You are on page 1of 7

Go, and Minor Emerson Chester Kim B. Go vs Colegio De San Juan De Letran et al. Brion, J.

: This case is regarding a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of Court of Appeals. Facts: On October 2001, an incident report was given to the Head of Letrans Auxiliary Services Department- Mr. George Isleta, regarding six students injured due to a hazing rite. During the investigation, Kim, a fourth year high school student, was positively identified by the neophytes as a senior member of the fraternity.At the Parents-Teachers Conference, Mr.Rosada, the Assistant Prefect for Discipline, informed Kims mother of the incident. Thereafter, a written statement was provided denying the allegations. A notice was given to Kims parent to attend a conference on January 8, 2002 regarding the issue. Both Gos did not attend. During another conference on January 15, 2002, Mr.Rosada conveyed to the Gos the decision to suspend Kim from January 16, 2002 to February 18, 2002. On even date, Mrs. Go submitted a request for the deferment of Kims suspension to January 21, 2002 so that he could take a previously scheduled examination. The request was granted. The respondents then proposed that the students and their parents sign a pro-forma agreement to signify their conformity with suspension. Spouses Go refused to sign. They also refused accept the respondents finding that Kim was a fraternity member. They likewise insisted that due process had not been observed. A complaint for damages was filed before the RTC of Caloocan for unlawfully dismissing Kim. They also sought for business opportunity losses suffered while personally attending to Kims disciplinary case. RTC ruled in their favor stating respondents failed to observe the basic requirement of due process and that there was utterly insufficient evidence to prove Kim was a fraternity member. It awarded petitioners moral and exemplary damages. It also held that Mr. Go was entitled to actual damages after finding that he had neglected his manufacturing business when he personally attended his sons disciplinary case. CA reversed and set aside the decision, hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in setting aside the decision of RTC.

Ruling: The Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court put to emphasize that the disciplinary sanction imposed on Kim was a suspension and not a dismissal as the petitioners insist in their complaint. It agrees with the CA that the petitioners were well aware of this fact since Mrs. Go specifically wrote to the school to defer Kims suspension. That this request was granted and that Kim was allowed to take the examination further supporting the conclusion he was not dismissed. On the issue of due process, the Court made mention of the case Guzman v National University where it laid down the minimum standards in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions. It stressed out that due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings. The minimum standards which must be met are as follow: (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right answer the charges against them; (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. In the case at bar, records show that the Gos were made aware of accusation through notices sent to them. They were even asked to attend conference to address the issue- though both failed to without any explanation. Mr.Rosada also personally informed Mrs. Go of the charges thus the petitioners fully knew the nature of the evidence that stood against Kim. As to the argument that the written notice rule was not observed,the Court held that its purpose is to inform the student of the disciplinary charge. Records show that it was already made plain to the petitioners that the subject matter of the case against Kim was his alleged fraternity membership even before Kim gave his written explanation. Thus, he cannot

claim that he was denied of his opportunity to be heard. He also cannot claim that he was denied to the right to adduce evidence in his behalf since several opportunities were already given to them. The Court further recognized that the evidence presented by the respondents, neophytes written statements and security officers incident report, is substantial. The Court also affirmed the decision of CA that there was no basis for the award of moral, exemplary and actual damages. The testimony that clients had cancelled purchases which affected loss in their business was obviously hearsay and speculative since no confirmation was made. Actual damages cannot be based on speculation.

National Power CorporationvsTeresitaDiato-Bernal Nachura, J.: This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, seeking the reversal of Appeals. Facts: Petitioner NAPOCOR is a government owned and controlled cooperation created by RA 6395 for purpose of undertaking the development of hydroelectric power throughout the Philippines. To carry out the said purpose, NAPOCOR is authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain. Respondent Diato-Bernal is the registered owner of a 946 sq m parcel of land situated along General Aguinaldo Highway, Imus, Cavite. In order to complete the construction for NAPOCORs project, it had to acquire an easement of right of way over respondents property. Thus, it filed an expropriation suit alleging the project is for public purpose. Both parties failed to reach an agreement. After more than a year, a partial compromise agreement was filed in the RTC regarding the location and size of pole to be constructed on the property of the respondent. However, a trial will proceed with respect to the question of just compensation. To determine the amount of just compensation, RTC appointed three commissioners, viz.: (1) Provincial Assessor of Cavite; (2) Municipal Assessor of Imus, Cavite, upon recommendation of NAPOCOR; and (3) Soledad Zamora, respondents representative. The commissioners submitted their report stating the just compensation due is at P10,000.00 per sq m, based on the propertys fair market value. NAPOCOR filed an Opposition asserting that it was not substantiated by any official document or registered deeds of sale of the subjects propertys neighbour lots. Furthermore, it made mention of the ruling in the case of Rep of the Phil v Santos, wherein it was held that a commissioners report which is not based on any documentary evidence is considered a hearsay and should be disregarded by the court. Lastly, that the expropriated property should be P3,500.00 per sq m based on the resolution enacted by the Provincial Appraisal Committee of Cavite (PAC-Cavite). RTC adopted the recommendation of the Commissioners which was eventually affirmed by the CA, hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the resolution of the PAC-Cavite should prevail over the valuation report of the court-appointed commissioners. Ruling: The Court ruled that NAPOCOR is correct. A commissioners report of land prices which is not based on any documentary evidence is manifestly hearsay and should be disregarded by the Court. In the report, the market values of the neighbour lots were mere estimates and unsupported by any corroborative documents. It also failed to elaborate on how and by how much the community and convenience facilities enhanced the value of respondents property. RTC also erred in not requiring the commissioners to submit the market sales data and price listings. Furthermore, it overlooked the fact that the recommended just compensation was gauged two years after the complaint. A just compensation should be ascertained at the time of the taking, which usually is the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. However, the Court ruled that NAPOCOR cannot demand the PAC-Cavite resolution be substituted for the report of the Commissioners. It can only serve as one of the factors in the judicial evaluation of just compensation. This is consonance with the doctrine that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function. Thus, the ruling of RTC was set aside and that this case was remanded back for proper determination of just compensation.

Myrna P. AntonevsLeo R. Beronilla Perez, J.: FACTS: Petitioner Antone executed an Affidavit-Complaint for Bigamy against respondent Beronilla before the Office of City Prosecutor of Pasay City. She alleged that her marriage with respondent in 1978 had not yet been legally dissolved when the latter contracted a second marriage with a Cecile Maguillo in 1991. Respondent moved to quash the Information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. He informed the court that his marriage with petitioner was declared null and void on April 26, 2007 and become final and executory on the same year. Furthermore, that such decree was already been registered to the Municipal Civil Registrar on June 12, 2007. He argued that the marriage is declared void ab initio which has a retroactive effect hence no first marriage to speak of after all- making the elements of bigamy incomplete. The petitioner, however, maintained that the respondent committed all the essential requisites of bigamy since their marriage is still valid at the time the second marriage contracted. It also raised the ruling of the Supreme Court that a motion to quash is a hypothetical admission of facts alleged in the information and that facts used as defense may be raised only during the presentation of evidence. Hence this petition. Issue: Whether or not the facts contrary to the alleged information can be used as basis for a Motion to Quash. Ruling: The Court agreed with the Petitioner. As defined- a motion to quash an Information is a mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint/information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or of defect which are apparent in the face of the Information. Contrary to the ground in Motion to Quash of the respondent, there is no apparent defect in the allegations indicated in the Information. It is clear in

the accusatory portion that the offense charged is Bigamy; containing all the elements under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. The documents of respondent declaring the first marriage null and void are pieces of evidence that seek to establish a fact contrary to the allegations in the Information. It should not be the case because of matters of defense cannot be raised in a motion to quash. Furthermore, the Court cannot apply one of the exceptions, viz. when facts have been established by evidence presented by both parties which destroyed the prima facie truth of the allegations in the information hearing on a motion to quash based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, in the case at bar. The second marriage was celebrated in 1991 and under the provision of the Family Code, a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage is immaterial in a bigamy case because, by then, the crime had already been consummated. The ruling of the RTC is set aside and remanded back to the trial court for further proceeding.