “the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit.197530. In turn. VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING: To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping. Petitioners did not object either when the original Complaint was amended and respondent impleaded him as the administrator of Macaria’s estate. the trial and appellate courts were correct in ruling that. the most important factor to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present. Chiongbian G. 9165. there is identity of parties. parties present their respective evidence 151 . which in this case was an intestate succession. Siapno G. and with the chain of custody requirement of this Act. 2014 Peralta.R.A. C. Clidoro vs. The mere fact that the names appearing as parties in the complaint for revival of judgment are different from the names of the parties in the original case would not necessarily mean that they are not the real parties-ininterest. the prosecution's failure to comply with Section 21. indeed. July 9. 2014 Leonen. CIVIL PROCEDURE. CIVIL PROCEDURE.A. of subject matter. Aboitiz Equity vs. or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. J. and she could no longer be impleaded as respondent in the foreclosure suit. JURISDICTION: Petitioners were correct when they argued that upon Macaria Berot’s death. (4) there is – between the first and the second actions – identity of parties. Corollarily. 176598.R. 2014 Leonen. 196251.A.J. it can be gleaned from the records of the case that petitioners did not object when the estate of Macaria was impleaded as respondent in the foreclosure case. No. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. J. serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. as provided in Section 1. 2014 Sereno. and reliefs sought. As to the third requisite. 9165). SUMMARY JUDGMENT: Trial is the judicial examination and determination of the issues between the parties to the action. No. petitioners impliedly waived any objection to the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over their persons at the inception of the case.

People G. the failure of the lawyer to communicate with his clients for nearly three years and to inform them about the status of their case. Ocampo G. In such a case. the erroneous allegation in the information is just deemed supplanted by the evidence presented during the trial or may even be corrected by a formal amendment of the information. however. there are instances when trial may be dispensed with. variance in the date of commission of the offense as alleged in the . The notice of hearing must be addressed and served to all parties at least three days before the hearing and must specify the time and date of the hearing of the motion. No. or from the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the judgment. properly dismissible. July 9. No.R. Although this rule is subject to certain exceptions. Under Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. AND MANDAMUS: The [petition for certiorari] should have been filed within 60 days from notice of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed Order. diligence is required not only from lawyers but also from their clients. In such cases. a motion which does not meet the aforesaid requirements is considered pro forma. strict compliance of this rule is mandatory and imperative. procedural rules must be followed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice. order. depositions. Parties to an action have the right “to a plenary trial of the case” to ensure that they were given a right to fully present evidence on their respective claims. However. there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. J. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. and other papers on file. the allegation in an information of a date of commission different from the one eventually established during the trial would not. except those motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party. except only for the most compelling or persuasive reasons. July 9. The Rules of Court require that every written motion be set for hearing by the movant. However. 2014 Brion. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. when what is at stake is their liberty. Furthermore. Jurisprudence consistently holds that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to the institution of a petition for certiorari. none of which is present in this case. It is a correlative duty of clients to be in contact with their counsel from time to time to inform themselves of the status of their case especially. The Rules of Court merely requires. Hence. the 60-day limitation may be relaxed “for the most persuasive of reasons. or resolution. for a claim of a counsel's gross negligence to prosper. SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION: In crimes where the date of commission is not a material element. 2014 Del Castillo. 163999. the failure of the movant to comply renders his motion fatally defective and hence. If at all. nothing short of clear abandonment of the client's cause must be shown and it should not be accompanied by the client's own negligence or malice. The Court must emphasize that while litigation is not a game of technicalities. Again. the judgment issued is called a summary judgment. like murder. As such. the Petition for Certiorari should have been dismissed. 201572. which would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their cases. CIVIL PROCEDURE. J. ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT: It is settled that the negligence and mistakes of the counsel are binding on the client. in the absence of a motion for reconsideration. PROHIBITION. People vs. But like all rules. Furthermore. CERTIORARI. Hence. Thus.of their claims and defenses. it is not necessary to allege such date with absolute specificity or certainty in the information.R. that the date of commission be approximated. this does not mean that procedural rules may be ignored at will or that their non-observance may be dismissed simply because it may prejudice a party’s substantial rights. The 60-day period. 2014 Perez. As such. order. affidavits. No. is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay. a trial court may dispense with trial and proceed to decide a case if from the pleadings. As such. and not gross negligence that would warrant the annulment of the proceedings below. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that a special civil action for certiorari should be instituted within 60 days from notice of the judgment. or resolution being assailed.” which must be sufficiently shown by the party invoking liberality. J. does not amount to abandonment that qualifies as gross negligence. when relief is accorded to a client who has suffered thereby. be considered as an error fatal to prosecution. 192866. Mere invocations of substantial justice and liberality are not enough for the court to suspend procedural rules. It is only in cases involving gross or palpable negligence of the counsel or where the interests of justice so require. PLDT vs. the omission is only an act of simple negligence. July 9. it is nothing but a worthless piece of paper which the clerk has no right to receive and the court has no authority to act upon. as a rule. Resurreccion vs. for the sake of properly informing an accused.R. Section 4. Delfin G. 152 SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS.

CIVIL PROCEDURE. Ombudsman vs. However. An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. No. allege facts showing that any existing remedy is impossible or unavailing. 2014 Perez. it has been settled that direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix from which a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. Candelaria vs. PROHIBITION. 22 is different from the corporation that filed the memorandum at the RTC and the petition for review before the CA. 172204. CERTIORARI. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. J. 2014 Del Castillo. such is correctible by appeal and not by certiorari. July 9. A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. J. J. The RTC Decision absolving petitioner from civil liability has attained finality. Cathay Metal vs.” In this case. nor any plain. and (iii) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. CIVIL PROCEDURE. “a case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-ininterest. People vs. The lack of direct evidence does not ipso facto bar the finding of guilt against the appellant. 194068. PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION: Under our procedural rules. Consorte G. 2014 Leonen.R. A Cooperative Code provision requiring cooperatives to have an official address to which all notices and communications shall be sent cannot take the place of the rules on summons under the Rules of Court concerning a court proceeding. the defective allegation in the information is not deemed supplanted by the evidence nor can it be amended but must be struck down for being violative of the right of the accused to be informed of the specific charge against him. MODES OF APPEAL: The Ombudsman’s decision imposing the penalty of removal shall be executed as a matter of course and shall not be stopped by an appeal thereto. Hence. 2014 Carpio. No.R. July 10. hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action. Branch 42. No. Palmer Asia G. Valencerina G. 205179. No. Pampanga G. EVIDENCE. APPEAL. July 14. CIVIL PROCEDURE. or that will excuse him for not having availed himself of such remedy. and (3) the hierarchy of courts must be respected. (ii) the facts from which the inference is derived are proven. only real parties-in-interest who participated in 153 .R.P. since no appeal was interposed by a real party-in-interest.R. Republic vs. the corporation that initiated the complaint for B.information and as established in evidence becomes fatal when such discrepancy is so great that it induces the perception that the information and the evidence are no longer pertaining to one and the same offense. CIVIL PROCEDURE. July 14. 169745. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal. J. AND MANDAMUS: A Petition for Certiorari will prosper if the following rules will be observed: (1) the applicant must allege with certainty that there is no appeal. he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.R. J. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. the latter should be convicted. Laguna West MultiPurpose Coop. Magallanes vs. San Fernando. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. No. G. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. July 18. As long as the prosecution establishes accused’s participation in the crime through credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence that leads to the inescapable conclusion that he committed the imputed crime.R. RTC. J. or when any of those are present. No. (2) he must also show that the party against whom it is being sought acted in grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack of jurisdiction. it cannot be resorted to when then the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the case and the person of the petitioners for any perceived error in its interpretation of the law and its assessment of evidence would only be considered an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. While no prosecution witness has actually seen the commission of the crime. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. SUMMONS: [The] Cooperative Code provisions may govern matters relating to cooperatives’ activities as administered by the Cooperative Development Authority. 2014 Del Castillo. PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION: Under Section 1. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if (i) there is more than one circumstance.173861. In this event. However. they are not procedural rules that will govern court processes. 178343. Namboku Peak G. July 18.

the litigation of the case before the CA can avail
of an appeal by certiorari. The Secretary of
Labor is not the real party-in-interest vested
with personality to file the present petitions. A
real party-in-interest is the party who stands to
be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit. As thus defined, the real parties-in-interest
in these cases would have been PALCEA-SUPER
and PJWU-SUPER. It would have been their duty
to appear and defend the ruling of the Secretary
of Labor for they are the ones who were
interested that the same be sustained. As to the
Secretary of Labor, she was impleaded in the
Petitions for Certiorari filed before the CA as a
nominal party because one of the issues involved
therein was whether she committed an error of
jurisdiction. [However,] that does not make her
a real party-in- interest or vests her with
authority to appeal the Decisions of the CA in
case it reverses her ruling.

Mauleon vs. Porter
G.R. No. 203288, July 18, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENTS AND FINAL
ORDERS; IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL AND
EXECUTORY JUDGMENTS: Section 19, Rule 70 of
the Rules of Court provides for the immediate
execution of judgment in favor of the plaintiff in
ejectment cases, which can only be stayed if the
defendant perfects an appeal, files a
supersedeas bond, and makes periodic deposit of
rental or other reasonable compensation for the
use and occupancy of the subject premises
during the pendency of the appeal. These
requirements are mandatory and concurrent,
without which execution will issue as a matter
of right.

Bañez vs. SSS
G.R. No. 189574, July 18, 2014
Perez, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; APPEAL; MODES OF APPEAL:
It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a
constitutional right, but a mere statutory
privilege. Hence, parties who seek to avail
themselves of it must comply with the statutes
or rules allowing it. The rule is that failure to
file or perfect an appeal within the
reglementary period will make the judgment
final and executory by operation of law. Filing of
an appeal beyond the reglementary period may,
under meritorious cases, be excused if the
barring of the appeal would be inequitable and
unjust in light of certain circumstances therein.

Aboitiz Transport vs. Gothong Lines
G.R. No. 198226, July 18, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.

154

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION: Disputes
do not go to arbitration unless and until the
parties have agreed to abide by the arbitrator’s
decision. Necessarily, a contract is required for
arbitration to take place and to be binding. The
provision to submit to arbitration any dispute
arising therefrom and the relationship of the
parties is part of that contract. As a rule,
contracts are respected as the law between the
contracting parties and produce effect as
between them, their assigns and heirs. Only
those parties who have agreed to submit a
controversy to arbitration who, as against each
other, may be compelled to submit to
arbitration.

Tagalog vs. Vda. de Gonzales
G.R. No. 201286, July 18, 2014
Carpio, J.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
UNLAWFUL DETAINER; UNLAWFUL DETAINER:
The subject of the action is for unlawful
detainer, thus cognizable by a first level court or
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). Since the case
was filed with the RTC, a second level court, the
RTC’s decision is void for lack of jurisdiction
over the case. The proceedings before a court
without jurisdiction, including its decision, are
null and void. It then follows that the appeal
brought before the appellate court, as well as
the decisions or resolutions promulgated in
accordance with said appeal, is without force
and effect.

Spouses Velasco vs. Waterfields
G.R. No. 177484, July 18, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
UNLAWFUL DETAINER; UNLAWFUL DETAINER:
Failure to pay the rent must precede
termination of the contract due to nonpayment
of rent. It therefore follows that the cause of
action for unlawful detainer must necessarily
arise before the termination of the contract and
not the other way around.

Silverio vs. Cillan-Silverio
G.R. No. 186589, July 18, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; PROVISIONAL REMEDIES;
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: The pendency of a
special civil action for certiorari instituted in
relation to a pending case does not stay the
proceedings therein in the absence of a writ of
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
order. Rule 65, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules
makes this clear: [the] petition shall not
interrupt the course of the principal case unless
a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction has been issued against

the public respondent from further proceeding
in the case.

People vs. Alcala
G.R. No. 201725, July 18, 2014
Perez, J.
EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS: Where
the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, and
in this case their testimonies as well, the
findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed
unless the consideration of certain facts of
substance and value, which have been plainly
overlooked, might affect the result of the case.
Moreover, in cases involving violations of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended,
credence should be given to the narration of the
incident by the prosecution witnesses especially
when they are police officers who are presumed
to have performed their duties in a regular
manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Angeles vs. Bucad
G.R. No. 196249, July 21, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES;
APPEAL; MODES OF APPEAL: The jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court in cases brought before it
from the Court of Appeals (CA) via Rule 45 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is generally limited
to reviewing errors of law. This principle applies
with greater force in labor cases, where this
Court has consistently held that findings of fact
of the NLRC are accorded great respect and
even finality, especially if they coincide with
those of the Labor Arbiter and are supported by
substantial evidence. Judicial review by the SC
does not extend to a reevaluation of the
sufficiency of the evidence upon which the
proper
labor
tribunal
has
based
its
determination. Factual issues are beyond the
scope of the SC’s authority to review on
certiorari.

Samson vs. Spouses Gabor
G.R. No. 182970, July 23, 2014
Peralta, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; CAUSE OF ACTION: A cause
of action is a formal statement of the operative
facts that give rise to a remedial right. The
question of whether the complaint states a
cause of action is determined by its averments
regarding the acts committed by the defendant.
Thus it “must contain a concise statement of the
ultimate or essential facts constituting the
plaintiff’s cause of action.” Failure to make a
sufficient allegation of a cause of action in the
complaint “warrants its dismissal.” A perusal of
the complaint would show that aside from the
fact that respondent spouses had mortgaged the
property subject herein to respondent bank,
there is no other allegation of an act or omission

on the part of respondent Bank in violation of a
right of petitioner. [The RTC is, therefore,
correct in dismissing the case for failure to state
a cause of action.]
CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENTS AND FINAL
ORDERS; RES JUDICATA: Res judicata has two
concepts. The first is bar by prior judgment
under Rule 39, Section 47(b), and the second is
conclusiveness of judgment under Rule 39,
Section 47(c). Jurisprudence taught us well that
res judicata under the first concept or as a bar
against the prosecution of a second action exists
when there is identity of parties, subject matter
and cause of action in the first and second
actions. The judgment in the first action is final
as to the claim or demand in controversy,
including the parties and those in privity with
them, not only as to every matter which was
offered and received to sustain or defeat the
claim or demand, but as to any other admissible
matter which might have been offered for that
purpose and of all matters that could have been
adjudged in that case. The case at hand satisfies
the essential requisites of res judicata under the
first concept. [The RTC is therefore correct in
dismissing the case on the ground of res
judicata.]
CIVIL PROCEDURE; APPEAL; MODES OF APPEAL:
There is a question of law when the doubt or
difference arises as to what the law is on certain
state of facts and which does not call for an
existence of the probative value of the evidence
presented by the parties-litigants. In a case
involving a question of law, the resolution of the
issue rests solely on what the law provides on
the given set of circumstances. In the instant
case, petitioner appealed the Order of the trial
court which dismissed his complaint for
improper venue, lack of cause of action, and res
judicata. Dismissals based on these grounds do
not involve a review of the facts of the case but
merely the application of the law, specifically in
this case, Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure. Considering, therefore, that the
subject appeal raised only questions of law, the
CA committed no error in dismissing the same.

Absolute Management vs. Metrobank
G.R. No. 190277, July 23, 2014
Villarama, Jr., J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; PRE-TRIAL: [Where] a party
may not himself be present at the pre-trial, and
another person substitutes for him, or his lawyer
undertakes to appear not only as an attorney but
in substitution of the client’s person, it is
imperative for that representative of the lawyer
to have “special authority” to make such
substantive agreements as only the client
otherwise has capacity to make.

Esmarialino vs. Employees’ Compensation
Commission

155

G.R. No. 192352, July 23, 2014
Reyes, J.

performance of his duty but also in conducting
himself outside or beyond his duties.

CIVIL PROCEDURE; POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES;
APPEAL; MODES OF APPEAL: Rule 45 limits
merely to the review of questions of law raised
against the assailed CA decision. In this case, the
issues are beyond the ambit of a petition filed
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court since they
are factual in nature, essentially revolving on
the alleged increased risk for Edwin to contract
leukemia as a result of hardships incidental to
his employment as a security guard.

Genato Investments vs. Judge Barrietos
G.R. No. 207443, July 23, 2014
Perez, J.

Holasca vs. Pagunsan, Jr.
A.M. Nos. P-14-3198 &-3199, July 23, 2014
Brion, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES;
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION, AND EFFECTS OF
JUDGMENTS: [The following are] duties of a
sheriff: first, to give notice of the writ and
demand that the judgment obligor and all
persons claiming under him vacate the property
within three (3) days; second, to enforce the
writ by removing the judgment obligor and all
persons claiming under the latter; third, to
remove the latter’s personal belongings in the
property as well as destroy, demolish or remove
the improvements constructed thereon upon
special court order; and fourth, to execute and
make a return on the writ within 30 days from
receipt of the writ and every 30 days thereafter
until it is satisfied in full or until its effectivity
expires. In the present case, the Court finds that
Sheriff Pagunsan was remiss in performing his
mandated duties. To recall, the Writ of
Execution was issued by the RTC on February 4,
2009. Sheriff Pagunsan served the Writ on
February 11, 2009, giving the defendants three
(3) days or until February 14, 2009 within which
to voluntary vacate the premises. However,
there was no showing that the writ had been
fully implemented or the property delivered to
the complainant on February 14, 2009. In fact,
the records would show that Sheriff Pagunsan
did not return to the premises on the said date
or any date thereafter; nor made any personal
follow-ups from the defendants. In short, no
other action was undertaken by Sheriff Pagunsan
to implement the writ of execution. Court
employees should be wary when assisting
persons dealing with the courts and their cases.
While they are not totally prohibited from
rendering aid to others, they should see to it
that the assistance, albeit involving acts
unrelated to their official functions, does not in
any way compromise the public’s trust in the
justice system. In the present case, by getting
personally
involved
in
the
writ’s
implementation, Calibuso transgressed the strict
norm of conduct prescribed for court employees,
that is, to avoid any impression of impropriety,
misdeed or misdemeanor not only in the

156

CIVIL PROCEDURE; POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES;
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT: The general rule is
that a final and executory judgment can no
longer be disturbed, altered, or modified in any
respect, and that nothing further can be done
but to execute it. A final and executory decision
may, however, be invalidated via a Petition for
Relief or a Petition to Annul the same under
Rules 38 or 47, respectively, of the Rules of
Court. Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a remedy
granted only under exceptional circumstances
where a party, without fault on his part, has
failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of new
trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies. The same petition is not
available as a substitute for a remedy which was
lost due to the party’s own neglect in promptly
availing of the same. There is here no attempted
substitution; annulment of judgment is the only
remedy available to petitioner. Requisite
elements for the filing of a petition for
annulment of judgment on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, and want of
due process, are present in this case All the
requisite elements for the filing of a petition for
annulment of judgment on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, and want of
due process, are present in this case. It should
be stressed that Genato instituted the case
before the CA precisely to seek relief from the
declaration of nullity of TCT No. 33341, which
had been issued without first giving Genato an
opportunity to be heard. The petition need not
categorically state the exact words extrinsic
fraud; rather, the allegations in the petition
should be so crafted to easily point out the
ground on which it was based. The allegations in
the petition filed with the CA sufficiently
identify the ground upon which the petition was
based – extrinsic fraud. The allegations clearly
charged the RTC and respondent with depriving
Genato of the opportunity to oppose the auction
sale and the cancellation of her title and
ventilate her side. This allegation, if true,
constitutes extrinsic fraud.

People vs. Endaya
G.R. No. 205741, July 23, 2014
Perez, J.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; ARREST WITHOUT
WARRANT, WHEN LAWFUL: For a warrantless
arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto
under paragraph (a) of [Rule 113, Section 5 of
the Rules of Court], two requisites must concur:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an
overt act indicating that he has just committed,

is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done
in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer. In this case, the arrest of
appellant was effected under paragraph (a) or
what is termed “in flagrante delicto.” For a
warrantless arrest of an accused caught in
flagrante delictounder paragraph (a) of the
afore-quoted Rule, two requisites must concur:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an
overt act indicating that he has just committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done
in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer.

any person adverse of interest, it is a judicial
proceeding wherein relief is granted without
giving the person against whom the relief is
sought an opportunity to be heard. Since the
judge to whom the application for writ of
possession is filed need not look into the validity
of the mortgage or the manner of its
foreclosure, it has been ruled that the
ministerial duty of the trial court does not
become discretionary upon the filing of a
complaint questioning the mortgage.

Banco de Oro vs. Spouses Locsin
G.R. No. 190445, July 23, 2014
Peralta, J.

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS: Considering that the writ is made
enforceable within a judicial region, petitions
for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus,
whether they be filed under Rule 102 of the
Rules of Court or pursuant to Section 20 of A.M.
No. 030404SC, may therefore be filed with any
of the proper RTCs within the judicial region
where enforcement thereof is sought. As regards
petitioner’s assertion that the summons was
improperly served, suffice it to state that
service of summons, to begin with, is not
required in a habeas corpus petition, be it under
Rule 102 of the Rules of Court or A.M. No.
030404SC. As held in Saulo v. Cruz, 105 Phil. 315
(1959), a writ of habeas corpus plays a role
somewhat comparable to a summons, in ordinary
civil actions, in that, by service of said writ, the
court acquires jurisdiction over the person of
the respondent.

EVIDENCE;
BURDEN
OF
PROOF
AND
PRESUMPTIONS: It is a settled rule that, as in
other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon
the party who, as determined by the pleadings
or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative
issue. Contentions must be proved by competent
evidence and reliance must be had on the
strength of the party’s own evidence and not
upon the weakness of the opponent’s defense.
This principle holds true especially when the
latter has had no opportunity to present
evidence because of a default order, as in the
present case. The petitioner is not automatically
entitled to the relief prayed for. The pieces of
documents presented by BDO are not only selfserving but are not supported by sufficient and
credible evidence. BDO failed to meet its burden
of proving its claims by preponderance of
evidence.

Gopia vs. Metrobank
G.R. No. 188931, July 28, 2014
Peralta, J.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; FORECLOSURE OF
REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE: It is a wellestablished rule that the issuance of a writ of
possession to a purchaser in a public auction is a
ministerial function of the court, which cannot
be enjoined or restrained, even by the filing of a
civil case for the declaration of nullity of the
foreclosure and consequent auction sale. Once
title to the property has been consolidated in
the buyer’s name upon failure of the mortgagor
to redeem the property within the one-year
redemption period, the writ of possession
becomes a matter of right belonging to the
buyer. Its right to possession has then ripened
into the right of a confirmed absolute owner and
the issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial
function that does not admit of the exercise of
the court’s discretion. Moreover, a petition for a
writ of possession is ex parte and summary in
nature. As one brought for the benefit of one
party only and without notice by the court to

Tujan-Militante vs. Cada-Deapara
G.R. No. 210636, July 28, 2014
Velasco, Jr., J.

People vs. Sumilhig
G.R. No. 178115, July 28, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
EVIDENCE; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY: There is
no reason to doubt Jerry and Mario’s
identification of the appellants considering that
(1) Jerry was just six meters away from them;
(2) the moon was bright and Jerry was familiar
with all the accused as most of them are his
relatives; and (3) Mario knows Jojo ever since he
was small. Besides, time-tested is the rule that
between the positive assertions of prosecution
witnesses and the negative averments of the
accused, the former undisputedly deserve more
credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary
weight. Anent the respective alibis interposed by
appellants, suffice it to say that alibi cannot
prevail over the positive identification of a
credible witness.

People vs. Cataytay
G.R. No. 196315, July 28, 2014
Leonardo-De Castro, J.
EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS: AAA’s
mental condition may have prevented her from

157

delving into the specifics of the assault in her
testimony almost three years later, unlike the
way she narrated the same when she was asked
at the barangay outpost merely minutes after
the incident. However, as we have ruled in a
litany of cases, when a woman, more so if she is
a minor, says she has been raped, she says, in
effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape
was committed. Youth and, as is more applicable
in the case at bar, immaturity are generally
badges of truth. Furthermore, the report of
PC/Insp. Chua that the findings of the physical
examination were consistent with recent sexual
intercourse, provide additional corroboration to
the testimonies of AAA and BBB. It should be
noted that this report was stipulated upon by
the prosecution and the defense.

Spouses Tabino vs. Tabino
G.R. No. 196219, July 30, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES;
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION, AND EFFECTS OF
JUDGMENTS: As a general rule, an ejectment
suit cannot be abated or suspended by the mere
filing before the regional trial court (RTC) of
another action raising ownership of the property
as an issue. As an exception, however, unlawful
detainer actions may be suspended even on
appeal, on considerations of equity, such as
when the demolition of petitioners' house would
result from the enforcement of the municipal
circuit trial court (MCTC) judgment. In the case
at bar, if the ejectment case is allowed to
proceed without awaiting the result of the DENR
Protests, then a situation might arise where the
existing structures thereon would have to be
demolished. On the other hand, if Spouses
Labino’s position, as to be affirmed by the DENR,
is further upheld with finality by the courts,
then it would mean that Lazaro had no right to
occupy or take possession of the subject lots,
which thus negates his right to institute and
maintain the ejectment case.

NTC vs. Alphaomega
G.R. No. 184295, July 30, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION: While
there is jurisprudential authority stating that “a
clerical error in the judgment appealed from
may be corrected by the appellate court,” the
application of that rule cannot be made in this
case considering that the CIAC Rules provides for
a specific procedure to deal with particular
errors involving “an evident miscalculation of
figures, a typographical or arithmetical error.”
While the CA correctly affirmed in full the CIAC
Arbitral Tribunal’s factual determinations, it
improperly modified the amount of the award in
favor of AIC, which modification did not observe
the proper procedure for the correction of an

158

evident miscalculation of figures in the arbitral
award. Section 17.1 of the CIAC Rules mandates
the filing of a motion for the foregoing purpose
within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.
Failure to file said motion would consequently
render the award final and executory under
Section 18. 1 of the same rules.

Wesleyan University vs. Reyes
G.R. No. 208321, July 30, 2014
Velasco, Jr., J.
SPECIAL
CIVIL
ACTIONS;
CERTIORARI,
PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS: The appellate
court acted within its sound discretion when it
re-evaluated the NLRC’s factual findings and
substituted the latter’s own judgment. It is
settled that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa
Blg.129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902,
the CA, pursuant to the exercise of its original
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, is
specifically given the power to pass upon the
evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve
factual issues.

Castillo vs. Salvador
G.R. No. 191240, July 30, 2014
Peralta, J.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; WHEN CIVIL ACTION
MAY PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY: Our law
recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different
effects on the civil liability of the accused. First
is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is
not the author of the actor omission complained
of. This instance closes the door to civil liability,
for a person who has been found to be not the
perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and
can never be held liable for such act or
omission. The second instance is an acquittal
based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the
accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the
accused has not been satisfactorily established,
he is not exempt from civil liability which may
be proved by preponderance of evidence only.
However, even if respondent was acquitted
because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, his guilt was not
proven by preponderance of evidence that
would make him liable to civil liability.

Cabugao vs. People
G.R. No. 163879, July 30, 2014
Peralta, J.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; EFFECT OF DEATH OF
THE ACCUSED OR CONVICT ON CIVIL ACTION: It
is clear that the death of the accused Dr. Ynzon
pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability. However, the recovery of civil
liability subsists as the same is not based on
delict but by contract and the reckless
imprudence he was guilty of under Article 365 of
the Revised Penal Code. For this reason, a

separate civil action may be enforced either
against the executor/administrator or the estate
of the accused, depending on the source of
obligation upon which the same is based, and in
accordance with Section 4, Rule 111 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure.

People vs. Villarta
G.R. No. 205610, July 30, 2014
Perez, J.
EVIDENCE; CHAIN OF CUSTODY: The chain of
custody requirement performs the function of
ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items are preserved, so much so
that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the
evidence are removed. To be admissible, the
prosecution must show by records or testimony,
the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at
least between the time it came into possession
of the police officers and until it was tested in
the laboratory to determine its composition up
to the time it was offered in evidence. The facts
in the case persuasively proved that the three
plastic sachets of ephedrine presented in court
were the same items seized from the Villarta
and Cabiles during the buy-bust operation. The
integrity and evidentiary value thereof were
duly preserved.

AUGUST 2014
Association of Flood Victims vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 203775, August 5, 2014
Carpio, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION:
[Under] Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules
of Court, only natural and juridical persons or
entities authorized by law may be parties to a
civil action, which must be prosecuted and
defended by a real party-in-interest. A real
party-in-interest is the person who stands
benefitted or injured to the outcome of the case
or is entitled to the avails of the suit. Moreover,
under Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court the
facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or
be sued or the authority of the party to sue or
be sued in a representative capacity or the legal
existence of an organized association of persons
that is made a party, must be averred.

Villarosa vs. Festin
G.R. No. 212953, August 5, 2014
Velasco, Jr., J.
SPECIAL
CIVIL
ACTIONS;
CERTIORARI,
PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS: [In] the
instructive case of Ambil v. Commission on
Elections, the court has interpreted the
provision to limit the remedy of certiorari
against final orders, rulings and decisions of the
COMELEC en banc rendered in the exercise of its
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. Certiorari

will not generally lie against an order, ruling, or
decision of a COMELEC division for being
premature, taking into account the availability
of the plain, speedy and adequate remedy of a
motion for reconsideration. As elucidated in the
case, Rule 65, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, requires that there be
no appeal, plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law. A motion for
reconsideration is a plain and adequate remedy
provided by law. Failure to abide by this
procedural requirement constitutes a ground for
dismissal of the petition.

Caram vs. Segui
G.R. No. 193652, August 5, 2014
Villarama, Jr., J.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; WRIT OF AMPARO: The
Amparo Rule was intended to address the
intractable problem of “extralegal killings” and
“enforced disappearances,” its coverage, in its
present form, is confined to these two instances
or to threats thereof. “Extralegal killings” are
“killings committed without due process of law,
i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial
proceedings.” On the other hand, “enforced
disappearances” are “attended by the following
characteristics: an arrest, detention or
abduction of a person by a government official
or organized groups or private individuals acting
with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the
government; the refusal of the State to disclose
the fate or whereabouts of the person
concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the
deprivation of liberty which places such persons
outside the protection of law.”

Lourdes Suites vs. Binaro
G.R. No. 204729, August 6, 2014
Carpio, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; CAUSE OF ACTION: [Failure]
to state a cause of action and lack of cause of
action are really different from each other. On
the one hand, failure to state a cause of action
refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is
a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 ofthe Rules
of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause [of]
action refers to a situation where the evidence
does not prove the cause of action alleged inthe
pleading.

Padilla vs. Globe Asiatique
G.R. No. 207376, August 6, 2014
Villarama, Jr., J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; PLEADINGS; ALLEGATIONS
AND COUNTERCLAIMS: Under the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, it is now explicitly provided that
the dismissal of the complaint due to failure of
the plaintiff to prosecute his case is “without
prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a

159

The Court’s silence as to the payment of the legal interests in the dispositive portion of the decision is not tantamount to its deletion or reversal. August 6. as otherwise the CA would have expressly set aside . JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS.R. APPEAL: The right to prosecute criminal cases pertains exclusively to the People. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. The October 31.” Since petitioner’s counterclaim is compulsory in nature and its cause of action survives that of the dismissal of respondent’s complaint. it was the proper subject of a Rule 45 petition. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated in the presence of representatives from the media and the DOJ pursuant to said guidelines does not automatically render appellant’s arrest illegal or the item seized from him inadmissible. and delicately evaluating the evidence on hand. which is therefore the proper party to bring the appeal through the representation of the OSG.. 2014 Perez. 2006 Omnibus Order of the testate court in so far as it authorizes the sale of the three properties in question was not declared by the Court of Appeals. DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE: [The] power of courts to grant demurrer in criminal cases should be exercised with great caution. August 13. Once granted. 201111. it should have also expressly declared its deletion together with its express mandate to remove the award of liquidated damages to UPSI.R. 208828-29. August 6. The petition should have been brought under Rule 45 in a petition for review on certiorari. G. and imposes the corresponding duties or obligations. Appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of the CA should be made through a verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. the accused is acquitted and the offended party may be left with no recourse. In this case. 171626.. Go G. 200250. Cerdon G. as null and void. APPEAL. then it should be resolved based on its own merits and evidentiary support. 2005 decision and the January 3. Hence. Diesel Construction G. in the resolution of demurrers. Jr. the body of the decision may be scanned for guidance in construing the judgment. SP No. DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT: The rule is that in case of ambiguity or uncertainty in the dispositive portion of a decision. J.R. Silverio. Jr. People vs. CIVIL PROCEDURE. It was already a final order that resolved the subject matter in its entirety. J. No. being mere private complainants. pertained only to the order upholding the grant of letters of administration to and taking of an oath of administration by Silverio.R. It must. August 6. No. No. People vs. 97196 would lead us to reasonably conclude that the grant of authority to sell is still good and valid. they lacked the legal personality to appeal the dismissal of such criminal case.. 2014 Brion. 193681. sets conditions for the exercise of those rights. leaving nothing else to be done. If such was the intention. 2014 Villarama. 191015. August 6. It is axiomatic that it is the dispositive portion of the decision that finally invests rights upon the parties. Jr. be clarifiedthat it is without prejudice to their filing of the appropriate action to preserve their interests but only with respect to the civil aspect. vs. Sr. August 6. No. as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.R. Piccio G. Thus. A proviso was added in the implementing rules that "noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds. as explicitly stated in its fallo. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. 2014 Del Castillo.R. UPSI vs. Silverio. J. jurisprudence. 2006 resolution of the CA which declared as null and void the writ of execution issued by the trial court. shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. drawing on their experience. This Court agree with the CA that the permanent injunction issued under the said decision. Subic Water G. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS. Nos. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J. 2014 Mendoza. judges must act with utmost circumspection and must engage in intelligent deliberation and reflection. Olongapo City vs. Since the CA’s pronouncement completely disposed of the case and the issues raised by the parties.separate action. EVIDENCE. the law and 160 People vs. MODES OF APPEAL: Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. because not only the rights of the accused– but those of the offended party and the public interest as well – are involved.R. Olongapo City questioned the July 6. No. CIVIL PROCEDURE. however. CIVIL PROCEDURE. J. J. DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT: A look at the dispositive portion of the decision in CA-G.

No. 2014 161 . and the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition. the remedy of a writ of possession is no longer available to petitioner. 196040. and the same may not be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. J. 197336. Rule 65.R. 166944. 200191. Rule 42 of the Rules of Court requires the petition for review to be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts. August 26. the imposition should be stricken off. de Ocampo G.R. Federal Builders vs. No. September 8. The use of the word “may” in the last sentence of the second paragraph or Section 8. Villegas G.R. indicates that the assessment of treble costs is not automatic or mandatory. APPEAL. If the property is in the possession of the mortgagor. City of Davao vs. SEPTEMBER 2014 Meyr Enterprises vs. Foundation Specialists G. No. petitioner being a third party who acquired the property after the redemption period. August 13. J. August 18. MODES OF APPEAL: Section 2 (d). a corporation who instituted a suit for damages which the trial court and the CA dismissed cannot question such dismissal before the Supreme Court under Rule 45 when the factual findings of the lower courts point out that the suit had all the marks of malicious prosecution. Okabe vs. People vs. J. FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE: The remedy of a writ of possession is a remedy that is available to a mortgagee-purchaser for him to acquire possession of the foreclosed property from the mortgagor. 2014 Bersamin. testimony that included the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on chain of custody. Thus. what is required is that the marking be made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate confiscation. the imposition of treble costs was not explained at all. CIVIL PROCEDURE. AND MANDAMUS: The Court cannot see why the petition questioning the dropping of De Guzman as co-defendant was patently without merit. a writ of possession may issue ex-parte or without hearing. No. 206366.as well the directive in the same Omnibus Order allowing the sale of the subject properties. 194507. CIVIL PROCEDURE. No. J. MODES OF APPEAL: The question of existence of bad faith is a factual issue. September 3. Although the court is afforded judicial discretion in imposing treble costs. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. It is made available to a subsequent purchaser only after hearing and after determining that the subject property is still in the possession of the mortgagor. there remains a need to show that it is sound and with basis that is taking all the pertinent circumstances into due consideration. 2014 Peralta. August 13.R. “Immediate confiscation” has no exact definition. VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING: [Where] the petitioners are immediate relatives.R. Unlike if the purchaser is the mortgagee or a third party during the redemption period. August 20. Davao City was of the firm and sincere belief that he had a hand in the reconveyance of the subject property to the Heirs. a hearing must be conducted to determine whether possession over the subject property is still with the mortgagor.R. 2014 Del Castillo. CA G. certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court. 200538. PROHIBITION. 2014 Perez. who share a common interest in the property subject of the action. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. J. Otherwise. Saturnino G. Balaquiot G. No. Thus. 2014 Mendoza. CERTIORARI. where only questions of law may be entertained. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody. in People v. EVIDENCE. CIVIL PROCEDURE. No. but he can wrest possession over the property through an ordinary action of ejectment. As the CA never justified it. Thus. J. Fernandez vs. the fact that only one of the petitioners executed the verification or certification of forum shopping will not deter the court from proceeding with the action. APPEAL. Magsino vs. In the case at bench.R. Cordero G. Gum-Oyen. a writ of possession could thus be issued. The failure of the petitioner to comply with the requirement shall be a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition for review.

The rule is not absolute. CERTIORARI. (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question. relief from an order of arrest is urgent. in a criminal case. Tarcelo G. or the subject matter of the petition is perishable.R. (e) where the petitioner was deprived of due process. (f) where. J. this Court shall refrain from reversing the findings of the courts below. take possession and acquire easement of right-of way over the affected portions of respondents’ properties upon the payment of just compensation. (5) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case. Causing should have filed the motion for reconsideration. 2014 Del Castillo. September 9. 2014 Bersamin. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. it is as if no complaint for expropriation was filed. J. there is an absence of any record to otherwise prove FSI’s neglect in the fulfillment of its obligations under the contract. September 8. J. (3) when the lower court’s inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken. any order executing the trial court’s Decision should be based on such dispositive portion. which are fully supported by and deducible from. Samar 162 G. are accorded the highest degree of respect and considered conclusive between the parties. and (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based.Peralta. Hence. As a result the NPC is considered to have violated procedural requirements. considering that jurisprudence has laid down exceptions to the requirement for the filing of a petition for certiorari without first filing a motion for reconsideration. (7) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting. surmises or conjectures. SATISFACTION. (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court. save for the following exceptional and meritorious circumstances: (1) when the factual findings of the appellate court and the trial court are contradictory. (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process. or fail to notice certain relevant facts which. if properly considered. Whatever may be found in the body of the decision can only be considered as part of the reasons or conclusions of the court and serve only as guides to determine the ratio decidendi. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. the RTC should have fixed the value of the property for the purposes of just compensation at the time NPC took possession of the same in 1990. especially when affirmed by the appellate court. COMELEC G. and not at the time of the filing of the complaint for compensation and damages in 1994 or its fair market value in 1995. (h) where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object. CIVIL PROCEDURE. Thus. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS. and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved. the evidence on record. absurd or impossible. namely: (a) where the order is a patent nullity. AND MANDAMUS: The wellestablished rule is that the motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. EXECUTION. (4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts. As such. (2) when the findings of the trial court are grounded entirely on speculation. (d) where. A perusal of the circumstances of the case shows that none of the foregoing exceptions was applicable herein. and hence. (6) when there is a misappreciation of facts. PROHIBITION. or of the petitioner.R. and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government. and there is extreme urgency for relief. especially because there was nothing in the COMELEC Rules . 198139. No. under the circumstances. Indeed. In the instant case. 2014 Del Castillo. are premised on the absence of evidence. Causing vs. Thus. EXPROPRIATION: When the National Power Corporation filed an expropriation case and the same was subsequently dismissed due to failure to prosecute. 199139. Supreme Court does not see any reason to deviate from the assailed rulings. J. including the appointment of commissioners to ascertain just compensation.R. will justify a different conclusion. IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENTS: Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that factual findings of the trial court. NAPOCOR vs. CIVIL PROCEDURE. 197329. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction. however. waived the usual procedure prescribed in Rule 67. or are contradicted by evidence on record. No. NAPOCOR vs. when the decretal portion of the RTC’s 2005 Decision particularly stating that NPC shall have the lawful right to enter. September 8. a motion for reconsideration would be useless. or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court. FBI failed to present any evidence to justify its refusal to pay FSI for the works it was contracted to perform. and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable. AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS: The only portion of the decision that may be the subject of execution is that which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion. No.

Acting C. J. even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law. There is substantial compliance with the foregoing Rule if a copy of the said motion for reconsideration was furnished to the counsel of the adverse party. No. J. LCR.R. it is but proper to thresh out this issue in a special proceeding. 2014 Perez. when the court a quo ordered petitioners to submit their comment on the motion to quash. In this case. CIVIL PROCEDURE. but merely to afford one not an original party. if the adverse party was given a reasonable opportunity to study the motion and oppose it.. however. INTERVENTION: Intervention is never an independent action. The purpose of the rule on hearing is to safeguard the adverse party’s right to due process.R. J. Basbas G. 2006 Order falls under the fourth exception. then strict compliance with the threeday notice rule may be dispensed with. since Crispiniano and respondent Ricardo seeks to establish his status as one of the heirs entitled to the property in dispute. In this case. the findings of the judge deserve great weight.R. Express Savings Bank G. 176697. Onde vs. in effect. September 10.J. the Court. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe.. RTC. IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENTS: A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. No. reconveyance with damages. September 10. No. and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. vs. its purpose was still satisfied when respondent judge did not immediately rule on the motion giving petitioners the opportunity to study and oppose the arguments stated in the motion. exceptions to the general rule. 163 . Pulgar does not contest the RTC's dismissal of Civil Case No. and it can only be resolved through a reexamination of the body of evidence. it was. Pulgar vs. the clarification made by Secretary Pangandaman in his February 2. Delfino. 2014 Villarama. finds to be improper since the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the main case necessarily resulted in the dismissal of his intervention. Microsoft vs. Its purpose is not to obstruct nor unnecessarily delay the placid operation of the machinery of trial. and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS. September 10. Mauban. Jr. MOTIONS: The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned. the three-day notice rule for hearing is not absolute. Under Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 2014 Perez. which requires the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court. however. but is ancillary and supplemental to the existing litigation. 0587-M for lack of jurisdiction. Areza vs. (2) the so-called nunc pro tuncentries which cause no prejudice to any party. CIVIL PROCEDURE. In the instant case. No. whereas matters which involve the settlement and distribution of the estate of a deceased person as well as filiation and heirship partake of the nature of a special proceeding. but oddly maintains his intervention by asking in this appeal a review of the correctness of the subject realty tax assessment. MOTIONS: In every written motion. Jr. For this reason. CIVIL PROCEDURE. yet having a certain right or interest in the pending case. Farajallah G. Branch 64. the opportunity to appear and be joined so he could assert or protect such right or interests.of Procedure that precluded the filing of the motion for reconsideration in election offense cases. while the three-day notice rule was not strictly observed. petitions for review by certiorari “shall raise only questions of law. 157583. This recourse. 188773. Las Piñas City G. 205800. With both parties claiming to be the heirs of Severo Basbas.” A question of fact exists when there is a doubt as to the truth of certain facts. 197486.R. and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion. Quezon G. Thus. There are. a civil action. No. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS: The trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. September 10.R. Probable cause is dependent largely on the opinion and findings of the judge who conducted the examination and who had the opportunity to question the applicant and his witnesses. 2014 Carpio. Sr. 2014 Villarama. Thus. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS. The case at bar is an action for annulment of title. J.R. September 10. September 10. (3) void judgments. Heirs of Basbas vs. giving petitioners their day in court. No. namely: (1) the correction of clerical errors.. 197174. Anasao G. CIVIL PROCEDURE. J. and may no longer be modified in any respect.

Also. People G.R. 1983 in Bicol to “not married” is a substantial correction requiring adversarial proceedings. Quiambao vs. September 17.” Campit vs. The essential thing to consider is “the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. AND MANDAMUS: Under Section 4. 2014 Del Castillo. J. notices of all kinds. as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. However an exception is when a registered owner of land cannot invoke the protection accorded by the Statute of Limitations when he derived his right from misrepresentation. EVIDENCE.. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Jr. 2014 Brion. he may be discharged as a state witness. September 10. must be served on said counsel. 2014 Del Castillo. the records show that respondents were merely implementing the orders issued by the trial court in Civil Case No. No. Pagdanganan. No. CA G.” Here. Monsanto vs. 2014 Brion. 209195. all subsequent issuances or decisions of the said court related to the pending case shall be null and void. J. Angeles vs. No. such as among others. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS. Lim G. PROHIBITION. J. J. When the court does not have jurisdiction over the case. People G. vs. Bontuyan G. 206912. J. DOUBLE JEOPARDY: Double jeopardy shall not attach when the court that declared the revival of the case has no jurisdiction to the same. September 17.R. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. No. no docket fees were paid before the trial court. CAUSE OF ACTION: [The] trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case since no proper initiatory pleading was filed. Jimenez. September 15. CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY: Substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceedings. J. Said correction is substantial as it will affect his legitimacy and convert him from a legitimate child to an illegitimate one.R.R. order or resolution within which to file a petition for certiorari.178911.R. Jr. including court orders and decisions. an aggrieved party has 60 days from receipt of the assailed decision.R. IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENTS: A judgment unenforced within 10 years after its finality shall be barred. Also. and notice to him is considered notice to his client. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: Mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. the fees prescribed shall be paid in full. J. CIVIL PROCEDURE. 185267. 69213 and that no stay order was issued against the enforcement of the subject writ of execution. EFFECTS OF DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED TO BECOME STATE WITNESS: When an accused did not have any direct participation with the killing of the victim. Gripa G. Thus. 2014 Brion. vs. correcting the entry on Onde’s birth certificate that his parents were married on December 23. […] Contrary to […] Angeles’ allegations. refusing to obey [a] lawful order of the court or act of disrespect to the dignity of the court which tends to hamper the orderly proceedings and lessen its efficiency.SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS. CERTIORARI. September 17. 164 CIVIL PROCEDURE. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. 178733. September 17. CONTEMPT: Elisa Angeles alleged that respondents committed contempt for defying the order of the trial court to elevate the records of her case to the Court of Appeals. September 17. 206555. No. Rule 141 of the Rules of Court mandates that “upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an action or proceeding. 195443. No. Sarmiento G. it is worthy to mention that failure to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs does not render the arrest of the accused Bontuyan illegal or the item seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.R. People vs. Well-settled is the rule that if a litigant is represented by counsel. 2014 Perez. there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the seized items from accused appellant was preserved. The basis of the . There is no sufficient showing of acts committed by respondents which may constitute contempt.. [The] letter [given to the court requesting it to intervene on an alleged anomalous auction sale] could not in any way be considered as a pleading. No. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Anacay G. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. September 24. (3) whether the [CAs’] appointment of a management committee was proper. September 24. 2014 Del Castillo. 189850. is afforded by law the right to participate through counsel in the prosecution of the offense with respect to the civil aspect of the case. In this case. the CA found no such waiver from or reservation made by Chan. 165 . Torres G. Zacaria vs. No. if the possession was unlawful from the start. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. No. the RTC should have allowed. being the offended party. MODES OF APPEAL: Petitioners ask (1) whether Balmores’ failure to implead PPC in his action with the [RTC] was fatal.. Umale G. an action for unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy. Atty. properly filed a petition for review under Rule 45. No. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER. 2014 Villarama.R. The fact that Chan. MODES OF APPEAL: When an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court. CONTROL OF PROSECUTION: As provided in Section 5. APPEAL. had secured the services of an attorney in the Philippines reveals her willingness and interest to participate in the prosecution of the bigamy case and to recover civil liability from the petitioners. Villamor. Therefore. CIVIL PROCEDURE. it is essential that the plaintiff’s supposed acts of tolerance must have been present right from the start of the possession which is later sought to be recovered. No. INTERVENTION OF OFFENDED PARTY/RULE ON IMPLIED INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ACTION WITH CRIMINAL ACTION: Sec. Otherwise.R. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. 201644. it behooved the respondents herein to implead the People of the Philippines as respondent in the CA case to enable the Solicitor General to comment on the petition. These are questions of law that may be determined without looking into the evidence presented.phrase “not most guilty” is the participation of the person in the commission of the crime and not the penalty imposed such that a person with direct participation shall be considered as the most guilty. Atencia from intervening in the bigamy case as Chan. People vs. September 22. (2) whether the [CA] correctly characterized respondent Balmores’ action as a derivative suit. PERIOD TO APPEAL: In appeals cognized by the Office of the President. September 24. 196508. 202354.R. J. APPEAL. Petitioners. September 22. reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Jr. J. FORCIBLE ENTRY VIS-AVIS UNLAWFUL DETAINER: To justify an action for unlawful detainer. all criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. 16 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly allows an offended party to intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense for the recovery of civil liability where the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is instituted with the criminal action. No. 2014 Leonen. J. Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. September 24. the time during which a motion for reconsideration has been pending with the Ministry/agency concerned shall be deducted from the period for appeal. Spouses Rosete vs. Jr. Thus. which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate. therefore. CIVIL PROCEDURE. 2014 Brion.R. whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant. and (4) whether the CA may exercise the power to appoint a management committee. and should not have disqualified. J.” Nothing has been said on how respondents’ entry was effected or how and when dispossession started. 2014 Del Castillo. who was already based abroad. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Villalon vs. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES.. People vs. 172843.R. No. vs. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe.R. J. J. APPEAL. CIVIL PROCEDURE. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. the allegations in the complaint do not contain any averment of fact that would substantiate petitioners’ claim that they permitted or tolerated the occupation of the property by respondents. except when the offended party waives the civil action. Go G. cognizable by this court. The complaint contains only bare allegations that “respondents without any color of title whatsoever occupies the land in question by building their house in the said land thereby depriving petitioners the possession thereof. The civil action shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action. Briones G. 176121. In the instant case. Chan G. he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court. The question of whether the conclusion drawn by the [CA] from a set of facts is correct is a question of law.

R. In other words. the RTC as the trial court could consider only the evidence that had been formally offered. A mere reference to the attached document could facially resolve the question on jurisdiction and would have rendered lengthy litigation on this point unnecessary. and second. within a fixed period of six (6) months from entry of such judgment. September 29. Under Sec. No. J. EVIDENCE. the court may motu proprio dismiss a complaint at any time when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that lack of jurisdiction exists. Contreras G. Moran.A. J. Tumpag vs.” Hence. The evidence presented were duplicate originals of invoices and order slips. . Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of Court. thus availed of the proper remedy. September 24. Barut vs. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court reads: “When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time. the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. since the assessed value of the property was not alleged. the issue of lack of jurisdiction was raised by respondents in their Appellant's Brief. and prescription. 176020. PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT: A party filing a petition for relief from judgment must strictly comply with two (2) reglementary periods: first. the assessed value of the subject property must 166 exceed PhP20. In the present case. PGA should have elevated the case directly to the CA through a petition for certiorari. 192957. 2014 Brion. No. attain finality in order to put an end to litigation.R. 7394. In fact. the CA correctly dismissed the complaint as petitioners failed to establish that the RTC had jurisdiction over it. APPEAL. even for the first time on appeal. 200065.R. September 29. Jr. In fact. J. 2014 Villarama. and that in any event. 2014 Brion. Tumpag G. except for lack of jurisdiction. September 29. JURISDICTION: In the present case. 2014 Del Castillo. 2014 Mendoza. Moran. Since petitioners failed to allege in their Complaint the assessed value of the subject property. Heirs of Julao vs. order or proceeding must. Amanah Bank vs. order or other proceeding.R. at some definite time. 167454. In the case at bar. And the fact that it was raised for the first time on appeal is of no moment. No. J. In filing a petition for certiorari before the CA. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. OFFER AND OBJECTION: Pursuant to Section 34. which remedy cannot be allowed to erode any further the fundamental principle that a judgment. Furthermore. raising the issue of the OP’s lack of jurisdiction. CIVIL PROCEDURE. Traveler Kids G. for the RTC to exercise jurisdiction. Strict compliance with these periods is required because a petition for relief from judgment is a final act of liberality on the part of the State. a special law. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Section 4(b). People G. The CA stressed that only evidence that was formally offered and made part of the records could be considered. defenses not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. it cannot be determined which trial court had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case. 2014 Bersamin. R. J. and to consider the facts contained in the Declaration of Real Property attached to the complaint in determining whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the Esperanza’s case. CIVIL PROCEDURE. J.R. towards that end. the offering party must specify the purpose for which the evidence was being offered. No. litis pendentia. the petition must be filed within sixty (60) days from knowledge of the judgment. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Office of the President G. Jr. order or other proceeding to be set aside.. Chiu convincingly explained that CSFL usually prepared two (2) copies of invoices for a particular transaction. vs. CIVIL PROCEDURE.” In the case at bar. DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS: In this case. which must be apparent from the pleadings or the evidence on record.. Spouses de Jesus G. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES.Capital Shoes Factory vs.000. Phil.R. 173168. September 24. EVIDENCE. 1. with identical contents. Jr. September 29. 199133. MODES OF APPEAL: In this case. contrary to the claim of petitioners. likewise expressly provided for immediate judicial relief from decisions of the DTI Secretary by filing a petition for certiorari with the “proper court. [the Court finds] reason not to strictly apply the abovementioned general rule. all such copies are equally regarded as originals. the supposed contradiction between the extrajudicial sworn statement and the court testimony should be resolved in favor of the latter. res judicata. No. No. No. The RTC could not take the declaration of Villas into consideration because Villas’ extrajudicial sworn statement containing the declaration had not been offered and admitted as evidence by either side. giving one copy to a client and retaining the other copy. and not mere photocopies.

AND MANDAMUS: The CA fell into a trap when it ruled that a mayor. 211356.R. board. CERTIORARI. a party is said to be exercising a judicial function where he has the power to determine what the law is and what legal rights of the parties are. March 3. Aquino vs. September 29. After receiving on February 25. 680 Home Appliances vs. 1993 on September 15. 2014 Brion. Nonetheless. its purpose being to grant an opportunity for the court a quo to correct any error attributed to it by a re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. hence. whereas quasi-judicial function is “a term which applies to the actions. or body which performs it. September 29. under the circumstances. records show that petitioner Republic timely filed its motion for extension of time to file a petition on March 2. This is tad too presumptive for it is the nature of the act to be performed. CA G. whatever may be their public character. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. the petition for relief from judgment should have been filed on or before November 14. PROHIBITION. Such a finding of illegality required the respondent mayor’s exercise of quasi-judicial functions. J. J. However. expansion. and operation of its hotel in Malay. No. Spouses Lazo G. Although the petition was filed within the 60day period to institute a certiorari proceeding. etc. the assailed EO 10 was issued upon the [mayor’s] finding that Boracay West Cove’s construction. the long delay negates 680 Home’s claimed urgency of its cause and indicates that it resorted to the present petition for certiorari as a substitute for its lost appeal. or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court. The questions raised in the certiorari proceedings are the same as those already raised and passed upon in the lower court. Municipality of Malay. the records showed that the petition was filed only on December 15. as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction. discretion. To contrast. filing a motion for reconsideration would be useless and serve no practical purpose.” In the case at bench. to wit: (a) where the order is a patent nullity. other than by appeal or special civil action of certiorari. 2014 Peralta. rather than of the office. AND MANDAMUS: The Court finds 680 Home’s resort to a certiorari petition rather dubious. Republic vs. 2011. 2013 a copy of the CA decision. The tardiness of petitioner is excusable since no significant period of time elapsed. and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.. against which the special writ of certiorari may lie. Further. However. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. was not docketed because the required fees were not paid based on petitioner’s belief that it is exempt therefrom. in the sense in which that word is used when applied to courts of justice. 1993. AND MANDAMUS: The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before a petition for certiorari may lie. (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court. an officer from the executive department. hold hearings. September 29. (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the petition is perishable. PROHIBITION. and then undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. The petition. Vivares vs.. seeks another opinion in another court. CERTIORARI. 1993. or ninety-one (91) days later. It is not essential that the challenged proceedings should be strictly and technically judicial. St. 2011. Aklan G. 206599.R. the rule is not absolute and jurisprudence has laid down the following exceptions when the filing of a petition for certiorari is proper notwithstanding the failure to file a motion for reconsideration. Thus. The first requirement for certiorari is satisfied if the officers act judicially in making their decision. PROHIBITION. Theresa’s College 167 . (d) where. the Court cannot but agree with petitioner Republic that this case falls within the [following] exceptions. exercises an executive function whenever he issues an Executive Order. CIVIL PROCEDURE. No.R. Jr. (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.[Contreras’] counsel received a copy of the RTC’s decision dated September 13. 1993. 680 Home filed neither a motion for reconsideration thereof nor an appeal therefrom. Aklan is illegal. however. VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING: Forum shopping is committed by a party who. it waited 58 days after receiving the assailed decision on April 24. […] In the instant case. Instead. of public administrative officers or bodies […] required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts. 2013 to institute a certiorari proceeding. having received an adverse judgment in one forum. payment was immediately made the following day. CERTIORARI. but it is sufficient if they are quasi-judicial. J. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. a motion for reconsideration would be useless. No. that determines whether or not a particular act is a discharge of judicial or quasijudicial functions. 2014 Velasco. 195594.

R. or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in another. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. J. 2014 Velasco. People G. more than the actuality that respondents appended said photographs in their memorandum submitted to the trial court in connection […] These are not tantamount to a violation of the minor’s informational privacy rights. contrary to petitioners’ assertion. the Metropolitan Trial Court had jurisdiction over the case. EVIDENCE. neither the minors nor their parents imputed any violation of privacy against the students who showed the images to Escudero. October 1.R. October 8. Zuniga-Santos vs. the evidence must have been incorporated in the records of the case. Furthermore. CIVIL PROCEDURE. the law in force was Batas Pambansa Blg. committed forum shopping when it filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals and a petition for certiorari before the SC assailing the same trial court decision. neither is it conclusive of the facts therein found in a case between the same parties upon a different cause of action involving possession. second. (b) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right. No. The test for determining the existence of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present. J. Under Section 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS. No. In fact. No.R. CIVIL PROCEDURE. the relief being founded on the same facts. 172505. there is no identity of causes of action. Inc. the evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and. Sabay vs. Santos-Gran G. and (c) an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which . which is punishable by arresto mayor.G. J. The Court. what petitioners attributed to respondents as an act of offensive disclosure was no. No. (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for. Heirs of Dionisio G. admits of an exception. can be admitted. said requisites are also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens. Thus. has relaxed the formaloffer rule and allowed evidence not formally offered to be admitted. CIVIL PROCEDURE. They did not resort to any unlawful means of gathering the information as it was voluntarily given to them by persons who had legitimate access to the said posts. lies with the friends of the minors. VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING: There is no question that Ferro Chemicals. RES JUDICATA: a judgment rendered in a forcible entry case will not bar an action between the same parties respecting title or ownership because between a case for forcible entry and an accion reivindicatoria. Such determination does not bind the title or affect the ownership of the land. petitioners failed to prove their contention that respondents reproduced and broadcasted the photographs. Jurisprudence enumerated the requirements so that evidence. 192150. or imprisonment for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months. 2014 Reyes. Ferro Chemicals G.R. 202666. OFFER AND OBJECTION: Section 34 of Rule 132 of our Rules on Evidence provides that the court cannot consider any evidence that has not been formally offered. September 29. 129. In the present case. 197380. 129 before it was amended by Republic Act No. however. the fault. namely: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created. respondent STC can hardly be taken to task for the perceived privacy invasion since it was the minors’ Facebook friends who showed the pictures to Tigol. 1990. not previously offered. 2014 Brion. No. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. October 1. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA: Even assuming that the photos in issue are visible only to the sanctioned students’ Facebook friends. such that any judgment rendered in the other action will. 191101. October 1. regardless of which party is successful. and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars. J. in the appropriate cases. or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions. amount tores judicata in the action under consideration. Curiously enough.R. CAUSE OF ACTION: A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of the three (3) essential elements of a cause of action. When the information was filed on September 3. there is forum shopping when the following elements are present: (a) identity of parties.. 7691. Clearly. OCTOBER 2014 Garcia vs. Spouses Ocampo vs. Respondents were mere recipients of what were posted. Jr. we find that the requisites for the relaxation of the formal-offer rule. JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS: The information charged Antonio Garcia with violation of Article 318 of 168 the Revised Penal Code. 2014 Leonen. however. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS. This rule. namely: first. if any. J.

as distinguished from mere conclusions of fact. without stating facts showing its invalidity. Cheng G. CIVIL PROCEDURE. PDB re-filed and re-sent the omnibus motion by registered mail. SATISFACTION. CIVIL PROCEDURE. the statement thereof should be “sufficient. MODES OF APPEAL: An appeal directly filed to the Supreme Court from the Court of Tax Appeals division must be dismissed for failure to comply with the procedure on appeal. the provisions of law. strategy or stealth. but is merely statutory. and in accordance with. The trial court therefore acted regularly in denying PDB’s notice of appeal. October 8. A fact is essential if they cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate.R. October 8. J. allegations that a contract is void. PLEADINGS. 2006 within which to file the same. 175507. Planters Dev’t Bank G. 197228. Likewise. threats. It is well to point out that the plaintiff’s cause of action should not merely be “stated” but. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. 2014. voidable. 2014 Leonen. ultra vires. No. If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of these elements. hence. importantly. as made by the respondent to the petitioners.R. No. Ching vs. J. It is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by. the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. and no other. or conclusions of law. or else. invalid. Hence. not the veracity. AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS: The execution of a judgment pending appeal is an exception to the general rule that only a final judgment may be executed. C. PLEADINGS. was tardy. the Court had stated that a pleading should state the ultimate facts essential to the rights of action or defense asserted. Hence. 164277. But the action cannot be considered as one for forcible entry without any allegation in the complaint that the entry of the defendant was by means of force. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (Rules). Quijano vs. PDB’s Notice of Appeal. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. ALLEGATIONS AND COUNTERCLAIMS: Where the plaintiff does not prove her alleged tolerance of the defendant's occupation. Realizing its mistake. are mere conclusions of law. it has been held that only ultimate facts and not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts are considered for purposes of applying the test. Rule 8 of the Rules of Court which states that the complaint need only allege the ultimate facts or the essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. which was filed only on September 7. and reasonable. Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure will not apply if the prior dismissal was done at the instance of the defendant. fair. the existence of “good reasons” for the immediate execution of a judgment is an indispensable requirement as this is what confers discretionary power on a court to issue a writ of execution pending appeal. the “two-dismissal rule” under Rule 17. are mere conclusions of law. when the petitioner merely stated a legal conclusion. APPEAL. CIVIL PROCEDURE. J. intimidation. EXECUTION. No.R. 2014 Sereno.R. BIR G. illegal. 193650. CIVIL PROCEDURE. Del Castillo. MODES OF APPEAL: The service and filing of pleadings by courier service. 2006. however. Hence. As a corollary. the action for unlawful detainer is an improper remedy. This is consistent with Section 1. the possession is deemed illegal from the beginning. the 15-day period had expired. Palileo vs. Amante G. J. Duty Free vs. is a mode not provided in the Rules. which is the proper mode of service under the circumstances. No. or against public policy. Centennial Guarantee Assurance vs. the right of appeal may be lost or squandered.the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.J.R. or is just. he amended complaint presented no sufficient allegation upon which the Court could grant the relief petitioner prayed for.” This is why the elementary test in a motion to dismiss on such ground is whether or not the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. By then. CIVIL PROCEDURE. Universal Motors G. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. The implication of its statutory character is that the party who intends to appeal must always comply with the procedures and rules governing appeals. DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS: Rule 17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governs dismissals of actions at the instance of the plaintiff. of the material allegations. it follows that the analysis should be confined to the four corners of the complaint. No. Since the inquiry is into the sufficiency. October 8. It must be emphasized that an appeal is neither a natural nor a constitutional right. CIVIL PROCEDURE. General allegations that a contract is valid or legal. under Section 2. October 8. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. ALLEGATIONS AND COUNTERCLAIMS: In an earlier ruling. October 8. 2014 Bersamin. Neither is the right to appeal a component of due process. it had only up to August 1. 189358. APPEAL. 169 .

CIVIL PROCEDURE. Hence. J. 203254. The factual findings that NSSC is under a state of rehabilitation and had ceased business operations. 7919. PHIC G. and the right to life.Good reasons consist of compelling circumstances justifying immediate execution. lest judgment becomes illusory. No. October 8. VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING: The submission of an SPA authorizing an attorney-infact to sign the verification and certification against forum-shopping in behalf of the principal party is considered as substantial compliance with the Rules. constitute such superior circumstances that demand urgency in the execution of the October 31.R. DECISIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES: It is an oft-repeated rule that findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded not only respect but also . seized or surrendered dangerous drugs. liberty or security of the victim. To be credible. as compared to the specimen or original handwriting or signatures. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Ilaga G. At the very least. The nature of his examination involves the study and comparison of strokes. taken together with the information that NSSC President and General Manager Orimaco had permanently left the country with his family. 9165 deals with the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated. October 8. the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but dutybound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime. there is lack of authority to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in the petition filed before the Court of Appeals when the SPA reveals that the powers conferred to attorneys-in-fact only pertain to administrative matters. Adriano G. a warrant of arrest is not needed to make a valid buy-bust operation. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe.C. No. October 8. When the complainant adduced preponderant evidence that his signature was indeed forged in an affidavit which the respondent notarized and submitted to the COMELEC. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS. Moreover. J.R. CIVIL PROCEDURE. WHEN LAWFUL: A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. EVIDENCE. the depth and pressure points of the alleged forgery.A. No. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: Section 21 of R. Macabanding A. CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS: [The respondent questions the credibility of the NBI officer as expert witness as the said officer was not expert in the Arabic language. a handwriting expert need not be familiar with the language used in the document subject of his examination. 208169. that is. No. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT.R. 2014 Perez. No. 2014 Perez. People vs. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY: In administrative cases against lawyers. EVIDENCE. J. In such an instance. The Court explains that a] handwriting expert does not have to be a linguist at the same time. EVIDENCE. Lee vs. liberty or security on the other. 191225. J. This can be made if the prosecution will be successful in establishing an unbroken chain of custody of the seized item from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt by the forensic laboratory to safekeeping up to presentation in court. Sultan vs. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA: A habeas data petition is dismissible if it fails to adequately show that there exists a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand. Zarsona Medical Clinic vs. the quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence. 2007 Decision because respondents now run the risk of its nonsatisfaction by the time the appeal is decided with finality. respondent should be held administratively liable for his action. October 13. the SPA should have granted the attorneys-in-fact the power and authority to institute civil and criminal actions which would necessarily include the signing of the verification and certification against forum-shopping. Hence. the prevailing party’s chances for recovery on execution from the judgment debtor are altogether nullified. it is equally dismissible if it is not supported by substantial evidence showing an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life. The “good reason” yardstick imports a superior circumstance demanding urgency that will outweigh injury or damage to the adverse party and one such “good reason” that has been held to justify discretionary execution is the imminent danger of insolvency of the defeated party. As provided for in its Implementing Rules and pointed out by the Court in a long line of cases. non-compliance therewith does not invalidate the seizure or render the arrest of the accused illegal or the 170 items seized from him as inadmissible as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. 2014 Reyes.

was formulated precisely to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies.R. 2014 Leonen. G. Spouses Manue vs. October 15. 205249. and that there must be clear. No. Residents of Lower Atab and Teachers’ Village. certified bank check or any other mode of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee. Sta. 188801.R. Delos Reyes.” Petitioners’ lack of equitable title denies them the standing to institute a case for quieting of title. EXECUTION. Agri-Business Center G. and then the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment. YKR vs. People vs. therefore.finality when the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. Gregorio G. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.R. Rule 43 which prescribes the manner of appeal from quasi-judicial agencies. October 13. so long as they are supported by substantial evidence even if not overwhelming or preponderant. Ombudsman vs. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. No. It consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. P-14-3246. the other spouse and other legitimate children must be personally notified through personal service of summons. No. This cannot be defeated by mere procedural devices. Reyes A. CAUSE OF ACTION: For an action to quiet title to prosper. J. 2014 Del Castillo. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. G. not the locus of service. SATISFACTION. J. MODES OF APPEAL: Appeals from decisions in administrative disciplinary cases of the Office of the Ombudsman should be taken to the CA by way of petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. as amended. encumbrance. SUMMONS: Personal service of summons has nothing to do with the location where summons is served. October 15. 2014 Leonen. However. CIVIL PROCEDURE. convincing and more than merely preponderant evidence to contradict the same. if any. If the judgment obligor cannot pay by these methods immediately or at once. Monica Industrial and Development Corp. The findings of facts must be respected. October 20. No. Jr. EVIDENCE. 191838. Castro vs. No.. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. two indispensable requisites must be present. there must be a showing of notice and consent. the person of the defendant. In order to maintain harmony. as appeal under Rule 43 is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. J. Rule 14. Jr. CIVIL PROCEDURE. It is not enough that they be deemed notified through constructive service. Quicho vs. In the case at bar. ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT: The policy of the law is clear. CIVIL PROCEDURE. J. J. AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS: The sheriff should demand from the judgment obligor the immediate payment in cash. an Affidavit is still a notarized document which carries in its favor the presumption of regularity with respect to its due execution. 208976. certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie. October 13. this is premised 171 . Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is clear in what it requires: personally handing the summons to the defendant.R. October 15. No. G. 201565. J. Phil. namely: “(1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action. No. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. CIVIL PROCEDURE.M. and the sheriff can now first levy his personal properties. he can exercise his option to choose which of his property can be levied upon. Ong G. 198878. What is determinative of the validity of personal service is. he waives such right. In all instances where it appears that a spouse attempts to adopt a child out of wedlock. there are cases that warrant a departure from said rule after an exhaustive review of the records. or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. A defendant’s address is inconsequential.R. If he does not exercise this option immediately or when he is absent or cannot be located. Jr. CIVIL PROCEDURE.R. 2014 Leonen. October 15. Estonilo. 2014 Villarama. while recantation is frowned upon and hardly given much weight in the determination of a case. and (2) the deed. 2014 Mendoza. such as the Ombudsman. SUMMARY JUDGMENT: When a party moves for summary judgment. APPEAL. CIVIL PROCEDURE. Thus. J. claim. Baguio vs. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS.

on the assumption that a scrutiny of the facts
will disclose that the issues presented need not
be tried either because these are patently
devoid of substance or that there is no genuine
issue as to any pertinent fact. A judgment on the
motion must be “rendered forthwith if the
pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions,
and admissions on file show that, except as to
the amount of damages, there is no genuine
issue and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. A prudent
examination of the evidence on record yields to
no other conclusion that there exists a genuine
issue of fact as raised in both petitions. Hence,
the Sandiganbayan erred in granting the motion
for summary judgment.

Majestic Finance vs. Tito
G.R. No. 197442, October 22, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION:
Verily, where a transfer of interest was effected
before the commencement of the suit – as in this
case – the transferee must necessarily be the
plaintiff (or defendant, as the case may be) as it
is he who stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgment in the suit. Thus, on the
supposition that they were the case’s plaintiffs,
Sps. Nazal should bear the obligation imputed by
the RTC upon Tito to diligently and expeditiously
prosecute the action within a reasonable length
of time. The RTC, however, pointed out that Sps.
Nazal failed in this regard.

Heirs of Sobremonte vs. CA
G.R. No. 206234, October 22, 2014
Brion, J.
SPECIAL
CIVIL
ACTIONS;
CERTIORARI,
PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS: For certiorari
to prosper, the following requisites must concur:
(1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a
board or any officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board or
officer has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
(3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
In this case, Court finds no abuse of discretion,
grave or simple in nature, committed by the CA
in dismissing the petitioners’ certiorari petition
for being the wrong mode of appeal. The CA’s
dismissal of the certiorari petition is, in fact,
well-supported by law and jurisprudence. The
Court previously held that Rule 43 of the Rules
of Court shall govern the procedure for judicial
review of decisions, orders, or resolutions of the
DAR Secretary, and that an appeal taken to the
Supreme Court or the CA by the wrong or
inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.

Enrile vs. Manalastas

172

G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014
Bersamin, J.
CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE;
PURPOSES
OF
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: The preliminary
investigation is not yet a trial on the merits, for
its only purpose is to determine whether a crime
has been committed and whether there is
probable cause to believe that the accused is
guilty thereof. The scope of the investigation
does not approximate that of a trial before the
court; hence, what is required is only that the
evidence be sufficient to establish probable
cause that the accused committed the crime
charged, not that all reasonable doubt of the
guilt of the accused be removed. As the MTC and
RTC rightly held, the presentation of the
medical certificates to prove the duration of the
victims’ need for medical attendance or of their
incapacity should take place only at the trial,
not before or during the preliminary
investigation.

NOVEMBER 2014
Metro Manila Shopping Mecca vs. Toledo
G.R. No. 190818, November 10, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENTS AND FINAL
ORDERS;
COMPROMISE
AGREEMENTS:
A
compromise agreement is a contract whereby
the parties, by making reciprocal concessions,
avoid a litigation or put an end to one already
commenced. It contemplates mutual concessions
and mutual gains to avoid the expenses of
litigation; or when litigation has already begun,
to end it because of the uncertainty of the
result. Its validity is dependent upon the
fulfillment of the requisites and principles of
contracts dictated by law; and its terms and
conditions must not be contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public policy, and public order.
When given judicial approval, a compromise
agreement becomes more than a contract
binding upon the parties. Having been
sanctioned by the court, it is entered as a
determination of a controversy and has the force
and effect of a judgment. It is immediately
executory and not appealable, except for vices
of consent or forgery. The nonfulfillment of its
terms and conditions justifies the issuance of a
writ of execution; in such an instance, execution
becomes a ministerial duty of the court.

Pestillos vs. Generoso
G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014
Brion, J.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: ARREST WITHOUT
WARRANT, WHEN LAWFUL: The probable cause
to justify warrantless arrest ordinarily signifies a
reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves

to warrant a cautious man to believe that the
person accused is guilty of the offense with
which he is charged, or an actual belief or
reasonable ground of suspicion, based on actual
facts. In light of the discussion above on the
developments of Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and our
jurisprudence on the matter, we hold that the
following must be present for a valid warrantless
arrest: (1) the crime should have been just
committed; and (2) the arresting officer's
exercise of discretion is limited by the standard
of probable cause to be determined from the
facts and circumstances within his personal
knowledge. The requirement of the existence of
probable cause objectifies the reasonableness of
the warrantless arrest for purposes of
compliance with the Constitutional mandate
against unreasonable arrests. Hence, for
purposes of resolving the issue on the validity of
the warrantless arrest of the present
petitioners, the question to be resolved is
whether the requirements for a valid
warrantless arrest under Section 5(b), Rule 113
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure were
complied with, namely: (1) has the crime just
been committed when they were arrested? (2)
did the arresting officer have personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that the
petitioners committed the crime? and (3) based
on these facts and circumstances that the
arresting officer possessed at the time of the
petitioners' arrest, would a reasonably discreet
and prudent person believe that the attempted
murder of Atty. Generoso was committed by the
petitioners? We rule in the affirmative.

MCMP Construction vs. Monark Equipment
G.R. No. 201001 November 10, 2014
Velasco, Jr., J.
EVIDENCE; BEST EVIDENCE RULE: In Country
Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lagman, the
Court set down the requirements before a party
may present secondary evidence to prove the
contents of the original document whenever the
original copy has been lost: Before a party is
allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove
the contents of the original, the offeror must
prove the following: (1) the existence or due
execution of the original; (2) the loss and
destruction of the original or the reason for its
non-production in court; and (3) on the part of
the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which
the unavailability of the original can be
attributed. The correct order of proof is as
follows: existence, execution, loss, and
contents. In the instant case, the CA correctly
ruled that the above requisites are present. Both
the CA and the RTC gave credence to the
testimony of Peregrino that the original Contract
in the possession of Monark has been lost and
that diligent efforts were exerted to find the
same but to no avail. Such testimony has
remained uncontroverted. As has been

repeatedly held by this Court, "findings of facts
and assessment of credibility of witnesses are
matters best left to the trial court. Hence, the
Court will respect the evaluation of the trial
court on the credibility of Peregrino. MCMP, to
note, contends that the Contract presented by
Monark is not the contract that they entered
into. Yet, it has failed to present a copy of the
Contract even despite the request of the trial
court for it to produce its copy of the Contract.
Normal business practice dictates that MCMP
should have asked for and retained a copy of
their agreement.

APO Cement vs. Mingson Mining
G.R. No. 206728, November 12, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
JURISDICTION: The cardinal precept is that
where there is a violation of basic constitutional
rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction.
The violation of a party’s right to due process
raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot
be glossed over or disregarded at will. Where
the denial of the fundamental right of due
process is apparent, a decision rendered in
disregard of that right is void for lack of
jurisdiction.

Prudential Bank vs. Magdamit, Jr.
G.R. No. 183795, November 12, 2014
Perez, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; SUMMONS: In actions in
personam such as ejectment, the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
through personal or substituted service of
summons. Before substituted service of
summons is resorted to, the parties must: (a)
indicate the impossibility of personal service of
summons within a reasonable time; (b) specify
the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and
(c) state that the summons was served upon a
person of sufficient age and discretion who is
residing in the address, or who is in charge of
the office or regular place of business of the
defendant. The readily acceptable conclusion in
this case is that the process server at once
resorted to substituted service of summons
without exerting enough effort to personally
serve summons on respondents. In the case at
bar, the Returns contained mere general
statements that efforts at personal service were
made. Not having specified the details of the
attendant circumstances or of the efforts
exerted to serve the summons, there was a
failure to comply strictly with all the
requirements of substituted service, and as a
result the service of summons is rendered
ineffective.

Bahia Shipping Services vs. Hipe, Jr.
G.R. No. 204699, November 12, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.

173

SPECIAL
CIVIL
ACTIONS;
CERTIORARI,
PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS: To justify the
grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari,
the petitioner must satisfactorily show that the
court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused
the discretion conferred upon it. In labor
disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be
ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its
findings and conclusions are not supported by
substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to justify a conclusion. The onus
probandi falls on the seafarer to establish his
claim for disability benefits by the requisite
quantum of evidence to justify the grant of
relief. Guided by the foregoing considerations,
the Court finds that the CA committed reversible
error in granting Hipe’s certiorari petition since
the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in
dismissing the complaint for permanent
disability benefits for Hipe’s failure to establish
his claim through substantial evidence.

People vs. Yecyec
G.R. No. 183551, November 12, 2014
Mendoza, J.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; WHO MAY CONDUCT
DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE
CAUSE: It must be stressed that in our criminal
justice system, the public prosecutor exercises a
wide latitude of discretion in determining
whether a criminal case should be filed in court,
and the courts must respect the exercise of such
discretion when the information filed against the
person charged is valid on its face, and that no
manifest error or grave abuse of discretion can
be imputed to the public prosecutor. In this
case, there is no question that the Information
filed against the respondents was sufficient to
hold them liable for the crime of Theft because
it was compliant with Section 6, Rule 110 of the
Rules of Court. Moreover, a review of the
resolutions of the MCTC, the Provincial
Prosecutor, the RTC, and the CA shows that
there is substantial basis to support finding of
probable cause against the respondents. Hence,
as the Information was valid on its face and
there was no manifest error or arbitrariness on
the part of the MCTC and the Provincial
Prosecutor, the RTC and the CA erred when they
overturned the finding of probable cause against
the respondents.

Magleo vs. Judge de Juan-Quinagoran
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2336, November 12, 2014
Mendoza, J.
CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE;
DEMURRER
TO
EVIDENCE: [A court's ruling resulting from the
granting of the accused's Demurrer to Evidence]
is an adjudication on the merits of the case
which is tantamount to an acquittal and may no

174

longer be appealed. The current scenario,
however, is an exception to the general rule.
The demurrer to evidence was premature
because it was filed before the prosecution
rested its case. The RTC had not yet ruled on the
admissibility of the formal offer of evidence of
the prosecution when Magleo filed her demurrer
to evidence. Hence, Judge Quinagoran had legal
basis to overturn the order granting the
demurrer to evidence as there was no proper
acquittal.

People vs. Lagahit
G.R. No. 200877, November 12, 2014
Perez, J.
EVIDENCE; CHAIN OF CUSTODY: “Chain of
Custody” means the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of
each
stage,
from
the
time
of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction. Record shows that while
the identities of the seller and the buyer and the
consummation of the transaction involving the
sale of illegal drug have been proven by the
prosecution, this Court, nonetheless, finds the
prosecution evidence to be deficient for failure
to adequately show the essential links in the
chain of custody, particularly how the four sticks
of handrolled marijuana cigarettes subject of
the sale transaction came into the hands of PO3
Lawas, Jr. from the trusted informant, who was
the designated poseur-buyer. Going to the crime
of illegal possession of marijuana, the records do
not contain any physical inventory report or
photograph of the confiscated items. Even the
lone prosecution witness never stated in his
testimony that he or any member of the buybust team had conducted a physical inventory or
taken pictures of the items. Although PO3
Lawas, Jr. testified that the seized drugs subject
of the illegal possession case had been marked,
nowhere can it be found that the marking
thereof was done in the presence of Lagahit or
any third-party representatives.

People vs. Cabrera
G.R. No. 190175, November 12, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
EVIDENCE; CHAIN OF CUSTODY: When an
accused raises the issue of non-compliance by
the police officers with [Sec. 21 of the IRR of
R.A. No. 9165] particularly the lack of physical
inventory of the seized specimen and the nontaking of photograph thereof on appeal after the
CA rendered a decision, the Court must uphold
his conviction. [Cabrera] should have raised the
said issue before the trial court. Truly, objection
to evidence cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal; when a party desires the court to

A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions shall be filed to the CA within a period of fifteen (15) days from notice of. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. 206379. Without such objection. November 19. judgments. LCMC Cebu Mining vs. While the accused has already waived his right to contest the legality of his arrest. Salvador's defense was res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment. RES JUDICATA: The principle of res judicata is applicable either by way of “bar by prior judgment” or by “conclusiveness of judgment. CIVIL PROCEDURE. These issues are clearly tax matters. People vs. authorized by any quasi-judicial agency such as the Office of the President.R. November 17. The first case involved facts necessary to resolve the issue of whether or not Salvador falsified her PDS. the petitioners raised valid questions of law that warranted the direct recourse to this Court. No. its imposition cannot be subject to the will of the parties. 2014 Del Castillo. November 17.reject the evidence offered. 2014 Mendoza. A direct resort to this Court. J. J. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. Falsification was the main issue in the first case.” Here. Heirs of Pacquing G. J. The company and the union cannot agree or compromise on the taxability of the gas allowance. To be exact. he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. WHEN LAWFUL: An accused cannot assail any irregularity in the manner of his arrest after arraignment.R.R. may be allowed in cases where only questions of law are raised. No.” The Voluntary Arbitrator has no competence to rule on the taxability of the gas allowance and on the propriety of the withholding of tax. 2014 175 . It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation. he is not deemed to have equally waived his right to contest the legality of the search. however. of law. “[t]he rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court.R. 190623. vs. The grounds were separate and distinct from each other and entailed different sets of facts. he must so state in the form of an objection. 2014 Brion. November 19. The appeal may involve questions of fact. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. Pagaduan vs. 201284. MODES OF APPEAL: Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. November 19. Cebu Port Authority G.J. Araza G. publication or denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. and do not involve labor disputes. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS. final orders or resolutions. The second one involved facts necessary to resolve the issue of whether or not Salvador was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. 199042.R. Mogul stating that. Otherwise. there appears to be no identity of issues and facts in the two administrative cases. In the present petition. 199008. APPEAL. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT. Almero vs. The only fact to consider in the second administrative complaint is the fact of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. 204142. No. CSC G. No. 2014 Sereno. or mixed questions of fact and law. WHEN LAWFUL: A waiver of an illegal arrest […] is not a waiver of an illegal search. 2014 Brion. JURISDICTION: The Court reiterates its ruling in Crespo v. while it was no longer an issue in the second case. C. Contrary to Salvador's contention. Honda Cars Phils. It must be borne in mind that both administrative complaints were based on different grounds. CIVIL PROCEDURE. they involve tax issues within a labor relations setting as they pertain to questions of law on the application of Section 33 (A) of the NIRC.. No. an appeal from the awards. Honda Cars Technical Specialists and Supervisors Union G. They do not require the application of the Labor Code or the interpretation of the MOA and/or company personnel policies. Objections to a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be manifested prior to entering his plea. J. the objection is deemed waived. November 19. Taxation is the State’s inherent power. People G. however. Villanueva vs. No. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT.R. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES.

As the records would show. 03-8-02-SC allows the Manila and Quezon City RTCs to issue warrants to be served in places outside their territorial jurisdiction for as long as the parameters under the said section have been complied with. the termination or rescission of which cannot be validly enjoined by an injunctive writ issued by a lower court pursuant to R. vs. Judge Peralta. No. Finding probable cause therefor. as the rules state. as one of the modes of discovery. CIVIL PROCEDURE. was presented as evidence during the trial.” The Court observes that all the above-stated requirements were complied with in this case. particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized in connection with the heinous crime of Murder. November 19. proven not in the manner provided by Section 24. EVIDENCE. where LCMC [operates] their facility. 2014 Del Castillo. may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said RTC. November 24. 186455. Glow Laks G. To prove a foreign law.” It is not an uncommon occurrence that an accused person granted bail is convicted in due course. issued Search Warrant which. the Vice-Executive Judges” are authorized to act on such applications and “shall issue the warrants.” People vs. which may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said courts. as amended by R. The presumption obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law 176 enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. Cameron Granville 3 Asset Mgmt. While a photocopy of the foreign statute relied upon by the court a quo to relieve the common carrier from liability. The rule only requires leave of court “upon due application and a showing of due cause. 2014 Perez. however. 204700. November 19. 156330. The Certificate of Registration and Permit to Operate granted by the CPA is premised on a contract for a national infrastructure project contemplated by R.A. is a national infrastructure project.R. no presumption of regularity can arise. 2014 Leonen. if justified. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES. Nedlloyd Lijnen vs. JUDICIAL NOTICE: It is well-settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT. in his capacity as 2nd Vice-Executive Judge. PNP Chief Jesus Ame Versosa. Laud vs.A. CIVIL PROCEDURE. 2014 Per Curiam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 2014 Brion. 8975.Reyes. the laws of the foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our local or domestic law. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. No.R. In the absence of pleading and proof. 199032. as in this case. J. G. No. J. 7718. No. NATURE OF BAIL: Brita asserts that the grant of bail bolsters his claim that the evidence of the prosecution is not strong enough to prove his guilt. 6957. a foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. November 24. EVIDENCE.” “The Executive Judges of these RTCs and. J. is not limited to the pretrial stage. .R. the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. People G. they “shall particularly describe therein the places to be searched and/or the property or things to be seized as prescribed in the Rules of Court. as the trier of facts.A. Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. This Court also finds it highly unusual that the police would allow a civilian walk-in informant like Armando to transact with Casabuena on his own. No. Eagle Ridge Dev’t Corp. “A grant of bail does not prevent the trial court.M. J. No. The Court is not convinced. the same however was not accompanied by the required attestation and certification.R. No. it was. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: Talo-ot Port. whenever they are on official leave of absence or are not physically present in the station. WHERE FILED: Section 12. the search warrant application was filed before the Manila-RTC by the PNP and was endorsed by its head. Casabuena G. J. People vs. Brita G. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS: [This Court stresses] that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty obtains only when there is no deviation from the regular performance of duty. November 19. While the foreign law was properly pleaded in the case at bar. Where the official act in question is irregular on its face. As in ordinary search warrant applications. Rule 27 does not provide for any time frame within which the discovery mode of production or inspection of documents can be utilized. No. 191260. No. This is known as processual presumption. Under the rules of private international law.R. Chapter V of A. from making a final assessment of the evidence after full trial on the merits.. MODES OF DISCOVERY: [The] availment of a motion for production.

AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS: The garnishment of property 177 . which contains these details. 2014 Leonen. which deals with the procedure in administrative cases. J. SP No. It must be stressed that the above-quoted Section 7 is provided under Rule III. 194751. CIVIL PROCEDURE. CIVIL PROCEDURE. 86630 assailed only the “administrative decision” rendered against her by the OMB for Luzon. November 24. Thus. Rule II.R. the testimony of one of the heirs to that effect. 17. CA G. Failure to serve summons will mean that the court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. 193117. De Pedro vs. BunagCabacungan's contention that the phrase “in all other cases” has removed the distinction between administrative and criminal cases of the Ombudsman is ludicrous. SATISFACTION. The sheriff’s return. they cannot allege before the Supreme Court that that when Angel sold the subject land to Regina. the phrase “in all other cases” still refers to administrative cases. No. It is important to note that the petition filed by Bunag-Cabacungan in CA-G. the RTC and the CA. directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. November 26. courts must rely on a detailed enumeration of the sheriff’s actions and a showing that the defendant cannot be served despite diligent and reasonable efforts. therefore. Heirs of Spouses Liwagon G. its integrity and evidentiary value have not been compromised at any stage. and up to the time it was offered in evidence. Thus. where the sanctions imposed are different from those enumerated in Section 7. have effectively curtailed the State's right to due process. 2014 Peralta. until it was tested in the crime laboratory. Without such evidence. To avail themselves of substituted service. absent any clear and convincing evidence to corroborate the claim will not be enough to overcome the presumption of validity. In the present case. substituted service will be irregular if no other evidence of the efforts to serve summons was presented. No. Jr. Thus. It enjoys the presumption of regularity and is a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein – which may only be overcome by evidence that is clear. November 26. in rem or quasi in rem – the preferred mode of service of summons is personal service. review the orders. a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.R. November 26. the court may allow substituted service. CIVIL PROCEDURE.R. he was not yet the owner of the land and had no right to transfer or convey the property. Goyu & Sons G. Andrade G. 07 was amended by Administrative Order No. Former Special 4th Division. November 26. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. which provides for the procedure in criminal cases. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. J. not criminal cases. Duyon vs. the presumption must be upheld. Should the sheriff’s return be wanting of these details. 2014 Villarama. if the validity of a notarized deed of sale is being assailed by the heirs of the seller on the ground that the seller’s signature was forged. MOTION TO QUASH: It is clearly provided by the Rules of Criminal Procedure that if the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect in the information which can be cured by amendment. if the validity of a notarized deed of sale was assailed by the heirs of the seller on the ground that the seller’s signature was forged. and on this basis.. the court shall order the amendment to be made. Clearly. 187000. Heirs of Liwagon and Dumalagan vs. SUMMONS: Regardless of the type of action – whether it is in personam. APPEAL. No. It cannot. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases. J. by not giving the State the opportunity to present its evidence in court or to amend the Informations. People vs. the RTC judge outrightly dismissed the cases without giving the prosecution an opportunity to amend the defect in the Informations.EVIDENCE. the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration is tantamount to voluntary appearance.R. Romasan Dev’t G. EVIDENCE. convincing and more than merely preponderant. Solidbank vs. However. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS: By law. JURISDICTION: The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders. When Administrative Order No. J. 172218. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES.R. 142983. J. Section 7 was retained in Rule III. Thus. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: The Court finds that the prosecution was able to show the unbroken chain of custody/possession of the seized item from the moment the sale was consummated. No. EXECUTION. It is another rule. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. No. MODES OF APPEAL: Parties cannot raise before the Supreme Court factual issues which they did not raise before the trial court as it is the latter which has jurisdiction to hear evidence to support the petitioners’ claim. is entitled to a presumption of regularity.R.

November 26. making physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized item. 2014 Reyes.R. RES GESTAE: In this case. under the sole control of such court. Geroche vs. which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate. DECEMBER 2014 People vs. unless the distributees. 93-65442.’s estate is not yet through and complete albeit it is at the liquidation. Migrants Watch vs. From all of the foregoing. 2014 Peralta. i. 2014 Perez. Hence. No. as issuance was done in the exercise of their quasilegislative and administrative functions within the confines of the granting law. No. conditioned for the payment of said obligations within such time as the court directs. beyond the interference of all other coordinate courts. 179080. or any of them. Phil. In this case. Jr.. No. 209651. therefore. Though there were deviations from the required procedure. We have held that property attached or garnished by a court falls into the custodia legis of that court for the purposes of that civil case only. Any relief against such attachment and the execution and issuance of a writ of possession that ensued subsequently could be disposed of only in that case. Thus. the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug seized from appellants were duly proven by the prosecution to have been properly preserved. November 26. 208749. 166923. Estibal G. In the case at bar. quantity and quality remained untarnished. it is apparent that the intestate proceedings involving Jose. and the accused waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court. J. 2014 Del Castillo. the RTC of Manila. Dawali G. partition and distribution stage. EVIDENCE. they are deemed to have abandoned their right to invoke the prohibition on double jeopardy since it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct errors as may be found in the assailed judgment. 193385. G.e. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS: No distribution shall be allowed until payment of the obligations above mentioned has been made or provided for. November 26. such as the RTC of Manila. Branch 14. give a bond. People G.R. J. As long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved. J. November 26. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS. No. PROHIBITION. its identity. still. the settlement of Jose. EVIDENCE. December 1. OWWA G. Sr. strict compliance of the requisites under Section 21 of RA 9165 may be disregarded. . When the proceeds of fire insurance policy numbers F-114-07402 and F-114-07525 were placed under custodia legis of Branch 3 of the RTC of Manila in Civil Case No.R. No. It is brought into custodia legis. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. 2014 Peralta. Marcelo Investment vs. the RTC had jurisdiction over the controversy and it was erroneous for it to dismiss the complaint outright. CERTIORARI. APPEAL: An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question including one not raised by the parties. People vs. Branch 3. J.R. J.operates as an attachment and fastens upon the property a lien by which the property is brought under the jurisdiction of the court issuing the writ.’s estate still requires a regular administrator to finally 178 settle the estate and distribute remaining assets to the heirs of the decedent. AND MANDAMUS: Jurisdiction over the issue of the constitutionality of the OWWA Omnibus Policies is a question of law. contrary to the lower court’s contention. Thus. Petitioners could not have been placed twice in jeopardy when the CA set aside the ruling of the RTC by finding them guilty of Violation of Domicile as charged in the Information instead of Less Serious Physical Injuries.R. that is. Marcelo. they were placed under the sole control of such court beyond the interference of all other co-ordinate courts. certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy in the instant case. Sr. when petitioners appealed the trial court’s judgment of conviction for Less Serious Physical Injuries. in a sum to be fixed by the court. the order to deposit the proceeds of fire insurance policy numbers F-114-07402 and F-114-07525 brought the amount garnished into the custodia legis of the court issuing said order. AAA’s statements to the barangay tanod and the police do not qualify as part of res gestae in view of the missing element of spontaneity and the lapse of an appreciable time between the rape and the declarations which afforded her sufficient opportunity for reflection.

203022. December 3. G . The directive to reinstate respondent to her former position as school director and curriculum administrator is a command directing the undoing of an act already consummated which is the exclusive province of prohibitory or mandatory injunctive relief and not of a status quo order. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: [Even] if there was no statement as to where the markings were made.R. No. CIVIL PROCEDURE. what is important is that the seized specimen never left the custody of PO3 Bongon until he turned over the same to SPO1 Antonio and that thereafter. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY: The term “reasonable doubt” is not equivalent to the phrase “the act from which criminal responsibility may arise did not at all exist. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. Martinez vs. CIVIL PROCEDURE. It is the allegations in the complaint that determines the nature of the case. Judge Martin G. parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. Oliva G. Lumontad G. Jr. STATUS QUO ORDER: A status quo order is merely intended to maintain the last. Ley Construction G. J.” 179 . PROHIBITION. J. PROHIBITION. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. 180364. may prove the guilt of the accused when there are multiple circumstances which were given. 2014 Villarama. Daluraya vs. when refused. CERTIORARI. The writ of execution has already been implemented.R. as an exception. 191694. J. that said appeal must have been filed on time. Co King Ki G. peaceable and uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy.. In this case. the chain of custody was shown to be unbroken. 210148. CIVIL PROCEDURE. J. Tze Sun Wong vs. 203760. December 3. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: A driver who is in-charge for the delivery of diesel to a client shall be liable for qualified theft when he fails to return the vehicle to the office and the product itself was not delivered to the client. AND MANDAMUS: Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies. No. It bears reiterating that appeal is not a constitutional right. No. December 3. APPEAL.R. No. December 8.R. EVIDENCE. the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu is shown to have been properly preserved and the crucial links in the chain of custody unbroken. CAUSE OF ACTION: When a party states the circumstances in the complaint of dispossession of a property through force. Dela Cruz G. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES.R. December 3. Wong Candelaria vs. December 3. but a mere statutory privilege.R. J. Zapanta vs.Javier vs. CAUSE OF ACTION: The nature of the cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint. 209386. however. The proper remedy is to cite the disobedient party in contempt. Circumstantial evidence. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. without regard to or the exercise of his or its own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. No. not to provide mandatory or injunctive relief. People vs. it cannot be applied when the respondent was already removed prior to the filing of the case. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. Three essential elements must be shown to establish a cause of action. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. CERTIORARI. EVIDENCE. Metrobank vs. No. J. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. In this case. the nature of the case shall be that of forcible entry. it is required. No. intimidation and threat. CIVIL PROCEDURE. 2014 Del Castillo. Indeed. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES. EVIDENCE. Custodio G. of a ministerial duty which is that which an officer or tribunal in obedience to the mandate of legal authority. 193670. No. December 3.R. December 3. 174996. Oca vs. People G. December 8. J.185590.R. the legal rights of the petitioner Bank and the correlative legal duty of LCDC have not been sufficiently established in view of the failure of the Bank's evidence to show the provisions and conditions that govern its legal relationship. AND MANDAMUS: A writ of mandamus is employed to compel the performance. J. Thus. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro.R. No. actual. MODES OF APPEAL: While it is true that when an appeal is filed. the approval of a notice of appeal is a ministerial duty of the court or tribunal which rendered the decision. J.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 201781. in this case. J. the Court will not interfere with the same. the latter provides connotes that the accused have not committed the offense. No. JANUARY 2015 Aguilar vs. in support of his petition for certiorari. For purposes of filing a criminal information. the court retains its jurisdiction. So long as the case has been prosecuted against the indispensable parties. and was formulated precisely to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasijudicial agencies. Borje G. 2014 Peralta. neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However. In the case at bench.R. unless it is shown that the OMB’s finding of probable cause was done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. and adequate legal remedy available to him. If it is the defendant who fails to appear. Rigor. Geronimo vs. a fortiori. APPEAL. PROHIBITION. January 12. AND MANDAMUS: Appeals from decisions in administrative disciplinary cases of the OMB should be taken to the CA via a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Titong G. 2014 Peralta. Jr. and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.Although both have the force of acquittal. Lightbringers G. Jr. No. But it is settled that certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie. 2014 Velasco.. the Court can only consider the evidence on record offered by respondent. on appeal due to their disregard of the mandatory attendance in the pre-trial conference. the question in the case at bench is whether or not the petitioners attached the sufficient pleadings and material portions of the records in their petition . This rule is based not only on respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. CIVIL PROCEDURE. SATISFACTION. the MCTC properly allowed respondent to present evidence ex parte. The petitioners lost their right to present their evidence during the trial and. No. Thus. December 10. December 10. 209605. AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS: Generally. Spouses Calderon G. 2014 Villarama. or any offense included therein. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. then the plaintiff is allowed to present his evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment on the basis thereof. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION: The fact that one of the respondents did not file their answer to the complaint does not divest the court of jurisdiction. vs.R.. J. Jr. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. CERTIORARI. 206661. No. Thus. Thus. CIVIL PROCEDURE. December 10. then his case shall be dismissed. 207682. Rigor G. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt. December 10. No. found probable cause which would warrant the filing of an information against respondents. argues that there was no other plain. J. It is such set of facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information. CIVIL PROCEDURE. PRE-TRIAL: During pre-trial. Nicart. speedy. People vs. as appeal under Rule 43 is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. CIVIL PROCEDURE. such as the OMB. WHO MAY CONDUCT DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE: It is well-settled that courts do not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine the presence or absence of probable cause believing that a crime has been 180 committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof necessitating the filing of the corresponding information with the appropriate courts. the petitioners failed to attend the pre-trial conference.R. […] The OMB. J.. 2015 Mendoza.R. They did not even give any excuse for their non-appearance. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. 170046. probable cause has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondents are probably guilty thereof. MODES OF APPEAL: Thus. Casimiro vs. J. EXECUTION.R. the filing and pendency of a petition for review with the CA or certiorari with the Supreme Court shall not stop the execution of the final decision of the Commission unless the Court issues a restraining order or an injunction. has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. judicial courtesy dictates that Commission should suspend its proceedings and await the CA’s resolution of the petition for review. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. if the absent party is the plaintiff. Rule 43 prescribes the manner of appeal from quasi-judicial agencies.

however. These should be considered as ample compliance with Sec. and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. the defendant unlawfully withholds the possession of the premises upon the expiration or termination of his right to hold such possession under any contract. Since November 29.R. No. CIVIL PROCEDURE. Laguesma received the decision of the COA on October 16. EXPROPRIATION: In the present case. 2015 Bersamin. Had that admission been made in the trial court the case should have been dismissed there. PROHIBITION. and the issue centers on which between the plaintiff and the defendant had the prior possession de facto. 2008.R. The Court rules that the petition was in substantial compliance with the requirements. 2008. It filed a motion for reconsideration on November 6. CA G. or any plain. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER. the proceedings under which are limited to unlawful detainer and forcible entry. UNLAWFUL DETAINER: A boundary dispute must be resolved in the context of accion reivindicatoria. This petition could have been dismissed outright for being filed out of time. that is. The receipt of this notice gave Laguesma nine (9) days. It received notice of the denial of its motion on November 20. J. This court. becoming unlawful only because of the expiration or termination of his right of possession. January 12. In unlawful detainer. COA G. however. Briones vs. or after 21 days. A boundary dispute cannot be settled summarily under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Thus. by resolution of [NAPOCOR]. 204444. Laguesma could still have filed on the next working day. the petitioners should attach pertinent portions of the records such as the testimony of the sole witness of [Lightbringers]. 2015 Bersamin. the possession of the defendant is illegal from the very beginning. 165354. or personal hostility. that the expropriation is not necessary for public use. CIVIL PROCEDURE. 2007. VENUE: [A] complaint directly assailing the validity of the written instrument itself should not be bound by the 181 . J. 185544. Republic vs. recognizes that there are certain exceptions that allow a relaxation of the procedural rules. board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction. the copies of the cash disbursement vouchers and the PNB checks presented by [Lightbringers] in the [trial court]. J. 2015 Bersamin. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. the action should be dismissed even without a motion […] The moment it appears in whatever stage of the proceedings that the expropriation is not for a public use the complaint should be dismissed and all the parties thereto should be relieved from further annoyance or litigation.for review. It now appearing positively. No. or until November 29. the petitioners attached [Lightbringers’] complaints before the [trial court] which contained the photocopies of the cash disbursement vouchers and PNB checks. 176508.R. Consulta. In forcible entry. which was well beyond the reglementary period. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. NAPOCOR admits that the expropriation of the land in question is no longer necessary for public use. Heirs of Borbon G. In other words. MODES OF APPEAL: In this case. J. speedy. power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion. January 13. AND MANDAMUS: Certiorari. No. No. or on December 1.R. or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. January 12. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. The boundary dispute is not about possession. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. to file a petition for certiorari. Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. 2007. The defendant’s possession was lawful at the beginning. The conditions are that: (1) the respondent tribunal. Riel G. January 14. CERTIORARI. 2008 fell on a Saturday. Manalang vs. 156995. a relaxation of the technical rules is in order. filed the petition on December 19. being an extraordinary remedy. Magsalin. The Law Firm of Laguesma. is granted only under the conditions defined by the Rules of Court. express or implied. Bacani G. and (2) there is no appeal. and Gastardo vs. 2008. 2015 Leonen. aside from the decisions and orders of the [courts a quo]. […] Considering that the issues in this case involve the right of Laguesma to receive due compensation on the one hand and respondents’ duty to prevent the unauthorized disbursement of public funds on the other.R. APPEAL. 2. January 12. whether the property claimed by the defendant formed part of the plaintiff’s property. It. J. prejudice. No. not an ejectment case. but encroachment. The assignment of error in the petition for review clearly raises questions of fact as the petitioners assail the appreciation of evidence by the MCTC and the RTC. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. Saint Mary Crusade vs. 2008. In the petition for review.

.R. SATISFACTION. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized to have been forged. Since the said judgment did not order that the possession of the subject lots be vested unto Sia. it may not vary.870. 2015 Perez. Had the Sia pursued an action for ejectment or reconveyance. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: Non-compliance with Section 21 of the IRR does not make the items seized inadmissible. forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear. 109645. the errors pointed out by the spouses appear to be harmless. as in this case.R. The Court has emphasized that what is essential is “the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. the name “Guellerma Malabanan rep. (2) to 182 depreciate the value of the property. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS: [As] a rule. Spouses Garabato G. January 14. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. the second Motions must present “extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only upon express leave first obtained. the issuance of writs of possession and demolition would have been proper. FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE: In the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale. No. No. AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS: The judgment in the mandamus petition sought to be enforced in the case at bar only declared valid the auction sale where Sia bought the subject lots. or (3) to prevent it from bringing a fair price. Jr. the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. J.20 but the mortgagors are Spouses Castro and the amount must be P100.exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and should be filed in accordance with the general rules on venue. Sia vs. 2015 Perez. Gepulle-Garbo vs. J. One who alleges forgery has the burden to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.R. Pavia G. January 14. EXECUTION. No. January 14. No.” Portuguez vs. Castro” appeared as mortgagor while the amount of mortgaged indebtedness is P96. J. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. January 14.. January 14. Article II of R.” Ortigas & Company vs. Nos. Club Filipino vs.R. 2015 Villarama. Spouses Castro G. Jr. the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. What is imperative is “the preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. As such. EVIDENCE. With jurisprudence as the measure. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. 168406. exceeded its authority in enforcing the same – when it issued the corresponding writs of possession and demolition to vest unto Sia the possession of the subject lots. 2015 Leonen. People vs. 202687. the trial court substantially varied the terms of the aforesaid judgment – and thus. The mistakes and omissions referred to in the above-cited ruling which would invalidate notice pertain to those which: (1) are calculated to deter or mislead bidders. and accordingly ordered the City Treasurer to issue a Final Bill of Sale to Sia. positive and convincing evidence.R. but not in a special civil action for mandamus. Judge Velasco G. it has no validity. People G.” Once leave to file is granted.R. 200013. 2015 Leonen.000. No. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. Bautista G. as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. J. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: The fact that the apprehending team in this case did not strictly comply with the procedural requirements of Section 21(1). or go beyond. January 14. No. by her AIF David M.R. the Court clarified that Crespo does not bar the Justice . 194499. RA 9165 and its subsequent Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require strict compliance as to the chain of custody rule. CIVIL PROCEDURE. or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. J. JURISDICTION: In subsequent cases. EVIDENCE. the second Motion for Reconsideration is no longer prohibited. 209672-74. 2015 Villarama. EVIDENCE. 9165 does not necessarily render appellants’ arrest illegal or the items seized from them inadmissible in evidence. Arcenas G. CIVIL PROCEDURE. Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it. It is well-settled that orders pertaining to execution of judgments must substantially conform to the dispositive portion of the decision sought to be executed. January 21. No. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION: For the Court to entertain second Motions for Reconsideration. J.A. 195272. BPI vs. J.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. J. J. The only issue that may be raised in such a petition is the question of construction or validity of provisions in an instrument or statute. Vet. in the same manner that court decisions cannot be the proper subjects of such petition. CIVIL PROCEDURE. J. a Diocese and its Bishop posted tarpaulins in front of the cathedral which aimed to dissuade voters from electing candidates who supported the RH Law. it may avail of the various remedies provided by the Rules of Court. 9165 does not entail any civil liability. The court. in the exercise of its quasijudicial powers or functions. J. to determine any question of construction or validity arising from the instrument. namely: it involves a legal question and the application of the doctrine would be unreasonable. No. 2015 Leonen. but must evaluate it before proceeding with the trial. decisions of quasi-judicial agencies cannot also be its subject for the simple reason that if a party is not agreeable to a decision either on questions of law or of fact.R.R. DECLARATORY RELIEF: Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person interested in a deed. No. will. Stronghold Insurance vs. CIVIL PROCEDURE. Diocese of Bacolod vs. January 21. January 21. CIVIL PROCEDURE. or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions. 2015 Peralta. as far as practicable. CERTIORARI. No. However. Failure to comply with the rule is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. petitioner filing an action for quieting of title constitutes deliberate forum shopping. the case is about COMELEC’s breach of the petitioners’ fundamental right of expression of matters relating to election. cannot be a proper subject matter for such petition. (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for. to refrain from entertaining a petition for review of the prosecutor's finding when the Information is already filed in court. 206832. or statute. and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. As such. 183 . 2015 Leonen. PROHIBITION. Such a violation is grave abuse of discretion. thus the constitutionality of COMELEC’s orders [is] within the Supreme Court’s power to review under Rule 65. January 21.R. APPEAL. amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. January 21. the petitioners may directly file a Rule 65 Petition with the Supreme Court without need for a ruling from the COMELEC En Banc. The petitioners also did not violate the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. as the same yields in order to protect this fundamental right. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. the power or authority of the Justice Secretary to review the prosecutor's findings subsists even after the Information is filed in court. a violation of Republic Act No. the relief being founded on the same facts. the case falls under the exceptions to the doctrine. People vs. is not bound by the Resolution of the Justice Secretary. 205728. Morales G. VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING: There is forum shopping when as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum. as the case falls under the exceptions thereto. AND MANDAMUS: When petitioners. as the petitioners are not candidates in the elections but is asserting their right to free speech. COMELEC G. executive order or regulation. such that any judgment rendered in the other action will.Secretary from reviewing the findings of the investigating prosecutor in the exercise of his power of control over his subordinates. 112564 and this case are the same: Molina and TMBC. the decision of the BSP Monetary Board. the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not violated. The Rules of Court mandates petitioner to submit a Certification Against Forum Shopping and promptly inform the court about the pendency of any similar action or proceeding before other courts or tribunals. Finally. contract or other written instrument. regardless of which party is successful.R. executive order or resolution.R. No. both the civil and criminal liabilities are extinguished upon the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction by the lower courts. In other words. 204689. Even if it applies. however. no civil liability needs extinguishment. Forum shopping consists of the following elements: (a) identity of parties. All the elements of forum shopping are present in this case. Spouses Stroem G. Hence. Bank G. The parties in G. In addition. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. 189571. Phil. In view of the foregoing. it is not binding on courts. and the COMELEC acts not in its quasi-judicial function but in its regulatory function. No. 2015 Perez. and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars. The Justice Secretary is merely advised. and the COMELEC twice ordered the latter to dismantle the tarpaulin for violation of its regulation which imposed a size limit on campaign materials. VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING: When there has been a final and executory ruling by the Court. BSP Monetary Board vs. DEATH PENDING APPEAL: Ordinarily. While the ruling of the Justice Secretary is persuasive.

As such. The court continues to have the authority to hear and evaluate the evidence. Moreover. (3) the request and the marked items seized. said rules do not take away.R. Minanga G. Rule 120. No. it will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain. Also. therefore. Hence. and (5) the marked items were offered in evidence. 202837. PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT: Section 6. D-106200235 confirmed that the marked items seized from appellant were methamphetamine hydrochloride. as a general rule. Thus.R. it also provides the remedy by which the accused who were absent during the promulgation may reverse the forfeiture of the remedies available to them against the judgment of conviction. a respondent’s claim that his rights were violated cannot be given credence when he flouts the rules himself by resorting to simultaneous remedies by filing Petition for Certiorari alleging violation of due process by the Ombudsman even as his Motion for Reconsideration raising the very same issue remained pending with the Ombudsman. CERTIORARI. a motion for reconsideration is mandatory before the filing of a petition for certiorari. Jr. Absent any compelling reason to justify non-compliance. it does not take away per se the right of the convicted accused to avail of the remedies under the Rules. It is the failure of the accused to appear without justifiable cause on the scheduled date of promulgation of the judgment of conviction that forfeits their right to avail themselves of the remedies against the judgment. 2015 Villarama. The Supreme Court merely laid down the rules on promulgation of a judgment of conviction done in absentia in cases when the 184 accused fails to surrender and explain his absence within 15 days from promulgation. were received by the PNP Crime Laboratory. (2) a request for laboratory examination of the seized items marked RCC 1 to RCC 4 was signed by Police Superintendent Glenn Dichosa Dela Torre. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.J. When the accused fail to present themselves at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction. the said provision does not take away substantive rights. repeal or alter the right to file a motion for reconsideration as said right still exists. Sandiganbayan G. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. January 21. 2015 Del Castillo. finds no reason to overturn the findings of the RTC that the drugs seized from appellant were the same ones presented during trial. Hence. . the chain of custody can be easily established through the following link: (1) PO1 Condez marked the seized four sachets handed to him by appellant with RCC 1 to RCC 4. Clearly. FORCIBLE ENTRY: An allegation of tenancy before the MTC does not automatically deprive the court of its jurisdiction. PROHIBITION. Bersamin G. People vs. Ofilada vs. A court does not lose jurisdiction over an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. No. speedy and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law. It is among the rules of procedure which the Supreme Court is competent to adopt pursuant to its rule-making power under Article VIII. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. Spouses Andal G. Section 5(5) of the Constitution. J. no grave abuse of discretion can thus be attributed to the Ombudsman for the issuance of an order denying the request of the respondent to be furnished copies of counter-affidavits of his corespondents. 192270. contrary to the assertions of appellant. Nos. 183152-54.Estrada vs. AND MANDAMUS: As can be gleaned from both the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Rules of Court.R. (4) Chemistry Report No. J. the respondent is required to be furnished a copy of the complaint and the supporting affidavits and documents. 212140-41.. they lose the remedies of filing a motion for a new trial or reconsideration (Rule 121) and an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule 122). Nos. Clearly. Jaylo vs. not the affidavits of the corespondent. Accordingly. C. All the more. of the Rules of Court provides that it is incumbent upon the accused to appear on the scheduled date of promulgation. 2015 Sereno. because it determines the availability of their possible remedies against the judgment of conviction. much less of grave abuse of discretion. January 21. these pertain to affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses. a petition for certiorari will not lie. it merely provides the manner through which an existing right may be implemented. The material averments in the complaint determine the jurisdiction of a court. a failure to avail of the opportunity to be heard due to the respondent’s own fault cannot in any way be construed as a violation of due process by the Ombudsman. it is clear that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. J. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: In this case. it is but logical to conclude that the chain of custody of the illicit drugs seized from appellant remains unbroken. 2015 Carpio. which were personally delivered by PO1 Condez and PO2 Virtudazo. January 26. Finally. EVIDENCE. This Court. January 21. As such.R.

2014. In the latter. MODES OF APPEAL: The Fresh Period Rule under Neypes did not apply to the petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. if.R. It must be underscored that the service of the initiatory pleading has nothing to do with how courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in an ordinary civil action. which is an issuance directed by the court. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS. (2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee. CIVIL PROCEDURE. Rule 46 of the Rules. in the case at bar. and that there is dearth of evidence to show that it had since changed its address or had moved out. FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS: When the complainant declared a certain address as its business address in its complaint before the RTC. which was 25 days too late. J. enters a special appearance but grounds the same on the service of the complainant’s initiatory pleading to him. it filed the petition on August 13. health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. Considering that it received the notice of the denial on July 14. it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused. and. Unfortunately.R.precisely to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction. tenancy is shown to exist. a conditional appearance to object to a trial court’s jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be made when said party specifically objects to the service of summons. No. In the former. or from receipt of the denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. No. as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. it had only until July 19.. Rather. It must also be noted that in ordinary civil cases. February 3. WRIT OF KALIKASAN: Under Section 1 of Rule 7. after hearing. the petition is filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. thus. February 4. 2014. 2014 to file the petition. Fortune filed its motion for reconsideration on January 14. or private individual or entity. EVIDENCE. it had only five days from receipt of the denial of its motion for reconsideration to file the petition. 210760. Fortune Life Insurance vs. 2015 Bersamin. J. and (3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life. the following requisites must be present to avail of this extraordinary remedy: (1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. People G. However. then that would not be considered as an objection to the court’s jurisdiction over his person.M. Diamond Dragon G. 2012. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. January 27.R. The reglementary periods under Rule 42 and Rule 64 are different. it shall dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. J. we sustain the appellate court’s findings that the Casiño Group failed to establish the alleged grave environmental damage which will be caused by the construction and operation of the power plant. FEBRUARY 2015 Paje vs. 207257. 09-6-8SC). as the guilty person. The gravity of environmental damage sufficient to grant the writ is. however. Hence. CIVIL PROCEDURE. The Rules do not define the exact nature or degree of environmental damage but only that it must be sufficiently grave. to be decided on a caseto-case basis. 2015 Velasco. not the complainant. January 26. J. in terms of the territorial scope of such damage. RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES (A. which was 31 days after receiving the assailed decision of the COA on December 14. Jr. COA G. so as to call for the grant of this extraordinary remedy. 185 . 213525. DENR Secretary G. 204796. the aggrieved party is allowed 15 days to file the petition for review from receipt of the assailed decision or final order. appellant cannot be faulted for adopting the said address in serving a copy of its certiorari petition in light of the requirement under Sections 3 and 4. Hence. NO. the Court observes that jurisdiction over the person of respondent had already been Zabala vs. it is the propriety of the trial court’s service of summons – same as the CA’s service of its resolution indicating its initial action on the certiorari petition – which remains material to the matter of the court’s acquisition jurisdiction over the defendant’s/respondents’ person. We find that the pieces of evidence presented before the trial court fail to provide a sufficient combination of circumstances. Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 64. No. the Supreme Court finds that the prosecution failed to present sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict [Zabala] of the offense charged. APPEAL. 2015 Del Castillo. No. If the defendant. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the possibility that some other person has committed the crime.R. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS: To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Reicon vs. 2013. to the exclusion of the others. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe.

however. 2015 Mendoza. if a defendant fails to attend the pre-trial conference. 199990. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed at the end of criminal proceedings. February 4. J. reveals that the confiscated sachets subject of the illegal sale of shabu were not marked. There is no dispute that Spouses Salvador and their counsel failed to attend the pre-trial conference set on February 4. Spouses Salvador aver that their non-attendance was due to the fault of their counsel as he forgot to update his calendar. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: In the prosecution of illegal sale. Dacuma G. Heirs of Alsua G. No. Thus. when called to the witness stand. His testimony merely focused on the fact that he prepared the affidavit of a certain Baltazar. This non-marking violated the measures defined under Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. To do so would deprive the courts of their judicial prerogatives and reduce them to the bureaucratic function of inputting data and arriving at the valuation. 2015 Del Castillo. EVIDENCE. ‘planting. J. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: The initial link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the plastic sachets from appellant and their marking by the apprehending officer. [the Court reiterates] the rule that the failure to attend the pre-trial conference does not result in the default of an absent party. This excuse smacks of carelessness. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. February 4. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link. the prosecution failed to prove that the four sachets which tested positive for shabu and eventually presented in court were the same ones confiscated by the police officers due to its non-marking at the place where the buybust operation was committed at the police station.’ or contamination of evidence. People vs. at the very least. himself. as the records would show. hence. Land Bank vs. Spouses Salvador vs. PRE-TRIAL: On the procedural aspect. EVIDENCE. they are not strictly bound to adhere thereto if the situations before them do not warrant it. the plaintiff can present his evidence ex parte. 211351. EXPROPRIATION: The determination of just compensation is a judicial function. J. 192785. did not testify that he made any markings on the said sachets or. who. had consistently represented Diamond before the proceedings in the court a quo and even before this Court. Spouses Rabaja G. 2005 despite proper notice.R. While he mentioned that the police investigator to whom he turned over the items wrote something down or made some initials thereon. the RTC is advised that while it should be mindful of the different formulae created by the DAR in arriving at just compensation. which is the first link in the chain of custody and which would have shown that the shabu presented in evidence was the same specimen bought from appellant during . admitted that he did not put any markings on the two plastic sachets that were handed to him by Borlagdan after the latter’s purchase of the same from appellant. In this case. And albeit later. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.R. A review of the records. PO2 Martirez identified the police investigator as SPO1 Desuasido. February 4.acquired by the CA through its voluntary appearance by virtue of the Manifestation. Spouses Salvador could no longer present any evidence in their favor. The consummation of sale is perfected the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. On the other hand. 9165 which are also known as the Rule on Chain of Custody. PO2 Martirez. coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. 2015 Perez. the latter. it is not strictly bound to adhere thereto if the situations before it do not warrant their application. People vs. As a result of their inattentiveness. Clearly. While the courts should be mindful of the different formulae created by the DAR in arriving at just compensation. a defendant is only declared in default if he fails to file his Answer within the reglementary period. filed by its counsel. however. February 4. thus it is vital that the seized contraband is immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. obviating switching. The prosecution’s evidence failed to establish the marking of the two sachets of shabu subject of this case. 9165 and Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS.R. Butial G. what is essential is to prove that the transaction or sale actually took 186 place. he nevertheless could not remember who wrote the initials.R. 205889. It simply cannot be considered as a justifiable excuse by the Court. No. the absence of markings creates an uncertainty that the two sachets seized during the buy-bust operation were part of the five sachets submitted to the police crime laboratory. and indifference to the pre-trial stage. that he received the same from PO2 Martirez. No. CIVIL PROCEDURE. J. No. courts cannot be unduly restricted in their determination thereof.

Clearly. RES JUDICATA: [There] is a bar by prior judgment where there is identity of parties. DECISIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES: Well-entrenched is the rule in our jurisprudence that administrative decisions are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be interfered with by the courts. February 11. Yerro G. where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases. J. petitioners’ counsel was present and they were given the opportunity to prove their indigency. the Court rules that res judicata. CIVIL PROCEDURE. The Supreme Court ruled that the] hearing requirement. No. we will not override the finality and immutability of a judgment based only on the simple negligence of a party’s counsel. No. February 11. It can be easily understood from a cursory reading of the implementing rules that the crucial factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items since they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. in the concept of bar by prior judgment. Tested against the foregoing [i. the identity of the corpus delicti.R.A. palpable. J. 188364. Jr. Yap-Co vs. Bonsubre. The lack of certainty therefore on a crucial element of the crime i. 9165] does not make the conviction of the accused invalid. 184827. and causes of action between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS. Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government agency entrusted with regulation of activities coming under its special and technical training and knowledge. on the other hand. 2015 Peralta. CIVIL PROCEDURE. R. 175417. respondent filing two separate unlawful detainer complaints against petitioner. 2015 Reyes. The Court finds that respondents would be deprived of the opportunity to prove the legitimacy of their claims if the RTC’s dismissal of the case – on a procedural technicality at that. Frias. CIVIL PROCEDURE. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe. Pilipinas Shell vs. but no identity of causes of action. No. There is conclusiveness of judgment. No. CIVIL PROCEDURE. 194999. was complied with during the hearings on the motions to dismiss filed by respondents. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe.e.. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. for the exercise of administrative discretion is a policy decision and a matter that is best discharged by the concerned government agency and not by the courts. J. GEMASCO vs. February 9. subject matter. EVIDENCE. Zambales Chromite Mining G. their non-payment of docket fees is one of the grounds raised by respondents in their motions to dismiss and the hearings on the motions were indeed the perfect opportunity for petitioners to prove that they are entitled to be treated as CIVIL PROCEDURE. APPEAL.R. 209295. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED: [At] the outset. which was clearly caused by the palpable negligence of their counsel – is sustained. February 9.e. PERIOD TO APPEAL: A counsel’s failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is simple negligence.R. Hence. PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION: [The RTC issued an order denying the petitioners’ motion for leave to litigate as indigents.the buy-bust operation. vs. Jr. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. contrary to petitioners’ claim. Judge Sorongon G. No. and reckless as to deprive a party of its day in court.. J. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES. Spouses Uy G. indigent litigants and thus exempted from the payment of docket fees as initially found by the Executive Judge.R. February 11. NHA G. In said hearings. It is not one as gross. warrants the reversal of the judgment of conviction. J. Nepomuceno G. K&G Mining vs. They claim that private respondents neither submitted evidence nor were they required by respondent judge to submit evidence in support of their motions on the issue of indigency of petitioners. and the second case subsequently filed with the Davao MCTC]. Romars Int'l Gases 187 . 21. Petitioners argue that respondent judge did not conduct the proper hearing as prescribed under Section 21. 2015 Del Castillo.R. DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS: [Relief] is accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer’s palpable mistake or negligence and where the interest of justice so requires. 205952. 2015 Villarama. with the first case being dismissed by the Compostela Valley MCTC upon finding that the contract of lease was simulated. J. Jr..R. February 11. it must be borne in mind that a dismissal grounded on the denial of the right of the accused to speedy trial has the effect of acquittal that would bar the further prosecution of the accused for the same offense. No. applies in this case. vs.. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: [Noncompliance] with the procedure outlined [in Sec. People vs.

February 25. CIVIL PROCEDURE. and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other. appellant should be acquitted. David vs. J. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. a court’s power to confirm a judgment award under the Special ADR Rules should be deemed to include the power to order its execution for such is but a collateral and subsidiary consequence that may be fairly and logically inferred from the statutory grant to regional trial courts of the power to confirm domestic arbitral awards. J. 212081. The marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately upon seizure from the accused is crucial in proving the chain of custody because it is the starting point in the custodial link. it is the Court’s considered view that the Rules’ procedural mechanisms cover not only aspects of 188 confirmation but necessarily extend to a confirmed award’s execution in light of the doctrine of necessary implication which states that every statutory grant of power. is “interlocutory. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: [For] failure of the buy-bust team to observe the procedures laid down by Republic Act No. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION: While it appears that the Special ADR Rules remain silent on the procedure for the execution of a confirmed arbitral award. however. 198223. 2015 Perlas-Bernabe.R. MOTIONS: The motion to quash the search warrant which the accused may file shall be governed by the omnibus motion rule. an “interlocutory” order may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case. People vs. 2015 Mendoza. the issue of the defect in the application was available and existent at the time of filing of the motion to quash. the rule that venue is jurisdictional does not apply thereto. J. Paragas. The RTC Order denying respondents' special and affirmative defenses contained in their answer is no doubt interlocutory since it did not finally dispose of the case but will proceed for the reception of the parties' respective evidence to determine the rights and obligations of each other. 189669. a corporation or a partnership possesses a personality separate from that of its incorporators or partners. thereby obviating switching. an order denying a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules […] Unlike a “final” judgment or order. 176973. 2015 Bersamin. existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in the hearing of the motion to suppress. Irrefragably. Under the doctrine of processual presumption. thus. 9165 and its IRR. right or privilege is deemed to include all incidental power. CIVIL PROCEDURE. Evidently. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS. NATURE OF SEARCH WARRANT: An application for a search warrant is a “special criminal process. G. Heirs of Dimaampao vs. which is appealable. Alagarme G.R.” rather than a criminal action. the issue of whether the application should have been filed in RTC-Iriga City or RTC -Naga. February 16. February 18. PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION: Olympia is a separate being.” or contamination of evidence. To construe it otherwise would result in an absurd situation whereby the confirming court previously applying the Special ADR Rules in its confirmation of the arbitral award would later shift to the regular Rules of Procedure come execution. UPCI G. J. No. Olympia should. be accorded the status of .” e. EVIDENCE. This requirement of marking as laid down by the law was not complied with. Alug G. Obviously. provided.R. February 23. is not one involving jurisdiction because. As the Court sees it.G. Elementary is the rule that under Philippine corporate and partnership laws.R. Proceedings for applications of search warrants are not criminal in nature and thus. this Court has to presume that Hong Kong laws is the same as that of the Philippines particularly with respect to the legal characterization of Olympia’s legal status as an artificial person.R. No. INTERLOCUTORY ORDER VIS-A-VIS FINAL ORDER OR JUDGMENT: An order that does not finally dispose of the case. The marking upon seizure serves a two-fold function. right or privilege. execution is but a necessary incident to the Court’s confirmation of an arbitral award.g. partners or even directors. J. but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court.. or at least should be treated as one distinct from the personalities of its owners. Jr. 2015 Peralta. 184789. No. No. that objections not available. No. the power to issue a special criminal process is inherent in all courts. “planting. February 23. DENR vs. 2015 Peralta. CIVIL PROCEDURE. and the second being to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until their disposition at the end of criminal proceedings. the first being to give to succeeding handlers of the specimens a reference.

a complaint or information must charge only one offense. It cannot be said either to have consented to the judicial approval of the compromise. as in the instant case. Thus. cannot avail of this defense simply because they did not file a motion to quash questioning the validity of the Information during their arraignment. an indispensable party as it stands to be injured or benefited by the outcome of the main proceeding. the sheriff must cite why such efforts were unsuccessful. it is patent that the sheriff's or server's return is defective. SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION: As a general rule. otherwise. J. there is no duplicity to speak of. 183652. preferably on at least two different dates. The rationale behind this rule prohibiting duplicitous complaints or informations is to give the accused the necessary knowledge of the charge against him and enable him to sufficiently prepare for his defense. the respondent. INDISPENSABLE PARTY: The Court reiterated that an indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action. Ong vs. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. however. the inquiries made to locate the defendant. in the first place. to serve the summons on defendant must be specified in the Return to justify substituted service. Conversely. Co G. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. February 25. CA G. February 25.an artificial being at least for the purpose of this controversy. It has such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect its rights. On that basis. No. a defendant in a case for nullity of marriage. “Several attempts” means at least three (3) tries. then the substituted service was invalid and the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Ong. Datoy. Thus. the judicially approved withdrawal of the claims on the basis of that compromise could not be given effect for such agreement did not concern the parties in the civil case. These matters must be clearly and specifically described in the Return of Summons. 2015 Peralta. because it was never a party in the proceedings. 206653. otherwise. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction. Co cannot rely on the presumption of regularity on the part of the process server when. the right to act in a case. failed to indicate any portion of the records which would describe the specific attempts to personally serve the summons. Not having been impleaded. on behalf of Ong. contingent and inchoate. like in the instant case. The date and time of the attempts on personal service. No. where the allegations of the acts imputed to the accused are merely different counts specifying the acts of perpetration of the same crime. never part of it. and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. Because Olympia’s involvement in the compromise was not the same as that of the other parties who were.R. Non-compliance with this rule is a ground for quashing the duplicitous complaint or information under Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the accused may raise the same in a motion to quash before he enters his plea. that the return did not describe in detail the person who received the summons. In addition. where the server’s return utterly lacks sufficient detail of the attempts undertaken by the process server to personally serve the summons on Ong. 2015 Mendoza. People vs. they are deemed to have waived their right to question the same. CIVIL PROCEDURE. the defect is deemed waived. the name/s of the occupants of the alleged residence or house of defendant and all other acts done. though futile. The accused herein. it is without a doubt. Olympia cannot be prejudiced by any judgment where its interests and properties are adjudicated in favor of another even if the latter is a beneficial owner.” Considering that David was asking for judicial determination of his rights in Olympia. the same is defective. The State should not heap upon the accused two or more charges which might confuse him in his defense. the compromise agreement could not have the force and effect of a judgment binding upon the litigants. specifically Datoy and Paragas.R. MARCH 2015 189 . and that her husband. Lobrin. J. CIVIL PROCEDURE. SUMMONS: Substituted service of summons [requires] that the process server should first make several attempts on personal service. much less waived substantial rights. Also. and even David. Olympia’s interest should be detached from those of directors Paragas. which is “the authority to hear and determine a cause. Individual directors’ interests are merely indirect.

JUDICIAL ETHICS. June 4. 2482. April 2. 2014 Sereno. J. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY. 2014 Brion. no matter how brief.C. and brings it to disrepute. April 1.J. No. The Court usually allows reasonable extensions of time to decide cases in 190 Paguia vs. Judge Austria A. deprives the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case. 9317. . QUALITIES. Judge Bustamante A. substantial evidence is the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt. Accordingly. decency and propriety; both in the performance of their duties and their daily personal lives. Being an ejectment case. Heavy caseload and demanding workload are not valid reasons to fall behind the mandatory period for disposition of fall behind the mandatory period for disposition of cases. he/she can. JUNE 2014 Lorenzana vs. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro. No. Judge Regencia rendered judgment only about two (2) years and four (4) months later. it undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary. MTJ-14-1841. Judge Bustamante is liable for undue delay that merits administrative sanction. Quiachon vs. Failure to decide cases within the reglementary period constitutes a ground for administrative liability except when there are valid reasons for the delay. 2008. [the Supreme Court finds] that Tiongson’s transgression of the rules issued by the OBC amounts to misconduct. Any delay in the administration of justice. view of the heavy caseload of the trial courts. and this requirement is satisfied if the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct. J. lowers its standards. Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. MTJ-12-1806. C. JUDICIAL ETHICS. RTJ-09-2200. they should be beyond reproach. for good reasons. without any order of extension granted by the Court.M. the Court held that the 90-day reglementary period is mandatory. judges should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to administer justice promptly. Thus. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LAWYER: Bare allegations in the complaint do not suffice the holding of administrative liability. If a judge is unable to comply with the 90-day reglementary period for deciding cases or matters. No. Molina A. June 2. it is undisputed that Civil Case No. PROPRIETY: [As] the visible personification of law and justice. GarciaBlanco. Not only does it magnify the cost of seeking justice. No. This exacting standard applies both to acts involving the judicial office and personal matters. In Office of the Court Administrator v. The presumption of good faith still applies absent any evidentiary proof otherwise. A member of the bench cannot pay mere lip service to the 90-day requirement; he/she should instead persevere in its implementation. But Judge Bustamante did not ask for an extension in any of these cases. No. 212-B was already submitted for resolution on October 17. judges are held to higher standards of conduct and thus must accordingly comport themselves. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE: The Supreme Court has always emphasized the need for judges to decide cases within the constitutionally prescribed 90-day period. In this case. 2014 Carpio. it is governed by the Rules of Summary Procedure which clearly sets a period of thirty (30) days from the submission of the last affidavit or position paper within which a decision thereon must be issued. J. The very nature of their functions requires behavior under exacting standards of morality. Having failed to decide a case within the required period.C. LEGAL ETHICS. upon being called by the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). JUDICIAL ETHICS. or on February 18.05. C. J. Despite this. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE: Prompt disposition of cases is attained basically through the efficiency and dedication to duty of judges. Tiongson admitted that he indeed brought a digital camera inside the bar examination room.LEGAL ETHICS APRIL 2014 In re: Tiongson B. April 7.M. No. If judges do not possess those traits. delay in the disposition of cases is inevitable to the prejudice of the litigants. This is embodied in Rule 3. QUALITY. 2011. QUALITIES.M. 9881. MISCONDUCT OF OTHER COURT PERSONNEL: In administrative proceedings. Here. Judge Regencia A.J.M. 2014 Sereno. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. June 4. OCA vs. ask for an extension and such request is generally granted. Dulang vs. Ramos A.

On the other hand. Lastly. Thus. not in and under the custody of any of the parties. therefore. No. the complaint against Judge Gella. from the judge to the lowest of its personnel. and urging their termination even without prodding from the client or the court. June 4. SUSPENSION. there is no question that Legal Researcher Jintalan’s participation in the implementation of the writ of execution was upon the prior authorization of Judge Gella in order to assist Sheriff Jintalan in her proceedings to implement the writ of execution.000 for the total expenses to be incurred in the said case.M. P-13-3132. Securing a copy of such notices. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LAWYER: The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. Like any public servant. of the personnel who work thereat. she must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of her official duties but also in her personal and private dealings with other people. or the duty due to carelessness or 191 . notwithstanding his receipt of the sum of P250. J. MISCONDUCT OF OTHER COURT PERSONNEL: The filing of administrative complaints or just the threats of the filing of such complaints do subvert and undermine the independence of the Judiciary and its Judges. attending scheduled hearings or conferences. and honesty. MISCONDUCT OF OTHER COURT PERSONNEL: Every employee of the Judiciary should be an example of integrity. 2014 Bersamin. RTJ-13-2356.M. however. being rooted in the denial of Hernandez’s motion for reconsideration (vis-à-vis the denial of Hernandez’s motion to quash the writ of execution). Securing a copy of such notices. preparing and filing the required pleadings. Here. official and otherwise. deserve to remain with the Judiciary. and is for that reason outrightly dismissible.C. prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch. 2014 Reyes. definitively bear out that the respondent was completely remiss and negligent in handling the complainant’s case. June 9. Sempio that he did not receive any orders or notices from the trial court are highly intolerable. She thus knew that the levied personal properties of Hernandez must be kept safely in and under her direct custody. Baens vs.M. he must present every remedy or defense within the authority of law to support his client’s interest. A lawyer’s duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care or giving sound legal advice. No. J. No. With the implementation of the writ of execution being her purely ministerial duty. but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court. For any litigant to insist otherwise is censurable because the. 2014 Per Curiam LEGAL ETHICS. The real question for determination in these proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the bar.LEGAL ETHICS. but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal. Hernandez vs. handle his case. OCA vs. Sheriff Jintalan must perform her duty strictly to the letter. June 10. OF A LAWYER: failure to give disregard of a DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Simple neglect of duty is the attention to a task. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY. orders and case records was within the respondent’s control and is a task that a lawyer undertakes. P-13-3123. DISBARMENT. Although a lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him. LEGAL ETHICS. complaint adversely affects the administration of justice and harms the reputation of a judicial officer. The records. uprightness. Ampong failed to meet these stringent standards set for a judicial employee and does not. 10378. Macusi A. It is beyond dispute that the Baens engaged the services of the respondent to Valdez vs. An administrative complaint against a judge is not a substitute for a proper remedy taken in due course to review and undo his acts or omissions done in the performance of his judicial duties and functions. Public interest is the primary objective. Judge Gella A. to preserve the court’s good name and standing. unquestionably related to Judge Gella’s performance of his judicial office. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. In this case. June 9. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY. Sheriff Jintalan is administratively liable for simple neglect of duty. There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. Court personnel have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity of the courts of justice. orders and case records was within the respondent’s control and is a task that a lawyer undertakes. the Court does not tolerate unwarranted administrative charges brought against sitting magistrates in respect of their judicial actions. Ampong A. Sempio A. J. The excuse proffered by Atty. No. The image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct. AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS: The complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case.

LEGAL ETHICS. June 10.’ Necessity and public interest enjoin lawyers to be honest and truthful when dealing with his client. SUSPENSION. And if he does not use the money for the intended purpose. 2014 Reyes.C. 2014 Villarama. Atty. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LAWYER: In his dealings with his client and with the courts. Crisostomo vs. LEGAL ETHICS. In this case.C. J. the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client. 9976. June 23. De Taza demanded money is baseless and non-existent. J. and not in derogation of. 2014 Perlas-Bernabe. Sr. the purpose for which Atty. Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Alvarez. June 10. J. Samonte vs. Garay G. No. Judge Flores A. Jr. Maglana vs.C. Canon 1 and Rule 10. still took cognizance of the motion. and trustworthy. Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987. Under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. IBP ELECTIONS: The “rotation rule” should be applied in harmony with. Uy vs. DISBARMENT. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility […] Owing to the evident similarity of the issues involved in each set of cases.M. Subtitle A. simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable with suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. Foronda vs. and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. LEGAL ETHICS. 2014 Bersamin. June 16. A. Spouses Sombilon vs. LEGAL ETHICS.01. thereby rendering the motion fatally defective.R. An employee who questions the validity of his transfer should appeal to the Civil Service Commission per Section 26(3). Judge Venadas. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that ‘a lawyer shall observe candor. AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS: Under Section 5. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY. 6677. the sovereign will of the electorate as expressed through the ballot. imbued with integrity. For a member of the legal profession to further stoke the embers of mistrust on the judicial system with such irresponsible representations is reprehensible and cannot be tolerated. Nazareno A. No. June 25. No. In the realm of legal ethics. Abellana A. A judge owes the public and the court the duty to know the law by heart and to have the basic rules of procedure at the palm of his hands. The Rules classify violation of existing Civil Service Law and rules a serious offense punishable with suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. DISBARMENT. 2713. Opinion B. June 25. fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client. J. No.01. J. the canons of the Code – should have truthfully declared the existence of the pending related cases in the certifications against forum shopping attached to the pertinent pleadings. 2014 Brion. Jr. SUSPENSION.. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY. the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for that particular purpose. JUSTICES AND JUDGES OF LOWER COURTS: [The Spouses Sombilon] failed to comply with the three-day notice rule and the required proof of service embodied in Sections 4. and subjects the erring counsel to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. depriving the other parties of their right to due process. 3454. 2014 Del Castillo. J. June 10. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LAWYER: The relationship of an attorney to his client is highly fiduciary.indifference. 179914. Chapter 5. the submission of false entries in a certification against forum shopping constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court. 2014 Reyes. No. said infraction may be considered as a violation of Rule 1. 7676. De Taza A. AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS: When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose. Despite this.M. JUSTICES AND JUDGES OF LOWER COURTS: Judge Flores assumed jurisdiction over the Rule 65 petition assailing Hefti’s order when he should have dismissed the petition for Gandarosa’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Dizon vs. No. A lawyer ought to remember that honesty and integrity are of far greater value for him than any of the circumstances occurring in his transactions with his clients.C. every lawyer is expected to be honest. LEGAL ETHICS. RTJ-12-2332. J. The 192 order of rotation is not a rigid and inflexible rule as to bar its relaxation in exceptional and compelling circumstances. 5. Nazareno – as mandated by the Rules of Court and more pertinently. And even if we assume that the trial . No.

DISBARMENT. June 30. 5377. No. June 25. Baliga A. AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS: The court has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. National Capital Judicial Region. Granting that respondent Sahi was not good at using computers in the beginning. from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk. No. she should have taken steps to learn and hone her computer Lingan vs. J. When this court orders a lawyer suspended from the practice of law. skills which were essential to her work. of the Bureau of Internal Revenue are respectively located in Metro Manila. Revenue Region No. and Cagayan de Oro City. P-11-302.M. 2014 Leonen. MISCONDUCT OF OTHER COURT PERSONNEL: While it is true that respondent Sahi is merely human and may commit mistakes. This includes desisting from holding a position in government requiring the authority to practice law. there is simply no excuse for making the same mistakes repeatedly despite her superior constantly calling her attention to correct them. 193 . the lawyer must desist from performing all functions requiring the application of legal knowledge within the period of suspension. SUSPENSION. must always be beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.court has jurisdiction over Gandarosa’s petition. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court requires that the petition must be filed in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area. Section 4. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY. 2014 De Castro. P. LEGAL ETHICS. 16.J. But the trial court presided by Judge Flores is within the 12th Judicial Region while the Head Office and Regional Office. Sahi A. The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice. J. Alano vs.C.