Civil Procedure [Questions of Law under Rule 45] - It is not the Courts function to evaluate factual

questions all over again. A weighing of evidence necessarily involves the consideration of factual issues -
an exercise that is not appropriate for the Rule 45 petition filed. nder the !""# Rules of Civil $rocedure%
as a&ended% the parties &ay raise only questions of law in petitions filed under Rule 45% as the 'upre&e
Court is not a trier of facts. RENE VENTENILLA PUSE v. LIGAYA DELOS SANTOS-PUSE, G.R. No.
183678, March 1, !"1"
Evidence [Credibility of Witness] - In fact% inconsistencies which refer to &inor% trivial or
inconsequential circu&stances even strengthen the credi(ility of the witnesses% as they erase dou(ts that
such testi&onies have (een coached or rehearsed. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. ANTONIO
LAUGA Y PINA ALIAS TERIO, G.R. No. 186!!8, March 1, !"1"
Evidence [Alibi and Denial] - 'ettled is the rule that% )ali(i is an inherently wea* defense that is viewed
with suspicion (ecause it is easy to fa(ricate.) )Ali(i and denial &ust (e supported (y strong
corro(orative evidence in order to &erit credi(ility.) +oreover% for the defense of ali(i to prosper% the
accused &ust esta(lish two ele&ents , -!. he was not at the locus delicti at the ti&e the offense was
co&&itted/ and -0. it was physically i&possi(le for hi& to (e at the scene at the ti&e of its co&&ission.
'tipulation and ad&ission during the pre-trial conference and testified to (y (oth parties in their
respective testi&onies are (inding upon the Court (ecause they are 1udicial ad&issions within the
conte&plation of 'ection 4% Rule !0" of the Revised Rules of Court. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v.
ANTONIO LAUGA Y PINA ALIAS TERIO, G.R. No. 186!!8, March 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - nder Rule 23% 'ec. ! of RA "0"5% a peculiar process of
ad&inistrative re&edy provides that the +ARI4A Ad&inistrator% and not the CA% is vested with pri&ary
1urisdiction over &atters relating to the issuance of a C$C. STA. %LARA S$IPPING %ORPORATION V.
EUGENIA T. SAN PA&LO, G.R. No. 16'('3, March 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [!erification" Certification a#ainst $on%&oru' ()o**in#] - 5he petitioner in this
case is the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents% a govern&ent entity created (y the Constitution% and headed (y
its Chair&an.

5here was no need for the Chair&an hi&self to sign the verification. Its representative%
lawyer or any person who personally *new the truth of the facts alleged in the petition could sign the
verification. 6ith regard% however% to the certification of non-foru& shopping% the esta(lished rule is that
it &ust (e executed (y the plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not (y counsel. %OMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENTS, REPRESENTED $EREIN &Y ITS SE%RETARY $ON. ARTURO L. TIU v. %ELSO M.
PALER, G.R. No. 17!6!3, March 3, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Rule +5 Petition for Certiorari] - 7udge 8arillo should (e a &ere no&inal party in the
proceedings where his decisions or orders are (eing assailed. 'ection 5% Rule 95 of the Rules of Court is
si&ple and straightforward enough in stating that )unless otherwise specifically directed (y the court
where the petition is pending% the pu(lic respondents shall not appear in or file an answer or co&&ent to
the petition or any pleading therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court (y either party% the pu(lic
respondents shall (e included therein as no&inal parties. :owever% unless otherwise specifically directed
(y the court% they shall not appear or participate in the proceedings therein.) $ON. $E%TOR &.
&ARILLO, A%TING PRESIDING )UDGE, MT% GUI$ULNGAN, NEGROS ORIENTAL V. $ON.
RALP$ LANTION, $ON. ME$OL *. SADAIN AND $ON. #LORENTINO A. TUASON, )R., T$E
%OMMISSIONERS O# T$E SE%OND DIVISION, %OMMISSION ON ELE%TIONS, MANILA+ AND
,ALTER ). ARAGONES - A.M. NO. MT)-1"-17! .#ORMERLY O%A IPI NO. "3-133-MT)/ ,ALTER
). ARAGONES V. $ON. $E%TOR &. &ARILLO, MUNI%IPAL TRIAL %OURT, GUI$ULNGAN,
NEGROS ORIENTAL, G.R. No. 1'117, March 1", !"1"
Civil Procedure [!erification] - 6hile 'ection !% Rule 95 requires that the petition for certiorari (e
verified% this is not an a(solute necessity where the &aterial facts alleged are a &atter of record and the
questions raised are &ainly of law. 'ection !9 of Rule !4 uses the words )&ay) and )also%) it is not
&andatory. LEA$ PALMA V. $ON. DANILO P. GALVE0, IN $IS %APA%ITY AS PRESIDING )UDGE
O# T$E REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT O# ILOILO %ITY, &RAN%$ !( AND PSY%$E ELENA AGUDO,
G.R. No. 16!73, March 1", !"1"
Civil Procedure [(ervice of (u''ons] - ;ther &ethods of service of su&&ons allowed under the Rules
&ay also (e availed of (y the serving officer on a defendant-resident who is te&porarily out of the
$hilippines. 5hus% if a resident defendant is te&porarily out of the country% any of the following &odes of
service &ay (e resorted to< -!. su(stituted service set forth in section # - for&erly 'ection =.% Rule !4/ -0.
personal service outside the country% with leave of court/ ->. service (y pu(lication% also with leave of
court/ or -4. in any other &anner the court &ay dee& sufficient. LEA$ PALMA V. $ON. DANILO P.
GALVE0, IN $IS %APA%ITY AS PRESIDING )UDGE O# T$E REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT O# ILOILO
%ITY, &RAN%$ !( AND PSY%$E ELENA AGUDO, G.R. No. 16!73, March 1", !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Res udicata] - It (ears stressing that the doctrine of res 1udicata actually
e&(races two different concepts< -!. (ar (y for&er 1udg&ent and -(. conclusiveness of 1udg&ent. 5he
second concept , conclusiveness of 1udg&ent , states that a fact or question which was in issue in a
for&er suit and was there 1udicially passed upon and deter&ined (y a court of co&petent 1urisdiction% is
conclusively settled (y the 1udg&ent therein as far as the parties to that action and persons in privity with
the& are concerned and cannot (e again litigated in any future action (etween such parties or their
privies% in the sa&e court or any other court of concurrent 1urisdiction on either the sa&e or different
cause of action% while the 1udg&ent re&ains unreversed (y proper authority. SPOUSES #ERNANDO
TORRES a12 IRMA TORRES V. AMPARO MEDINA a12 3h4 E5-O##I%IO S$ERI## o6 3h4 RT% o6
7849o1 %:3;, G.R. No. 16673", March 1", !"1"
(*ecial Civil Actions [,anda'us] - It is settled that &anda&us is e&ployed to co&pel the perfor&ance%
when refused% of a &inisterial duty% (ut not to co&pel the perfor&ance of a discretionary duty. +anda&us
will not issue to enforce a right which is in su(stantial dispute or to which a su(stantial dou(t exists. It is
nonetheless li*ewise availa(le to co&pel action% when refused% in &atters involving 1udg&ent and
discretion% (ut not to direct the exercise of 1udg&ent or discretion in a particular way or the retraction or
reversal of an action already ta*en in the exercise of either. #IDELA R. ANGELES V. T$E SE%RETARY
O# )USTI%E, T$E ADMINISTRATOR, LAND REGISTRATION AUT$ORITY, T$E REGISTER O#
DEEDS O# 7UE0ON %ITY, AND SENATOR TEO#ISTO T. GUINGONA, )R., G.R. No. 1(!(',March
', !"1"
Provisional Re'edies [-e'*orary Restrainin# .rder] - nder 'ection 5% Rule 5= of the
Rules of Court% a 1udge &ay issue a te&porary restraining order within a li&ited life of twenty
-0?. days fro& date of issue. If (efore the expiration of the twenty -0?.-day period the
application for preli&inary in1unction is denied% the te&porary restraining order would (e
dee&ed auto&atically vacated. If no action is ta*en (y the 1udge on the application for
preli&inary in1unction within the said twenty -0?. days% the te&porary restraining order would
auto&atically expire on the 0?th day (y the sheer force of law% no 1udicial declaration to that
effect (eing necessary and the courts having no discretion to extend the sa&e. 5he rule against
the non-extendi(ility of the twenty -0?.-day li&ited period of effectivity of a te&porary
restraining order is a(solute if issued (y a regional trial court. NATIONAL ELE%TRI#I%ATION
ADMINISTRATION V. VAL L. VILLANUEVA, G.R. No. 168!"3, March ', !"1"
Civil Procedure [Esto**el] % 5he operation of estoppel on the question of 1urisdiction see&ingly
depends on whether the lower court actually had 1urisdiction or not. If it had no 1urisdiction% (ut the case
was tried and decided upon the theory that it had 1urisdiction% the parties are not (arred% on appeal% fro&
assailing such 1urisdiction% for the sa&e )&ust exist as a &atter of law% and &ay not (e conferred (y the
consent of the parties or (y estoppel.) :owever% if the lower court had 1urisdiction% and the case was
heard and decided upon a given theory% such% for instance% as that the court had no 1urisdiction% the party
who induced it to adopt such theory will not (e per&itted% on appeal% to assu&e an inconsistent position ,
that the lower court had 1urisdiction. A55@. RA'5I55; B. CCIA+A5% ARDI4CA $. CCIA+A5
A4C C;RAE;4 C. CCIA+A5 3. 8A5A4BA' 'A3I4B' A4C D;A4 8A4F% I4C.% A4C 5:A
RABI'5AR ;G CAAC'% 4A'B8% 8A5A4BA'% B.R. 4o. !=04?>% +arch "% 0?!?
Cri'inal Procedure [!alidity of Arrest] - 5he Court have consistently ruled that an accused is estopped
fro& assailing the legality of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue% or to &ove for the quashal of the
infor&ation against hi& on this ground% (efore arraign&ent. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V.
NELSON PALMA ; $ANGAD, G.R. No. 18'!7', March ', !"1"
Civil Procedure [udicial Review] - 5he CourtHs 1urisdiction to review decisions and orders of electoral
tri(unals is exercised only upon a showing of grave a(use of discretion co&&itted (y the tri(unal. A(sent
such grave a(use of discretion% this Court shall not interfere with the electoral tri(unals exercise of its
discretion or 1urisdiction. REPRESENTATIVE ALVIN S. SANDOVAL .Lo14 D:<3r:c3 o6 Navo3a<-Ma=a>o1/
V. $OUSE O# REPRESENTATIVES ELE%TORAL TRI&UNAL, )OSEP$INE VERONI7UE R.
LA%SON-NOEL, a12 $ON. SPEA*ER PROSPERO NOGRALES, G.R. No. 1'""67, March ', !"1"
(*ecial Civil Actions [,anda'us] - +anda&us is granted only in cases where no other re&edy
is availa(le which is sufficient to afford redress (ecause generally% a writ of &anda&us will not
lie fro& one (ranch of the govern&ent to a coordinate (ranch% for the o(vious reason that neither
is inferior to the other PIO DELOS REYES .DE%EASED/, REPRESENTED &Y $EIRS #IDEL DELOS
REYES, MAURO DELOS REYES AND IRENE &ONG%O .DE%EASED/, REPRESENTED &Y
SURVIVING SPOUSE RODOL#O &ONG%O V. $ONORA&LE ,ALDO 7. #LORES, IN $IS %APA%ITY
AS SENIOR DEPUTY E5E%UTIVE SE%RETARY, O##I%E O# T$E PRESIDENT, $ONORA&LE RENE
%. VILLA, IN $IS %APA%ITY AS SE%RETARY O# T$E DEPARTMENT O# LAND RE#ORM
.#ORMERLY DEPARTMENT O# AGRARIAN RE#ORM/, T$E PROVIN%IAL AGRARIAN RE#ORM
O##I%ER .PARO/ O# DINALUPI$AN &ATAAN, T$E MUNI%IPAL AGRARIAN RE#ORM O##I%ER
.MARO/ O# $ERMOSA AND ORANI, &ATAAN, AND #ORTUNATO 7UIAM&AO, G.R. NO. 1687!6,
March , !"1"
Civil Procedure [/inds of Actions] - A real action% under 'ec. !% Rule 4 of the Rules of Court% is one
that affects title to or possession of real property% or an interest therein. 'uch actions should (e
co&&enced and tried in the proper court which has 1urisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved% or a portion thereof% is situated. All other actions are personal and &ay (e co&&enced and tried
where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides% or where the defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides% or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he &ay (e found% at the election of
the plaintiff. 5he 1urisdiction of the court (elow cannot (e &ade to depend upon defenses set up in the
answer% in a &otion to dis&iss% or in a &otion for reconsideration% (ut only upon the allegations of the
co&plaint. 7urisdiction over the su(1ect &atter of a case is deter&ined fro& the allegations of the
co&plaint and the character of the relief sought. 'D5A4 @A:@A )7ARR@) +. 5;+A6I' 3. :;4.
RA'AC B. 8ADI4C;4B% A+4A A. $+8A@A% 7ADIDA: A. +A4B;+$IA% and RA+DA A.
+';R% B.R. 4o. !=04>4% +arch 5% 0?!?
Civil Procedure [&indin#s of &acts of t)e Lower Courts] - Benerally% the Court is not duty-(ound to
analyIe again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered (y the tri(unals (elow. 6hen
supported (y su(stantial evidence% the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and (inding on the parties
and are not reviewa(le (y the Court% unless the case falls under any of the recogniIed exceptions0
$reponderance of evidence) is the weight% credit% and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is
usually considered synony&ous with the ter& )greater weight of the evidence) or )greater weight of the
credi(le evidence.) 8etween docu&entary and oral evidence% the for&er carries &ore weight. $EIRS O#
)OSE LIM, REPRESENTED &Y ELENITO LIM V. )ULIET VILLA LIM, G.R. No. 17!6'", March 3, !"1"
Civil Procedure [&indin#s of &acts of t)e Lower Courts] - A petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court shall raise only questions of law. As a rule% findings of fact of a trial 1udge% when affir&ed
(y the CA% are (inding upon the 'upre&e Court. 5his rule ad&its of only a few exceptions
$UTAMA-RSEA?SUPERMA5 P$ILS., ).V. V. *%D &UILDERS %ORPORATION, REPRESENTED &Y
ITS PRESIDENT %ELSO %. DIO*NO, G.R. No. 173181, March 3, !"1"
Civil Procedure [!erification" Certification a#ainst $on%&oru' ()o**in#] - A partyHs representative%
lawyer% or any person who personally *nows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading &ay sign the
verification. Acertification of non-foru& shopping is a certification under oath (y the plaintiff or principal
party in the co&plaint or other initiatory pleading. It is true that the power of a corporation to sue and (e
sued is lodged in the (oard of directors that exercises its corporate powers. :owever% it is settled that the
president of a corporation &ay sign the verification and the certification of non-foru& shopping.
$UTAMA-RSEA?SUPERMA5 P$ILS., ).V. V. *%D &UILDERS %ORPORATION, REPRESENTED &Y
ITS PRESIDENT %ELSO %. DIO*NO, G.R. No. 173181, March 3, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Writ of Possession] - ;rdinarily% a purchaser of property in an extra1udicial
foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the property. 5hus% whenever the purchaser prays for
a writ of possession% the trial court has to issue it as a &atter of course. :owever% the o(ligation
of the trial court to issue a writ of possession ceases to (e &inisterial once it appears that there is
a third party in possession of the property clai&ing a right adverse to that of the
de(torJ&ortgagor. It is not necessary to initiate an original action in order for the purchaser at an
extra1udicial foreclosure of real property to acquire possession.

Aven if the application for the
writ of possession was deno&inated as a )petition)% it is in su(stance &erely a &otion. Indeed%
any insignificant lapse in the certification on non-foru& shopping filed (y the +85C did not
render the writ irregular. 5he law does not require that a petition for a writ of possession &ay (e
granted only after docu&entary and testi&onial evidence shall have (een offered to and ad&itted
(y the court. T$E PARENTS-TEA%$ERS ASSO%IATION .PTA/ O# ST. MAT$E, %$RISTIAN
A%ADEMY, GREGORIO INALVE0, )R., RO,ENA LAYUG, MALOU MALVAR, MARILOU
&ARA7UIO, GARY SINLAO, LU0VIMINDA O%AMPO,MARI#E #ERNANDE0, #ERNANDO
VI%TORIO, ERNESTO AGANON AND RI0ALINO MANGLI%MOT, REPRESENTED &Y T$EIR
ATTORNEY-IN-#A%T, GREGORIO INALVE0, )R. V. T$E METROPOLITAN &AN* AND TRUST %O.
G.R. No. 17618, March !, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Certification a#ainst $on%&oru' ()o**in#] - Benerally% su(sequent co&pliance
with the require&ent of a certification of non-foru& shopping does not excuse a party fro& failure to
co&ply in the first instance. A certification of the plaintiffs counsel will not suffice for the reason that it
is the petitioner% and not the counsel% who is in the (est position to *now whether he actually filed or
caused the filing of a petition. A certification against foru& shopping signed (y counsel is a defective
certification that is equivalent to non-co&pliance with the require&ent and constitutes a valid cause for
the dis&issal of the petition. :owever% there are instances when we treated co&pliance with the rule with
relative li(erality% especially when there are circu&stances or co&pelling reasons &a*ing the strict
application of the rule clearly un1ustified. *RI0IA *ATRINA TY-DE 0U0UARREGUI V. T$E $ON.
)OSELITO %. VILLAROSA, IN $IS %APA%ITY AS PRESIDING )UDGE O# &RAN%$ 66 O# T$E RT%
O# MA*ATI %ITY AND #ANNIE TORRES-TY , G.R. No. 183788, A@r:= , !"1"
Civil Procedure [Pre1udicial Question] - Gor a civil action to (e considered pre1udicial to a cri&inal
case as to cause the suspension of the cri&inal proceedings until the final resolution of the civil case% the
following requisites &ust (e present< -!. the civil case involves facts inti&ately related to those upon
which the cri&inal prosecution would (e (ased/ -0. in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the
civil action% the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily (e deter&ined/ and ->. 1urisdiction to
try said question &ust (e lodged in another tri(unal. *RI0IA *ATRINA TY-DE 0U0UARREGUI V. T$E
$ON. )OSELITO %. VILLAROSA, IN $IS %APA%ITY AS PRESIDING )UDGE O# &RAN%$ 66 O#
T$E RT% O# MA*ATI %ITY AND #ANNIE TORRES-TY , G.R. No. 183788, A@r:= , !"1"
Evidence [Alibi and Denials] - It is a well-settled principle in law that the defense of ali(i is one
of the wea*est defenses availa(le to an accused in a cri&inal case. :owever% the Court has% in
&ore than one occasion% held that the defense of ali(i &ay acquire co&&ensurate strength where
the witnesses have &ade no positive and proper identification of the offender. 5his is (ecause the
inherent wea*ness of ali(i as a defense does not operate to relieve the prosecution of its
responsi(ility to esta(lish the identity of the offender (y the sa&e quantu& of evidence required
for proving the cri&e itself. Fnowledge of a persons na&e is not necessary for proper
identification. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. )ULIAN PA)ES Y OPONDA AND MIGUEL
PAG$UNASAN Y UR&ANO , G.R. No. 18(17', A@r:= 1!, !"1"
Civil Procedure 2$ewly Discovered Evidence] - nder 'ection 0% Rule !0! of the Rules of Court% the
requisites for newly discovered evidence are< -a. the evidence was discovered after trial -in this case% after
investigation./ -(. such evidence could not have (een discovered and produced at the trial with reasona(le
diligence/ and -c. that it is &aterial% not &erely cu&ulative% corro(orative or i&peaching% and is of such
weight that% if ad&itted% will pro(a(ly change the 1udg&ent. 7UINTIN &. SALUDAGA AND SPO! #IEL
E. GENIO V. T$E $ONORA&LE SANDIGAN&AYAN,(
T$
DIVISION AND T$E PEOPLE O# T$E
P$ILIPPINES , G.R. No. 18(37, A@r:= !3, !"1"
Civil Procedure [!erification" Certification A#ainst $on%&oru' ()o**in#] - 5he Court has
consistently held that the require&ent regarding verification of a pleading is for&al% not
1urisdictional. 'uch require&ent is si&ply a condition affecting the for& of the pleading% non-
co&pliance with which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.;n the other
hand% the lac* of certification against foru& shopping is generally not cura(le (y the su(&ission
thereof after the filing of the petition. 'ection 5% Rule 45 of the !""# Rules of Civil $rocedure
provides that the failure of the petitioner to su(&it the required docu&ents that should
acco&pany the petition% including the certification against foru& shopping% shall (e sufficient
ground for the dis&issal thereof. 5he sa&e rule applies to certifications against foru& shopping
signed (y a person on (ehalf of a corporation which are unacco&panied (y proof that said
signatory is authoriIed to file a petition on (ehalf of the corporation. In certain exceptional
circu&stances% however% the Court has allowed the (elated filing of the certification. MEDISERV,
IN%., V. %OURT O# APPEALS .S@4c:a= #orA4r 133h D:v:<:o1/ a12 LAND$EIG$TS DEVELOPMENT
%ORPORATION, G.R. No. 161368, A@r:= , !"1"
Civil Procedure [Period of A**eal] - 5o recapitulate% a party litigant &ay either file his notice of appeal
within !5 days fro& receipt of the Regional 5rial Courts decision or file it within !5 days fro& receipt of
the order -the )final order). denying his &otion for new trial or &otion for reconsideration. ;(viously% the
new !5-day period &ay (e availed of only if either &otion is filed/ otherwise% the decision (eco&es final
and executory after the lapse of the original appeal period provided in Rule 4!% 'ection >. 5he aforesaid
Ax $arte +otion for Reconsideration was already the second atte&pt on the part of $CI Deasing to see* a
reconsideration. It is% thus% in the nature of a second &otion for reconsideration. nder 'ection 5% Rule >#
of the Rules of Court% such &otion for reconsideration is a prohi(ited pleading% which does not toll the
period within which an appeal &ay (e ta*en.Incidentally% the +otion for Issuance of Alias 'u&&ons filed
(y $CI Deasing is non-litigious in nature% which does not require a hearing under the Rules% as the sa&e
could have (een acted upon (y the R5C without pre1udicing the rights of the respondents. P%I LEASING
AND #INAN%E, IN%. V. ANTONIO %. MILAN, DOING &USINESS UNDER T$E NAME AND STYLE
O# BA. MILAN TRADING,B AND LAURA M. MILAN, G.R. No. 11!1, A@r:= , !"1"
Civil Procedure [A**eals] - 'ince an order of dis&issal (y the trial court is a final order fro& which an
ordinary appeal under Rule 4! can (e ta*en%the petitioners should have ta*en this avenue against the R5C
order instead of resorting to a petition for certiorari (efore the CA. 'upre&e Court Circular 4o. 0-"? is
unequivocal in directing the dis&issal of an inappropriate &ode of appeal. 4A+A'I; B;C;% D@CIA B.
GA8IA4% 4A5ADIA 8R;5;4AD% GD;RA BA@;';% 8DA+IA ';RIA4;% AD$ICIA 4A3ADA'%
'ARBI; R;+A'A45A% CA5ADI4A 4A+I' A4C 4A4C@ $A+A5IBA% RA$RA'A45AC 8@
5:AIR A55;R4A@'-I4-GAC5% D@CIA B. GA8IA4% AD$ICIA 4A3ADA' A4C 4A5ADIA
8R;5;4AD3'. :;4;RA8DA C;R5 ;G A$$AAD'% A55@. :IC;8DI4; CA5D@% D;RCA'
CA5D@ A4C 5:A RABI'5AR ;G CAAC'% CADA$A4 CI5@% ;RIA45AD +I4C;R;% B.R. 4o.
!5#44"% April 9% 0?!?
Civil Procedure [[A**ellate urisdiction over Quasi%udicial A#encies] - 6hile 'ection " ->. of 8$
!0" and 'ection ! of Rule 4> of the Rules of Court does not list petitioner as )a&ong) the quasi-1udicial
agencies whose final 1udg&ents% orders% resolutions or awards are appeala(le to the appellate court% it is
non sequitur to hold that the Court of Appeals has no appellate 1urisdiction over petitioners 1udg&ents%
orders% resolutions or awards. It is settled that the list of quasi-1udicial agencies specifically &entioned in
Rule 4> is not &eant to (e exclusive.5he e&ploy&ent of the word )a&ong) clearly instructs so.'ection "
-!. of 8$ !0" granted the Court of Appeals -then *nown as the Inter&ediate Appellate Court. original
1urisdiction to issue writs of &anda&us% prohi(ition% certiorari% ha(eas corpus and quo warranto% and
auxiliary writs or processes% whether or not in aid of its appellate 1urisdiction.'ince the appellate court has
exclusive appellate 1urisdiction over quasi-1udicial agencies under Rule 4> of the Rules of Court% petitions
for writs of certiorari% prohi(ition or &anda&us against the acts and o&issions of quasi-1udicial agencies%
li*e petitioner% should (e filed with it. 4A5I;4AD 6A5AR RA';RCA' 8;ARC -46R8.3.A. D.
A4B 4A56;RF% I4C.% B.R. 4o. !=945?% April !4% 0?!?
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] % As a general rule% the writ of execution should confor& to the dispositive
portion of the decision to (e executed/ an execution is void if it is in excess of and (eyond the original
1udg&ent or award. 4onetheless% the Court has held that a 1udg&ent is not confined to what appears on
the face of the decision% (ut extends as well to those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.
NAR%ISO TUMI&AY, RUPERTO TUMI&AY, ELENA TUMI&AY, EDUARDO TUMI&AY, %ORA0ON
TUMI&AY, MANUELA SEVERINO VDA. DE PERIDA AND GREGORIA DELA %RU0, V. SPS.
YOLANDA T. SORO AND $ONORIO SORO, SPS. )ULITA T. STA. ANA AND #ELI%ISIMO STA. ANA,
G.R. No. 1!"16, A@r:= 13, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Counterclai'] - 5he rule in per&issive counterclai& is that for the trial court to
acquire 1urisdiction% the counterclai&ant is (ound to pay the prescri(ed doc*et fees. Any decision
rendered without 1urisdiction is a total nullity and &ay (e struc* down at any ti&e% even on appeal (efore
the Court. In this case% respondent did not dispute the non-pay&ent of doc*et fees. MANUEL %.
&UNG%AYAO, SR., REPRESENTED IN T$IS %ASE &Y $IS ATTORNEY-IN-#A%T ROMEL R.
&UNG%AYAO V. #ORT ILO%ANDIA PROPERTY $OLDINGS, AND DEVELOPMENT
%ORPORATION, G.R. No. 17"(83, A@r:= 1', !"1"
Civil Procedure [(u''ary ud#'ent] - 6hen the pleadings on file show that there are no
genuine issues of fact to (e tried% the Rules allow a party to o(tain i&&ediate relief (y way of su&&ary
1udg&ent% that is% when the facts are not in dispute% the court is allowed to decide the case su&&arily (y
applying the law to the &aterial facts.'ince the issues were li&it ed to the da&ages clai&ed (y the parties%
su&&ary 1udg&ent has (een properly rendered in this case. MANUEL %. &UNG%AYAO, SR.,
REPRESENTED IN T$IS %ASE &Y $IS ATTORNEY-IN-#A%T ROMEL R. &UNG%AYAO V. #ORT
ILO%ANDIA PROPERTY $OLDINGS, AND DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION, G.R. No. 17"(83, A@r:=
1', !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Res udicata] - 5his provision co&prehends two distinct concepts of res 1udicata<
-!. (ar (y for&er 1udg&ent and -0. conclusiveness of 1udg&ent. nder the first concept% res 1udicata
a(solutely (ars any su(sequent action when the following requisites concur< -a. the for&er 1udg&ent or
order was final/ -(. it ad1udged the pertinent issue or issues on their &erits/ -c. it was rendered (y a court
that had 1urisdiction over the su(1ect &atter and the parties/ and -d. (etween the first and the second
actions% there was identity of parties% of su(1ect &atter% and of causes of action. 6here no identity of
causes of action (ut only identity of issues exists% res 1udicata co&es under the second concept , i.e.%
under conclusiveness of 1udg&ent. nder this concept% the rule (ars the re-litigation of particular facts or
issues involving the sa&e parties even if raised under different clai&s or causes of action. $A%IENDA
&IGAA, IN%. V.EPI#ANIO V. %$AVE0 .DE%EASED/, SU&STITUTED &Y SANTIAGO V. %$AVE0,
G.R. No. 17(16", A@r:= !", !"1"
Civil Procedure [(u''ary Procedure] - 6hen the facts as pleaded (y the parties are disputed or contested%
proceedings for su&&ary 1udg&ent cannot ta*e the place of trial. ATTY. PEDRO M. #ERRER V. SPOUSES
AL#REDO DIA0 AND IMELDA DIA0, REINA %OMANDANTE AND SPOUSES &IENVENIDO PANGAN AND
ELI0A&ET$ PANGAN, G.R. No. 163"", A@r:= !3, !"1"
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] - 6hen an appeal had (een duly perfected% execution of the 1udg&ent%
whether wholly or partially% was not a &atter of right% (ut of discretion provided good reasons therefor
existed. 5he co&pelling grounds for the issuance of the writ &ust (e stated in a special order after due
hearing. Aside fro& the existence of good reasons% the rules also require that the &otion for partial
execution should have (een filed while the trial court still had 1urisdiction over the case. ASSO%IATED
ANGLO-AMERI%AN TO&A%%O %ORPORATION AND #LORANTE DY V. $ON. %OURT O#
APPEALS, $ON. %RISPIN %. LARON, IN $IS %APA%ITY AS PRESIDING )UDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
%OURT, REGION 1, &RAN%$ ((, DAGUPAN %ITY, S$ERI## VIRGILIO #. VILLAR, O##I%E O#
T$E E5-O##I%IO S$ERI## O# PASAY %ITY, REGISTER O# DEEDS O# LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN
AND SPOUSES PAUL PELAE0, )R. AND RO%ELI MAMISAY PELAE0, G.R. No. 167!37, A@r:= !3,
!"1"
Civil Procedure [Liberal 4nter*retation of Rules] - A litigantHs failure to furnish his opponent with a
copy of his appeal (rief does not suffice to warrant dis&issal of that appeal. In such an instance% all that is
needed is for the court to order the litigant to furnish his opponent with a copy of his (rief. Anent the
failure to append a copy of the assailed 1udg&ent% instead of dis&issing the appeal on that (asis% it is &ore
in *eeping with equity to si&ply require the appellants to i&&ediately su(&it a copy of the Cecision of
the lower court rather than punish litigants for the rec*less inattention of their lawyers. TRINIDAD GO,
)OINED &Y $ER $US&AND, GON0ALO GO, SR.V.VI%ENTE VELE0 %$AVES, ALI%E
%$AVESMEGA-INTEGRATED AGRO LIVESTO%* #ARMS, IN%., G.R. No. 18!3(1, A@r:= !3, !"1"
Civil Procedure [&ilin# of Pleadin#s] - 'ection >% Rule !> of the Rules of Court provides that if a
pleading is filed (y registered &ail% then the date of &ailing shall (e considered as the date of filing. It
does not &atter when the court actually receives the &ailed pleading. 5hus% in this case% as the pleading
was filed (y registered &ail on 7uly 0#% 0??#% within the regle&entary period% it is inconsequential that
the CA actually received the &otion in ;cto(er of that year.
As to the CAs dis&issal of the petition for review on the ground that petitioner failed to attach a written
explanation for non-personal filing% the Court finds the sa&e i&proper. Iligan City% where petitioner
resides and where her counsel holds office% and Cagayan de ;ro City% where the concerned division of the
CA is stationed% are separated (y a considera(le distance. 5he CA% in the exercise of its discretion% should
have realiIed that it was indeed i&practica(le for petitioner to personally file the petition for review in
Cagayan Ce ;ro City. ALMA &. RUSSEL, V. TEO#ISTA E&ASAN AND AGAPITO AUSTRIA, G.R. No.
18((!, A@r:= !3, !"1"
Civil Procedure [!erification] - 5he purpose of the verification is to secure an assurance that
the allegations in the petition have (een &ade in good faith% or are true and correct and not
&erely speculative. 5he require&ent is si&ply a condition affecting the for& of pleadings and
non-co&pliance therewith is neither 1urisdictional nor does it render the pleading fatally
defective. ALMA &. RUSSEL, V. TEO#ISTA E&ASAN AND AGAPITO AUSTRIA, G.R. No. 18((!,
A@r:= !3, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Certiorari] - +oreover% for a special civil action for certiorari to prosper% the following
requisites &ust concur< -!. it &ust (e directed against a tri(unal% (oard or officer exercising 1udicial or
quasi-1udicial functions/ -0. the tri(unal% (oard or officer &ust have acted without or in excess of
1urisdiction or with grave a(use of discretion a&ounting to lac* or excess of 1urisdiction/ and ->. there is
no appeal nor any plain% speedy and adequate re&edy in the ordinary course of law.$etitioners (are
allegation that appeal fro& the 1udg&ent of the 8oard &ay not (e adequate does not 1ustify i&&ediate
resort to certiorari. +oreover% the extraordinary writ of certiorari &ay (e issued only where it is clearly
shown that there is patent and gross a(use of discretion as to a&ount to an evasion of positive duty or to
virtual refusal to perfor& a duty en1oined (y law% or to act at all in conte&plation of law% as where the
power is exercised in an ar(itrary and despotic &anner (y reason of passion or personal hostility. SPO1
LEONITO A%U0AR V. APRONIANO )OROLAN AND $ON. EDUARDO A. APRESA, PEOPLECS LA,
EN#OR%EMENT &OARD .PLE&/ %$AIRMAN, NE, %ORELLA, DAVAO DEL NORTE, G.R. No.
177878, A@r:= 7, !"1"
(*ecial Civil Actions [E1ect'ent] - 5hen as now% petitioner argues that respondents clai& of prior
possession is clearly negated (y the fact that he had (een in occupancy thereof since !""". 6hile prior
physical possession is% ad&ittedly% an indispensa(le require&ent in forci(le entry cases% the dearth of
&erit in petitioners position is% however% evident fro& the principle that possession can (e acquired not
only (y &aterial occupation% (ut also (y the fact that a thing is su(1ect to the action of oneHs will or (y the
proper acts and legal for&alities esta(lished for acquiring such right. 8ecause possession can also (e
acquired (y 1uridical acts to which the law gives the force of acts of possession% e.g.% donations%
succession% execution and registration of pu(lic instru&ents% inscription of possessory infor&ation titles
and the li*e% it has (een held that one need not have actual or physical occupation of every square inch of
the property at all ti&es to (e considered in possession. $U&ERT NUDE0V. SLTEAS P$OENI5
SOLUTIONS, IN%., T$ROUG$ ITS REPRESENTATIVE, %ESAR SYLIANTENG, G.R. No. 18"(!, A@r:=
1!, !"1"
(*ecial Civil Actions [Conte'*t] - Considering the foregoing% the '8+A officers &ay (e considered to
have acted in good faith when they refused to follow the 5R; issued (y the R5C. 5he '8+A officersH
refusal to follow the court order was not contu&acious (ut due to the honest (elief that 1urisdiction over
the su(1ect ship&ent re&ained with the 8;C (ecause of the existing warrant of seiIure and detention
against said ship&ent. Accordingly% these '8+A officers should not (e held accounta(le for their acts
which were done in good faith and not without legal (asis. SU&I% &AY METROPOLITAN
AUT$ORITYV.MERLINO E. RODRIGUE0 AND ,IRA INTERNATIONAL TRADING %ORP., &OT$
REPRESENTED $EREIN &Y $ILDA M. &A%ANI, AS T$EIR AUT$ORI0ED REPRESENTATIVE, G.R.
No. 16"!7", A@r:= !3, !"1"
Civil Procedures [,atters Raised for t)e &irst -i'e on A**eal] - 5he propriety of
respondent 5aroys preventive suspension was raised (y respondents for the first ti&e on appeal.
5he well-settled rule% which also applies in la(or cases% is that issues not raised (elow cannot (e
raised for the first ti&e on appeal. $oints of law% theories% issues and argu&ents not (rought to
the attention of the lower court need not (e% and ordinarily will not (e% considered (y the
reviewing court% as they cannot (e raised for the first ti&e at that late stage. 8asic considerations
of due process i&pel the adoption of this rule. GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVI%E, IN%. AND RELY L.
)AL&UNAV.UNYON NG MALAYANG MANGGAGA,A NG GENESIS TRANSPORT .UMMGT/, AND
)UAN TAROY, G.R. No. 18!11(, A@r:= , !"1"
Evidence [Circu'stantial Evidence] - 6hile it is esta(lished that nothing less than proof (eyond
reasona(le dou(t is required for a conviction% this exacting standard does not preclude resort to
circu&stantial evidence when direct evidence is not availa(le. Cirect evidence is not a condition sine qua
non to prove the guilt of an accused (eyond reasona(le dou(t. Gor in the a(sence of direct evidence% the
prosecution &ay resort to adducing circu&stantial evidence to discharge its (urden. PEOPLE O# T$E
P$ILIPPINESV.TIRSO SA%E Y MONTOYA, G.R. No. 178"63, A@r:= , !"1"
Evidence [Res 5estae] - nder the Revised Rules on Avidence% a declaration is dee&ed part of the res
gestae and ad&issi(le in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites
concur< -!. the principal act% the res gestae% is a startling occurrence/ -0. the state&ents were &ade (efore
the declarant had ti&e to contrive or devise/ and ->. the state&ents &ust concern the occurrence in
question and its i&&ediately attending circu&stances. All these requisites are present in this case. 'ace
had 1ust (een through a startling and grueso&e occurrence% AAAs death. :is ad&ission was &ade while
he was still under the influence of said startling occurrence and (efore he had an opportunity to concoct
or contrive a story. In addition% he was still under the influence of alcohol at that ti&e% having engaged in
a drin*ing spree fro& !<?? p.&. to #<?? p.&. that day. :is confession concerned the rape and *illing of
AAA. 'aces spontaneous state&ents &ade to private persons% not agents of the 'tate or law enforcers%
are not covered (y the constitutional safeguards on custodial investigation and% as res gestae% ad&issi(le
in evidence against hi&. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINESV.TIRSO SA%E Y MONTOYA, G.R. No.
178"63, A@r:= , !"1"
Evidence [Alibi and Denials] - As to appellants defense of ali(i% it cannot prevail over the positive
identification of appellants as the perpetrators of the cri&e.5o esta(lish ali(i% an accused &ust prove -a.
that he was present at another place at the ti&e the cri&e was perpetrated% and -(. that it was physically
i&possi(le for hi& to (e at the scene of the cri&e. $hysical i&possi(ility )refers to the distance (etween
the place where the accused was when the cri&e transpired and the place where it was co&&itted% as well
as the facility of access (etween the two places.K PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINESV.)ON)IE ESOY Y
$UNGOY, ROLANDO %IANO Y SOLEDAD AND ROGER &OLALA%AO Y DADIVAS, G.R. No. 188(',
A@r:= 7, !"1"
Evidence [Res 5estae] - Res gestae refers to those excla&ations and state&ents &ade (y either the
participants% the victi& or spectator to a cri&e i&&ediately (efore% during or i&&ediately after the
co&&ission of the cri&e% when the circu&stances are such that the state&ents were &ade as a
spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired (y excite&ent of the occasion and there was no opportunity for
the declarant to deli(erate and to fa(ricate a false state&ent. In the instant case% all the ele&ents of res
gestae are sufficiently esta(lished insofar as the aforequoted spontaneous utterance is concerned< -!. the
principal act -res gestae. , the ro((ery and sta((ing of the victi& , is a startling occurrence/ -0. the
state&ents were &ade (efore the declarant had ti&e to contrive or devise% that is% within &inutes after the
victi& was sta((ed and his cellular phone was snatched/ and ->. the state&ent concerns the occurrence in
question and its i&&ediately attending circu&stances , his cellular phone was stolen during the startling
occurrence. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINESV.)ON)IE ESOY Y $UNGOY, ROLANDO %IANO Y
SOLEDAD AND ROGER &OLALA%AO Y DADIVAS, G.R. No. 188(', A@r:= 7, !"1"
Evidence [Ad'issions A#ainst 4nterest] - Ad&issions against interest are those &ade (y a party to a
litigation or (y one in privity with or identified in legal interest with such party% and are ad&issi(le
whether or not the declarant is availa(le as a witness. Ceclarations against interest are those &ade (y a
person who is neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit% are secondary evidence% and constitute
an exception to the hearsay rule. 5hey are ad&issi(le only when the declarant is unavaila(le as a witness.
ALE)ANDRA S. LA0ARO, ASSISTED &Y $ER $US&AND, ISAURO M. LA0ARO+ LEON%IO D.
SANTOS+ ADOL#O SANTOS+ NENITA S. LA%AR+ ANGELINA S. SAGLES, ASSISTED &Y $ER
$US&AND, AL&ERTO SANTOS, )R.+ REGINA SANTOS AND #A&IAN SANTOSV. MODESTA
AGUSTIN, #ILEMON AGUSTIN, VENAN%IA AGUSTIN, MAR%ELINA AGUSTIN, PAUL A. DALALO,
NOEL A. DALALO, GREGORIO AGUSTIN AND &IENVENIDO AGUSTIN, G.R. No. 152364, April 15,
2010
Evidence [Docu'entary Evidence] - 'ettled is the rule that generally% a notariIed docu&ent carries the
evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution% and docu&ents ac*nowledged
(efore a notary pu(lic have in their favor the presu&ption of regularity.:owever% this presu&ption is not
a(solute and &ay (e re(utted (y clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.+oreover% not all
notariIed docu&ents are exe&pted fro& the rule on authentication.5hus% an affidavit does not
auto&atically (eco&e a pu(lic docu&ent 1ust (ecause it contains a notarial 1urat.5he presu&ptions that
attach to notariIed docu&ents can (e affir&ed only so long as it is (eyond dispute that the notariIation
was regular. ALE)ANDRA S. LA0ARO, ASSISTED &Y $ER $US&AND, ISAURO M. LA0ARO+
LEON%IO D. SANTOS+ ADOL#O SANTOS+ NENITA S. LA%AR+ ANGELINA S. SAGLES, ASSISTED &Y
$ER $US&AND, AL&ERTO SANTOS, )R.+ REGINA SANTOS AND #A&IAN SANTOSV. MODESTA
AGUSTIN, #ILEMON AGUSTIN, VENAN%IA AGUSTIN, MAR%ELINA AGUSTIN, PAUL A. DALALO,
NOEL A. DALALO, GREGORIO AGUSTIN AND &IENVENIDO AGUSTIN, G.R. No. 152364, April 15,
2010
Evidence [Ad'issions] - 5he Infor&ations specifically alleged that the victi& was a &inor when she was
raped (y her own father. 6hile the evidence of the prosecution consisted &ainly of the victi&s
testi&ony% the Court found that the express ad&ission (y the accused as regards the age of the victi&
sufficiently esta(lished her &inority. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINESV. ROGELIO ASIS Y LA%SON,
G.R. No. 17''3, A@r:= 1', !"1"
Evidence [C)ain of Custody] - Gor the purpose of ensuring that the chain of custody is esta(lished% the
I&ple&enting Rules and Regulations of R.A. "!95 provides that non-co&pliance with 'ection 0! thereof
does not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the ite&s seiIedJconfiscated fro& hi& inad&issi(le. 6hat is
essential is )the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seiIed ite&s% as the sa&e
would (e utiliIed in the deter&ination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.K T$E PEOPLE O# T$E
P$ILIPPINESV.DARLENE 7UIGOD Y MIRANDA, G.R. No. 186(1', A@r:= !3, !"1"
(*ecial Proceedin#s [Writ of A'*aro] - Considering the findings of the CA and our review of the
records of the present case% we conclude that the $4$ and the AG$ have so far failed to conduct an
exhaustive and &eaningful investigation into the disappearance of 7onas 8urgos% and to exercise the
extraordinary diligence -in the perfor&ance of their duties. that the Rule on the 6rit of A&paro requires.
8ecause of these investigative shortco&ings% we cannot rule on the case until a &ore &eaningful
investigation% using extraordinary diligence% is underta*en. EDITA T. &URGOS v. PRESIDENT GLORIA
MA%APAGAL-ARROYP, 43 a=.?EDITA T. &URGOSv. PRESIDENT GLORIA MA%APAGAL-ARROYO, 43
a=.?EDITA T. &URGOS v. %$IE# O# STA## O# T$E ARMED #OR%ES O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, GEN.
$ERMOGENES ESPERON, )R., 43 a=., )814 !!, !"1", G.R. No<. 183711?18381!?183713.
(*ecial Proceedin#s [6abeas Cor*us] - Restrictive custody is% at (est% no&inal restraint which is
(eyond the a&(it of ha(eas corpus. It is neither actual nor effective restraint that would call for the grant
of the re&edy prayed for. It is a per&issi(le precautionary &easure to assure the $4$ authorities that the
police officers concerned are always accounted for. NUR$IDA )U$URI AMPATUAN v. )UDGE
VIRGILIO V. MA%ARAIG, RT%, MANILA &RAN%$, 43 a=., )814 !', !"1", G.R. No. 18!('7.
Civil Procedure [Res udicata] - 5he rule is that when &aterial facts or questions% which were in issue
in a for&er action and were ad&itted or 1udicially deter&ined% are conclusively settled (y a 1udg&ent
rendered therein% such facts or questions (eco&e res 1udicata and &ay not again (e litigated in a
su(sequent action (etween the sa&e parties or their privies regardless of the for& of the latter. LEY
%ONSTRU%TION - DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION, 43 a=. v. P$ILIPPINES %OMMER%IAL -
INTERNATIONAL &AN*, 43 a=., )814 !3, !"1", G.R. No. 16"8(1.
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 7urisdiction over a su(1ect &atter is conferred (y the Constitution or the
law% and rules of procedure yield to su(stantive law. ;therwise stated% 1urisdiction &ust exist as a &atter
of law. ;nly a statute can confer 1urisdiction on courts and ad&inistrative agencies/ rules of procedure
cannot. )ULIAN #ERNANDE0 v. RU#INO D. #ULGUERAS, )814 !', !"1", G.R. No. 1787.
(*ecial Civil Actions [E3*ro*riation] - 5he ta*ing of property under the CARD is a govern&ent
exercise of the power of e&inent do&ain. 'ince the deter&ination of 1ust co&pensation in e&inent
do&ain proceedings is a 1udicial function% such deter&ination cannot (e &ade to depend on the existence
of ad&inistrative proceedings of a si&ilar nature. La12 &a1E o6 3h4 Ph:=:@@:14< V<. #or3814 Sav:1F< a12
Loa1 A<<oc:a3:o1, I1c., r4@r4<41342 >; Ph:=:@@:14 D4@o<:3 I1<8ra1c4 %or@ora3:o1, )814 !', !"1", G.R.
No. 17711.
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 5he Rules of Court does not define 1urisdictional (oundaries of the
courts. In pro&ulgating the Rules of Court% the 'upre&e Court is circu&scri(ed (y the Ione properly
deno&inated as the pro&ulgation of rules concerning pleading% practice% and procedure in all courts/
consequently% the Rules of Court can only deter&ine the &eans% ways or &anner in which said
1urisdiction% as fixed (y the Constitution and acts of Congress% shall (e exercised. MINERVA GOME0-
%ASTILLO v. %OMMISSION ON ELE%TIONS, 43 a=. , )814 !!, !"1", G.R. No. 187!31.
(*ecial Civil Actions [Quo Warranto] - A special civil action for quo warranto refers to questions of
disloyalty to the 'tate% or of ineligi(ility of the winning candidate. Any voter &ay initiate the action%
which is% strictly spea*ing% not a contest where the parties strive for supre&acy (ecause the petitioner will
not (e seated even if the respondent &ay (e unseated. LUIS *. LO*IN, )R. v. %OMMISSION ON
ELE%TIONS, 43 a=.?LUIS *. LO*IN v. %OMMISSION PON ELE%TIONS, 43 a=. , )814 !!, !"1", G.R.
No<. 17'(31-3!?G.R. No. 18"((3.
(*ecial Proceedin#s [(ettle'ent of Estate] - 5he order of preference is not a(solute for it depends on
the attendant facts and circu&stances of each case. 7urisprudence has long held that the selection of an
ad&inistrator lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. IN T$E MATTER O# T$E INTESTATE
ESTATE O# %RISTINA AGUINALDO-SUNTAY, EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III v. ISA&EL %O)UANG%O-
SUNTAY , )814 16, !"1", G.R. No. 183"3.
(*ecial Civil Actions [E1ect'ent] - In an e1ect&ent case &andated to (e tried under su&&ary
procedure% the para&ount consideration is its expeditious and inexpensive resolution without regard to
technicalities. V:c3or:a< M:==:1F %oA@a1;, I1c. V<. %A a12 I134r1a3:o1a= PharAac483:ca=<, I1c.,)814 !',
!"1", G.R. No. 168"6!.
(*ecial Civil Actions [Conte'*t] - In cri&inal conte&pt% the proceedings are regarded as cri&inal and
the rules of cri&inal procedure apply. 6hat is &ore% it is generally held that the 'tate or respondent
Repu(lic is the real prosecutor in such a case. 5he grant% therefore% of i&&unity to petitioner Cisini
against (eing co&pelled to testify is ulti&ately a grant of i&&unity fro& (eing cri&inally prosecuted (y
the 'tate for refusal to testify% so&ething that falls within the express coverage of the i&&unity given
hi&. )4<8< P. D:<:1: V<. Th4 $o1ora>=4 Sa12:Fa1>a;a1, 43 a=., )814 !!, !"1", G.R. No. 18"6(.
Civil Procedure [E3trinsic &raud] - +oreover% since petitioner clai&ed that there was extrinsic fraud
co&&itted (y respondent (an*Hs counsel% she could have filed a petition for relief under Rule >= within
the period provided for (y the Rules of Court% (ut she did not. 'ection 0% Rule 4# clearly states that
extrinsic fraud shall not (e a valid ground for annul&ent of order if it was availed of% or could have (een
availed of% in a &otion for new trial or petition for relief. 5hus% extrinsic fraud is effectively (arred if it
could have (een raised as a ground in an availa(le re&edial &easure. SPOUSES OS%AR AR%ENAS a12
DOLORES AR%ENAS v<. 7UEEN %ITY DEVELOPMENT &AN* a12 %OURT O# APPEALS
.N:1434413h D:v:<:o1/, G.R. No. 16681', )814 16, !"1"
Civil Procedures [A**eals] - It is well-settled that a party who has not appealed fro& a Cecision cannot
see* any relief other than what is provided in the 1udg&ent appealed fro&. '$I did not appeal% thus it
cannot o(tain fro& the appellate court any affir&ative relief other than those granted in the Cecision of
the court (elow. It can only advance any argu&ent that it &ay dee& necessary to defeat petitioners clai&
or to uphold the Cecision that is (eing disputed% and it can assign errors in its (rief if such is required to
strengthen the views expressed (y the court a quo.5hese assigned errors% in turn% &ay (e considered (y
the appellate court solely to &aintain the appealed decision on other grounds% (ut not for the purpose of
reversing or &odifying the 1udg&ent in '$IHs favor and giving it other reliefs. SEL,YN #. LAO a12
EDGAR MANANSALA v<. SPE%IAL PLANS, IN%., G.R. No. 16(7'1, )814 !', !"1"
Civil Procedure [&indin#s of &act of t)e Lower Courts] - 7urisprudence dictates that factual findings of
the trial court% especially when affir&ed (y the appellate court% are accorded the highest degree of respect
and are considered conclusive (etween the parties.

A review of such findings (y the Court is not
warranted except for highly &eritorious circu&stances when< -!. the findings of a trial court are grounded
entirely on speculation% sur&ises or con1ectures/ -0. a lower courts inference fro& its factual findings is
&anifestly &ista*en% a(surd or i&possi(le/ ->. there is grave a(use of discretion in the appreciation of
facts/ -4. the findings of the appellate court go (eyond the issues of the case% or fail to notice certain
relevant facts which% if properly considered% will 1ustify a different conclusion/ -5. there is a
&isappreciation of facts/ -9. the findings of fact are conclusions without &ention of the specific evidence
on which they are (ased% are pre&ised on the a(sence of evidence% or are contradicted (y evidence on
record. ST. )OSEP$CS %OLLEGE, SR. )OSEP$INI AM&ATALI, S#I%, a12 ROSALINDA TA&UGO v<.
)AYSON MIRANDA, r4@r4<41342 >; h:< 6a3h4r, RODOL#O S. MIRANDA, G.R. No. 18!33, )814 !',
!"1"
Provisional Re'edies [4n1unction] - 5wo -0. requisites &ust concur for in1unction to issue< -!. there
&ust (e a right to (e protected and -0. the acts against which the in1unction is to (e directed are violative
of said right.

$articularly% in actions involving realty% preli&inary in1unction will lie only after the plaintiff
has fully esta(lished his title or right thereto (y a proper action for the purpose. 5o authoriIe a te&porary
in1unction% the co&plainant &ust &a*e out at least a pri&a facie showing of a right to the final relief.
$reli&inary in1unction will not issue to protect a right not in esse. 5hese principles are equally relevant to
actions see*ing per&anent in1unction. P$ILIPPINE E%ONOMI% 0ONE AUT$ORITY, r4@r4<41342
h4r4:1 >; DIRE%TOR GENERAL LILIA &. DE LIMA v<. )OSEP$ )UDE %ARANTES, ROSE
%ARANTES, a12 a== 3h4 o3h4r $EIRS O# MA5IMINO %ARANTES, G.R. No. 181!7(, )814 !3, !"1"
Civil Procedure [(co*e of Review of t)e (u*re'e Court] - nder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
nder 'ection !% Rule 45 of the Rules of Court% this petition shall raise only questions of law which &ust
(e distinctly alleged in the appropriate pleading. In a case involving a question of law% the resolution of
the issue &ust rest solely on what the law provides for a given set of facts drawn fro& the evidence
presented. 'tated differently% there should (e nothing in dispute as to the state of facts/ the issue to (e
resolved is &erely the correctness of the conclusion drawn fro& the said facts. ;nce it is clear that the
issue invites a review of the pro(ative value of the evidence presented% the question posed is one of fact.
If the query requires a re-evaluation of the credi(ility of witnesses% or the existence or relevance of
surrounding circu&stances and their relation to each other% then the issue is necessarily factual. MA*ATI
SPORTS %LU&, IN%. v<. %E%ILE $. %$ENG, M% #OODS, IN%., a12 RAMON SA&ARRE, G.R. No.
178!3, )814 16, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Wit)drawal of A**eal] - At the ti&e petitioner &oved to withdraw her appeal%
respondents had not yet filed their (rief% hence% the grant thereof (y the appellate court was in order.
NELLY &AUTISTA v<.SERAP$ MANAGEMENT GROUP, IN%., G.R. No. 17("3', )814 !', !"1"
Civil Procedure [(co*e of Review of t)e (u*re'e Court] - 6here the real issue involves the wisdo&
or legal soundness of the decision , not the 1urisdiction of the court to render said decision , the sa&e is
(eyond the province of a petition for certiorari under Rule 95. RUDOL#O I. &ELUSO v<. %OMMISSION
ON ELE%TIONS a12 GA&RIELA ,OMENCS PARTY, G.R. No. 18"711, )814 !!, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Petition for Certiorari] - 5he essential requisites for a $etition for Certiorari under
Rule 95 are< -!. the writ is directed against a tri(unal% a (oard% or an officer exercising 1udicial or quasi-
1udicial functions/ -0. such tri(unal% (oard% or officer has acted without or in excess of 1urisdiction% or
with grave a(use of discretion a&ounting to lac* or excess of 1urisdiction/ and ->. there is no appeal or
any plain% speedy% and adequate re&edy in the ordinary course of law. %$AM&ER O# REAL ESTATE
AND &UILDERS ASSO%IATIONS, IN%. .%RE&A/ v<. T$E SE%RETARY O# AGRARIAN RE#ORM,
G.R. No. 183("', )814 18, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Petition for CertiorariL - 6hile petitioners would insist that the CA co&&itted grave
a(use of discretion% the assailed Cecision and Resolution of the CA% granting the forfeiture of the
perfor&ance (ond a&ong others% a&ount to nothing &ore than errors of 1udg&ent% correcti(le (y appeal.
6hen a court% tri(unal% or officer has 1urisdiction over the person and the su(1ect &atter of the dispute% the
decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that 1urisdiction. Consequently% all
errors co&&itted in the exercise of said 1urisdiction are &erely errors of 1udg&ent. nder prevailing
procedural rules and 1urisprudence% errors of 1udg&ent are not proper su(1ects of a special civil action for
certiorari. ARTISTI%A %ERAMI%A, IN%., %ERALINDA, IN%., %Y&ER %ERAMI%S, IN%. a12
MILLENNIUM, IN%. v<. %IUDAD DEL %ARMEN $OMEO,NERCS ASSO%IATION, IN%. a12
&U*LURAN PURO* II RESIDENTS ASSO%IATION, G.R. No<. 16783-8(, )814 16, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Effect of Dis'issal] - A ruling on a &otion to dis&iss% issued without trial on the
&erits or for&al presentation of evidence% can still (e a 1udg&ent on the &erits.

'ection >

of Rule !# of
the Rules of Court is explicit that a dis&issal for failure to co&ply with an order of the court shall have
the effect of an ad1udication upon the &erits. In other words% unless the court states that the dis&issal is
without pre1udice% the dis&issal should (e understood as an ad1udication on the &erits and is with
pre1udice P$ILIPPINE NATIONAL &AN* v<. T$E INTESTATE ESTATE O# #RAN%IS%O DE
GU0MAN, r4@r4<41342 >; $IS $EIRSG ROSALIA, ELEUTERIO, )OE, ERNESTO, $ARRISON, ALL
SURNAMED DE GU0MAN+ a12 GINA DE GU0MAN, G.R. No. 18!"7, )814 18, !"1"
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] - A 1udg&ent de(t is enforced (y the levy and sale of the de(tors property.
5he issuance of the final certificate of sale to the purchaser at the execution sale is a &ere for&ality upon
the de(tors failure to redee& the property within the rede&ption period. )OSE DELOS REYES v<.
)OSEP$INE ANNE &. RAMNANI, G.R. No. 16'13, )814 18, !"1"
Civil Procedure [&oru' ()o**in#] - 4onetheless% the &ere filing of several cases (ased on the sa&e
incident does not necessarily constitute foru& shopping. 5he test is whether the several actions filed
involve the sa&e transactions and the sa&e essential facts and circu&stances. 5he actions &ust also raise
identical causes of action% su(1ect &atter% and issues.Alsewise stated% foru& shopping exists where the
ele&ents of litis pendentia are present% or where a final 1udg&ent in one case will a&ount to res 1udicata
in the other.

Applying the test for foru& shopping% the consecutive filing of the action for certiorari and the action for
&anda&us did not violate the rule against foru& shopping even if the actions involved the sa&e parties%
(ecause they were (ased on different causes of action and the reliefs they sought were different. LUIS *.
LO*IN, )R., a< 3h4 <4co12 1oA:144 o6 %ITI0ENS &ATTLE AGAINST %ORRUPTION .%I&A%/ v<.
%OMMISSION ON ELE%TIONS a12 3h4 $OUSE O# REPRESENTATIVES, G.R. No<. 17'(31-3!, )814
!!, !"1" - LUIS *. LO*IN, )R. v<. %OMMISSION ON ELE%TIONS .%OMELE%/,
EMMANUEL )OEL ). VILLANUEVA, %IN%$ONA %. GON0ALES a12 ARMI )ANE R. &OR)E,
G.R. No. 18"((3
Provisional Re'edies [4n1unction] - 5wo requisites &ust exist to warrant the issuance of a writ of
preli&inary in1unction% na&ely< -!. the existence of a clear and un&ista*a(le right that &ust (e protected/
and -0. an urgent and para&ount necessity for the writ to prevent serious da&age. ANGELES %ITY v<.
ANGELES %ITY ELE%TRI% %ORPORATION a12 REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT &RAN%$ 7, ANGELES
%ITY, G.R. No. 16613(, )814 !', !"1"
Civil Procedure [,otions] - 5he three-day notice rule is not a(solute. #AUSTO R. PREYSLER, )R. v<.
MANILA SOUT$%OAST DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION, G.R. No. 17187!, )814 !8, !"1"
Civil Procedure [$otice of 6earin#] - 5he require&ent of notice of ti&e and hearing in the pleading
filed (y a party is necessary only to apprise the other of the actions of the for&er. #AUSTO R.
PREYSLER, )R. v<. MANILA SOUT$%OAST DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION, G.R. No. 17187!, )814
!8, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Parties in an Action] - 5he 'tate is neither a necessary nor an indispensa(le party to
an action where no positive act shall (e required fro& it or where no o(ligation shall (e i&posed upon it%
such as in the case at (ar. 4either would it (e an indispensa(le party if none of its properties shall (e
divested nor any of its rights infringed. O##I%E O# T$E %ITY MAYOR O# PARADA7UE %ITY,
O##I%E O# T$E %ITY ADMINISTRATOR O# PARADA7UE %ITY, O##I%E O# T$E %ITY
ENGINEER O# PARADA7UE %ITY, O##I%E O# T$E %ITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
%OORDINATOR, O##I%E O# T$E &ARANGAY %APTAIN AND SANGGUNIANG PAM&ARANGAY
O# &ARANGAY VITALE0, PARADA7UE %ITY, TERESITA A. GAT%$ALIAN, ENRI%O R. ESGUERRA,
ERNESTO T. PRA%ALE, )R., MANUEL M. ARGOTE, %ONRADO M. %ANLAS, )OSEP$INE S.
DAUIGOY, ALLAN L. GON0ALES, ESTER %. ASE$AN, MANUEL A. #UENTES, a12 MYRNA P.
ROSALES v<. MARIO D. E&IO AND $IS %$ILDREN?$EIRS 1aA4=;, ARTURO V. E&IO, EDUARDO V.
E&IO, RENATO V. E&IO, LOURDES E. MAGTANGO&, MILA V. E&IO, a12 ARNEL V. E&IO, G.R. No.
178(11, )814 !3, !"1"
Provisional Re'edies [4n1unction] - A perusal of GCCs co&plaint easily reveals that it is an
action for in1unction (ased on an alleged violation of contractMthe +;A (etween the parties.
As such% the +anila R5C has 1urisdiction over GCCs co&plaint anchored on 'ec. !"% Chapter II
of 8$ !0"% which grants the R5Cs original exclusive 1urisdiction over Nall civil actions in which
the su(1ect of the litigation is incapa(le of pecuniary esti&ation.K Avidently% a co&plaint for
in1unction or (reach of contract is incapa(le of pecuniary esti&ation. +oreover% the R5Cs shall
exercise original 1urisdiction Nin the issuance of writs of certiorari% prohi(ition% &anda&us% quo
warranto% ha(eas corpus and in1unction which &ay (e enforced in any part of their respective
regionsK under 'ec. 0! of 8$ !0". P$ILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING %ORPORATION
.PAG%OR/, r4@r4<41342 >; ATTY. %ARLOS R. &AUTISTA, )R. v<. #ONTANA DEVELOPMENT
%ORPORATION, G.R. No. 187'7!, )814 !', !"1"
Evidence [Alibi] - As consistently enunciated (y this Court% the esta(lished doctrine is that% for the
defense of ali(i to prosper% the accused &ust prove not only that he was at so&e other place at the ti&e of
the co&&ission of the cri&e% (ut also that it was physically i&possi(le for hi& to (e at the locus delicti or
within its i&&ediate vicinity. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. RO&ERTO ASIS AND )ULIUS
PEDARANDA, G.R. No. 17773, )8=; 7, !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Res udicata" E3ce*tions] - 5he rule (arring an appeal fro& a 1udg&ent of
acquittal is% however% not a(solute. 5he following are the recogniIed exceptions thereto< -i. when the
prosecution is denied due process of law/ and -ii. when the trial court co&&its grave a(use of discretion
a&ounting to lac* or excess of 1urisdiction in dis&issing a cri&inal case (y granting the accused
de&urrer to evidence. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. SANDIGAN&AYAN .#IRST DIVISION/,
VI%TORINO A. &AS%O, ROMEO S. DAVID AND ROGELIO L. LUIS , G.R. No. 16(77, )8=; , !"1"
Evidence [-esti'onial Evidence] - 5esti&onies of child-victi&s are al&ost always given full weight and
credit% since when a wo&an% &ore so if she is a &inor% says that she has (een raped% she says in effect all
that is necessary to show that rape has (een co&&itted. @outh and i&&aturity are generally (adges of
truth and sincerity. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. MAR%OS 7UIROS Y SEM&RANO, G.R. No.
1886"", )8=; 13, !"1"
Evidence [Circu'stantial Evidence] - Circu&stantial evidence suffices to convict an accused only if the
circu&stances proved constitute an un(ro*en chain which leads to one fair and reasona(le conclusion that
points to the accused% to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person/ the circu&stances proved &ust (e
consistent with each other% consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty% and at the sa&e ti&e
inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilty. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v.
REYNALDO &AYON Y RAMOS , G.R. No. 1686!7, )8=; !, !"1"
Evidence [Credibility of Witness] - 'ince the accused had not presented evidence of ill-&otive on the
part of the witnesses to testify falsely against hi&% their -witnesses. testi&onies can (e (elieved.
PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. GERARDO ROLLAN Y REY, G.R. No. 1783 )8=; 13, !"1"
Civil Procedure [&indin#s of &acts of t)e Lower Courts] - As a rule% we accord the greatest respect for
the findings of the lower courts% especially the evaluation (y the trial 1udge who had the distinct
opportunity to directly hear and o(serve the witnesses and their testi&onies. GIOVANI SERRANO Y
%ERVANTES v. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No. 17"!3, )8=; , !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Preli'inary 4nvesti#ation] - 5he 4ew Rules on Cri&inal $rocedure Ndoes not
require as a condition sine qua non to the validity of the proceedings Oin the preli&inary investigationL the
presence of the accused for as long as efforts to reach hi& were &ade% and an opportunity to controvert
the evidence of the co&plainant is accorded hi&. 5he o(vious purpose of the rule is to (loc* atte&pts of
unscrupulous respondents to thwart the prosecution of offenses (y hiding the&selves or (y e&ploying
dilatory tactics.K AL#REDO T. ROMUALDE0 v. T$E $ONORA&LE SANDIGAN&AYAN .T$IRD
DIVISION/ AND T$E REPU&LI% O# T$E P$ILIPPINES
G.R. No. 1616"!, )8=; 13, !"1"
Evidence [Credibility of Witness] -5he general rule is that passing 1udg&ent upon the credi(ility of
witnesses is (est left to the trial courts since the latter are in a (etter position to decide the question%
having heard and o(served the witnesses the&selves during the trial. 5his rule% however% ad&its of
exceptions such as when facts of weight and su(stance with direct and &aterial (earing on the final
outco&e of the case have (een overloo*ed% &isapprehended or &isapplied. PEOPLE O# T$E
P$ILIPPINES v. ROSE NANDI Y SALI , G.R. No. 188'", )8=; 13, !"1"
Civil Procedure [&oru' ()o**in#] - Goru& shopping is an act of a party% against who& an adverse
1udg&ent or order has (een rendered in one foru&% of see*ing and possi(ly getting a favora(le opinion in
another foru&% other than (y appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It &ay also involve the institution
of two or &ore actions or proceedings grounded on the sa&e cause on the supposition that one or the
other court would &a*e a favora(le disposition. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. )OSEP$ B)O)OB V.
GRAY, #RAN%IS &. GREAY, AND %OURT O# APPEALS-%E&U %ITY, EIG$TEENT$ DIVISION, G.R.
No. 18"1"', )8=; !6, !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [!alidity of Arrest] - It has (een consistently ruled that an accused is estopped
fro& assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to &ove for the quashal of the
infor&ation against hi& on this ground (efore arraign&ent. Any o(1ection involving a warrant of arrest
or the procedure (y which the court acquired 1urisdiction over the person of the accused &ust (e &ade
(efore he enters his plea/ otherwise% the o(1ection is dee&ed waived. SALVADOR VALDE0 RE&ELLION
v. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES , G.R. No. 177"", )8=; , !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Wit)drawal of 4nfor'ation] - It (ears e&phasiIing that when the trial court
grants a &otion of the pu(lic prosecutor to withdraw the Infor&ation in co&pliance with the directive of
the 'ecretary of 7ustice% or to deny the said &otion% it does so not out of co&pliance to or defiance of the
directive of the 'ecretary of 7ustice% (ut in sound and faithful exercise of its 1udicial prerogative. 5he trial
court is the (est and sole 1udge on what to do with the case (efore it. 5he prior deter&ination of pro(a(le
cause (y the trial court does not in any way (ar a contrary finding upon reassess&ent of the evidence
presented (efore it. In this case% the 'upre&e Court agreed with the reasons of the trial for granting the
&otion for the withdrawal of the Infor&ation. ANTONIO &. RAMOS .DE%EASED/, <8><3:38r42 >; h:<
<8rv:v:1F h4:r<, 1aA4=; MA. MARGARITA A. RAMOS, ANTONIO A. RAMOS, MA. REGINA RAMOS DE
DIOS, )OSE VI%ENTE A. RAMOS, MA. POMONA RAMOS *O T$E AND OS%AR EMERITO A.
RAMOS v. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES AND ROGERIO $. ES%O&AL
G.R. No. 1716, )8=; 13, !"1"
Civil Procedure [-ransfer of 4nterest] % In case of any transfer of interest% the action &ay (e continued
(y or against the original party% unless the court upon &otion directs the person to who& the interest is
transferred to (e su(stituted in the action or 1oined with the original party. $EIRS O# #RAN%IS%A
MEDRANO, NAMELY YOLANDA R. MEDRANO, ET AL. V. ESTANISLAO DE VERA,A8F8<3 ', !"1",
G.R. No. 1677"
Civil Procedure [A**eals] - Rule 45 provides that an appeal (y certiorari fro& the 1udg&ents or final
orders or resolutions of the appellate court is (y a verified petition for review on certiorari. Contrary to
respondentHs clai& that petitioner in this petition &erely alleges that the CA a(used its discretion in
dis&issing his appeal% we find that petitioner also i&putes grave error co&&itted (y the CA in rendering
its assailed decision finding that the appeal was not perfected. JERRY ONG V. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT
INSRAN!E !ORP.
A"#"$% 1&, 2010, G.R. No. 1'5116.
(*ecial Civil Actions [E3*ro*riation] - 5he deter&ination of )1ust co&pensation) in e&inent do&ain
cases is a 1udicial function. 5he executive depart&ent or the legislature &ay &a*e the initial
deter&inations (ut when a party clai&s a violation of the guarantee in the 8ill of Rights that private
property &ay not (e ta*en for pu(lic use without 1ust co&pensation% no statute% decree% or executive order
can &andate that its own deter&ination shall prevail over the courtHs findings. +uch less can the courts (e
precluded fro& loo*ing into the )1ust-ness) of the decreed co&pensation. T$E $EIRS O# MATEO
PIDA%AN AND ROMANA &IGO, NAMELYGPA%ITA PIDA%AN VDA DE 0U&IRI, ET AL. V. AIR
TRANSPORATION O##I%E, REPRESENTED &Y ITS A%TING DIRE%TOR &EINVENIDO MANGA,
A8F8<3 !, !"1", G.R. No. 1861'!
Cri'inal Procedure [!alidity of Arrest] - $etitioner did not question early on her warrantless arrest ,
(efore her arraign&ent. 4either did she ta*e steps to quash the Infor&ation on such ground. 3erily% she
raised the issue of warrantless arrest , as well as the inad&issi(ility of evidence acquired on the occasion
thereof, for the first ti&e only on appeal (efore the appellate court. 8y such o&issions% she is dee&ed to
have waived any o(1ections on the legality of her arrest. SUSAN ES7UILLO Y ROMINES V. PEOPLE
O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, A8F8<3 !, !"1", G.R. No. 18!"1"
Evidence [-ec)nical Rules of Evidence] - Axecutive ;rder 4o. !4% series of !"=9% issued (y for&er
$resident CoraIon C. Aquino% provided that technical rules of procedure and evidence shall not (e strictly
applied to cases involving ill-gotten wealth REPU&LI% O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. T$E $ON.
SANDIGAN&AYAN, ET AL., A8F8<3 !, !"1", G.R. No. 1'!7
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] - 5hat the writ of execution had already (een satisfied does not perforce
clothe it with validity. As we have earlier discussed% a writ of execution &ay only (e issued after final
1udg&ent. 'uch a writ issued without final 1udg&ent is &anifestly void and of no legal effect. It is as if
the writ was not issued at all. 'eiIure of property under a void writ of execution a&ounts to deprivation of
property without due process of law. 5his Court &ay direct that whatever action ta*en under such a void
writ (e undone. ;therwise% we would (e condoning a patent violation of a partyHs right to due process and
allowing one party to un1ustly enrich hi&self at the expense of another. %ONTINENTAL ,AT%$MAN
AND SE%URITY AGEN%Y, IN%. V. NATIONAL #OOD AUT$ORITY, A8F8<3 !, !"1", G.R. No. 171"1
Cri'inal Procedure [Double eo*ardy] - It is (eyond cavil that the R5C acted with grave a(use of
discretion in granting the withdrawal of the Infor&ation for parricide and recalling the warrant of arrest
without &a*ing an independent assess&ent of the &erits of the case and the evidence on record. 8y
relying solely on the &anifestation of the pu(lic prosecutor that it is a(iding (y the Resolution of the
'ecretary of 7ustice% the trial court a(dicated its 1udicial power and refused to perfor& a positive duty
en1oined (y law. 6hat re&ains for our resolution is whether the case &ay (e re&anded to the R5C
without violating respondents right against dou(le 1eopardy. ;n this question% we find the answer to (e
in the affir&ative. $EIRS O# )ANE $ONRALES V. )ONAT$AN $ONRALES ? PEOPLE O# T$E
P$ILIPPINES AND $EIRS O# )ANE $ONRALES V. )ONAT$AN $ONRALES, A8F8<3 !, !"1", G.R.
No. 18!61?G.R. No. 18!67
Civil Procedure [A**eals" Procedural Re7uire'ents] - Rule 4> of the Rules of Court provides that
appeals fro& the 1udg&ent of the 3A shall (e ta*en to the CA% (y filing a petition for review within
fifteen -!5. days fro& the receipt of the notice of 1udg&ent. Gurther&ore% upon the filing of the petition%
the petitioner shall pay to the CA cler* of court the doc*eting and other lawful fees/ non-co&pliance with
the procedural require&ents shall (e a sufficient ground for the petitions dis&issal. SAINT LOUIS
UNIVERSITY, IN%. V. EVANGELINE %. %O&ARRU&IAS, A8F8<3 3, !"1", G.R. No. 1871"(
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] - 'AC. 0#. 6ho &ay redee& real property so sold. - Real property sold as
provided in the last preceding section% or any part thereof separately% &ay (e redee&ed in the &anner
hereinafter provided% (y the following persons< A creditor having a lien (y virtue of an attach&ent%
1udg&ent or &ortgage on the property sold% or on so&e part thereof% su(sequent to the lien under which
the property was sold. 'uch redee&ing creditor is ter&ed a rede&ptioner. RAMON TORRES AND
)ESSIE &ELARMINO V. SPOUSES VI$IN0*Y ALAMAG AND AIDA A. NGO
A8F8<3 3, !"1", G.R. No. 16'6'.
!ri(i)*l Pro+,-"r, .P,%i%io) /or R,0i,12 - I1 or24r 3h4r46or4 3o avo:2 <8ch a <:38a3:o1 Hh4r4>; 3h4
o@:1:o1 o6 3h4 S4cr43ar; o6 )8<3:c4 Hho r4v:4H42 3h4 ac3:o1 o6 3h4 6:<ca= Aa; >4 2:<r4Far242 >; 3h4 3r:a=
co8r3, 3h4 S4cr43ar; o6 )8<3:c4 <ho8=2, a< 6ar a< @rac3:ca>=4, r46ra:1 6roA 4134r3a:1:1F a @43:3:o1 6or
r4v:4H or a@@4a= 6roA 3h4 ac3:o1 o6 3h4 6:<ca=, Hh41 3h4 coA@=a:13 or :16orAa3:o1 ha< a=r4a2; >441 6:=42
:1 %o8r3. Th4 Aa334r <ho8=2 >4 =463 413:r4=; 6or 3h4 2434rA:1a3:o1 o6 3h4 %o8r3. LEONARDO 3LORES
V. HON. RAL S. GON4ALES, Au#ust 89 :;<;9 50R0 $o0 <==<>?
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] - As a general rule% a writ of execution should confor& to the dispositive
portion of the decision to (e executed/ an execution is void if it is in excess of and (eyond the original
1udg&ent or award. 5he settled general principle is that a writ of execution &ust confor& strictly to every
essential particular of the 1udg&ent pro&ulgated% and &ay not vary the ter&s of the 1udg&ent it see*s to
enforce% nor &ay it go (eyond the ter&s of the 1udg&ent sought to (e executed. :owever% it is equally
settled that possession is an essential attri(ute of ownership. 6here the ownership of a parcel of land was
decreed in the 1udg&ent% the delivery of the possession of the land should (e considered included in the
decision% it appearing that the defeated partys clai& to the possession thereof is (ased on his clai& of
ownership. &ERNARDO DE LEON VS. PU&LI% ESTATES AUT$ORITY SU&STITUTED &Y T$E %ITY
O# PARADA7UE, RAMON ARELLANO, )R., RI%ARDO PENA AND REYMUND ORPILLA?PU&LI%
ESTATES AUT$ORITY .NO, P$ILIPPINE RE%LAMATION AUT$ORITY/ SU&STITUTED &Y T$E
%ITY O# PARADA7UE V. $ON. SELMA PALA%IO ALARAS, IN $ER %APA%ITY AS T$E A%TING
PRESIDING )UDGE O# &RAN%$ 13, REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT O# MA*ATI %ITY, AND
&ERNARDO DE LEON, A8F8<3 3, !"1", G.R. No. 181'7"?G.R. No. 18!678
Civil Procedure [,otion to Dis'iss] % 6hen the ground for dis&issal is that the co&plaint states no
cause of action under 'ection ! -g.% Rule !9 of the Rules of Court% such fact &ust (e deter&ined fro& the
allegations of the co&plaint. In a &otion to dis&iss% a defendant hypothetically ad&its the truth of the
&aterial allegations of the plaintiffs co&plaint for the purpose of resolving the &otion. 5he general rule
is that the allegations in a co&plaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant% if%
ad&itting the facts alleged% the court can render a valid 1udg&ent upon the sa&e in accordance with the
prayer therein. 5o sustain a &otion to dis&iss for lac* of cause of action% the co&plaint &ust show that
the clai& for relief does not exist. $EIRS O# ANTONIO SANTOS ET AL. V. $EIRS O# %RISPULO
&ARAMO ET AL., A8F8<3 8, !"1", G.R. No. 11((
Cri'inal Procedure [Petition for Review] % In +arcelo vs. Court of Appeals% the Court clarified that
Crespo did not foreclose the power or authority of the secretary of 1ustice to review resolutions of his
su(ordinates in cri&inal cases. 5he Court recogniIed in Crespo that the action of the investigating fiscal
or prosecutor in the preli&inary investigation is su(1ect to the approval of the provincial or city fiscal or
chief state prosecutor. 5hereafter% it &ay (e appealed to the 'ecretary of 7ustice. 5i&e and again% this
Court has held that the principle of exhaustion of ad&inistrative re&edies is not without exception. 8ased
on the previous discussion% the actions of the Regional 'tate $rosecutor% (eing patently illegal a&ounting
to lac* or excess of 1urisdiction% the sa&e constitutes an exception to the rule on ad&inistrative re&edies.
#ILEMON A. VER0ANO, )R. V. #RAN%IS VITOR D. PARO, A8F8<3 8, !"1", G.R. No. 1716(3
Civil Procedure [,ista@e of Counsel] - 5he Court has consistently held that the &ista*e or negligence
of a counsel in the area of procedural technique (inds the client unless such &ista*e or negligence of
counsel is so gross or palpa(le that would require the courts to step in and accord relief to the client who
suffered there(y. 6ithout this doctrinal rule% there would never (e an end to a suit so long as a new
counsel could (e e&ployed to allege and show that the prior counsel had not (een sufficiently diligent%
experienced% or learned. GIL&ERT URMA, ET AL. V. $ON. ORLANDO &ELTRAN, ET AL., A8F8<3 8,
!"1", G.R. No. 18"836
Civil Procedure [Enforce'ent of ud#'ents] - 5he purpose of the law in prescri(ing ti&e li&itations
for enforcing 1udg&ent (y action is precisely to prevent the winning parties fro& sleeping on their rights.
5his Court cannot 1ust set aside the statute of li&itations into o(livion every ti&e so&eone cries for equity
and 1ustice. Indeed% Nif eternal vigilance is the price of safety% one cannot sleep on oneHs right for &ore
than a !?th of a century and expect it to (e preserved in pristine purity.K ENESTO VILLE0A V.
GERMAN MANAGEMENT AND SERVI%ES IN%. ET AL., A8F8<3 8, !"1", G.R. No. 18!'37
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - As provided under 'ection 4 of Axecutive ;rder 4o. !??=% also *nown
as the NConstruction Industry Ar(itration Daw%K the CIAC has original and exclusive 1urisdiction over
disputes arising fro&% or connected with% contracts entered into (y parties involved in construction in the
$hilippines and all that is needed for the CIAC to acquire 1urisdiction is for the parties to agree to su(&it
the sa&e to voluntary ar(itration. ,ILLIAM GOLANG%O %ONSTRU%TION %ORPORATION V. RAY
&URTON DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION, A8F8<3 ', !"1", G.R. No. 1638!
Civil Procedure [Re7uest for Ad'ission] - A request for ad&ission is not intended to &erely reproduce
or reiterate the allegations of the requesting partys pleading (ut should set forth relevant evidentiary
&atters of fact descri(ed in the request% whose purpose is to esta(lish said partys cause of action or
defense. SO%ORRO LIMOS, ET AL. V. SPS. #RAN%IS%O AND AR,ENIA ODONES, A8F8<3 11, !"1",
G.R. No. 186'7'
Civil Procedure [A**eals] - 5he right to appeal is not a natural right. It is also not part of due process. It
is &erely a statutory privilege and &ay (e exercised only in the &anner and in accordance with the
provisions of law. 5hus% one who see*s to avail of the right to appeal &ust co&ply with the require&ents
of the Rules. Gailure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. %OMMISSIONER O#
INTERNAL REVENUE V. #ORT &ONI#A%IO DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION, A8F8<3 11, !"1",
G.R. No. 1676"6
Evidence [-ec)nical Rules" $ot A**licable] % It is well-settled that the application of technical rules of
procedure &ay (e relaxed to serve the de&ands of su(stantial 1ustice% particularly in la(or cases. Da(or
cases &ust (e decided according to 1ustice and equity and the su(stantial &erits of the controversy.
$rocedural niceties should (e avoided in la(or cases in which the provisions of the Rules of Court are
applied only in suppletory &anner. Indeed% rules of procedure &ay (e relaxed to relieve a part of an
in1ustice not co&&ensurate with the degree of non-co&pliance with the process required. ARNOLD #.
ANI& V. %O%A-%OLA &OTTLERS P$ILS., IN%. .%%&PI/ AND OR R$OGIE #ELI%IANO, A8F8<3 16,
!"1", G.R. No. 1'"!16
(*ecial Civil Actions [E3*ro*riation] - 6hile the deter&ination of 1ust co&pensation is essentially a
1udicial function vested in the R5C acting as a 'pecial Agrarian Court% the 1udge cannot a(use his
discretion (y not ta*ing into full consideration the factors specifically identified (y law and i&ple&enting
rules. 'pecial Agrarian Courts are not at li(erty to disregard the for&ula laid down in CAR A.;. 4o. 5%
series of !""=% (ecause unless an ad&inistrative order is declared invalid% courts have no option (ut to
apply it. 5he courts cannot ignore% without violating the agrarian law% the for&ula provided (y the CAR
for the deter&ination of 1ust co&pensation. LAND &AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. RI0ALINA
GUSTILO &ARRIDO, ET AL., A8F8<3 18, !"1", G.R. No. 183688
Cri'inal Procedure [(ufficiency of Co'*laint] - 5he test of sufficiency of the facts alleged in a
co&plaint to constitute a cause of action is whether% ad&itting the facts alleged% the court could render a
valid 1udg&ent upon the sa&e in accordance with the prayer of the petition or co&plaint. 5o deter&ine
whether the co&plaint states a cause of action% all docu&ents attached thereto &ay% in fact% (e considered%
particularly when referred to in the co&plaint. 6e e&phasiIe% however% that the inquiry is into the
sufficiency% not the veracity of the &aterial allegations in the co&plaint. 5hus% consideration of the
annexed docu&ents should only (e ta*en in the context of ascertaining the sufficiency of the allegations
in the co&plaint. VI%TORINA ALI%E LIM LA0ARO V. &RE,MASTER INTERNATIONAL IN%., A8F8<3
!3, !"1", G.R. No. 18!77'
Evidence [Credibility of Witness] - It is settled that the testi&ony of a single yet credi(le and
trustworthy witness suffices to support a conviction. 5his principle finds &ore co&pelling application
when the lone witness is the victi& hi&self whose direct and positive identification of his assailants is
al&ost always regarded with indu(ita(le credi(ility% owing to the natural tendency of victi&s to see*
1ustice% and thus strive to re&e&(er the faces of their &alefactors and the &anner in which they
co&&itted the cri&e. #REDDIE %A&ILDO V. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, A8F8<3 !3, !"1", G.R.
No. 18''71
(*ecial Civil Actions [E1ect'ent] - 6hen exigencies in the case warrant it% the appellate court &ay stay
the writ of execution issued (y the R5C in an action for e1ect&ent if there are circu&stances necessitating
such action. DA CA+$A4A CA3AD;$+A45 C;R$;RA5I;4 3. AR5R; DACA'+A% A5 AD.%
August 05% 0?!?% B.R. 4o. !54!50
Cri'inal Procedure [4nstitution of Co'*laint] - All cri&inal actions co&&enced (y a co&plaint or
infor&ation shall (e prosecuted under the direction and control of the pu(lic prosecutor 5he private
co&plainant in a cri&inal case is &erely a witness and not a party to the case and cannot% (y hi&self% as*
for the reinvestigation of the case after the infor&ation had (een filed in court% the proper party for that
(eing the pu(lic prosecutor who has the control of the prosecution of the case. 5hus% in cases where the
private co&plainant is allowed to intervene (y counsel in the cri&inal action% and is granted the authority
to prosecute% the private co&plainant% (y counsel and with the confor&ity of the pu(lic prosecutor% can
file a &otion for reinvestigation. )OSE ANTONIO %. LEVISTE V. $ON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, ET AL.,
A8F8<3 3, !"1", G.R. No. 18!677
Civil Procedure [Accion Reinvidicatoria] - In order that an action for the recovery of title &ay prosper%
it is indispensa(le% in accordance with the precedents esta(lished (y the courts% that the party who
prosecutes it &ust fully prove% not only his ownership of the thing clai&ed% (ut also the identity of the
sa&e. :owever% although the identity of the thing that a party desires to recover &ust (e esta(lished% if
the plaintiff has already proved his right of ownership over a tract of land% and the defendant is occupying
without right any part of such tract% it is not necessary for plaintiff to esta(lish the precise location and
extent of the portions occupied (y the defendant within the plaintiffs property. SPOUSES ELEGIO
%ADEGO a12 DOLIA %ADE0O v. SPOUSES APOLINARIO a12 %ONSOR%IA L. &AUTISTA, G.R. No.
17"18', S4@34A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [(urvival of Action] - 5he question as to whether an action survives or not depends on
the nature of the action and the da&age sued for. In the causes of action which survive% the wrong
co&plained of affects pri&arily and principally property and property rights% the in1uries to the person
(eing &erely incidental% while in the causes of action which do not survive% the in1ury co&plained of is to
the person% the property and rights of property affected (eing incidental. MEMORA%ION 0. %RU0,
r4@r4<41342 >; EDGARDO %RU0 v. OS,ALDO 0. %RU0, G.R. No. 173!'!, S4@34A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [(u''ons] - It is not necessary that the person in charge of the defendants regular
place of (usiness (e specifically authoriIed to receive the su&&ons. It is enough that he appears to (e in
charge. GENTLE SUPREME P$ILIPPINES, IN%. v. RI%ARDO #. %ONSULTA, G.R. No. 18318!,
S4@34A>4r 1, !"1"
Provisional Re'edies [4n1unction] - 'ince in1unction is the strong ar& of equity% he who &ust apply for
it &ust co&e with equity or with clean hands. 5his is so (ecause a&ong the &axi&s of equity are -!. he
who see*s equity &ust do equity% and -0. he who co&es into equity &ust co&e with clean hands. 5he
latter is a frequently stated &axi& which is also expressed in the principle that he who has done inequity
shall not have equity. It signifies that a litigant &ay (e denied relief (y a court of equity on the ground
that his conduct has (een inequita(le% unfair and dishonest% or fraudulent% or deceitful as to the
controversy in issue. NELSON )ENOSA a12 h:< <o1 NIDO %ARLO )ENOSA, 43 a=. v. REV. #R. )OSE
RENE %. DELARIARTE, O.S.A. 43c., 43 a=., G.R. No. 17!138, S4@34A>4r 8, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Petition for Certiorari] - nder 'ection 4% Rule 95 of the Rules of Court% petitioners
have 9? days fro& receipt of the ;rder denying their +otion to Cis&iss to file the petition.

$etitionersH procedural shortcut cannot (e countenanced. 5he period within which to file a petition for
certiorari to assail the R5CHs denial of petitionersH +otion to Cis&iss had already lapsed on 4ove&(er 05%
0??>% thus% petitionersH filing of their +otion for $artial Reconsideration andJor 'upple&ental $etition of
the assailed CA Cecision on Cece&(er !"% 0??> and sought the resolution of whether the R5C gravely
a(used its discretion when it denied their +otion to Cis&iss would indeed extend the period to assail such
;rder. %$ANG I* )IN a12 *OREAN %$RISTIAN &USINESSMEN ASSO%IATION, IN%. v. %$OI
SUNG &ONG, G.R. No. 16638, S4@34A>4r 8, !"1"
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 5he CIAC shall have original and exclusive 1urisdiction over disputes
arising fro&% or connected with% contracts entered into (y parties involved in construction in the
$hilippines% whether the dispute arises (efore or after the co&pletion of the contract% or after the
a(andon&ent or (reach thereof. 5hese disputes &ay involve govern&ent or private contracts. Gor the
8oard to acquire 1urisdiction% the parties to a dispute &ust agree to su(&it the sa&e to voluntary
ar(itration.
5he 1urisdiction of the CIAC &ay include (ut is not li&ited to violation of specifications for &aterials and
wor*&anship/ violation of the ter&s of agree&ent/ interpretation andJor application of contractual ti&e
and delays/ &aintenance and defects/ pay&ent% default of e&ployer or contractor and changes in contract
cost.
Axcluded fro& the coverage of this law are disputes arising fro& e&ployer-e&ployee relationships which
shall continue to (e covered (y the Da(or Code of the $hilippines PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE a12
ASSURAN%E, IN%. v. ANS%OR LAND, IN%., G.R. No. 177!(", S4@34A>4r 8, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Perfection of A**eal] - 6hile the dis&issal of an appeal on purely technical grounds
is concededly frowned upon% it (ears e&phasiIing that the procedural require&ents of the rules on appeal
are not har&less and trivial technicalities that litigants can 1ust discard and disregard at will. 4either
(eing a natural right nor a part of due process% the rule is settled that the right to appeal is &erely a
statutory privilege which &ay (e exercised only in the &anner and in accordance with the provisions of
the law. 5he perfection of an appeal in the &anner and within the period prescri(ed (y law is% in fact% not
only &andatory (ut 1urisdictional. Considering that they are require&ents which cannot (e trifled with as
&ere technicality to suit the interest of a party% failure to perfect an appeal in the prescri(ed &anner has
the effect of rendering the 1udg&ent final and executory. ). TIOSE)O INVESTMENT %ORPORATION v.
SPS. &EN)AMIN AND ELEANOR ANG, G.R. No. 17(1(', S4@34A>4r 8, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Pre%-rial] - As the rule now stands% if the defendant fails to appear for pre-trial% a
default order is no longer issued. Instead% the trial court &ay allow the plaintiff to proceed with his
evidence ex parte and the court can decide the case (ased on the evidence presented (y plaintiff. T$E
P$ILIPPINE AMERI%AN LI#E AND GENERAL, INSURAN%E %OMPANY v. )OSEP$ T. ENARIO,
G.R. No. 18!"7, S4@34A>4r 1, !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Arrai#n'ent] - If the filing of a &otion for reconsideration of the resolution
finding pro(a(le cause cannot (ar the filing of the corresponding infor&ation% then neither can it (ar the
arraign&ent of the accused% which in the nor&al course of cri&inal procedure logically follows the filing
of the infor&ation.
An arraign&ent is that stage where% in the &ode and &anner required (y the Rules% an accused% for the
first ti&e% is granted the opportunity to *now the precise charge that confronts hi&. 5he accused is
for&ally infor&ed of the charges against hi&% to which he enters a plea of guilty or not guilty.
nder 'ection # of Repu(lic Act 4o. =4">% otherwise *nown as the 'peedy 5rial Act of !""=% the court
&ust proceed with the arraign&ent of an accused within >? days fro& the filing of the infor&ation or
fro& the date the accused has appeared (efore the court in which the charge is pending% whichever is
later. &RIG GEN. .RET./ )OSE RAMIS%AL, )R. v. SANDIGAN&AYAN a12 PEOPLE O# T$E
P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No. 17!(76-'', S4@34A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [6ierarc)y of Courts] - 5he policy on the hierarchy of courts% which petitioners indeed
failed to o(serve% is not an iron-clad rule. Gor indeed the Court has full discretionary power to ta*e
cogniIance and assu&e 1urisdiction of special civil actions for certiorari and &anda&us filed directly with
it for exceptionally co&pelling reasons or if warranted (y the nature of the issues clearly and specifically
raised in the petition. DEPARTMENT O# #OREIGN A##AIRS a12 &ANG*O SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS
v. $ON. #RAN%O T. #AL%ON, G.R. No. 17667, S4@34A>4r 1, !"1"
Provisional Re'edies [4n1unction] - Benerally% in1unction is a preservative re&edy for the protection of
oneHs su(stantive right or interest. It is not a cause of action in itself (ut &erely a provisional re&edy% an
ad1unct to a &ain suit. It is resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid in1urious
consequences which cannot (e re&edied under any standard co&pensation. 5he application of the
in1unctive writ rests upon the existence of an e&ergency or of a special reason (efore the &ain case can
(e regularly heard. DEPARTMENT O# #OREIGN A##AIRS a12 &ANG*O SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS
v. $ON. #RAN%O T. #AL%ON, G.R. No. 17667, S4@34A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Wit)drawal of Counsel] -5he CA categorically stated that% on the (asis of ACCRAs
withdrawal as counsel for the respondent and ACCRAs &anifestation% all pleadings and papers filed (y
ACCRA on (ehalf of the respondent were considered withdrawn and expunged fro& the records.
#r84ha86 E=4c3ro1:c<, Ph:=<., I1c. V<. %o8r3 o6 A@@4a=<, 43 a=. ? #r84ha86 E=4c3ro1:c<, Ph:=<., I1c. v.
Ph:=:@< S4A:co128c3or<, Ph:=:@@:14<, I1c., G.R. No. 16116!?G.R. No. 166(36 S4@34A>4r 8, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Petition for Certiorari] - $etitions for review under Rule 4> specifically cover
decisions rendered (y the ''C. 8ut this applies only to ''C decisions where the re&edy of appeal is
availa(le. :ere% considering that the law regards the *ind of penalty the ''C i&posed on Daurel already
final% she had no appeal or other plain% speedy and adequate re&edy in the ordinary course of law against
the decision of that (ody. $rovided the ''C co&&itted grave a(use of discretion in rendering the
decision against her% Daurel can avail herself of the re&edy of special civil action of certiorari under Rule
95. MARLA MA%ADAEG LAUREL V. SO%IAL SE%UTIRTY SYSTEM, 43c., 43 a=. , G.R. No. 1687"7
S4@34A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [,otion for 4n)ibition] 5he rule on inhi(ition and disqualification of 1udges is laid
down in 'ection !% Rule !># of the Rules of Court<
'ection !. Cisqualification of 1udges.M4o 1udge or 1udicial officer shall sit in any case in which
he% or his wife or child% is pecuniarily interested as heir% legatee% creditor or otherwise% or in which
he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity% or to counsel
within the fourth degree% co&puted according to the rules of the civil law% or in which he has (een
executor% ad&inistrator% guardian% trustee or counsel% or in which he has presided in any inferior
court when his ruling or decision is the su(1ect of review% without the written consent of all
parties in interest% signed (y the& and entered upon the record.
A 1udge &ay% in the exercise of his sound discretion% disqualify hi&self fro& sitting in a case% for
1ust or valid reasons other than those &entioned a(ove.
5he Rules conte&plate two *inds of inhi(ition< co&pulsory and voluntary. nder the first paragraph of
the cited Rule% it is conclusively presu&ed that 1udges cannot actively and i&partially sit in the instances
&entioned. 5he second paragraph% which e&(odies voluntary inhi(ition% leaves to the sound discretion of
the 1udges concerned whether to sit in a case for other 1ust and valid reasons% with only their conscience
as guide. &G41. .R43./ )OSE S. RAMIS%AL, )R., P43:3:o14r, v. $ON. )OSE R. $ERNANDE0, a< )8<3:c4
o6 3h4 Sa12:Fa1>a;a1+ (T$ DIVISION, SANDIGAN&AYAN a12 T$E PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES,
R4<@o12413<, G.R. No<. 173"7-7(. S4@34A>4r !", !"1".
Cri'inal Procedure [A**eal] % 'ection =% paragraph !% Rule !04 of the Revised Rules of Cri&inal
$rocedure% as a&ended% provides<
'AC. =. Cis&issal of appeal for a(andon&ent or failure to prosecute. , 5he Court of Appeals
&ay% upon &otion of the appellee or &otu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case%
dis&iss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his (rief within the ti&e prescri(ed (y this Rule%
except where the appellant is represented (y a counsel de oficio.
x x x x
It is clear under the foregoing provision that a cri&inal case &ay (e dis&issed (y the CA &otu proprio
and with notice to the appellant if the latter fails to file his (rief within the prescri(ed ti&e. 5he phrase
)with notice to the appellant) &eans that a notice &ust first (e furnished the appellant to show cause why
his appeal should not (e dis&issed. GREGORIO DIMARU%OT ; GAR%IA, P43:3:o14r v. PEOPLE O#
T$E P$ILIPPINES, R4<@o12413, G.R. No. 183'7. S4@34A>4r !", !"1"
Civil Procedure [&oru' ()o**in#] A perusal of the two cases would show that while it involves the
sa&e res% it does not involve the sa&e parties or rights or relief prayed for. In su&% none of the requisites
Oof foru& shopping wereL satisfied. xxxx 5he causes of action in the two cases are not the sa&e< they are
founded on different acts/ the rights violated are different/ and the relief sought is also different. 5he res
1udicata test when applied to the two cases in question shows that regardless of whoever will ulti&ately
prevail in the Ea&(oanga case% the final 1udg&ent therein-whether granting or denying the petition-will
not (e conclusive (etween the parties in the Caloocan case% and vice versa. P$ILIP S. YU, P43:3:o14r v.
$ERNAN G. LIM, R4<@o12413, G.R. No. 18!!'1. S4@34A>4r !!, !"1".
(*ecial Civil Actions [E3*ro*riation] % 'ection !# of RA 995# provides< NIn deter&ining 1ust
co&pensation% the cost of acquisition of the land% the current value of the li*e properties% its nature% actual
use and inco&e% the sworn valuation (y the owner% the tax declarations% and the assess&ents &ade (y
govern&ent assessors shall (e considered. 5he social and econo&ic (enefits contri(uted (y the far&ers
and the far&wor*ers and (y the Bovern&ent to the property as well as the non-pay&ent of taxes or loans
secured fro& any govern&ent financing institution on the said land shall (e considered as additional
factors to deter&ine its valuation.K
7urisprudence is replete with re&inders to special agrarian courts to strictly adhere to the factors set out in
'ection !# of RA 995#. LAND &AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, P43:3:o14r v. ENRI7UE LIVIO%O,
R4<@o12413, G.R. No. 17"68. S4@34A>4r !!, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Certiorari] % 5he avail&ent of the 1udicial re&edy of certiorari &ust (e &ade only
after the filing of a &otion for reconsideration of the 8ACs decision (efore the said (ody. 'u(sequently%
fro& the final denial of the &otion for reconsideration% the aggrieved party &ust then lodge a protest
(efore the head of the procuring entity through a verified position paper that for&ally co&plies with
require&ents in 'ection 55.0 of the IRR-A. ;nly upon the final resolution of the protest can the aggrieved
party (e said to have exhausted the availa(le re&edies at the ad&inistrative level. In other words% only
then can he via(ly avail of the re&edy of certiorari (efore the proper courts. 4on-co&pliance with this
statutory require&ent% under 'ection 5= of R.A. 4o. "!=4% constitutes a ground for the dis&issal of the
action for lac* of 1urisdiction. DIMSON .MANILA/, IN%. a12 P$ES%O, IN%., P43:3:o14r< v. LO%AL
,ATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION, R4<@o12413, G.R. No. 16866. S4@34A>4r !!, !"1"
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] % Rule 4> refers to appeals fro& 1udg&ents or orders of quasi-1udicial
agencies in the exercise of their quasi-1udicial functions. ;n the other hand% Rule 95 of the Rules of Court
specifically governs special civil actions for certiorari% 'ection 4 of which provides that if the petition
involves acts or o&issions of a quasi-1udicial agency% and unless otherwise provided (y law or the rules%
the petition shall (e filed in and cogniIa(le only (y the CA. 5hus% it is clear that 1urisdiction over acts or
o&issions of the DDCA (elong to the CA. PU&LI% $EARING %OMMITTEE O# T$E LAGUNA LA*E
DEVELOPMENT AUT$ORITY a12 $ON. GENERAL MANAGER %ALI5TO %ATA7UI0, P43:3:o14r< v.
SM PRIME $OLDINGS, IN%. .:1 :3< ca@ac:3; a< o@4ra3or o6 SM %ITY MANILA/, R4<@o12413., G.R. No.
17"''. S4@34A>4r !!, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Co'*ro'ise A#ree'ent] %5he Court finds that the Co&pro&ise Agree&ent is not
contrary to law% &orals% good custo&s and pu(lic policy. +oreover% it appears to (e freely executed (y
petitioners and respondents% with the assistance of their respective counsels. 5he Court finds no reason
not to grant the prayer of the parties and here(y (estows 1udicial approval of their Co&pro&ise
Agree&ent. $EIRS O# PEDRO &AR0, 1aA4=;G ANGELO &AR0 a12 MERLINDA &AR0, P43:3:o14r< v.
SPOUSES )OSE GESALEM AND ROSA GESALEM, r4@r4<41342 I>;J 3h4:r A33or14;-:1-#ac3,
)ONAT$AN U. GESALEM+ $ON. AUGUSTINE VESTIL-Pr4<:2:1F )82F4, , R4F:o1a= Tr:a= %o8r3,
&ra1ch 6, Ma12a84 %:3;+ %OURT O# APPEALS, NINETEENT$ DIVISION, %E&U %ITY,
R4<@o12413<., G.R. No. 17!!". S4@34A>4r !7, !"1"

Civil Procedure [Res udicata] % 5he Court has previously e&ployed various tests in deter&ining
whether or not there is identity of causes of action as to warrant the application of the principle of res
1udicata. xxxx ;ne test of identity is the )a(sence of inconsistency test) where it is deter&ined whether the
1udg&ent sought will (e inconsistent with the prior 1udg&ent. 5he &ore co&&on approach in
ascertaining identity of causes of action is the )sa&e evidence test%) where(y the following question
serves as a sufficient criterion< )would the sa&e evidence support and esta(lish (oth the present and
for&er causes of actionP) If the answer is in the affir&ative% then the prior 1udg&ent is a (ar to the
su(sequent action/ conversely% it is not. xxxx Aside fro& the )a(sence of inconsistency test) and )sa&e
evidence test%) we have also ruled that a previous 1udg&ent operates as a (ar to a su(sequent one when it
had )touched on OaL &atter already decided%) or if the parties are in effect )litigating for the sa&e thing.)
SPOUSES %ONRADO ANTONIO a12 AVELYN ANTONIO, P43:3:o14r<, v<. )ULITA SAYMAN VDA. DE
MON)E, <8><3:38342 >; h4r h4:r<, 1aA4=;G ANGELINA MON)E-VILLAMOR, LU0VISMINDA MON)E-
%ORTEL, MARRIETA MON)E-ORTI%O, LEOPOLDO MON)E, %ON%EP%ION SAYMAN-MON)E, a12
ROLINDA MON)E-%ALO, R4<@o12413< , G.R. No. 1('6!( S4@34A>4r !', !"1"
Civil Procedure [&ailure to Attac) Pleadin#s and Docu'ents] - Gailure to attach all pleadings and
docu&ents% (y itself% is not a sufficient ground to dis&iss a petition. In appropriate cases% the courts &ay
li(erally construe procedural rules in order to &eet and advance the cause of su(stantial 1ustice. Dapses in
the literal o(servation of a procedural rule will (e overloo*ed when they do not involve pu(lic policy%
when they arose fro& an honest &ista*e or unforeseen accident% and when they have not pre1udiced the
adverse party or deprived the court of its authority. 5he afore&entioned conditions are present in the case
at (ar. LEANDRO M. AL%ANTARA v. T$E P$ILIPPINE %OMMER%IAL AND INTERNATIONAL
&AN*, G.R. No. 113(', Oc3o>4r !", !"1".
Civil Procedure [A**eal by Certiorari] - 'ince the petition raises essentially questions of fact% this
assign&ent of error &ust (e dis&issed for it is settled that only questions of law &ay (e reviewed in an
appeal (y certiorari. 5here is a question of law when there is dou(t as to what the law is on a certain state
of facts. Questions of law can (e resolved without having to re-exa&ine the pro(ative value of evidence
presented% the truth or falsehood of facts (eing ad&itted. DEL#IN LAMSIS, MAYNARD MONDIGUING,
)OSE VALDE0, )R. a12 $4:r< o6 AGUSTIN *ITMA, r4@r4<41342 >; EUGENE *ITMA, v. MARGARITA
SEMON DONG-E, G.R. No. 173"!1. Oc3o>4r !", !"1".
(*ecial Civil Actions [E1ect'ent] - 5he only issue in an e1ect&ent case is the physical possession of real
property possession de facto and not possession de 1ure. 6e rule upon the issue of ownership only to
deter&ine who (etween the parties has the (etter right of possession. As the law now stands% in an
e1ect&ent suit% the question of ownership &ay (e provisionally ruled upon for the sole purpose of
deter&ining who is entitled to possession de facto. SPOUSES IDA aEa BMILAGROSB NIEVES &ELTRAN
a12 )OSE &ELTRAN v. ANITA R. NIEVES, r4@r4<41342 >; NELIA G. MORAN, G.R. No. 1761,
Oc3o>4r !", !"1"
Evidence [-esti'onial Evidence] - 5esti&onies of rape victi&s who are young and i&&ature deserve
full credence% considering that no young wo&an% especially of tender age% would concoct a story of
defloration% allow an exa&ination of her private parts% and thereafter pervert herself (y (eing the su(1ect
of a pu(lic trial% if she was not &otivated solely (y the desire to o(tain 1ustice for the wrong co&&itted
against her. @outh and i&&aturity are generally (adges of truth. It is highly i&pro(a(le that a girl of
tender years% one not yet exposed to the ways of the world% would i&pute to any &an a cri&e so serious as
rape if what she clai&s is not true. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. DEMETRIO SALA0AR, G.R. No.
181'"", Oc3o>4r !", !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [(earc) 4ncidental to Lawful Arrest] - It is settled that a (uy-(ust operation is a
for& of entrap&ent that is resorted to for trapping and capturing cri&inals. It is legal and has (een proved
to (e an effective &ethod of apprehending drug peddlers% provided due regard to constitutional and legal
safeguards is underta*en.
5he seiIure &ade (y the (uy-(ust tea& falls under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule !09%
'ec. !> of the Rules of Court. 'ince the (uy-(ust operation was proper% it necessarily follows that the
search was also valid. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. ED,ARD R. #ELI%IANO, ANITA G.
LAURORA, EDIT$A %. MAGLALANG, MAY G. ESTRELLA, ROMELITO G. RUELO, ED,ARD R.
#ELI%IANO a12 ANITA G. LAURORA, G.R. No. 1'"17'. Oc3o>4r !", !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Warrantless Arrest] - 5he Court% citing $eople v. 3illa&in% which involved an
accused arrested after he sold drugs during a (uy-(ust operation% ruled that it was a circu&stance where a
warrantless arrest is 1ustified under Rule !!>% 'ec. 5-a. of the Rules of Court. 5he sa&e ruling applies to
the instant case. 6hen carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards% it is a 1udicially
sanctioned &ethod of apprehending those involved in illegal drug activities. It is a valid for& of
entrap&ent% as the idea to co&&it a cri&e co&es not fro& the police officers (ut fro& the accused
hi&self. 5he accused is caught in the act and &ust (e apprehended on the spot. Gro& the very nature of a
(uy-(ust operation% the a(sence of a warrant does not &a*e the arrest illegal.
5he illegal drugs seiIed were not the )fruit of the poisonous tree) as the defense would li*e this Court to
(elieve. 5he seiIure &ade (y the (uy-(ust tea& falls under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under
Rule !09% 'ec. !> of the Rules of Court. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. ROLANDO ARANETA ;
A&ELLA K &OTONG a12 MARILOU SANTOS ; TANTAY K MALOU
G.R. No. 1'1"6(, Oc3o>4r !", !"1".
Civil Procedure [Consolidation of Cases] - It is well recogniIed that consolidation of cases avoids
&ultiplicity of suits% guards against oppression and a(use% prevents delay% clears congested court doc*ets%
si&plifies the wor* of the courts and see*s to attain 1ustice with the least expense and vexation to
litigants. Benerally% consolidation applies only to cases pending (efore the sa&e 1udge and not to cases
pending in different (ranches of the sa&e court or in different courts. &AN* O# %OMMER%E v. $ON.
ESTELA PERLAS-&ERNA&E, :1 h4r ca@ac:3; a< Pr4<:2:1F )82F4 o6 3h4 REGIONAL TRIAL O# MA*ATI
%ITY, &RAN%$ 1(!+ &AN%APITAL DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION+ a12 E5%$ANGE %APITAL
%ORPORATION, G.R. No. 17!3'3. Oc3o>4r !", !"1"
Evidence [Evidence on Ra*e Cases] - 5he Court is &indful of the guiding principles it has laid down in
reviewing the evidence of rape cases% na&ely< -!. an accusation for rape can (e &ade with facility/ while
the accusation is difficult to prove% it is even &ore difficult for the accused% though innocent% to disprove/
-0. considering that% in the nature of things% only two persons are usually involved in the cri&e of rape%
the testi&ony of the co&plainant &ust (e scrutiniIed with extre&e caution/ and ->. the evidence for the
prosecution &ust stand or fall on its own &erits% and cannot (e allowed to draw strength fro& the
wea*ness of the evidence for the defense. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. ROMY ATADERO, G.R.
No. 183(, Oc3o>4r !", !"1"
Civil Procedure [Power of Review on Questions of Law only" E3ce*tions] - It is a settled rule that in
the exercise of the 'upre&e Courts power of review% the Court is not a trier of facts and does not
nor&ally underta*e the re-exa&ination of the evidence presented (y the contending parties during the
trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the CA are conclusive and (inding on the Court.
:owever% the Court had recogniIed several exceptions to this rule% to wit< -!. when the findings are
grounded entirely on speculation% sur&ises or con1ectures/ -0. when the inference &ade is &anifestly
&ista*en% a(surd or i&possi(le/ ->. when there is grave a(use of discretion/ -4. when the 1udg&ent is
(ased on a &isapprehension of facts/ -5. when the findings of facts are conflicting/ -9. when in &a*ing its
findings the Court of Appeals went (eyond the issues of the case% or its findings are contrary to the
ad&issions of (oth the appellant and the appellee/ -#. when the findings are contrary to the trial court/ -=.
when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are (ased/ -". when
the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners &ain and reply (riefs are not disputed (y the
respondent/ -!?. when the findings of fact are pre&ised on the supposed a(sence of evidence and
contradicted (y the evidence on record/ and -!!. when the Court of Appeals &anifestly overloo*ed
certain relevant facts not disputed (y the parties% which% if properly considered% would 1ustify a different
conclusion. -the Court citing Insular Dife Assurance Co&pany% Dtd. vs. CA. E.Y. INDUSTRIAL SALES,
IN%. a12 ENGRA%IO YAP v. S$EN DAR ELE%TRI%ITY AND MA%$INERY %O., LTD., G.R. No.
18(8". Oc3o>4r !", !"1".
Civil Procedure [,otion for Reconsideration] - 5he rule is and has (een that the period for filing a
&otion for reconsideration is non-extendi(le. %YNT$IA S. &OLOS v. DANILO T. &OLOS, G.R. No.
186("". Oc3o>4r !", !"1"
Evidence [C)ain of Custody] - 5hus% the following are the lin*s that &ust (e esta(lished in the chain of
custody in a (uy-(ust situation< first% the seiIure and &ar*ing% if practica(le% of the illegal drug recovered
fro& the accused (y the apprehending officer/ second% the turnover of the illegal drug seiIed (y the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer/ third% the turnover (y the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic che&ist for la(oratory exa&ination/ and fourth% the turnover and su(&ission of
the &ar*ed illegal drug seiIed fro& the forensic che&ist to the court. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v.
ANTONIO MAGPAYO, G.R. No. 187"6'. Oc3o>4r !", !"1".
Petition for 6abeas Cor*us - In passing upon a petition for ha(eas corpus% a court or 1udge &ust first
inquire into whether the petitioner is (eing restrained of his li(erty. If he is not% the writ will (e refused.
Inquiry into the cause of detention will proceed only where such restraint exists. If the alleged cause is
thereafter found to (e unlawful% then the writ should (e granted and the petitioner discharged. 4eedless to
state% if otherwise% again the writ will (e refused. DAVID E. SO, o1 >4ha=6 o6 h:< 2a8Fh34r MARIA
ELENA SO GUISANDE v. $ON. ESTE&AN A. TA%LA, )R., R4F:o1a= Tr:a= %o8r3 o6 Ma12a=8;o1F %:3;,
&ra1ch !"8+ a12 DR. &ERNARDO A. VI%ENTE, Na3:o1a= %4134r 6or M413a= $4a=3h, G.R. No. 1'"1"8.
Oc3o>4r 1', !"1".
Civil Procedure [Power of Review on Questions of Law only" E3ce*tions] % In as*ing us to
deter&ine which of the parties has a (etter right to possess the property% we are as*ed to resolve a factual
issue% involving as it does the weighing and evaluation of the evidence presented (y the parties in the
courts (elow. Benerally% such an exercise is not appropriate in a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court% which see*s to resolve only questions of law. +oreover% the factual
findings of the CA% when supported (y su(stantial evidence% are conclusive and (inding on the parties and
are not reviewa(le (y this Court% unless the case falls under any of the following recogniIed exceptions<
-!. 6hen the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation% sur&ises and
con1ectures/
-0. 6hen the inference &ade is &anifestly &ista*en% a(surd or i&possi(le/
->. 6here there is a grave a(use of discretion/
-4. 6hen the 1udg&ent is (ased on a &isapprehension of facts/
-5. 6hen the findings of fact are conflicting/
-9. 6hen the Court of Appeals% in &a*ing its findings% went (eyond the issues of the case
and the sa&e is contrary to the ad&issions of (oth appellant and appellee/
-#. 6hen the findings are contrary to those of the trial court/
-=. 6hen the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are (ased/
-". 6hen the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitionersH &ain and reply
(riefs are not disputed (y the respondents/ and
-!?. 6hen the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are pre&ised on the supposed
a(sence of evidence and contradicted (y the evidence on record.
PIO MODESTO a12 %IRILA RIVERA-MODESTO v. %ARLOS UR&INA, <8><3:38342 >; 3h4 h4:r< o6
OLYMPIA MIGUEL VDA. DE UR&INA .S8rv:v:1F S@o8<4/ a12 ch:=2r41, 1aA4=;G ES%OLASTI%A M.
UR&INA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 18'8' . Oc3o>4r 18, !"1".
Evidence [C)ain of Custody] - 5he IRR excuses non-co&pliance with 'ec. 0!-a. of the IRR of RA 4o.
"!95 under 1ustifia(le grounds% as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seiIed ite&s are
properly preserved. 5he fact that $;0 7i&eneI &ar*ed the ite&s at the police station% instead of at the
area where the (uy-(ust operation too* place% does not di&inish the evidentiary value of the seiIed ite&s%
nor does it da&age the case for the prosecution. Benerally% non-co&pliance with 'ec. 0! of the IRR will
not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the ite&s seiIed or confiscated fro& the accused inad&issi(le.
5he failure to &ar* the ite&s at the scene of the (uy-(ust operation was sufficiently explained (y $;0
7i&eneI% in that he and his tea& were co&pelled to re&ove accused-appellants fro& the scene as there
were other people ganging up on the& who &ight have freed accused-appellants. 5he necessity of
securing accused-appellants% as well as the evidence% was para&ount. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES
v. MARIA POLITI%O ; TI%ALA a12 E,INIE POLITI%O ; PALMA, G.R. No. 1'13'(. Oc3o>4r 18, !"1".
Civil Procedure [Counterclai'] - 8ayerphils counterclai& is per&issive% (ut the trial court should have
given it the opportunity to pay the doc*et fees since it did not avoid paying said fees.
)A co&pulsory counterclai& is any clai& for &oney or other relief% which a defending party &ay have
against an opposing party% which at the ti&e of suit arises out of% or is necessarily connected with% the
sa&e transaction or occurrence that is the su(1ect &atter of plaintiffs co&plaint. It is co&pulsory in the
sense that it is within the 1urisdiction of the court% does not require for its ad1udication the presence of
third parties over who& the court cannot acquire 1urisdiction% and will (e (arred x x x if not set up in the
answer to the co&plaint in the sa&e case. Any other clai& is per&issive.)O5heL Court has already laid
down the following tests to deter&ine whether a counterclai& is co&pulsory or not% to wit< -!. Are the
issues of fact or law raised (y the clai& and the counterclai& largely the sa&eP -0. 6ould res 1udicata (ar
a su(sequent suit on defendantHs clai&s% a(sent the co&pulsory counterclai& ruleP ->. 6ill su(stantially
the sa&e evidence support or refute plaintiffHs clai& as well as the defendantHs counterclai&P and -4. Is
there any logical relation (etween the clai& and the counterclai&% such that the conduct of separate trials
of the respective clai&s of the parties would entail a su(stantial duplication of effort and ti&e (y the
parties and the courtP) 5he fourth test is the Rco&pelling test of co&pulsoriness. %ALI&RE TRADERS,
IN%., MARIO SISON SE&ASTIAN, a12 MINDA &LAN%O SE&ASTIAN, v. &AYER P$ILIPPINES, IN%.,
G.R. No. 161(31. Oc3o>4r 13, !"1".
Civil Procedure [Pay'ent of Doc@et &ees] - 'ec. #. Affect of failure to co&ply with require&ents. ,
5he failure of the petitioner to co&ply with any of the foregoing require&ents regarding the pay&ent of
doc*et and other lawful fees% the deposit for costs% proof of service of the petition% and the contents of and
the docu&ents which should acco&pany the petition shall (e sufficient ground for the dis&issal thereof.
0AM&OANGA #OREST MANAGERS %ORP. v. NE, PA%I#I% TIM&ER AND SUPPLY %O., ET AL.,
G.R. No. 1733(!. Oc3o>4r 13, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Denial of ,otion to Dis'iss] - An order denying a &otion to dis&iss is an
interlocutory order which neither ter&inates nor finally disposes of a case as it leaves so&ething to (e
done (y the court (efore the case is finally decided on the &erits. As such% the general rule is that the
denial of a &otion to dis&iss cannot (e questioned in a special civil action for certiorari which is a
re&edy designed to correct errors of 1urisdiction and not errors of 1udg&ent. GLO&AL &USINESS
$OLDINGS, IN%. .6orA4r=; G=o>a= &8<:14<< &a1E, I1c./ v. SURE%OMP SO#T,ARE, &.V., G.R. No.
173(63. Oc3o>4r 13, !"1".
Civil Procedure [,ediation] - In 'enarlo v. 7udge $aderanga% this Court accentuated that &ediation is
part of pre-trial and failure of the plaintiff to appear thereat &erits sanction on the part of the a(sent party.
RAAD 8A4F% I4C. v. 'A+'4B +A8:A@ C;R$;RA5I;4% B.R. 4o. !#5=90. ;cto(er !>% 0?!?.
Civil Procedure [E3tra%udicial &oreclosure (ale] - It is settled that the (uyer in a foreclosure sale
(eco&es the a(solute owner of the property purchased if it is not redee&ed within one year after the
registration of the sale. As such% he is entitled to the possession of the property and can de&and that he (e
placed in possession at any ti&e following the consolidation of ownership in his na&e and the issuance to
hi& of a new 5C5. 5his rule% however% is not without exception. nder 'ection >>% Rule >" of the Rules
of Court% which is &ade to apply suppletorily to the extra1udicial foreclosure of real estate &ortgages (y
'ection 9% Act >!>5% as a&ended% the possession of the &ortgaged property &ay (e awarded to a
purchaser in the extra1udicial foreclosure unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to
the 1udg&ent de(tor. EMMANUEL %. VILLANUEVA v<. %$ERDAN LENDING INVESTORS
%ORPORATION
G.R. No. 177881. Oc3o>4r 13, !"1".
(*ecial Civil Actions [Conte'*t] - 5he power to punish for conte&pt is inherent in all courts and is
essential to the preservation of order in 1udicial proceedings and to the enforce&ent of 1udg&ents% orders%
and &andates of the court% and consequently% to the due ad&inistration of 1ustice. :owever% such power
should (e exercised on the preservative% not on the vindictive% principle. ;nly occasionally should the
court invo*e its inherent power in order to retain that respect% without which the ad&inistration of 1ustice
will falter or fail. ;nly in cases of clear and contu&acious refusal to o(ey should the power (e exercised.
'uch power% (eing drastic and extraordinary in its nature% should not (e resorted to unless necessary in the
interest of 1ustice. &AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINE ISLANDS v. LA&OR AR&ITER RODERI%* )OSEP$
%ALAN0A, S$ERI## ENRI%O Y. PAREDES, AMELIA ENRI7UE0, a12 REMO L. SIA
G.R. No. 18"6''. Oc3o>4r 13, !"1".
Evidence [Alibi and Defenses] - Ali(i is the wea*est defense not only (ecause it is inherently wea* and
unrelia(le% (ut also (ecause it is easy to fa(ricate. It is generally re1ected when the accused is positively
identified (y a witness. Accused-appellant states that he was elsewhere at the ti&e the *illings occurred%
na&ely at his alleged wor* as a hauler at the 8alintawa* +ar*et in QueIon City. :owever% he failed to
produce any corro(orating witness to his alleged presence there% or even failed to show that he was indeed
e&ployed as such. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. ROEL BRUELB SALLY, G.R. No. 1'1!(.
Oc3o>4r 13, !"1"
Civil Procedure [ud#'ent on t)e Pleadin#s] - 6hen what is left are not genuinely issues requiring
trial (ut questions concerning the proper interpretation of the provisions of so&e written contract attached
to the pleadings% 1udg&ent on the pleadings is proper. PA%I#I% RE$OUSE %ORPORATION, PA%I#I%
%ON%ORDE %ORPORATION, MI0PA$ $OLDINGS, IN%., #ORUM $OLDINGS %ORPORATION,
a12 EAST ASIA OIL %OMPANY,IN%. v. EI& SE%URITIES, IN%., G.R. No. 18("36.Oc3o>4r 13, !"1".
Civil Procedure [4''utability of ud#'ents] - $oH4v4r, 3h:< %o8r3 ha< r4=aL42 3h4 r8=4 o1
:AA83a>:=:3; o6 M82FA413< :1 or24r 3o <4rv4 <8><3a13:a= M8<3:c4 co1<:24r:1F .a/ Aa334r< o6 =:64, =:>4r3;,
ho1or or @ro@4r3;, .>/ 3h4 4L:<341c4 o6 <@4c:a= or coA@4==:1F c:rc8A<3a1c4<, .c/ 3h4 A4r:3< o6 3h4 ca<4, .2/
a ca8<4 1o3 413:r4=; a33r:>83a>=4 3o 3h4 6a8=3 or 14F=:F41c4 o6 3h4 @ar3; 6avor42 >; 3h4 <8<@41<:o1 o6 3h4
r8=4<, .4/ a =acE o6 a1; <hoH:1F 3ha3 3h4 r4v:4H <o8Fh3 :< A4r4=; 6r:vo=o8< a12 2:=a3or;, a12 .6/ 3h4 o3h4r
@ar3; H:== 1o3 >4 81M8<3=; @r4M82:c42 3h4r4>;. APO #RUITS %ORPORATION a12 $I)O PLANTATION,
IN%. v. LAND &AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No. 16(1'. Oc3o>4r 1!, !"1"
(*ecial Civil Actions [Conte'*t] - Indirect conte&pt proceedings &ay (e initiated only in two ways< -!.
&otu proprio (y the court/ or -0. through a verified petition and upon co&pliance with the require&ents
for initiatory pleadings. 5he procedural require&ents are &andatory considering that conte&pt
proceedings against a person are treated as cri&inal in nature. Conviction cannot (e had &erely on the
(asis of written pleadings. O##I%E O# T$E %OURT ADMINISTRATOR v. )UDGE AL&ERTO L.
LERMA, A.M. No. RT)-"7-!"76. Oc3o>4r 1!, !"1".
Evidence [udicial $otice] - 5he $hilippines does not ta*e 1udicial notice of foreign laws% hence% they
&ust not only (e alleged/ they &ust (e proven. 5o prove a foreign law% the party invo*ing it &ust present
a copy thereof and co&ply with 'ections 04 and 05 of Rule !>0 of the Revised Rules of Court. AT%I
OVERSEAS %ORPORATION, AMALIA G. I*DAL a12 MINISTRY O# PU&LI% $EALT$-*U,AIT v.
MA. )OSE#A E%$IN, G.R. No. 1781. Oc3o>4r 11, !"1".
(*ecial Civil Actions [E1ect'ent] - In forci(le entry% the plaintiff &ust allege in the co&plaint% and
prove% that he was in prior physical possession of the property in dispute until he was deprived thereof (y
the defendant (y any of the &eans provided in 'ection !% Rule #? of the Rules either (y force%
inti&idation% threat% strategy or stealth. In unlawful detainer% there &ust (e an allegation in the co&plaint
of how the possession of defendant started or continued% that is% (y virtue of lease or any contract% and
that defendant holds possession of the land or (uilding )after the expiration or ter&ination of the right to
hold possession (y virtue of any contract% express or i&plied.) %ORA0ON D. SARMIENTA, )OSE
DERAMA, %ATES RAMA, )OSIE MI,A, TOTO NOLAS%O, )ESUS OLI7UINO, NOR&ERTO LOPE0,
RU&EN ESPOSO, &ERNARDO #LORES%A, MARINA DIMATALO, RO&LE DIMANDA*O, RI%ARDO
PEDA, EDUARDO ESPINO, ANTONIO GALLEGOS, VI%TOR SANDOVAL, #ELI%ITAS A&RANTES,
MER%Y %RU0, ROSENDO ORGANO, RI%*Y &ARENO, ANITA TA*SAGON, )OSIE RAMA a12
PA&LO DIMANDA*O v. MANALITE $OMEO,NERS ASSO%IATION, IN%. .MA$A/, G.R. No. 18!'3.
Oc3o>4r 11, !"1".N
Evidence [C)ain of Custody] - 5he apprehending tea& shall< -a. within forty-eight -4=. hours fro& the
seiIure infor& the Cangerous Crugs 8oard (y telegra& of said seiIure% the nature and quantity thereof%
and who has present custody of the sa&e% and -(. su(&it to the 8oard a copy of the &ission investigation
report within fifteen -!5. days fro& co&pletion of the investigation.
6hile it appears that the (uy-(ust tea& failed to co&ply strictly with the procedure outlined a(ove% the
sa&e does not overturn the presu&ption of regularity in the perfor&ance of their duty. A violation of the
regulation is a &atter strictly (etween the Cangerous Crugs 8oard and the arresting officers and is totally
irrelevant to the prosecution of the cri&inal case since the co&&ission of the cri&e of illegal sale of a
prohi(ited drug is considered consu&&ated once the sale or transaction is esta(lished and the prosecution
thereof is not under&ined (y the arresting officers ina(ility to confor& to the regulations of the
Cangerous Crugs 8oard. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. MARIANITO GON0AGA ; )OMAYA, G.R.
No. 18('!. Oc3o>4r 11, !"1".
Civil Procedure [A**eals] - Indeed% 'ection # Rule 44 of the Rules of Court requires the appellant to
serve two copies of the appellantHs (rief to the appellee. :owever% the failure to serve the required nu&(er
of copies does not auto&atically result in the dis&issal of the appeal. )ORGE L. TIANG%O, T$E $EIRS
O# ENRI7UE L. TIANG%O, GLORIA T. &ATUNG&A%AL, NAR%ISO L. TIANG%O a12 SILVINO L.
TIANG%O v. LAND &AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No. 13''8. Oc3o>4r 6, !"1".
Civil Procedure [,odes of A**eals] - In +urillo v. Consul% we had the opportunity to clarify the three
->. &odes of appeal fro& decisions of the R5C% to wit< -!. (y ordinary appeal or appeal (y writ of error
under Rule 4!% where 1udg&ent was rendered in a civil or cri&inal action (y the R5C in the exercise of
original 1urisdiction/ -0. (y petition for review under Rule 40% where 1udg&ent was rendered (y the R5C
in the exercise of appellate 1urisdiction/ and ->. (y petition for review on certiorari to the 'upre&e Court
under Rule 45. 5he first &ode of appeal is ta*en to the CA on questions of fact or &ixed questions of fact
and law. 5he second &ode of appeal is (rought to the CA on questions of fact% of law% or &ixed questions
of fact and law. 5he third &ode of appeal is elevated to the 'upre&e Court only on questions of law.
REPU&LI% O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. ANGELO &. MALA&ANAN, PA&LO &. MALA&ANAN,
GREENT$UM& REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION a12 T$E REGISTRAR O# DEEDS
O# &ATANGAS, G.R. No. 16'"67. Oc3o>4r 6, !"1".
Evidence [Presu'*tions] - It is a constitutional &andate that in all cri&inal prosecutions% the accused
shall (e presu&ed innocent until the contrary is proved and that on the other hand% it is in the Rules of
Court that. ,5he following presu&ptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted% (ut &ay (e contradicted and
overco&e (y other evidence< )&. 5hat official duty has (een regularly perfor&ed) PEOPLE O# T$E
P$ILIPPINES v. OLIVE RU&IO MAMARIL, G.R. No. 171'8". Oc3o>4r 6, !"1".
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 'ettled is the rule that 1urisdiction in e1ect&ent cases is deter&ined (y
the allegations pleaded in the co&plaint. ESMERALDO %. ROMULLO, PEDRO MANGUNDAYAO,
MA5IMO ANES, ELVIRA &ON0A, RO&ERTO &ELARMINO, TELESPORO GAR%IA, &ET$ 0AIDA
GIMENE0, %ELSO LI&RANDO, MI%$AEL DELA %RU0, a12 RO&ERTO ARA,AG v. SAMA$ANG
MAG*A*APIT&A$AY NG &AYANI$AN %OMPOUND $OMEO,NERS ASSO%IATION, IN%.,
r4@r4<41342 >; :3< Pr4<:2413, PA7UITO 7UITALIG, G.R. No. 18"687. Oc3o>4r 6, !"1".
Civil Procedure [,otion for Reconsideration] - It is clear that under 'upre&e Court Circular 4o. 59-
0???% in case a &otion for reconsideration of the 1udg&ent% order% or resolution sought to (e assailed has
(een filed% the 9?-day period to file a petition for certiorari shall (e co&puted fro& notice of the denial of
such &otion. %O%A-%OLA &OTTLERS P$ILIPPINES, IN%. v. ANGEL U. DEL VILLAR, G.R. No.
163"'1.Oc3o>4r 6, !"1"
Civil Procedure [A**eals] - A party-litigant &ay either file his notice of appeal within !5 days fro&
receipt of the Regional 5rial CourtHs decision or file it within !5 days fro& receipt of the order -the )final
order). denying his &otion for new trial or &otion for reconsideration. 5he new !5-day period &ay (e
availed of only if either &otion is filed/ otherwise% the decision (eco&es final and executory after the
lapse of the original appeal period provided in Rule 4!% 'ection >. ERMELINDA %. MANALOTO 43 a=. v.
ISMAEL VELOSO III, G.R. No. 17136 Oc3o>4r 6, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Certification a#ainst $on%&oru' ()o**in#] - 5he rule for the su(&ission of a
certificate of non-foru& shopping% proper in for& and su(stance% re&ains to (e a strict and &andatory
rule/ any li(eral application has to (e 1ustified (y a&ple and sufficient reasons that &aintain the integrity
of% and do not detract fro&% the &andatory character of the rule. &PI v<. %A, 43 a=,G.R. No. 168313
Oc3o>4r 6, !"1"
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] - Rule #? 'ection !". I&&ediate execution of 1udg&ent/ how to stay sa&e.
M If 1udg&ent is rendered against the defendant% execution shall issue i&&ediately upon &otion% unless
an appeal has (een perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient supersedeas (ond%
approved (y the +unicipal 5rial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents% da&ages%
and costs accruing down to the ti&e of the 1udg&ent appealed fro&% and unless% during the pendency of
the appeal% he deposits with the appellate court the a&ount of rent due fro& ti&e to ti&e under the
contract% if any% as deter&ined (y the 1udg&ent of the +unicipal 5rial Court. In the a(sence of a contract%
he shall deposit with the Regional 5rial Court the reasona(le value of the use and occupation of the
pre&ises for the preceding &onth or period at the rate deter&ined (y the 1udg&ent of the lower court on
or (efore the tenth day of each succeeding &onth or period. 5he supersedeas (ond shall (e trans&itted (y
the +unicipal 5rial Court% with the other papers% to the cler* of the Regional 5rial Court to which the
action is appealed. #ERRER ET AL v. )UDGE RA&A%A, A.M. No. MT)-"-18" Oc3o>4r 6, !"1"
(u''ary Procedure - 5he Rule on 'u&&ary $rocedure was pro&ulgated (y the 'upre&e Court to
achieve an expeditious and inexpensive disposition of cases. 'ection !# of this Rule requires the court to
pro&ulgate a 1udg&ent not later than thirty ->?. days after ter&ination of trial. %IRILA S. RAYMUNDO v.
)UDGE TERESITO A. ANDOY, MUNI%IPAL TRIAL %OURT .MT%/, %AINTA, RI0AL, A.M. No. MT)-
"'-1738 .#orA4r=; O%A I.P.I. No. "8-!"33-MT)/ Oc3o>4r 6, !"1".
Civil Procedure [Certiorari] - Certiorari does not lie against respondents who do not exercise 1udicial or
quasi-1udicial functions. $arenthetically% petitioners do not even allege with any &odicu& of particularity
how respondents acted without or in excess of their respective 1urisdictions% or with grave a(use of
discretions a&ounting to lac* or excess of 1urisdiction. SOUT$ERN $EMISP$ERE ENGAGEMENT
NET,OR*, IN%., ON &E$AL# O# T$E SOUT$-SOUT$ NET,OR* .SSN/ #OR NON-STATE
ARMED GROUP ENGAGEMENT, AND ATTY. SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, )R. v. ANTI-TERRORISM
%OUN%IL, 43 a=. , G.R. No. 178!. Oc3o>4r , !"1"
6abeas Data - 'ection !. :a(eas Cata. , 5he writ of ha(eas data is a re&edy availa(le to any person
whose right to privacy in life% li(erty or security is violated or threatened (y an unlawful act or o&ission
of a pu(lic official or e&ployee or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering% collecting or
storing of data or infor&ation regarding the person% fa&ily% ho&e and correspondence of the aggrieved
party. MANILA ELE%TRI% %OMPANY, ALE5ANDER S. DEYTO AND RU&EN A. SAPITULA v.
ROSARIO GOPE0 LIM, G.R. No. 18(76'. Oc3o>4r , !"1".
Civil Procedure [Counterclai'] - 5he rule in per&issive counterclai&s is that for the trial court to
acquire 1urisdiction% the counterclai&ant is (ound to pay the prescri(ed doc*et fees. GOVERNMENT
SERVI%E INSURAN%E SYSTEM .GSIS/ v. $EIRS O# #ERNANDO #. %A&ALLERO, REPRESENTED
&Y $IS DAUG$TER, )O%ELYN G. %A&ALLERO, G.R. No. 18"'". Oc3o>4r (, !"1"
Evidence [Parol Evidence] - nder the general rule in 'ection " of Rule !>? of the Rules of Court% when
the ter&s of an agree&ent were reduced in writing% as in this case% it is dee&ed to contain all the ter&s
agreed upon and no evidence of such ter&s can (e ad&itted other than the contents thereof. #INAN%IAL
&UILDING %ORPORATION v. RUDLIN INTERNATIONAL %ORPORATION, 43.a=. G.R. No.
16(186.Oc3o>4r (, !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Probable Cause] A finding of pro(a(le cause does not require an inquiry into
whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that there is a reasona(le (elief
that the act or o&ission co&plained of constitutes the offense charged. MA. IMELDA PINEDA-NG V.
PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No. 18'33. Nov4A>4r 1, !"1"
Evidence [Presu'*tion of 4nnocence] % Although 1urisprudence provides that the testi&ony of a single
witness% if credi(le and positive% is sufficient to produce a conviction% such is not enough to overturn the
constitutional &andate of presu&ption of innocence. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. MARIO
VILLANUEVA &AGA, G.R. No. 18'8((, Nov4A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [5rave Abuse of Discretion] % In the context of said special civil actions% it has (een
consistently held that grave a(use of discretion i&plies such capricious and whi&sical exercise of
1udg&ent as to a&ount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perfor& a duty en1oined (y
law% or to act at all in conte&plation of law% as where the power is exercised in an ar(itrary and despotic
&anner (y reason of passion or personal hostility. NELSON IMPERIAL, ET AL. VS. MARI%EL M.
)OSON, ET AL.?SANTOS O. #RAN%IS%O V. SPOUSES GERARD AND MARI%EL )OSON
NELSON?IMPERIAL, ET AL. VS. $ILARION %. #ELI5, ET AL., G.R. No. 16""67?G.R. Mo. 17"(1"?G.R.
No. 1716!!, Nov4A>4r 17, !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Double eo*ardy] - 5he court ruled that prior conviction or aquittal of Rec*less
I&prudence (ars su(sequent prosecution for the sa&e quasi-offense. Reason and precedent (oth coincide
in that once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of rec*less i&prudence% the accused &ay not (e
prosecuted again for that sa&e act. )ASON IVLER Y AGUILAR V. $ON. MARIA RO,ENA MODESTO-
SAN PEDRO, ET%. AND EVANGELINE PON%E, G.R. No. 17!716, Nov4A>4r 17, !"1"
Civil Procedure [ud#'ent] - A 1udg&ent &ust (e written in the official language% personally and
directly prepared (y the 1udge and signed (y hi& and shall contain clearly and distinctly a state&ent of
the facts and the law upon which it is (ased. MONI%O V. )A%O&, ET AL. V. SANDIGAN&AYAN, ET AL.,
G.R. No. 16!!"6, Nov4A>4r 17, !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Plea of 5uilt] - 5he 'upre&e Court held that the purpose of the searching inquiry
of the trial court -to ascertain the voluntariness of the plea of guilt of the accused. is Nnot only to satisfy
the trial 1udge hi&self (ut also to aid the 'upre&e Court in deter&ining whether the accused really and
truly understood and co&prehended the &eaning% full significance and consequences of his plea.
PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. PRIN%E #RAN%IS%O Y 0A#E, G.R. No. 1'!818, Nov4A>4r 17,
!"1"
Civil Procedure [(co*e of Review of (u*re'e Court] - 3erily% the evaluation and cali(ration of the
evidence necessarily involves consideration of factual issues , an exercise that is not appropriate for a
petition for review on c4r3:orar: under Rule 45. 5his rule provides that the parties &ay raise only
questions of law% (ecause the 'upre&e Court is not a trier of facts. Benerally% the Court is not duty-
(ound to analyIe and weigh again the evidence introduced in% and considered (y% the tri(unals (elow.
6hen supported (y su(stantial evidence% the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and (inding on the
parties and are not reviewa(le (y this Court% unless the case falls under any of the following recogniIed
exceptions. SPS. ELISEO SEVILLA AND ERNA SEVILLA V. $ON. %OURT O# APPEALS, ET AL, G.R.
No. 1"!8(, Nov4A>4r !!, !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Preli'inary 4nvesti#ation] - nder the procedure for preli&inary investigation
provided in 'ection >% Rule !!0 of the Revised Rules of Cri&inal $rocedure% as a&ended% in case the
investigating prosecutor conducts a hearing where there are facts and issues to (e clarified fro& a party or
witness% NOtLhe parties can (e present at the hearing (ut without the right to exa&ine or cross-exa&ine.
5hey &ay% however% su(&it to the investigating officer questions which &ay (e as*ed to the party or
witness concerned.K :ence% the non-referral (y the ;$ to the C;7 of the &otion for reconsideration of
respondent% in the exercise of its discretion% did not violate petitioners right to due process. $EIRS O#
T$E LATE NESTOR TRIA V. ATTY. EPI#ANIA O&IAS, G.R. No. 17887, Nov4A>4r !(, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Certiorari] - 5he court finds the petition to (e &eritorious. In cases when the
aggrieved party is questioning the ;ffice of the ;&(uds&ans finding of lac* of pro(a(le cause% as in this
case% there is li*ewise the re&edy of certiorari under Rule 95 to (e filed with this Court and not with the
Court of Appeals. NI%EAS M. &ELONGILOT V. ROLANDO S. %UA, ET AL., G.R. No. 16"'33.
Nov4A>4r !(, !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Aail] % 6hether (ail is a &atter of right or discretion% a hearing for a petition for
(ail is required in order for the court to consider the guidelines set forth in 'ection "% Rule !!4 of the
Rules of Court in fixing the a&ount of (ail. Aven if the prosecution fails to adduce evidence in
opposition to an application for (ail of an accused% the court &ay still require the prosecution to answer
questions in order to ascertain% not only the strength of the 'tateHs evidence% (ut also the adequacy of the
a&ount of (ail. LORNA M. VILLANUEVA V. )UDGE APOLINARIO M. &UAYA, A.M. No. RT)-"8-!131.
Nov4A>4r !!, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Effect of Levy] - It is settled that execution is enforced (y the fact of levy and sale.
5he result of such execution was that title over the su(1ect property was vested i&&ediately in the
purchaser su(1ect only to the 'pouses Chings right to redee& the property within the period provided for
(y law. 5he right acquired (y the purchaser at an execution sale is inchoate and does not (eco&e
a(solute until after the expiration of the rede&ption period without the right of rede&ption having (een
exercised. 8ut inchoate though it (e% it is% li*e any other right% entitled to protection and &ust (e
respected until extinguished (y rede&ption. 'ince% the 'pouses Ching failed to redee& the su(1ect
property within the period allowed (y law% they have (een divested of their rights over the property. SPS.
AL#REDO AND EN%ARNA%ION %$ING V. #AMILY SAVINGS &AN* AND S$ERI## O# MANILA ?
AL#REDO %$ING V. #AMILY SAVINGS &AN* AND T$E S$ERI## O# MANILA, G.R. No. 16783
a12 G.R. No. 188(8", Nov4A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [(u''ary ud#'ent] - 5here can (e no dou(t that the partial su&&ary 1udg&ent
envisioned (y the Rules is an interlocutory order that was never &eant to (e treated separately fro& the
&ain case. As we explained in Buevarra v. Court of Appeals<
It will (e noted that the 1udg&ent in question is a Npartial su&&ary 1udg&ent.K It was rendered only with
respect to the private respondents first and second causes of action alleged in their co&plaint. It was not
intended to cover the other prayers in the said co&plaint% nor the supple&entary counterclai& filed (y the
petitioners against the private respondents% nor the third-party co&plaint filed (y the petitioners against
the 'ecurity 8an* and 5rust Co&pany. A partial su&&ary 1udg&ent Nis not a final or appeala(le
1udg&ent.K -+oran% 3ol. 0% !"#? Adition% p. !="% citing several cases.. NIt is &erely a pre-trial
ad1udication that said issues in the case shall (e dee&ed esta(lished for the trial of the case.K -Grancisco%
Rules of Court% 3ol. II% p. 40".. P$ILIPPINE &USINESS &AN* V. #ELIPE %$UA, G.R. No.
1788''.Nov4A>4r 1, !"1"
(*ecial Civil Actions [4n1unction] - Gro& 'ec. 5 Rule 5= it can (e inferred that two requisites &ust
exist to warrant the issuance of an in1unctive relief% na&ely< -!. the existence of a clear and un&ista*a(le
right that &ust (e protected/ and -0. an urgent and para&ount necessity for the writ to prevent serious
da&age. P$IL P$ARMA,EALT$, IN%. V. P#I0ER, IN%. AND P#I0ER .P$IL./ IN%., G.R. No.
16771, Nov4A>4r 17, !"1"
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] , 5he Court agrees when the petitioner ta*es exception to the CA ruling
that she co&&itted a procedural gaffe in see*ing the annul&ent of the writ of execution% the auction sale%
and the certificate of sale. 5he issue on the con1ugal nature of the property% she insists% can (e ad1udicated
(y the executing court/ thus% the R5C correctly gave due course to her &otion. 'he asserts that it was
error for the CA to propose the filing of a separate case to vindicate her clai&. EVANGELINE D. IMANI,
V. METROPOLITAN &AN* - TRUST %OMPANY, G.R. No. 187"!3. Nov4A>4r 17, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Consolidation] % 'ection !. Consolidation. , 6hen actions involving a co&&on
question of law or fact are pending (efore the court% it &ay order a 1oint hearing or trial of any or all the
&atters in issue in the actions/ it &ay order all the actions consolidated/ and it &ay &a*e such orders
concerning proceedings therein as &ay tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. STEEL %ORPORATION
O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. E7UITA&LE P%I &AN*, IN%.?DEG-DEUTS%$E INVESTITIONS-UND
ENT,I%*LUNGSGESSELS %$A#T M&$ VS. E7UITA&LE P%I &AN*, IN%, G.R. No. 1'"(6!G.R. No.
1'"38. Nov4A>4r 17, !"1".
Civil Procedure [A**eals] - In any case% even if the appeal was filed one day late% the sa&e should have
(een entertained (y the 4DRC. Indeed% the appeal &ust (e perfected within the statutory or regle&entary
period. 5his is not only &andatory% (ut also 1urisdictional. Gailure to perfect the appeal on ti&e renders
the assailed decision final and executory and deprives the appellate court or (ody of the legal authority to
alter the final 1udg&ent% &uch less entertain the appeal. :owever% this Court has% ti&e and again% ruled
that% in exceptional cases% a (elated appeal &ay (e given due course if greater in1ustice will (e visited
upon the party should the appeal (e denied. 5he Court has allowed this extraordinary &easure even at the
expense of sacrificing order and efficiency if only to serve the greater principles of su(stantial 1ustice and
equity. GOVERNMENT SERVI%E INSURAN%E SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LA&OR
RELATIONS %OMMISSION .NLR%/, DIONISIO &ANLASAN, AL#REDO T. TA#ALLA, TELES#ORO D.
RU&IA, ROGELIO A. ALVARE0, DOMINADOR A. ES%O&AL, AND ROSAURO PANIS,
RESPONDENTS., G.R. No. 18""( Nov4A>4r 17, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Raisin# of $ew 4ssues] - 5he rule in pleadings and practice is that that no new issue in
a case can (e raised in a pleading which (y due diligence could have (een raised in previous pleadings.
5he very writ of preli&inary in1unction set aside (y the CA could no longer lie for the acts sought to (e
en1oined had already (een acco&plished or consu&&ated. 5he CepAd already prohi(ited $ineda fro&
operating the school canteen. As correctly ruled (y the CA in its questioned decision% since $ineda had
ceased the operation of the school canteen since 0??5% the R5Cs preli&inary writ should (e set aside as
there was nothing &ore to en1oin. MI%$ELLE I. PINEDA, PETITIONER,V. %OURT O# APPEALS
.#ORMER NINT$ DIVISION/ AND T$E DEPARTMENT O# EDU%ATION, REPRESENTED &Y
ASSISTANT SE%RETARY %AMILO MIGUEL M. MONTESA,RESPONDENTS, G.R. No. 1816(3,
Nov4A>4r 17, !"1"
Civil Procedure [ud#'ent] - As a rule% 1udg&ents are sufficiently served when they are delivered
personally% or through registered &ail to the counsel of record% or (y leaving the& in his office
with his cler* or with a person having charge thereof. After service% a 1udg&ent or order which is
not appealed nor &ade su(1ect of a &otion for reconsideration within the prescri(ed !5-day
period attains finality. SPOUSES ERNESTO AND VI%ENTA TOPA%IO, AS REPRESENTED &Y
T$EIR ATTORNEY-IN-#A%T MARILOU TOPA%IO-NAR%ISO, V. &AN%O #ILIPINO SAVINGS
AND MORTGAGE &AN*., G.R. No. 176((, Nov4A>4r 17, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Aelated &ilin# of Answer] - 5he rule is that a defendantHs answer should (e ad&itted
where it is filed (efore a declaration of default and no pre1udice is caused to the plaintiff. Indeed% where
the answer is filed (eyond the regle&entary period (ut (efore the defendant is declared in default and
there is no showing that defendant intends to delay the case% the answer should (e ad&itted. SAN PEDRO
%INEPLE5 PROPERTIES, IN%., PETITIONER, V. $EIRS O# MANUEL $UMADA ENADO,
r4@r4<41342 >; VIRGILIO A. &OTE, RESPONDENTS., G.R. No. 1'"7( Nov4A>4r 17, !"1"
Civil Procedure [4''utability of ud#'ents] - A decision that has acquired finality (eco&es
i&&uta(le and unaltera(le% and &ay no longer (e &odified in any respect% even if the &odification is
&eant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law% and whether it will (e &ade (y the court that
rendered it or (y the highest court of the land. ;nce a 1udg&ent or order (eco&es final% all the issues
(etween the parties are dee&ed resolved and laid to rest. 4o additions can (e &ade to the decision% and no
other action can (e ta*en on it% except to order its execution. VI%TORIA L. TE$ V. NATIVIDAD TE$
TAN, TE$ *I TIAT, a12 )A%INTA SIA, G.R. No. 181'6 Nov4A>4r 11, !"1"
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - It is a (asic rule that 1urisdiction over the su(1ect &atter is deter&ined
(y the allegations in the co&plaint. It is deter&ined exclusively (y the Constitution and the law. It cannot
(e conferred (y the voluntary act or agree&ent of the parties% or acquired through or waived% enlarged or
di&inished (y their act or o&ission% nor conferred (y the acquiescence of the court. 6ell to e&phasiIe% it
is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule% this &atter (eing legislative in
character. )OSE MENDO0A V. NAR%ISO GERMINO a12 &ENIGNO GERMINO, G.R. No. 16676
Nov4A>4r !!, !"1"
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] - A sheriff has no authority to levy on execution upon the property of any
person other than that of the 1udg&ent de(tor. If he does so% the writ of execution affords hi& no
1ustification% for such act is not in o(edience to the &andate of the writ. A sheriff oversteps his authority
when he disregards the distinct and separate personality of the corporation fro& that of an officer and
stoc*holder of the corporation (y levying on the property of the for&er in an action against the latter only.
A corporation is clothed with a personality separate and distinct fro& that of its stoc*holders% and that it
&ay not (e held lia(le for the personal inde(tedness of its stoc*holders. ANTONIO T. RAMAS-
UYPIT%$ING )R. V. VIN%ENT $ORA%E MAGALONA, S$ERI## IV, REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT,
&RAN%$ (6, &A%OLOD %ITY, AM. No. P-"7-!37' Nov4A>4r 17, !"1"
(*ecial Civil Actions [E1ect'ent] - As a general rule% e1ect&ent proceedings% due to its su&&ary nature%
are not suspended or their resolution held in a(eyance despite the pendency of a civil action regarding
ownership. SPOUSES LETI%IA - )OSE ERVIN A&AD, SPS. ROSARIO AND ER,IN %OLLANTES,
SPS. RI%ARDO AND #ELITA ANN, SPS. ELSIE AND ROGER LAS PIDAS, LINDA LAYDA,
RESTITUTO MARIANO, SPS. ARNOLD AND MIRIAM MER%INES, SPS. LU%ITA AND ,EN%ESLAO
A. RAPA%ON, SPS. ROMEO AND EMILYN $ULLE0A, LU0 MIPANTAO, SPS. $ELEN AND
ANT$ONY TEVES, MARLENE TUA0ON, SPS. 0ALDO AND MIA SALES, SPS. )OSE#INA AND )OEL
Y&ERA, SPS. LINDA AND )ESSIE %A&ATUAN, SPS. ,ILMA AND MARIO ANDRADA, SPS.
RAYMUNDO AND ARSENIA LELIS, #REDY AND SUSANA PILONEO V. #IL-$OMES REALTY a12
DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION a12 MAGDI,ANG REALTY %ORPORATION, G.R. No. 18'!3'
Nov4A>4r !(, !"1"
Evidence [Credibility of Witness] - As a rule% a(sent any evidence showing any reason or &otive for
prosecution witnesses to per1ure% the logical conclusion is that no such i&proper &otive exists% and their
testi&onies are thus worthy of full faith and credit. Indeed% paraffin tests% in general% have (een rendered
inconclusive (y this Court. 'cientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test has proved
extre&ely unrelia(le. It can only esta(lish the presence or a(sence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand/ still%
the test alone cannot deter&ine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a
firear&. 5he presence of nitrates should (e ta*en only as an indication of a possi(ility or even of a
pro(a(ility (ut not of infalli(ility that a person has fired a gun. ROMEO ILISAN ; PIA&OL V. PEOPLE
O# T$E P$ILIPP$INES
G.R. No. 17'(87 Nov4A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Defenses] - 5he sweetheart defense is a &uch-a(used defense that rashly derides the
intelligence of the Court. 8eing an affir&ative defense% the invocation of a love affair &ust (e supported
(y convincing proof. In this case% apart fro& his self-serving assertions% Ca(anilla offered no sufficient
and convincing evidence to su(stantiate his clai& that they were lovers. PEOPLE O# T$E
P$ILIPPINES V. ARSENIO %A&ANILLA, $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?1ov4A>4r!"1"?1883'.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 1883',
Nov4A>4r 17, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Record on A**eal] - 5he filing of a record on appeal was not necessary since no other
&atter re&ained to (e heard and deter&ined (y the trial court after it issued the appealed order granting
respondents petition for cancellation of (irth record and change of surna&e in the civil registry.
REPU&LI% O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. NASAIDA SUMERA NIS$INA, ET AL., $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?1ov4A>4r!"1"?186"3.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
186"3. Nov4A>4r 1, !"1"
CivilProcedure [Relief fro' ud#'ent] - A petition for relief fro& 1udg&ent% if allowed (y the Rules
and not a prohi(ited pleading% should (e filed with and resolved (y the court in the sa&e case fro& which
the petition arose. A&U&A*AR A. A#DAL AND #ATIMA A. A#DAL V. ROMEO %ARLOS, $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?17337'.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
17337', D4c4A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [$ewly Discovered Evidence] - 5he requisites for Nnewly discovered evidenceK are< !.
the evidence was discovered after trial -in this case% after investigation./ 0. such evidence could not have
(een discovered and produced during the trial even with the exercise of reasona(le diligence/ and >. it is
&aterial% not &erely cu&ulative% corro(orative% or i&peaching% and is of such weight that% if ad&itted%
will pro(a(ly change the 1udg&ent. MI%$AEL SYIA%O V. EUGENE ONG, $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?17'!8!-83.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No<.
17'!8!-83, D4c4A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [C)an#e of Address] - 5he filing of a notice of forwarding address with the ;ffice of
the $ost&aster can never (e a su(stitute to filing a notice of change of address with the court. ARRA
REALTY %ORPORATION, ET AL. V. PA%ES INDUSTRIAL %ORPORATION, $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?16'761.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
16'761. D4c4A>4r 1, !"1"
Provisional Re'edies [Preli'inary 4n1unction] - Rule 5= of the Rules of Court clearly lays the (urden
on the shoulders of the petitioners% as the parties against who& the 5R; was issued% to show cause why
the application for the writ of preli&inary in1unction should not issue. %ITY GOVERNMENT O#
&UTUAN AND %ITY MAYOR LEONIDES T$ERESA PLA0A, ET AL. V. %ONSOLIDATED
&ROAD%ASTING SYSTEM .%&S/, IN%., ET AL., $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?1731.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
1731, D4c4A>4r 1, !"1"
Evidence [Co'*etent Evidence] % 6hile a &arriage certificate is considered the pri&ary evidence of a
&arital union% it is not regarded as the sole and exclusive evidence of &arriage. 7urisprudence teaches that
the fact of &arriage &ay (e proven (y relevant evidence ot)er t)an the &arriage certificate. :ence% even
a persons (irth certificate &ay (e recogniIed as co&petent evidence of the &arriage (etween his parents.
MAY D. ADONUEVO, ET AL. V. INTESTATE O# RODOL#O G. )ALANDONI, REPRESENTED &Y
&ERNARDINO G. )ALANDONI AS SPE%IAL ADMINISTRATOR, $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?178!!1.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 178!!1,
D4c4A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Cause of Action] - A cause of action is the act or o&ission (y which a party
violates the right of another% entitling the in1ured party to relief. Its existence is deter&ined fro& the
allegations in the co&plaint. DENNIS MAN0ANAL AND &AGUIO %OUNTRY %LU& V. RAMON *.
ILUSORIO, $YPERLIN* Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?18'311.h3AB O3
BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 18'311, D4c4A>4r 6, !"1"
Provision Re'edies [Preli'inary 4n1unction] - 'ince the R5C had no 1urisdiction over the $etition of
8G :o&es and $6CC in Civil Case 4o. ?>-?!5!% then it was also devoid of any authority to act on the
application of 8G :o&es and $6CC for the issuance of a writ of preli&inary in1unction contained in the
sa&e $etition. 5he ancillary and provisional re&edy of preli&inary in1unction cannot exist except only as
an incident of an independent action or proceeding. &# $OMES IN%, ET AL. V. MANILA ELE%TRI%
%OMPANY, $YPERLIN* Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?1716!(.h3AB O3
BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 1716!(. D4c4A>4r 6, !"1"
(u''ary Procedure - If the purpose of the petition is &erely to correct the clerical errors which are
visi(le to the eye or o(vious to the understanding% the court &ay% under a su&&ary procedure% issue an
order for the correction of a &ista*e. :owever% as repeatedly construed9 changes which &ay affect the
civil status fro& legiti&ate to illegiti&ate% as well as sex% are su(stantial and controversial alterations
which can only (e allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings depending upon the nature of the
issues involved. REPU&LI% O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. MERLYN L. MER%ADERA, T$ROUG$ $ER
ATTORNEY-IN-#A%T, EVELYN M. OGA, $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?186"!7.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 186"!7,
D4c4A>4r 8, !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Due Process] - NCenial of due process &eans the total lac* of opportunity to (e heard or to
have ones day in court. 5here is no denial of due process where a party has (een given an opportunity to (e heard
and to present his case.K ENRI7UE MIGUEL L. LA%SON V. M) LA%SON DEVELOPMENT %OMPANY,
IN, $YPERLIN* Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?1688(".h3AB O3
BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 1688(, D4c4A>4r 8, !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Double eo*ardy] - N6e reiterate% ti&e and again% that 1eopardy does not attach in
favor of the accused on account of an order sustaining a &otion to quash. +ore specifically% the granting
of a &otion to quash anchored on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense is Nnot a
(ar to another prosecution for the sa&e offense.K MYRNA P. ANTONE V. LEO &ERONILLAR,
$YPERLIN* Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?1838!(.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R.
No. 1838!(, D4c4A>4r 8, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Esto**el] - )5he essential ele&ents of estoppel are< -!. conduct a&ounting to false
representation or conceal&ent of &aterial facts or at least calculated to convey the i&pression that the
facts are otherwise than% and inconsistent with% those which the party su(sequently atte&pts to assert/ -0.
intent% or at least expectation% that this conduct shall (e acted upon (y% or at least influence% the other
party/ and% ->. *nowledge% actual or constructive% of the real facts.) )O%ELYN M. TOLEDO V.
MARILOU M. $YDEN, $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?17!13'.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
17!13', D4c4A>4r 8, !"1"
Civil Procedure [&oru' ()o**in#] - Goru& shopping is the institution of two or &ore actions or
proceedings grounded on the sa&e cause% on the supposition that one or the other court would render a
favora(le disposition. It exists when the ele&ents of litis pendentia are present or where a final 1udg&ent
in one case will a&ount to res 1udicata in another. ASIA UNITED &AN*, ET AL. V. GOODLAND
%OMPANY, IN%. $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?1'"!31.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
1'"!31, D4c4A>4r 8, !"1"
Provisional Re'edies [Preli'inary Attac)'ent] - If the property sought to (e attached is
in custodia legis% a copy of the writ of attach&ent shall (e filed with the proper court or quasi-1udicial
agency% and notice of the attach&ent served upon the custodian of such property. $roperty in the custody
of the law cannot (e interfered with without the custody of the proper court and properly legally attached
is property in custodia legis. &AN*GO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS V. E5E%UTIVE )UDGE ENRI%O A.
LAN0ANAS, ET AL, $YPERLIN* Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?RT)-"6-
1'''.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBA.M. No. RT)-"6-1''', D4c4A>4r 8, !"1"
Civil Procedure [(co*e of Reviw by (u*re'e Court] - Questions of fact &ay not (e raised unless the
case falls under any of the following exceptions< -!. when the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation% sur&ises% or con1ectures/ -0. when the inference &ade is &anifestly &ista*en% a(surd% or
i&possi(le/ ->. when there is grave a(use of discretion/ -4. when the 1udg&ent is (ased on a
&isapprehension of facts/ -5. when the findings of fact are conflicting/ -9. when in &a*ing its findings
the Court of Appeals went (eyond the issues of the case% or its findings are contrary to the ad&issions of
(oth the appellant and the appellee/ -#. w)en t)e findin#s are contrary to t)ose of t)e trial court/ -=.
when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are (ased/ -". when
the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners &ain and reply (riefs are not disputed (y the
respondent/ and -!?. when the findings of fact are pre&ised on the supposed a(sence of evidence and
contradicted (y the evidence on record. 5his case clearly falls under one of the exceptions and after a
careful review of the facts of the case. #RAN%IS%O TAY%O, SU&STITUTED &Y LE%RESIA TAY%O
AND NOEL TAY%O V. $EIRS O# %ON%EP%ION TAY%O-#LORES, NAMELY LU%ELI #. DIA0, ET
AL., $YPERLIN* Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?1686'!.h3AB O3
BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 1686'!, D4c4A>4r 13, !"1"
Evidence [Positive 4dentification] - 5o (e accepta(le% the positive identification &ust &eet at least two
criteria< Girst% the positive identification of the offender &ust co&e fro& a credi(le witness. 'he is
credi(le who can (e trusted to tell the truth% usually (ased on past experiences with her. :er word has% to
one who *nows her% its weight in gold. And second% the witness story of what she personally saw &ust
(e (elieva(le% not inherently contrived. A witness who testifies a(out so&ething she never saw runs into
inconsistencies and &a*es (ewildering clai&s. ANTONIO LE)ANO VS. PEOPLE O# T$E
P$ILIPPINES ? PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. $U&ERT )E##REY P. ,E&&, ET AL,
$YPERLIN* Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?17638'.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R.
No. 17638' ? G.R. No. 17686(, D4c4A>4r 1(, !"1"
Civil Procedure [(co*e of Reviw by (u*re'e Court] % 5his Court will not distur( the conclusions
arrived at (y the CAR and the appellate court when these are well-supported (y the evidence. RAUL
PALOMATA V. NESTOR %OLMENARES, ET AL., $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?17(!1.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
17(!1. D4c4A>4r 1, !"1"
(*ecial Civil Actions [,anda'us] % 5he re&edy of &anda&us% as an extraordinary writ% lies only to
co&pel an officer to perfor& a &inisterial duty% not a discretionary one. +anda&us will not issue to
control the exercise of discretion (y a pu(lic officer where the law i&poses upon hi& the duty to exercise
his 1udg&ent in reference to any &anner in which he is required to act% (ecause it is his 1udg&ent that is
to (e exercised and not that of the court. 5he only ti&e the discretion of the prosecutor will stand review
(y &anda&us is when the prosecutor gravely a(uses his discretion. ERNESTO MAR%ELO, )R. AND
LAURO LLAMES V. RA#AEL R. VILLORDON, ASSISTANT %ITY PROSE%UTOR O# 7UE0ON %ITY,
$YPERLIN* Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?173"81.h3A=B O3
BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 173"81, D4c4A>4r 1, !"1"
Cri'inal Procedure [Probable Cause] - $ro(a(le cause need not (e (ased on clear and convincing
evidence of guilt% as the investigating officer acts upon reasona(le (eliefMpro(a(le cause i&plies
pro(a(ility of guilt and requires &ore than (are suspicion (ut less than evidence which would 1ustify a
conviction. ARNEL U. TY, ET AL. V. NATIONAL &UREAU O# INVESTIGATION SUPERVISING
AGENT MARVIN E. DE )EMIL,ET AL., $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?18!1(7.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
18!1(7. D4c4A>4r 1, !"1"
(*ecial Civil Actions [E3*ro*riation] - It is settled that 1ust co&pensation is to (e ascertained as of the
ti&e of the ta*ing% which usually coincides with the co&&ence&ent of the expropriation proceedings.
6here the institution of the action precedes entry into the property% the 1ust co&pensation is to (e
ascertained as of the ti&e of the filing of the co&plaint. NATIONAL PO,ER %ORPORATION V.
TERESITA DIATO-&ERNAL, $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?18"'7'.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
18"'7'. D4c4A>4r 1, !"1"
(*ecial Civil Actions [E1ect'ent] - As registered owners of the lots in question% the private
respondents have a right to e1ect any person illegally occupying their property. 5his right is
i&prescripti(le. Aven if it (e supposed that they were aware of the petitionersH occupation of the property%
and regardless of the length of that possession% the lawful owners have a right to de&and the return of
their property at any ti&e as long as the possession was unauthoriIed or &erely tolerated% if at all. 5his
right is never (arred (y laches. SPOUSES MAR%OS R. ESMA7UEL AND VI%TORIA SORDEVILLA V.
MARIA %OPRADA, $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?1!(!3.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
1!(!3, D4c4A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [4ndis*ensable Party] - A person is not an indispensa(le party if his interest in the
controversy or su(1ect &atter is separa(le fro& the interest of the other parties% so that it will not
necessarily (e directly or in1uriously affected (y a decree which does co&plete 1ustice (etween the&.
Also% a person is not an indispensa(le party if his presence would &erely per&it co&plete relief (etween
hi& and those already parties to the action% or if he has no interest in the su(1ect &atter of the action. It is
not a sufficient reason to declarea person to (e an indispensa(le party that his presence will avoid
&ultiple litigation. &EATRI0 SIO* PING TANG V. SU&I% &AY DISTRI&UTION, IN%., $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?16!7.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
16!7, D4c4A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Prescri*tive Period] - RespondentsH act of filing their action for reconveyance within
the ten-year prescriptive period does not constitute an unreasona(le delay in asserting their right. 5he
Court has ruled that% unless reasons of inequita(le proportions are adduced% a delay within the prescriptive
period is sanctioned (y law and is not considered to (e a delay that would (ar relief. Daches is recourse in
equity. Aquity% however% is applied only in the a(sence% never in contravention% of statutory RAMON &.
&RITO, SR. V. SEVERINO D. DIANALA, ET AL. , $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?171717.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
171717. D4c4A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [Certification a#ainst $on%&oru' ()o**in#] % It (ears reiterating that the require&ent
of the certification of non-foru& shopping is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant shall not (e
allowed to pursue si&ultaneous re&edies in different fora% as this practice is detri&ental to an orderly
1udicial procedure. :owever% the Court has relaxed% under 1ustifia(le circu&stances% the rule requiring
the su(&ission of such certification considering that% although it is o(ligatory% it is not 1urisdictional. 4ot
(eing 1urisdictional% it can (e relaxed under the rule of su(stantial co&pliance. SOUT$ %OTA&ATO
%OMMUNI%ATIONS %ORPORATION, ET AL. V. $ON. PATRI%IA A. STO. TOMAS, ET AL.,
$YPERLIN* Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?1733!6.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R.
No. 1733!6. D4c4A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [4ndis*ensable Party] - 5he rule is settled that the non-1oinder of indispensa(le parties
is not a ground for the dis&issal of an action. 5he re&edy is to i&plead the non-party clai&ed to (e
indispensa(le. $arties &ay (e added (y order of the court on &otion of the party or on its own initiative at
any stage of the action andJor at such ti&es as are 1ust. If petitioner refuses to i&plead an indispensa(le
party despite the order of the court% the latter &ay dis&iss the co&plaintJpetition for the
plaintiffsJpetitionerHs failure to co&ply therewith. IN T$E MATTER O# T$E $EIRS$IP .INTESTATE
ESTATES/ O# T$E LATE $ERMOGENES RODRIGUE0, ET AL. VS. )AIME M. RO&LES, $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?18!6(.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 18!6(,
D4c4A>4r 1, !"1"
Civil Procedure [(co*e of Review of (u*re'e Court] - A petition for review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court should cover only questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewa(le. A question of
law exists when the dou(t centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts. A question of fact exists
when the dou(t centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. SPOUSES REVELO VILLAMAR AND
%ORA0ON PENULIAR-VILLAMAR V. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES , $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1"?24c4A>4r!"1"?1786!.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
1786!. D4c4A>4r 8, !"1"
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] % 'ection " of Rule >" states that when the 1udg&ent o(ligee is not present
at the ti&e the 1udg&ent o(ligor &a*es the pay&ent% the sheriff is authoriIed to receive it. :owever% the
&oney received &ust (e re&itted to the cler* of court within the sa&e day or% if not practica(le% deposited
in a fiduciary account with the nearest govern&ent depository (an*. Avidently% sheriffs are not per&itted
to retain the &oney in their possession (eyond the day when the pay&ent was &ade or to deliver the
&oney collected directly to the 1udg&ent o(ligee. MA. %$EDNA ROMERO v PA%I#I%O &.
VILLAROSA, )R., Sh4r:66 IV, R4F:o1a= Tr:a= %o8r3, &ra1ch 17, Pa=oA@o1, L4;34, A.M. No. P-11-!'13
A@r:= 1!, !"11
Civil Procedure [Real Party%in%4nterest] - It is a general rule that every action &ust (e prosecuted or defended in
the na&e of the real party-in-interest% who stands to (e (enefited or in1ured (y the 1udg&ent in the suit% or the party
entitled to the avails of the suit. STE#AN TITO MIDO0A v. $ON. %ESAR TOMAS LOPE0, :1 h:< o66:c:a= ca@ac:3;
a< Ma;or a12 %ha:r, Loo1 %ocE@:3 Ar41a &:22:1F a12 AHar2< %oAA:3344, G.R. No. 17"'1( A@r:= 13, !"11
Writ of A'*aro - In other words% co&&and responsi(ility &ay (e loosely applied in a&paro cases in
order to identify those accounta(le individuals that have the power to effectively i&ple&ent whatever
processes an a&paro court would issue. In such application% the a&paro court does not i&pute cri&inal
responsi(ility (ut &erely pinpoint the superiors it considers to (e in the (est position to protect the rights
of the aggrieved party. IN T$E MATTER O# T$E PETITION #OR T$E ,RIT O# AMPARO AND
$A&EAS DATA IN #AVOR O# NORIEL $. RODRIGUE0, NORIEL $. RODRIGUE0 v<. GLORIA
MA%APAGAL-ARROYO, 43. a=., G.R. No. 1'18". Nov4A>4r 1, !"11 - IN T$E MATTER O# T$E
PETITION #OR T$E ,RIT O# AMPARO AND $A&EAS DATA IN #AVOR O# NORIEL $.
RODRIGUE0, POLI%E DIR. GEN. )ESUS A. VERSO0A, 43. a=. v<. NORIEL $. RODRIGUE0 , G.R. No.
1'316". Nov4A>4r 1, !"11
Civil Procedure [&ailure to (tate a Cause of Action] - 5he ;rder of the R5C dis&issing the co&plaint
against respondent is a final order (ecause it ter&inates the proceedings against respondent (ut it falls
within exception -g. of the Rule since the case involves two defendants% Inter&odal and herein respondent
and the co&plaint against Inter&odal is still pending. It is settled that the existence of a cause of action is
deter&ined (y the allegations in the co&plaint. In resolving a &otion to dis&iss (ased on the failure to
state a cause of action% only the facts alleged in the co&plaint &ust (e considered. 5he test is whether the
court can render a valid 1udg&ent on the co&plaint (ased on the facts alleged and the prayer as*ed for.
Indeed% the ele&entary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the co&plaint alleges facts
which if true would 1ustify the relief de&anded. ;nly ulti&ate facts and not legal conclusions or
evidentiary facts% which should not (e alleged in the co&plaint in the first place% are considered for
purposes of applying the test. D.M. #ERRER - ASSO%IATES %ORPORATION V. UNIVERSITY O#
SANTO TOMAS, G.R. No. 18'('6, #4>r8ar; 1, !"1!
Civil Procedure [A**eals] - Appeals fro& 1udg&ents and final orders of quasi-1udicial agencies are
now required to (e (rought to the CA% under the require&ents and conditions set forth in Rule 4>. nder
the rule% appeals fro& their 1udg&ents and final orders are now (rought to the CA on a verified petition
for review. GON0ALO PUYAT - SONS, IN%. V. RU&EN AL%AIDE .24c4a<42/, <8><3:38342 >; GLORIA
AL%AIDE, r4@r4<413a3:v4 o6 3h4 #arA4r-&4146:c:ar:4<, G.R. No. 167'!, #4>r8ar; 1, !"1!
Civil Procedure [!erification and Certification a#ainst $on%&oru' ()o**in#] - It is clear
fro& the 4DRC Rules of $rocedure that appeals &ust (e verified and certified against foru&-shopping (y
the parties-in-interest the&selves. A corporation can only exercise its powers and transact its (usiness
through its (oard of directors and through its officers and agents when authoriIed (y a (oard resolution or
its (ylaws. 5he power of a corporation to sue and (e sued is exercised (y the (oard of directors. 5he
physical acts of the corporation% li*e the signing of docu&ents% can (e perfor&ed only (y natural persons
duly authoriIed for the purpose (y corporate (ylaws or (y a specific act of the (oard. 5he purpose of
verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and have
(een filed in good faith. ANTONIO P. SALENGA AND NATIONAL LA&OR RELATIONS %OMMISSION
V. %OURT O# APPEALS AND %LAR* DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION, G.R. No<. 17('(1, #4>r8ar;
1, !"1!
Evidence [Credibility of Witness] - 5he trial courts findings on the credi(ility of witnesses and of their
testi&onies are accorded the highest respect. 5he credi(ility of a rape victi& is not di&inished nor
i&paired (y &inor inconsistencies in her testi&ony PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. DIOSDADO
TU&AT Y VERSO0A, #4>r8ar; "1, !"1!, G.R. No. 183"'3
Evidence [6earsay] - Indeed% under the rules of evidence% a witness can testify only to those facts which
the witness *nows of his or her personal *nowledge% that is% which are derived fro& the witness own
perception.Conco&itantly% a witness &ay not testify on &atters which he or she &erely learned fro&
others either (ecause said witness was told or read or heard those &atters. 'uch testi&ony is considered
hearsay and &ay not (e received as proof of the truth of what the witness has learned. 5his is *nown as
the hearsay rule. MALAYAN INSURAN%E %O., IN%. V. RODELIO AL&ERTO AND ENRI%O AL&ERTO
REYES, , #4>r8ar; "1, !"1!, G.R. No. 1'(3!"
Provision Re'edies [Preli'inary 4n1unction] - A preli&inary in1unction is a provisional re&edy% an
ad1unct to the &ain case su(1ect to the latterHs outco&e. STRAD%OM %ORPORATION, PETITIONER, V.
$ONORA&LE $ILARIO L. LA7UI AS A%TING PRESIDING )UDGE O# T$E REGIONAL TRIAL
%OURT O# 7UE0ON %ITY,&RAN%$ '7 AND DTE%$ MANAGEMENT, IN%., RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 17!71!, March !1, !"1!
Evidence [4dentification of Evidence] - 5hat it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the
prohi(ited drug confiscated or recovered fro& the suspect is the very sa&e su(stance offered in court as
exhi(it. Its identity &ust (e esta(lished with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt.
PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, PLAINTI##-APPELLEE, V. %IPRIANO %ARDENAS Y GO#RERI%A,
A%%USED-APPELLANT, G.R. No. 1'"3(!, March !1, !"1!
Civil Procedure [(co*e of Review of (u*re'e Court] - 'ettled is the rule that in a petition for
review under Rule 45% only questions of law &ay (e raised. It is not this Courts function to analyIe or
weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings (elow% our 1urisdiction (eing li&ited
to reviewing only errors of law that &ay have (een co&&itted (y the lower court. 5he resolution of
factual issues is the function of the lower courts% whose findings on these &atters are received with
respect. NORMA DELOS REYES VDA. DEL PRADO, EULOGIA R. DEL PRADO, NORMITA R. DEL
PRADO AND RODELIA R. DEL PRADO, PETITIONERS, V. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT, G.R. No. 186"3", March !1, !"1!
Provisional Re'edies [Preli'inary 4n1unction] - A preli&inary in1unction% (eing a preservative
re&edy for the protection of su(stantive rights or interests% is not a cause of action in itself (ut &erely a
provisional re&edy% an ad1unct to a &ain suit. T$E IN%ORPORATORS O# MINDANAO INSTITUTE
IN%. AND T$E &OARD O# TRUSTEES O# MINDANAO INSTITUTE IN%., REPRESENTED &Y ENGR.
VI%TORIOSO D. UDAR&E, PETITIONERS, V. T$E UNITED %$UR%$ O# %$RIST IN T$E
P$ILIPPINES, A%TING T$ROUG$ AGUSAN DISTRI%T %ON#EREN%E UNITED %$UR%$ O#
%$RIST IN T$E P$ILIPPINES, REPRESENTED &Y REV. RODOL#O &ASLOT, RESPONDENT, G.R.
No. 17176, March !1, !"1!
Provisional Re'edies [Preli'inary 4n1unction] - Gor in1unction to issue% two requisites &ust concur<
first% there &ust (e a right to (e protected and second% the acts against which the in1unction is to (e
directed are violative of said right. )AIME S. PERE0, &OT$ IN $IS PERSONAL AND O##I%IAL
%APA%ITY AS %$IE#, MARI*INA DEMOLITION O##I%E, PETITIONER, V. SPOUSES #ORTUNITO
L. MADRONA AND YOLANDA &. PANTE, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 18((78, March !1, !"1!
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] - It is a settled rule that a writ of execution should strictly confor& to every
essential particular of the pro&ulgated 1udg&ent M as indicated in the dispositive portin -fallo.
thereto M since it is portion of the decision that actually a constitutes the resolution of the court. REG
%OMPLAINT #ILED &Y .RET./ M%T% )UDGE RODOL#O &. GAR%IA AGAINST 18
T$
DIVISION
%LER* O# %OURT ATTY. MAY #AIT$ L. TRUMATA-RE&OTIA%O, %OURT O# APPEALS, %E&U
%ITY., A.M. No. %A-1!-!-P, March !", !"1!
Provisional Re'edies [Preli'inary 4n1unction] % 6rit of preli&inary in1unction is issued to preserve
the status quo ante% upon the applicants showing of two i&portant requisite conditions% na&ely< -!. the
right to (e protected exists pri&a facie% and -0. the acts sought to (e en1oined are violative of that
right. P$ILIPPINE NATIONAL &AN*, PETITIONER, V. %ASTALLOY TE%$NOLOGY
%ORPORATION, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL %ORPORATION, ALINSU STEEL #OUNDRY
%ORPORATION, GLORIA %. NGO AND TOMAS %. NGO, )R., RESPONDENTS, G.R. No. 178367,
March 1', !"1!
Civil Procedure [Annul'ent of ud#'ent] - Annul&ent of 7udg&ent under Rule 4# of the Rules of
Court is a recourse equita(le in character and allowed only in exceptional cases where the ordinary
re&edies of new trial% appeal% petition for relief or other appropriate re&edies are no longer availa(le
through no fault of petitioner. P$ILIPPINE TOURISM AUT$ORITY, PETITIONER, V. P$ILIPPINE
GOL# DEVELOPMENT - E7UIPMENT, IN%., RESPONDENT, G.R. No. 1766!8, March 1', !"1!
Civil Procedure [E3ecution Pendin# A**eal] - Rule 40 grants the R5C residual 1urisdiction to order
execution pending appeal% so long as -!. the CA has not yet given due course to the petition% and -0. the
require&ents of 'ection 0% Rule >" are o(served. ALPA-P%M, IN%., PETITIONER, VS. VIN%ENT
&ULASAO, )ULIET &ULASAO AND SUSANA &ULASAO, $ONORA&LE )UDGE DANILO #.
%AMA%$O, AND T$E DEPUTY S$ERI## O# T$E REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT, LA TRINIDAD,
&ENGUET, RESPONDENTS, G.R. No. 1'71!(, March 1', !"1!
Civil Procedure [urisidiction] - Axecutive ;rder -A.;.. 4o. !??= vests upon the CIAC original and
exclusive 1urisdiction over disputes arising fro&% or connected with% contracts entered into (y parties
involved in construction in the $hilippines. nder 'ection !" of A.;. 4o. !??=% the ar(itral award of
CIAC )shall (e final and inappeala(le except on questions of law which shall (e appeala(le to the
'upre&eCourt. #.#. %RU0 - %O., IN%., PETITIONER, V. $R %ONSTRU%TION %ORP.,
RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 187!1, March 1(, !"1!
Civil Procedure [,odes of (ervice] - 5he Rules of Court has (een laid down to insure the orderly
conduct of litigation and to protect the su(stantive rights of all party litigants. It is for this reason that the
(asic rules on the &odes of service provided under Rule !> of the Rules of Court have (een &ade
&andatory and% hence% should (e strictly followed. ROGELIO A&ER%A, RODOL#O &ENOSA, NESTOR
&ODINO, NOEL ETA&AG, DANILO DELA #UENTE, &ELEN DIA0-#LORES, MANUEL MARIO
GU0MAN, ALAN )ASMINE0, ED,IN LOPE0, AL#REDO MANSOS, ALE5 MAR%ELINO, ELI0A&ET$
PROTA%IO-MAR%ELINO, )OSEP$ OLAYER, %ARLOS PALMA, MAR%O PALO, ROLANDO SALUTIN
&EN)AMIN SEGUNDO, ARTURO TA&ARA, ED,IN TULALIAN, AND RE&E%%A TULALIAN V. MA).
GEN. #A&IAN VER, %OL. #IDEL SINGSON, %OL. GERARDO &. LANTORIA, %OL. ROLANDO
A&ADILLA, %OL. GALILEO *INTANAR, LT. %OL. PAN#ILO M. LA%SON, MA). RODOL#O
AGUINALDO, %APT. DANILO PI0ARRO, 1LT. PEDRO TANGO, 1LT. ROMEO RI%ARDO, 1LT. RAUL
&A%ALSO, M?SGT. &IENVENIDO &ALA&A AND Q)O$N DOES,R, G.R. No. 166!16, March 1(, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Pay'ent of Doc@et &ees] - Gailure to o(serve the require&ents under 'ection !>-a.%
Rule 44 of the !""# Rules of Court and to pay the correct doc*et fees is fatal to the appeal. RICARC;
RIEAD% $;5A4CIA4A RIEAD% 'A5R4I4A RIEAD% ADA4A RIEAD% A4C 8A47A+I4 RIEAD 3.
DA;4CIA 4ARAC;% A4A'5ACI; DIRI;% ACID8AR5; CA45A3IA7A% BD;RIA CA45A3IA7A%
CAD'; CA45A3IA7A% A4C 5:A :AIR' ;G +ADA4IA CA45A3IA7A% B.R. 4o. !5!="=% +arch !4
Civil Procedure [A**eals] - Ingrained in our 1urisprudence is the rule that the right to appeal is a
statutory right and a party who see*s to avail of the right &ust faithfully co&ply with the rules. M%A-
M&# %OUNTDO,N %ARDS P$ILIPPINES IN%., AMA&LE R. AGUILU0 V. AMA&LE %. AGUILU0 I5,
%IELO %. AGUILU0, AL&ERTO L. &UENVIA)E, VI%ENTE A%SAY AND M%A $OLDINGS AND
MANAGEMENT %ORPORATION V. M&# %ARD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND M&# DIS%OUNT
%ARD LIMITED, G.R. No. 17386, March 1(, !"1!
Evidence [Credibility of Witness] - Inconsistencies (earing on &inor details or collateral &atters should
not adversely affect the su(stance of the witness declaration% veracity% or weight of testi&ony. PEOPLE
O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. ERLAND SA&ADLA& Y &AY7UEL, G.R. No. 17'!(, March 1(, !"1!
Civil Procedure [&oru' ()o**in#] - As previously held (y the Court% there is still foru& shopping even
if the reliefs prayed for in the two cases are different% so long as (oth cases raise su(stantially the sa&e
issues. ORTILE, IN $IS O##I%IAL %APA%ITY AS T$E REGISTER O# DEEDS #OR MA*ATI %ITY
GOODLAND %OMPANY, IN%., PETITIONER, VS. ASIA UNITED &AN*, A&RA$AM %O, ATTY. )OEL
T. PELI%ANO AND T$E REGISTER O# DEEDS O# MA*ATI %ITY, G.R. No. 1'(6, March 1(, !"1!
Civil Procedure [4nterlocutory .rder] - nder 'ection ! -c. of Rule 4! of the Rules of Court% no appeal
&ay (e ta*en fro& an interlocutory order. An interlocutory order is one that does not dispose of the case
co&pletely (ut leaves so&ething to (e decided upon. An order granting or denying an application for
preli&inary in1unction is interlocutory in nature and% hence% not appeala(le. SE%OND DIVISION
AUSTRALIAN PRO#ESSIONAL REALTY, IN%., )ESUS GAR%IA, AND LYDIA MAR%IANO,
PETITIONERS, V. MUNI%IPALITY O# PADRE GAR%IA &ATANGAS PROVIN%E, G. R. No. 183367,
March 1(, !"1!
Civil Procedure [(co*e of Review of (u*re'e Court] - nder 'ection !% Rule 45 of the Rules of Court%
providing for appeals (y certiorari (efore the 'upre&e Court% it is clearly enunciated that only questions
of law &ay (e set forth. 5he question regarding respondents tenancy status is factual in nature% which is
not proper in a petition for review% where only questions of law &ay (e entertained MANUEL A.
LUMAYOG V. SPOUSES LEONARD PIT%O%* AND %ORA0ON PIT%O%*, G.R. No. 16'6!8, March
1(, !"1!
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 5he rule is settled that lac* of 1urisdiction over the su(1ect &atter &ay
(e raised at any stage of the proceedings REPU&LI% O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. &ANTIGUE POINT
DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION, G. R. No. 16!3!!, March 1(, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [!alidity of 4nfor'ation] - An Infor&ation is fatally defective when it is clear
that it does not really charge an offense or when an essential ele&ent of the cri&e has not (een
sufficiently alleged. In the instant case% while the prosecution was a(le to allege the identity of the (uyer
and the seller% it failed to particularly allege or identify in the Infor&ation the su(1ect &atter of the sale or
the corpus delicti. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, PLAINTI##, V. ROGER POSADAY UR&ANO AND
EMILY POSADAY SARMIENTO, G.R. No. 1'(((, March 1!, !"1!
Civil Procedure [&ilin# of Pleadin#s] , 'ection !% Rule 00 of the Rules of Court applies in the &atter of
filing of pleadings in courts when the due date falls on a 'aturday% 'unday or legal holiday% in which case%
the filing of the said pleading on the next wor*ing day is dee&ed on ti&e. AL#REDO )A%A MONTA)ES
V. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No. 183((', March 1!, !"1!
Evidence [Credibility of Witness] - 6hen it co&es to credi(ility% the trial courts assess&ent deserves
great weight% and is even conclusive and (inding% if not tainted with ar(itrariness or oversight of so&e
fact or circu&stance of weight and influence. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. &EN RU&IO Y
A%OSTA
G.R. No. 1'!3', March "7, !"1!
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 'ection 9? of Repu(lic Act -R.A.. 4o. 995# clearly states that the
&odality of recourse fro& decisions or orders of the then special agrarian courts is (y petition for review.
In turn% 'ection 9!

of the law &andates that 1udicial review of said orders or decisions are governed (y the
Rules of Court. 'ection 9? thereof is to (e read in relation to R.A. 4o. #"?0% which expanded the
1urisdiction of the Court of Appeals to include exclusive appellate 1urisdiction over all final 1udg&ents%
decisions% resolutions% orders or awards of Regional 5rial Courts and quasi-1udicial agencies%
instru&entalities% (oards or co&&issions. #ELI%IDAD STA. MARIA VILLARAN, ,IL#REDO STA.
MARIA VILLARAN, DEOGRA%IAS STA. MARIA AND ROLANDO STA. MARIA V. DEPARTMENT O#
AGARIAN RE#ORM AD)UDI%ATION &OARD AND LOREN0O MARIANO, G.R. No. 16"88!, March
"7, !"1!
Provisional Re'edies [4n1ucntion] - Gailure to esta(lish the existence of a clear right which should (e
1udicially protected through the writ of in1unction is a sufficient ground for denying the in1unction. #IL-
ESTATE LAND, IN%., #IL ESTATE E%O%ENTRUM %ORPORATION, LA PA0 $OUSING AND
DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION, ,AR&IRD SE%URITY AGEN%Y, ENRI7UE RIVILLA, MI%$AEL
E. )ET$MAL AND MI%$AEL ALUNAN V. )UANA %OMPLE5 I $OMEO,NERS ASSO%IATION, IN%.,
ANDRES %. &AUTISTA, &RIGIDO DIMA%ULANGAN, DOLORES P. PRADO, IMELDA DE LA %RU0,
EDIT$A %. DY, #LOREN%IA M. MER%ADO, LEOVINO %. DATARIO, AIDA A. A&AYON, NAPOLEON
M. DIMAANO, ROSITA G. ESTIGOY AND NELSON A. LOYOLA, G.R. No. 1!!7!, March ", !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [A**eals] - It is plain that (oth the personal penalty of i&prison&ent and pecuniary
penalty of fine of 8rillantes were extinguished upon his death pending appeal of his conviction (y the
lower courts. 5he appeal of 8rillantes cul&inating in the extinguish&ent of his cri&inal lia(ility does not
have any effect on his co- accused Ce la CruI who did not file a notice of appeal. (A-BR$4$. DE LA
CRBC A$D .(E AR4LLA$-E( y L.PEC !0 .(E AR4LLA$-E( y L.PEC9 50R0 $o0 <>;+<;
Civil Procedure [(co*e of Review of (u*re'e Court] - 5hat Nwhere the sanity of a person is at issue%
expert opinion is not necessary Oand thatL the o(servations of the trial 1udge coupled with evidence
esta(lishing the persons state of &ental sanity will suffice. It is axio&atic that% as a general rule% Nonly
questions of law &ay (e raised in a petition for review on certiorari (ecause the Court is not a trier of
facts.K 6e only ta*e cogniIance of questions of fact in certain exceptional circu&stances. NILO
OROPESA V. %IRILO OROPESA, G.R. No. 18(!8
Civil Procedure [(ufficiency of Co'*laint] - 5he test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the co&plaint as
constituting a cause of action is whether or not ad&itting the facts alleged% the court could render a valid
verdict in accordance with the prayer of said co&plaint. 'tated differently% if the allegations in the
co&plaint furnish sufficient (asis (y which the co&plaint can (e &aintained% the sa&e should not (e
dis&issed regardless of the defense that &ay (e asserted (y the defendant. )UANA %OMPLE5 I
$OMEO,NERS ASSO%IATION, IN%., 43 a= V. #IL-ESTATE LAND, IN%.,43 a=., G.R. No. 1!!7!,
March ", !"1!
Evidence [-esti'onial Evidence] - 5his Court has held ti&e and again that testi&onies of rape victi&s
who are young and i&&ature deserve full credence% considering that no young wo&an% especially of
tender age% would concoct a story of defloration% allow an exa&ination of her private parts% and thereafter
pervert herself (y (eing su(1ect to a pu(lic trial% if she was not &otivated solely (y the desire to o(tain
1ustice for the wrong co&&itted against her. @outh and i&&aturity are generally (adges of truth. It is
highly i&pro(a(le that a girl of tender years% one not yet exposed to the ways of the world% would i&pute
to any &an a cri&e so serious as rape if what she clai&s is not true. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES,
PLAINTI##-APPELLEE, V. &EN RU&IO Y A%OSTA, A%%USED-APPELLANT, G.R. No. 1'!3' March
"7, !"1!
Civil Procedure [,ode of A**eal] - 6e agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioners have resorted
to a wrong &ode of appeal (y pursuing a Rule 95 petition fro& the CARA8s decision. 'ection 9? of
Repu(lic Act -R.A.. 4o. 995# clearly states that the &odality of recourse fro& decisions or orders of the
then special agrarian courts is (y petition for review. #ELI%IDAD STA. MARIA VILLARAN, ,IL#REDO
STA. MARIA VILLARAN, DEOGRA%IAS STA. MARIA AND ROLANDO STA. MARIA V. DEPARTMENT
O# AGARIAN RE#ORM AD)UDI%ATION &OARD AND LOREN0O MARIANO, G.R. No. 16"88!
March "7, !"1!
Evidence [Proof] - 5he prosecution &ust clearly and adequately show the details of the purported sale%
na&ely% the initial contact (etween the poseur-(uyer and the pusher% the offer to purchase% the pro&ise or
pay&ent of the consideration% and% finally% the accusedHs delivery of the illegal drug to the (uyer% whether
the latter (e the infor&ant alone or the police officer. 5his proof is essential to ensure that law-a(iding
citiIens are not unlawfully induced to co&&it the offense. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. ROGER
POSADAY UR&ANO AND EMILY POSADAY SARMIENTO, G.R. No. 1'(((, March 1!, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Period of &ilin#] - 5he !5-day extension period prayed for should (e tac*ed to the
original period and co&&ences i&&ediately after the expiration of such period. 5hus% counting !5 days
fro& the expiration of the period which was on +ay !"% 0??#% the petition filed on 7une 5% 0??# was
already two days late. AL#REDO )A%A MONTA)ES V. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No.
183((' March 1!, !"1!
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] % A sheriffs functions are purely &inisterial% not discretionary. ;nce a writ
is placed in his hand% it (eco&es his duty to proceed with reasona(le speed to enforce the writ to the
letter% ensuring at all ti&es that the i&ple&entation of the 1udg&ent is not un1ustifia(ly deferred% unless
the execution of which is restrained (y the court. A sheriffs co&pliance with the Rules of Court is not
&erely directory (ut &andatory. ATTY. RI%ARDO GON0ALES V. ART$UR G. %ALO, G.R. No. A.M.
No. P-1! -3"!8, A@r:= 11, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Dis'issal of Co'*laint] - 6hen the law provides for a re&edy against a certain action
of an ad&inistrative (oard% (ody% or officer% relief to the courts can (e &ade only after exhausting all
re&edies provided therein. It is settled that the non-o(servance of the doctrine of exhaustion of
ad&inistrative re&edies results in lac* of cause of action% which is one of the grounds in the Rules of
Court 1ustifying the dis&issal of the co&plaint. ADDITION $ILLS MANDALUYONG %IVI% - SO%IAL
ORGANI0ATION IN%. V. MEGA,ORLD PROPERTIES AND $OLDINGS IN%. , ,IL#REDO
IMPERIAL, IN $IS %APA%ITY AS DIRE%TOR, N%R, AND $OUSING AND LANG USE REGULATORY
&OARD, DEPARTMENT O# NATURAL RESOUR%ES, G.R. No. 17"3', A@r:= 18, !"1!
(*ecial Civil Actions [E3*ro*riation] - 6hile the deter&ination of 1ust co&pensation is
essentially a 1udicial function vested in the R5C acting as a O'ACL% the 1udge cannot a(use his discretion
(y not ta*ing into full consideration the factors specifically identified (y law and i&ple&enting rules.
O'ACsL are not at liberty to disre#ard the for&ula laid down O(y the CARL% (ecause unless an
ad&inistrative order is declared invalid% courts have no option (ut to apply it. In co&puting the 1ust
co&pensation for expropriation proceedings% the R5C should ta*e into consideration the Nvalue of t)e
land at t)e ti'e of t)e ta@in#9 not at t)e ti'e of t)e rendition of 1ud#'ent0 KN5he Rti&e of ta*ing is
the ti&e when the landowner was deprived of the use and (enefit of his property% such as when title is
transferred to the Repu(lic.K LAND &AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. $EIRS O# SALVADOR
EN%INAS AND )A%O&A DELGADO, G.R. NO. 16773, APRIL 18, !"1!
(*ecial Civil Actions [E3*ro*riation] - A petition for the fixing of 1ust co&pensation with the 'AC is
not an appeal fro& the agrarian refor& ad1udicators decision (ut an original action. 5he sa&e has to (e
filed within the !5-day period stated in the CARA8 Rules/ otherwise% the ad1udicators decision will
attain finality. #RAN%IS%O SORIANO AND DALISAY SORIANO, PETITIONERS, V. REPU&LI% O#
T$E P$ILIPPINES, .REPRESENTED &Y T$E O##I%E O# T$E SOLI%ITOR GENERAL/, G.R. No.
18(!8!, A@r:= 11, !"1!
Civil Procedure [urisdcition] - 6hen the &atter in controversy is the question of ownership of certain
of the properties involved M whether they (elong to the con1ugal partnership or to the hus(and
exclusively. 5his is a &atter properly within the 1urisdiction of the pro(ate court which necessarily has to
liquidate the con1ugal partnership in order to deter&ine the estate of the decedent which is to (e
distri(uted a&ong his heirs who are all parties to the proceedings0 LEO %. ROMERO AND DAVID
AMANDO %. ROMERO V. $ON. %OURT O# APPEALS, AURORA %. ROMERO AND VITTORIO %.
ROMERO, G.R. No. 188'!1, A@r:= 18, !"1!
Civil Procedure [,otion for Reconsideration] - 5he deadline for the filing of the &otion for
reconsideration is !5 days fro& receipt of copy of the decision. Clearly% failure to co&ply therewith
renders t)e CA decision final and e3ecutory D.M. %ONSUN)I, IN%. AND?OR DAVID M. %ONSUN)I
V. ESTELITO L. )AMIN, G.R. No. 1'!1(, A@r:= 18, !"1!
Evidence [Circu'stantial Evidence] - 5he Rules of Court also allows circu&stantial evidence to
esta(lish the co&&ission of the cri&e as well as the identity of the culprit. Cirect evidence proves a fact
in issue directly without any reasoning or inferences (eing drawn on the part of the fact finder/ in
contrast% circu&stantial evidence indirectly proves a fact in issue% such that the fact finder &ust draw an
inference or reason fro& circu&stantial evidence. 5he Rules of Court &a*es no distinction (etween direct
evidence of a fact and evidence of circu&stances fro& which the existence of a fact &ay (e inferred/
hence% no greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circu&stantial than when it is direct.
PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. EDMUNDO VILLA#LORES Y OLANO, G.R. No. 18('!6, A@r:= 11,
!"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [Probable Cause] - Gor the filing of a cri&inal infor&ation is not proof (eyond
reasona(le dou(t that the person accused is guilty of the acts i&puted on hi&% (ut only that there is
pro(a(le cause to (elieve that he is guilty of the cri&e charged. $ro(a(le cause% for purposes of filing a
cri&inal infor&ation% are such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded (elief that a cri&e has
(een co&&itted and that the accused is pro(a(ly guilty thereof. It is the existence of such facts and
circu&stances as would excite the (elief in a reasona(le &ind% acting on the facts within the *nowledge of
the prosecutor% that the person charged was guilty of the cri&e for which he is to (e prosecuted. A finding
of pro(a(le cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that% &ore li*ely than not% a cri&e has (een
co&&itted and that it was co&&itted (y the accused. P$ILIPPINE NATIONAL &AN* V. AMELIO
TRIAS AND )O$N DOE
G.R. No. 1'3!", A@r:= !, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Prescri*tive Period] - 5he prescriptive period under 'ection > -i. of R.A. 4o. 9>"5
which% a&ong others% provides that Nany action (y any person clai&ing co&pensation andJor da&ages
shall (e filed within five -5. years after the right-of-way% trans&ission lines% su(stations% plants or other
facilities shall have (een esta(lishedK does not extend to an action to recover 1ust co&pensation. 5he right
to recover 1ust co&pensation is enshrined in no less than our 8ill of Rights% which states in clear and
categorical language that Nprivate property shall not (e ta*en for pu(lic use without 1ust co&pensation.K
5his constitutional &andate cannot (e defeated (y statutory prescription. NATIONAL PO,ER
%ORPORATION V. SPOUSES &ERNARDO AND MINDALU0 SALUDARES, G.R. No. 18'1!7. ! A@r:=
!"1!
Provisional Re'edies [-e'*orary Restrainin# .rder] % Repu(lic Act 4o. ="#5 expressly prohi(its
any court% except the 'upre&e Court% fro& issuing any te&porary restraining order -5R;.% preli&inary
in1unction% or preli&inary &andatory in1unction to restrain% prohi(it or co&pel the Bovern&ent% or any of
its su(divisions or officials% or any person or entity% whether pu(lic or private% acting under the
Bovern&ents direction% fro&< -a. acquiring% clearing% and developing the right-of-way% site or location of
any 4ational Bovern&ent pro1ect/ -(. (idding or awarding of a contract or pro1ect of the 4ational
Bovern&ent/ -c. co&&encing% prosecuting% executing% i&ple&enting% or operating any such contract or
pro1ect/ -d. ter&inating or rescinding any such contract or pro1ect/ and -e. underta*ing or authoriIing any
other lawful activity necessary for such contract or pro1ect.
Accordingly% a Regional 5rial Court -R5C. that ignores the statutory prohi(ition and issues a 5R; or a
writ of preli&inary in1unction or preli&inary &andatory in1unction against a govern&ent contract or
pro1ect acts contrary to law. NER,IN INDUSTRIES %ORPORATION V. PNO%-ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION, AND ESTER R. GUER0ON, G.R. No. 167"7. 11 A@r:= !"1!.
Civil Procedure [urisdiction]
- 6hile the R5C has 1urisdiction over the petition for prohi(ition filed (y respondent%
the 4AA% in the
exercise of its power of supervision and control% has pri&ary 1urisdiction to deter&ine the issue of the
validity of the su(1ect resolution. SAMAR II ELE%TRI% %OOPERATIVE, IN%. .SAMEL%O II/ ET AL. V.
ANANIAS D. SELUDO, )R., G.R. No. 1738(". A@r:= !, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Certification a#ainst $on%&oru' ()o**in#] % 5he certification against foru&
shopping &ust (e signed (y the principal parties.

If% for any reason% the principal party cannot sign the
petition% the one signing on his (ehalf &ust have (een duly authoriIed. 6ith respect to a corporation% the
certification against foru& shopping &ay (e signed for and on its (ehalf% (y a specifically authoriIed
lawyer who has personal *nowledge of the facts required to (e disclosed in such docu&ent.

xxx 5he
physical acts of the corporation% li*e the signing of docu&ents% can (e perfor&ed only (y natural persons
duly authoriIed for the purpose (y corporate (y-laws or (y a specific act of the (oard of directors.
%OS%O P$ILIPPINES S$IPPING, IN%. V. *EMPER INSURAN%E %OMPANY, G.R. No. 17'(88. !3
A@r:= !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [(ufficiency of 4nfor'ation] % Contrary to the contention of the accused% the
qualifying circu&stance of NtreacheryK was specifically alleged in the Infor&ation. N5he rule is that
qualifying circu&stances &ust (e properly pleaded in the Infor&ation in order not to violate the accuseds
constitutional right to (e properly infor&ed of the nature and cause of the accusation against hi&.K 5he
accused never clai&ed that he was deprived of his right to (e fully apprised of the nature of the charges
against hi& due to the insufficiency of the Infor&ation.
5he accused not only failed to question the sufficiency of the Infor&ation at any ti&e during the
pendency of his case (efore the R5C% he also allowed the prosecution to present evidence% proving the
ele&ents of treachery in the co&&ission of the offense. 5he accused is thus dee&ed to have waived any
o(1ections against the sufficiency of the Infor&ation. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. )OSEP$
ASILAN ; TA&ORNAL., G.R. No. 1883!!. 11 A@r:= !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [&ilin# of Re*ly] % A co&plainant in a preli&inary investigation does not have a
vested right to file a ReplyMthis right should (e granted to hi& (y law. 5here is no provision in Rule !!0
of the Rules of Court that gives the Co&plainant or requires the prosecutor to o(serve the right to file a
Reply to the accuseds counter-affidavit. 5o illustrate the non-&andatory nature of filing a Reply in
preli&inary investigations% 'ection > -d. of Rule !!0 gives the prosecutor% in certain instances% the right to
resolve the Co&plaint even without a counter-affidavit. P?INSP. ARIEL S. ARTILLERO V. ORLANDO %.
%ASIMIRO., G.R. No. 1'"6'. APRIL !, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Co'*laint] - 8asic as a horn(oo* principle is that 1urisdiction over the su(1ect &atter
of a case is conferred (y law and deter&ined (y the allegations in the co&plaint which co&prise a concise
state&ent of the ulti&ate facts constituting the plaintiffHs cause of action. 5he nature of an action% as well
as which court or (ody has 1urisdiction over it% is deter&ined (ased on the allegations contained in the
co&plaint of the plaintiff% irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or
so&e of the clai&s asserted therein. 5he aver'ents in t)e co'*laint and the c)aracter of t)e relief
sou#)t are the ones to (e consulted. ;nce vested (y the allegations in the co&plaint% 1urisdiction also
re&ains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or so&e of the
clai&s asserted therein. 5hus% it was ruled that the 1urisdiction of the :DR8 to hear and decide cases is
deter&ined (y the nature of the cause of action% the su(1ect &atter or property involved and the parties.
5he co&plaint filed (y petitioners alleged causes of action that apparently are not cogniIa(le (y the
:DR8 considering the nature of the action and the reliefs sought. P$ILIP L. GO, PA%I#I%O 7. LIM
a12 ANDRE, 7. LIM v. DISTIN%TION PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT AND %ONSTRU%TION, IN%.,
G.R. No. 1'("!(. A@r:= !, !"1!
!i0il Pro+,-"r, .5o-, o/ App,*l2 - R4<@o12413 h4r4:1 coAA:3342 a @roc428ra= >=8124r Hh41 :3 6:=42 a
<4@ara34 @43:3:o1 6or c4r3:orar: >46or4 3h4 %A, >4ca8<4 Hh41 3h4 3Ho ca<4< H4r4 co1<o=:2a342 a12 a Mo:13
24c:<:o1 Ha< r4124r42, 3h4 ca<4< =o<3 3h4:r :2413:3:4<+ a12 a @43:3:o1 6or c4r3:orar: :< 1o3 3h4 @ro@4r
r4A42; 3o a<<a:= a 24c:<:o1 Fra13:1F 3h4 :<<8a1c4 o6 a Hr:3 o6 @o<<4<<:o1. $R;CCAR' 8A4F ;G 5:A
$:IDI$$I4A' 3. A2CAD'A I4C'5RIA'% I4C.% B.R. 4o. !#>=0?. April !9% 0?!0
Cri'inal Procedure [Action to (u*ress] % 5he rules do not require +endoIa% et al. to (e parties to the
search warrant proceeding for the& to (e a(le to file a &otion to suppress. It is not correct to say that
only the parties to the application for search warrant can question its issuance or see* suppression of
evidence seiIed under it. 5he proceeding for the issuance of a search warrant does not parta*e of an
action where a party co&plains of a violation of his right (y another.
Clearly% although the search warrant in this case did not target the residence or offices of +endoIa% et al.%
they were entitled to file with the +a*ati R5C a &otion to suppress the use of the seiIed ite&s as
evidence against the& for failure of the 'AC and the 48I to i&&ediately turn these over to the issuing
court. 5he issuing court is the right foru& for such &otion given that no cri&inal action had as yet (een
filed against +endoIa% et al. in so&e other court. SE%URITIES AND E5%$ANGE %OMMISSION, ET
AL, V. RI00A G. MENDO0A, ET AL., G.R. No. 17"(!. A@r:= !3, !"1!
Writ of A'*aro % 5he writ of a&paro is confined only to cases of extra1udicial *illings and enforced
disappearances% or to threats thereof. Considering that this re&edy is ai&ed at addressing these serious
violations of or threats to the right to life% li(erty and security% it cannot (e issued on a&orphous and
uncertain grounds% or in cases where the alleged threat has ceased and is no longer i&&inent or
continuing. Instead% it &ust (e granted 1udiciously so as not to dilute the extraordinary and re&edial
character of the writ. RODOL#O NOEL LO0ADA, )R., VIOLETA LO0ADA AND ARTURO LO0ADA, V.
PRESIDENT GLORIA MA%APAGAL ARROYO, 43 a=., , G.R. No<. 18(37'-8", !( A@r:= !"1!
Civil Procedure [,otion for Reconsideration] - A &otion for reconsideration is a condition precedent
to the filing of a petition for certiorari. :owever% the Court has recogniIed exceptions to the require&ent%
such as< -a. when it is necessary to prevent irrepara(le da&ages and in1ury to a party/ -(. where the trial
1udge capriciously and whi&sically exercised his 1udg&ent/ -c. where there &ay (e danger of a failure of
1ustice/ -d. where an appeal would (e slow% inadequate% and insufficient/ -e. where the issue raised is one
purely of law/ -f. where pu(lic interest is involved/ and -g. in case of urgency. NEMIA %ASTRO V.
ROSALYN GUEVARRAAND )AMIR GUEVARRA , G.R. No. 1'!737, ! A@r:= !"13
Civil Procedure [A'end'ent of Co'*laint] - Aven if the a&end&ent su(stantially alters the cause of
action or defense% such a&end&ent could still (e allowed when it is sought to serve the higher interest of
su(stantial 1ustice% prevent delay% and secure a 1ust% speedy and inexpensive disposition of actions and
proceedings. LISAM ENTERPRISES, IN% V. &AN%O DE ORO UNI&AN*, IN%., , G.R. No. 1(3!6(, !3
A@r:= !"1!
(*ecial Civil Action [E3*ro*riation] % 'u(1ect to the direct constitutional qualification that Nprivate
property shall not (e ta*en for pu(lic use without 1ust co&pensation%K the power of e&inent do&ain is%
after all% the ulti&ate right of the sovereign power to appropriate any property within its territorial
sovereignty for a pu(lic purpose thru a &ethod that parta*es the nature of a co&pulsory sale. REPU&LI%
O# T$E P$ILIPPINES .UNIVERSITY O# T$E P$ILIPPINES/ v. RODOL#O L. LEGASPI, SR.,
7UERO&IN L. LEGASPI, O#ELIA LEGASPI-MUELA, PURISIMA LEGASPI VDA. DE MONDE)AR,
VI%ENTE LEGASPI, RODOL#O LEGASPI II, AND SPOUSES ROSALINA LI&O-ON a12 DOMINADOR
LI&O-ON , G.R. No. 177611, 18 A@r:= !"1!
Provisional Re'edies [Preli'inary 4n1unction] % 5he writ of preli&inary in1unction is provisional
(ecause it constitutes a te&porary &easure availed of during the pendency of the action and it is ancillary
(ecause it is a &ere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the &ain action. It is well-settled that
the sole o(1ect of a preli&inary in1unction% whether prohi(itory or &andatory% is to preserve the status quo
until the &erits of the case can (e heard. It is usually granted when it is &ade to appear that there is a
su(stantial controversy (etween the parties and one of the& is co&&itting an act or threatening the
i&&ediate co&&ission of an act that will cause irrepara(le in1ury or destroy the status quo of the
controversy (efore a full hearing can (e had on the &erits of the case. SPOUSES DAISY AND
SO%RATES M. AREVALO V. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT &AN* AND T$E REGISTER O# DEEDS
O# PARADA7UE %ITY, G. R. No. 1'3(1, 18 A@r:= !"1!
Evidence [C)ain of Custody] - As a &ethod of authenticating evidence% the chain of custody rule
requires that the ad&ission of an exhi(it (e preceded (y evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
&atter in question is what the proponent clai&s it to (e. It would include testi&ony a(out every lin* in the
chain% fro& the &o&ent the ite& was pic*ed up to the ti&e it is offered into evidence% in such a way that
every person who touched the exhi(it would descri(e how and fro& who& it was received% where it was
and what happened to it while in the witness possession% the condition in which it was received and the
condition in which it was delivered to the next lin* in the chain. 5hese witnesses would then descri(e the
precautions ta*en to ensure that there had (een no change in the condition of the ite& and no opportunity
for so&eone not in the chain to have possession of the sa&e. ROGELIO S. REYES V. ROGELIO S.
REYES, G. R. No. 18"177, 18 A@r:= !"1!
(*ecial Civil Action [Conte'*t] - 5he Rules of Court% specifically outlines the procedural requisites
(efore the accused &ay (e punished for indirect conte&pt. Girst% there &ust (e an order requiring the
respondent to show cause why he should not (e cited for conte&pt. 'econd% the respondent &ust (e given
the opportunity to co&&ent on the charge against hi&. 5hird% there &ust (e a hearing and the court &ust
investigate the charge and consider respondentHs answer. Ginally% only if found guilty will respondent (e
punished accordingly.O!=L 5he law requires that there (e a charge in writing% duly filed in court% and an
opportunity given to the person charged to (e heard (y hi&self or counsel. 6hat is &ost essential is that
the alleged conte&ner (e granted an opportunity to &eet the charges against hi& and to (e heard in his
defenses. 5his is due process% which &ust (e o(served at all ti&es. ISA&ELO ESPERIDA, LOREN0O
$IPOLITO, AND ROMEO DE &ELEN, V. #RAN%O *. )URADO, )R., A@r:= !, !"1!, G.R. No. 17!38
Civil Procedure [.ffer of Evidence] - 6ith the failure of petitioner to for&ally offer his
docu&entary evidence% his proof of his fathers inco&petence consisted purely of testi&onies given (y
hi&self and his sister -who were clai&ing interest in their fathers real and personal properties. and their
fathers for&er caregiver -who ad&itted to (e acting under their direction.. 5hese testi&onies% which did
not include any expert &edical testi&ony% were insufficient to convince the trial court of petitioners
cause of action and instead lead it to grant the de&urrer to evidence that was filed (y respondent. NILO
OROPESA V. %IRILO OROPESA, $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1!?a@r:=!"1!?18(!8.h3AB O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 18(!8. A@r:=
!, !"1!
(*ecial Civil Actions [E1ect'ent] - nder the Rules of Court% lessors against who& possession of any
land is unlawfully withheld after the expiration of the right to hold possession &ay , (y virtue of any
express or i&plied contract% and within one year after the unlawful deprivation , (ring an action in the
&unicipal trial court against the person unlawfully withholding possession% for restitution of possession
with da&ages and costs. nless otherwise stipulated% the action of the lessor shall co&&ence only after a
de&and to pay or to co&ply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is &ade upon the lessee/ or
after a written notice of that de&and is served upon the person found on the pre&ises% and the lessee fails
to co&ply therewith within !5 days in the case of land or 5 days in the case of (uildings. REPU&LI% O#
T$E P$ILIPPINES AND NATIONAL PO,ER %ORPORATION &OT$ REPRESENTED &Y T$E
PRIVITI0ATION MANAGEMENT O##I%E V. SUNVAR REALTY DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION ,
G.R. No. 1'(88", )814 !", !"1!
(*ecial Proceedin#s [Esc)eat] % Ascheat proceedings are actions in re&% where(y an action is (rought
against the thing itself instead of the person. 5hus% an action &ay (e instituted and carried to 1udg&ent
without personal service upon the depositors or other clai&ants. 7urisdiction is secured (y the power of
the court over the res. Consequently% a 1udg&ent of escheat is conclusive upon persons notified (y
advertise&ent% as pu(lication is considered a general and constructive notice to all persons interested.
RI0AL %OMMER%IAL &AN*ING %ORPORATION V. $I-TRI DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION AND
LU0 R. &A*UNA,A, G.R. No. 1'!(13, )814 13, !"1!
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 4ot every case involving (uyers and sellers of su(division lots or
condo&iniu& units can (e filed with the :DR8. Its 1urisdiction is li&ited to those cases filed (y the
(uyer or owner of a su(division lot or condo&iniu& unit and (ased on any of the causes of action
enu&erated in 'ection ! of $.C. !>44. ORTIGAS - %OMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERS$IP V. %OURT
O# APPEALS, $ON. )ESUS G. &ERSAMIRA AS )UDGE-RT% O# PASIG %ITY, &RAN%$ 166 AND
T$E %ITY O# PASIG, G.R. No. 1!'8!!, )814 !", !"1!
Civil Procedure [Dis'issal of Action] - Cis&issals of actions for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute is
authoriIed under 'ection >% Rule !# of the Rules of Court. NCis&issals of actions -under 'ection >. which
do not expressly state whether they are with or without pre1udice are held to (e with pre1udice. As a
pre1udicial dis&issal% the dis&issal order is also dee&ed to (e a 1udg&ent on the &erits. $rocedurally%
when a co&plaint is dis&issed for failure to prosecute and the dis&issal is unqualified% the dis&issal has
the effect of an ad1udication on the &erits. As an ad1udication on the &erits% it is i&perative that the
dis&issal order confor& with 'ection !% Rule >9 of the Rules of Court S$IMI0U P$ILIPPINES
%ONTRA%TORS, IN%. V. MRS. LETI%IA &. MAGSALIN DOING &USINESS UNDER T$E TRADE
NAME Q*ARENNS TRADING,R #GU INSURAN%E %ORPORATION, GODO#REDO GAR%IA,
%ON%ORDIA GAR%IA, AND REYNALDO &AETIONG, G.R. No. 17""!6, )814 !", !"1!
Civil Procedure [A**eals] - 5he govern&ent party that can appeal is not the disciplining authority or
tri(unal which previously heard the case and i&posed the penalty of dis&issal fro& the service. 5he
govern&ent party appealing &ust (e one that is prosecuting the ad&inistrative case against the
respondent. O##I%E O# T$E OM&UDSMAN V. ROMEO A. LIGGAYU, G.R. No. 17(!'7, )814 !",
!"1!
Civil Procedure [Actionable Docu'ent] - A docu&ent is actiona(le when an action or defense is
grounded upon such written instru&ent or docu&ent. In the instant case% the Charge Invoices

are not
actiona(le docu&ents per se as these )only provide details on the alleged transactions.)

5hese docu&ents
need not (e attached to or stated in the co&plaint as these are evidentiary in nature.

In fact% respondents
cause of action is not (ased on these docu&ents (ut on the contract of sale (etween the parties. It (ears
stressing that in civil cases% only a preponderance of evidence or )greater weight of the evidence) is
require. 8asis for the award of Attorneys fees &ust (e stated in the decision. ASIAN %ONSTRU%TION
AND DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION V. LOURDES *. MENDO0A, G.R. No. 176'(', )814 !7, !"1!
Civil Procedure [&oru' ()o**in#] - 5he Court has upheld dis&issals of incorrect appeals% even if these
were ti&ely filed. Goru&-shopping consists of filing &ultiple suits involving the sa&e parties for the
sa&e cause of action% either si&ultaneously or successively% for the purpose of o(taining a favora(le
1udg&ent. 5hus% it has (een held that there is foru&-shopping M
-!. whenever as a result of an adverse decision in one foru&% a party see*s a
favora(le decision -other than (y appeal or certiorari. in another% or
-0. if% after he has filed a petition (efore the 'upre&e Court% a party files another
(efore the Court of Appeals since in such case he deli(erately splits appeals Nin
the hope that even as one case in which a particular re&edy is sought is
dis&issed% another case -offering a si&ilar re&edy. would still (e open%K or
->. where a party atte&pts to o(tain a preli&inary in1unction in another court
after failing to o(tain the sa&e fro& the original court.
SPOUSES ATTY. ERLANDO A. A&RENI%A AND )OENA &. A&RENI%A V. LA, #IRM O# A&RENI%A,
TUNGOL AND TI&AYAN, ATTYS. A&ELARDO M. TI&AYAN AND DANILO N. TUNGOL, G.R. No.
18"7!, )814 18, !"1!
(*ecial Proceedin#s [Writ of A'*aro] - In an a&paro petition% proof of disappearance alone is not
enough. It is li*ewise essential to esta(lish that such disappearance was carried out with the direct or
indirect authoriIation% support or acquiescence of the govern&ent. EDGARDO NAVIA, RU&EN DIO,
AND ANDRE, &UISING V. VIRGINIA PARDI%O, #OR AND IN &E$AL# AND IN
REPRESENTATION O# &EN$UR V. PARDI%O, G.R. No. 18((67, )814 1', !"1!
Civil Procedure [Litis Pendentia] - 5here is no identity and si&ilarity (etween the first and the second
petitions with respect to the issues under litigation.An action for declaration of heirship refers to a special
proceeding in which a person clai&ing the status of heir see*s prior 1udicial declaration of his or her right
to inherit fro& a decedent.

;n the other hand% an action for cancellation of entry in the civil register refers
to a special proceeding where(y a su(stantial change affecting the civil status of a party is sought through
the a&end&ent of the entry in the civil register.

In the for&er% what is esta(lished is a partys right of
succession to the decedent/ in the latter% a&ong those settled are the issues of nationality% paternity%
filiation% legiti&acy of the &arital status% and registra(ility of an event affecting the status or nationality
of an individual. 8ecause the respective su(1ect &atters in the two actions differ% any decision that &ay (e
rendered in one of the& cannot constitute res 1udicata in the other. A 1udicial declaration of heirship is
inconclusive on the fact of occurrence of an event registered or to (e registered in the civil register% while
changes in the entries in the civil register do not in the&selves settle the issue of succession. T$E
UNITED A&ANGAN %LAN, IN%., REPRESENTED &Y %RISTITUTO #. A&ANGAN V. YOLANDA %.
SA&ELLANO SUMAGANG, ERNESTO TIRO, &ASILISA %A&ELLON-MORENO, MARTIN %. TA&URA,
)R., ROMUALDO %. TA&URA, ROLANDO %A&ELLON, REPRESENTED &Y ROLANDO %A&ELLON,
AND T$E $ONORA&LE %ITY %IVIL REGISTRAR O# %E&U %ITY
G.R. No. 1867!!, )814 18, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [Cri'inal &orfeiture] -Gorfeiture in a cri&inal case is considered in persona&%
si&ilar to a &oney 1udg&ent that runs against a defendant until it is fully satisfied.

5his cri&inal forfeiture
is considered part of the cri&inal proceedings against the defendant% rather than a separate proceeding
against the property itself. 5he scope of cri&inal forfeiture (y the govern&ent includes any property% real
or personal% involved in the cri&e or tracea(le to the property. 5he ter& )involved in) has consistently
(een interpreted (roadly (y courts to include any property involved in% used to co&&it% or used to
facilitate the cri&e. T$E ,ELLE5 GROUP, IN%. V. SANDIGAN&AYAN, G.R. No. 187'1, )814 !,
!"1!
Evidence [Circu'stabtial Evidence] - Cirect evidence of the co&&ission of a cri&e is not the only
(asis on which a court draws its finding of guilt.

Asta(lished facts that for& a chain of circu&stances can
lead the &ind intuitively or i&pel a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction.+otive is
generally held to (e i&&aterial (ecause it is not an ele&ent of the cri&e. :owever% &otive (eco&es
i&portant when the evidence on the co&&ission of the cri&e is purely circu&stantial or inconclusive.
ROMULO TRINIDA V. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No. 1'!!(1, )814 13, !"1!
Civil Procedure [&indin#s of &act of t)e Lower Courts] - Gindings of fact of the CA% when they affir&
those of the trial court% are (inding on this Court% unless the findings of the trial and the appellate courts
are palpa(ly unsupported (y the evidence on record% or unless the 1udg&ent itself is (ased on a
&isapprehension of facts. +ere denial cannot prevail over the positive testi&ony of a witness. A &ere
denial% 1ust li*e an ali(i% is a self-serving negative evidence% which cannot (e accorded greater evidentiary
weight than the declarations of credi(le witnesses who testify on affir&ative &atters. As (etween a
categorical testi&ony that has the ring of truth on the one hand and a (are denial on the other% the for&er
is generally held to prevail It is not necessary to show that two or &ore persons &et together and entered
into an explicit agree&ent laying down the details of how an unlawful sche&e or o(1ective is to (e carried
out. Conspiracy &ay (e deduced fro& the &ode and &anner in which the offense was perpetrated/ or
fro& the acts of the accused evincing a 1oint or co&&on purpose and design% concerted action and
co&&unity of interest. T$E PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. NUR#RASIR $AS$IM Y SARA&AN
A.*.A B#RAN0?#RANS,B MA*DUL )AMAD Y &U*IN .AL/ A.*.A. BMA%*Y,B A %ERTAIN BTAS,B AND
A %ERTAIN B)UN,B&ERNADETTE PANSA%ALA A.*.A. BNENENG A,ID,B, G.R. No. 1'(!, )814 13,
!"1!
(*ecial Proceedin#s [(ettle'ent of Estate] - 5he ad&inistrator an estate has the right to the production
and exa&ination of the specified docu&ents (elieved to (e in anothers possession% 'ection 9% Rule =# of
the Rules of Court provides that these can (e allowed (ased on the ad&inistrators (elief that the person
na&ed in the request for su(poena has docu&ents in his possession that tend to show the decedents right
to real or personal property ELEUTERIO RIVERA, AS ADMINISTRATOR O# T$E INTESTATE ESTATE
O# ROSITA L. RIVERA-RAMIRE0 V. RO&ERT RAMIRE0 AND RAYMOND RAMIRE0, G.R. No.
18'6'7. )814 !7, !"1!
Civil Procedure [,ulti*licity of (uits] - 5he test to deter&ine whether the causes of action are identical
is to ascertain whether the sa&e evidence will sustain (oth actions% or whether there is an identity in the
facts essential to the &aintenance of the two actions. If the sa&e facts or evidence would sustain (oth% the
two actions are considered the sa&e% and a 1udg&ent in the first case is a (ar to the su(sequent action.
:ence% a party cannot% (y varying the for& of action or adopting a different &ethod of presenting his
case% escape the operation of the principle that one and the sa&e cause of action shall not (e twice
litigated (etween the sa&e parties or their privies. )ESSE YAP V. ELISA %$UA AND EVELYN TE , G.R.
No. 18673", )814 13, !"1!
Civil Procedure [.ffer of Co'*ro'ise] - ;ffers for co&pro&ise are irrelevant (ecause they are not
intended as ad&issions (y the parties &a*ing the&. A true offer of co&pro&ise does not involve an
ad&ission on the part of a defendant that he or she is legally lia(le% or on the part of a plaintiff% that his or
her clai& is groundless or even dou(tful% since it is &ade with a view to avoid controversy and save the
expense of litigation. It is the distinguishing &ar* of an offer of co&pro&ise that it is &ade tentatively%
hypothetically% and in conte&plation of &utual concessions. SAN MIGUEL %ORPORATION V. $ELEN
T. *ALALO, G.R. No. 18!!, )814 13, !"1!
(*ecial Civil Actions [E1ect'ent] - 6hen a property is registered under the 5orrens syste&% the
registered owners title to the property is presu&ed and cannot (e collaterally attac*ed% especially in a
&ere action for unlawful detainer. In this particular action where petitioners alleged ownership cannot
(e esta(lished% coupled with the presu&ption that respondents title to the property is legal% then the lower
courts are correct in ruling that respondents are the ones entitled to possession of the su(1ect pre&ises.
$EIRS O# )OSE MALIGASO, SR., ET%. V. SPS. SIMON D. EN%INAS AND ESPERAN0A E. EN%INA,
G.R. No. 18!716, )814 !", !"1!
(*ecial Civil Actions [E3*ro*riation] - Gor purposes of deter&ining 1ust co&pensation% the fair &ar*et
value of an expropriated property is deter&ined (y its character and price at the ti&e of ta*ing. LAND
&AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V. MONTINOLA-ES%ARILLA AND %O., IN%., G.R. No. 178"(6, )814
13, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Certiorari] - A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45% which is a continuation
of the appellate process over the original case% a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 95 is an
original or independent action (ased on grave a(use of discretion a&ounting to lac* or excess of
1urisdiction. It will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain% speedy% and adequate re&edy in the
ordinary course of law )OVINA DA&ON VDA. DE MENDE0 V. %OURT O# APPEALS AND SPOUSES
MINEO AND TRINIDAD &. DA&ON, G.R. No. 17('37, )814 13, !"1!
Evidence [Conclusive Presu'*tions] - 5he Rules of Court protects the respondent% as lessor% fro& (eing
questioned (y the petitioner% as lessee% regarding its title or (etter right of possession over the su(1ect
pre&ises. 'ection 0-(.% Rule !>! of the Rules of Court states that the tenant is not per&itted to deny the
title of his landlord at the ti&e of the co&&ence&ent of the relation of landlord and tenant (etween the&.
VIEGELY SAMELO, REPRESENTED &Y ATTORNEY-IN-#A%T %RISTINA SAMELO V. MANOTO*
SERVI%ES, IN%., ET%. , G.R. No. 17""', )814 !7, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [Preli'inary 4nvesti#ation] - 5he pu(lic prosecutor exercises investigative powers
in the conduct of preli&inary investigation to deter&ine whether% (ased on the evidence presented to hi&%
he should ta*e further action (y filing a cri&inal co&plaint in court. In doing so% he does not ad1udicate
upon the rights% o(ligations or lia(ilities of the parties (efore hi&. 'ince the power exercised (y the pu(lic
prosecutor in this instance is &erely investigative or inquisitorial% it is su(1ect to a different standard in
ter&s of stating the facts and the law in its deter&inations. 5his is also true in the case of the C;7
'ecretary exercising her review powers over decisions of pu(lic prosecutors. 5hus% it is sufficient that in
denying a petition for review of a resolution of a prosecutor% the C;7 resolution state the law upon which
it is (ased. MANILA ELE%TRI% %OMPANY, REPRESENTED &Y MANOLO %. #ERNANDO V.
VI%ENTE ATILANO, ET AL., G.R. NO. 16678, )814 !7, !"1!
Civil Procedure [(co*e of Reviw of t)e (u*re'e Court] - 5he certiorari 1urisdiction of the 'upre&e
Court is rigorously strea&lined% such that Rule 95 only ad&its cases (ased on the specific grounds
provided therein. 5he Rule applies if there is no appeal or any other plain% speedy% and adequate re&edy
in the ordinary course of law. 5he independent action for certiorari will lie only if grave a(use of
discretion is alleged and proven to exist. Brave a(use of discretion is the ar(itrary or despotic exercise of
power due to passion% pre1udice or personal hostility/ or the whi&sical% ar(itrary% or a capricious exercise
of power that a&ounts to an evasion or a refusal to perfor& a positive duty en1oined (y law or to act at all
in conte&plation of law. Gor an act to (e struc* down as having (een done with grave a(use of discretion%
the a(use of discretion &ust (e patent and gross. In the present case% petitioner would have us stri*e down
the Resolutions of the CA declaring his appeal as a(andoned for purportedly (eing issued in grave a(use
of discretion. @et% far fro& co&&itting the grievous error petitioner presents it to (e% the CA &erely
exercised the authority expressly granted to it under Rule !04. MEL%$OR L. LAGUNA V. T$E $ON.
%OURT O# APPEALS AND PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No. 1733'", )814 !7, !"1!
(*ecial Civil Actions [E3*ro*riation] % It has (een held that% when the govern&ent ta*es property pursuant to $C
0#% (ut does not pay the landowner his 1ust co&pensation until after RA 995# has ta*en effect in !"==% it (eco&es
&ore equita(le to deter&ine the 1ust co&pensation using RA 995#. LAND &AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V.
$EIRS O# MA5IMO PUYAT AND GLORIA PUYAT REPRESENTED &Y ATTORNEY-IN #A%T
MARISSA PUYAT, G.R. No. 17", )814 !7, !"1!
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - It is a (asic rule that 1urisdiction is deter&ined (y the allegations in the
co&plaint.

5he 8CCAs co&plaints did not contain any allegation that would% even in the slightest%
i&ply that the issue to (e resolved in this case involved an agrarian dispute. In the action filed (y the
8CCA% the issue to (e resolved was who (etween the 8CCA and the private respondents and their
purported predecessors-in-interest% have a valid title over the su(1ect properties in light of the
relevant facts and applica(le laws. 5he case thus involves a controversy relating to the ownership of
the su(1ect properties% which is (eyond the scope of the phrase Nagrarian dispute.K &ASES
%ONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUT$ORITY .&%DA/, PETITIONER, V. PROVIN%IAL
AGRARIAN RE#ORM O##I%ER O# PAMPANGA, .PARO/ ET. AL. RESPONDENTS, G.R. No<.
13!!-!', !7 )814 !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [Pre%Conditions]% C;7 Circular 4o. #? is a &ere tool designed to facilitate% not
o(struct% the attain&ent of 1ustice through appeals ta*en with the 4ational $rosecution 'ervice. 5hus%
technical rules of procedure li*e those under 'ections 5 and 9 thereof should (e interpreted in such a way
to pro&ote% not frustrate% 1ustice. 8esides% 'ections # and !? of C;7 Circular 4o. #? clearly give the
'ecretary of 7ustice% or the ndersecretary in his place% wide latitude of discretion whether or not to
dis&iss a petition. 'ection 9 of C;7 Circular 4o. #?% invo*ed (y petitioner Ag(ayani% is clearly
enco&passed within this authority% as shown (y a cursory reading of 'ections # and !?. 5he co&pulsory
process of ar(itration is a pre-condition for the filing of the co&plaint in court. 6here the co&plaint -a.
did not state that it is one of excepted cases% or -(. it did not allege prior avail&ent of said conciliation
process% or -c. did not have a certification that no conciliation had (een reached (y the parties% the case
should (e dis&issed. LETI%IA &. AG&AYANI V. %OURT O# APPEALS, DEPARTMENT O# )USTI%E
a12 LOIDA MAR%ELINA ). GENA&E, G.R. No. 1836!3. )814 !, !"1!.
Civil Procedure [&indin#s of &act of Lower Courts] % As a rule% only questions of law% not questions of
fact% &ay (e raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.5he Court is thus generally (ound
(y the CAHs factual findings. 5here are% however% exceptions to the foregoing% a&ong which is when the
CAHs factual findings are contrary to those of the trial court or ad&inistrative (ody exercising quasi-
1udicial functions fro& which the action originated. 5he instant petition falls under the afore&entioned
exception in the light of the divergent factual findings of the 3A and the CA. LEGAL $EIRS O# T$E
LATE ED,IN &. DEAUNA, REPRESENTED &Y $IS ,I#E, MRS. ARLINA DEAUNA.V. #IL-STAR
MARITIME%ORPORATION, GREGORIO ORTEGA, %APT. VI%TOR S. MILLALOS AND GRANDSLAM
ENTERPRISES %ORPORATION, G.R. No. 1'163, )814 !", !"1!
Civil Procedure [Annul'ent of ud#'ent] - In Ra&os v. 7udge Co&(ong% 7r.% this Court expounded
that the re&edy of annul&ent of 1udg&ent is only availa(le under certain exceptional circu&stances as
this is adverse to the concept of i&&uta(ility of final 1udg&ents xxx In 8arco v. Court of Appeals% this
Court e&phasiIed that only void 1udg&ents% (y reason of Nextrinsic fraudK or the courts lac* of
1urisdiction% are suscepti(le to (eing annulled. Apart fro& the require&ent that the existence of Nextrinsic
fraudK or Nlac* of 1urisdictionK should (e a&ply de&onstrated% one who desires to avail this re&edy &ust
convince that the ordinary and other appropriate re&edies% such as an appeal% are no longer availa(le for
causes not attri(uta(le to hi&. 5his is clearly provided under 'ection !% Rule 4# of the Rules of Court.
Antoninos recourse to annul&ent of 1udg&ent is seriously flawed and the reasons are patent. 5here is
therefore no reason to distur( the questioned issuances of the R5C that are already final and executory.
REMEDIOS ANTONINO V. T$E REGISTER O# DEEDS O# MA*ATI %ITY AND TAN TIAN SU, G.R.
No. 18663, )814 !", !"1!
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 5he case (eing an action for Annul&ent of 'ale and 5itles resulting
fro& the extra1udicial foreclosure (y nion 8an* of the &ortgaged real properties% is classified as a real
action. 8eing a real action% the filing and trial of the Civil Case 4o. ?!-!59# should (e governed (y the
following relevant provisions of the Rules of Court -the Rules.. According to the Rules% real actions shall
(e co&&enced and tried in the court that has 1urisdiction over the area where the property is situated. In
this case% all the &ortgaged properties are located in the $rovince of Ce(u. 5hus% following the general
rule% $ABDA+ and :ealth5ech should have filed their case in Ce(u% and not in +a*ati. :owever% the
Rules provide an exception% in that real actions can (e co&&enced and tried in a court other than where
the property is situated in instances where the parties have previously and validly agreed in writing on the
exclusive venue thereof. In the case at (ar% the parties clai& that such an agree&ent exists. 5he only
dispute is whether the venue that should (e followed is that contained in the Real Astate +ortgages% as
contended (y nion 8an*% or that in the Restructuring Agree&ent% as posited (y $ABDA+ and
:ealth5ech. 5his Court rules that the venue stipulation in the Restructuring Agree&ent should (e
controlling. PAGLAUM MANAGEMENT - DEVELOPMENT %ORP. AND $EALT$ MAR*ETING
TE%$NOLOGIES, IN%. V. UNION &AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, NOTARY PU&LI% )O$N DOE,
AND REGISTER O# DEEDS O# %E&U %ITY AND %E&U PROVIN%E , G.R. No. 17'"18, )814 18,
!"1!
Civil Procedure [Pre%-rial] - 6hile under the present Rules% it is now the duty of the cler* of court to
set the case for pre-trial if the plaintiff fails to do so within the prescri(ed period% this does not relieve the
plaintiff of his own duty to prosecute the case diligently. 5his case had (een at the pre-trial stage for
&ore than two years and petitioners have not shown special circu&stances or co&pelling reasons to
convince us that the dis&issal of their co&plaint for failure to prosecute was un1ustified. ELOISA
MER%$ANDISING, IN%. AND TRE&EL INTERNATIONAL, IN%. V. &AN%O DE ORO UNIVERSAL
&AN* AND ENGRA%IO M. ES%ASINAS, )R., IN $IS %APA%ITY AS E5-O##I%IO S$ERI## O# T$E
RT% O# MA*ATI %ITY, G.R. No. 1'!716, )814 13, !"1!
(u''ary Proceedin# [&inality of Decision] % A petition for declaration of presu&ptive death for the
purpose of re&arriage is a su&&ary 1udicial proceeding under the Ga&ily Code. :ence% the R5C
Cecision therein is i&&ediately final and executory upon notice to the parties% (y express provision of
Article 04# of the sa&e Code. 5he decision is therefore not su(1ect to ordinary appeal% and the atte&pt to
question it through a 4otice of Appeal is unavailing. REPU&LI% O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, V. YOLANDA
%ADA%IO GRANADA, G.R. No. 1871!, )814 13, !"1!
Civil Procedure [ud#'ent on t)e Pleadin#s v0 (u''ary ud#'ent] - Gor 1udg&ent on the pleadings%
there is no ostensi(le issue at all (ecause of the failure of the defending partys answer to raise an issue.
In the case of a su&&ary 1udg&ent% issues apparently exist S i.e.% facts are asserted in the co&plaint
regarding which there is as yet no ad&ission% disavowal or qualification/ or specific denials or affir&ative
defenses are in truth set out in the answer.
5here can (e no su&&ary 1udg&ent where questions of fact are in issue or where &aterial
allegations of the pleadings are in dispute.
6here a 1udg&ent cannot (e reversed as to the party appealing without affecting the rights of his co-
de(tor% or where the rights and lia(ilities of the parties are so interwoven and dependent on each other as
to (e insepara(le% in which case a reversal as to one operates as a reversal as to all #IRST LEVERAGE
AND SERVI%ES GROUP, IN%. v. SOLID &UILDERS, IN%.,, G.R. No. 168", )8=; !, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [E3tinction of Penal Action] - 5he extinction of the penal action does not carry
with it the extinction of the civil lia(ility where the acquittal is (ased on reasona(le dou(t as only
preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases. EMILIA LIM v. MINDANAO ,INES - LI7OUR
GALLERIA A SINGLE PROPRIETORS$IP &USINESS OUT#IT O,NED &Y EVELYN S. VALDEVIESO,
G.R. No. 1781, )8=; (, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Certiorari] - 'ettled is the rule that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 95
of the Rules of Court is availa(le to an aggrieved party only when Nthere is no appeal% nor any plain%
speedy% and adequate re&edy in the ordinary course of law.K ;therwise% the petition will not prosper
even if the alleged ground is grave a(use of discretion. &ET$EL REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT
%ORPORATION v. $OUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY &OARD, AND SPOUSES MAR)ORIE
AND NEMESIO VISAYA., G.R. No. 18((8!, )8=; (, !"1!.
Civil Procedure [5rave Abuse of Discretion] - Brave a(use of discretion is &eant such capricious or
whi&sical exercise of 1udg&ent as is equivalent to lac* of 1urisdiction. 5he a(use of discretion &ust (e
patent and gross as to a&ount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perfor& a duty
en1oined (y law% or to act at all in conte&plation of law as where the power is exercised in an ar(itrary
and despotic &anner (y reason of passion and hostility. In su&% for the extraordinary writ of certiorari to
lie% there &ust (e capricious% ar(itrary or whi&sical exercise of power.

If the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than pro&ote 1ustice% it is always within the
power of the Court to suspend the Rules% or except a particular case fro& its operation. P$ILIPPINE
INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS %O., IN%. v. TA*ENA*A %ORPORATION AND ASA$I*OSAN
%ORPORATION, G.R. No. 18"!(, )8=; (, !"1!
Civil Procedure [4''utability of ud#'ents] - Ginal and executory 1udg&ent% no &atter how
erroneous% cannot (e changed% even (y this Court. 4othing is &ore settled in law than that once a
1udg&ent attains finality% it there(y (eco&es i&&uta(le and unaltera(le METROPOLITAN %E&U
,ATER DISTRI%T v. MA%TAN RO%* INDUSTRIES, IN%., G.R. No. 17!(38, )8=; (, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [(ufficiency of 4nfor'ation] - 5he test of the infor&ations sufficiency is whether
the cri&e is descri(ed in intelligi(le ter&s and with such particularity with reasona(le certainty so that the
accused is duly infor&ed of the offense charged. In particular% whether an infor&ation validly charges an
offense depends on whether the &aterial facts alleged in the co&plaint or infor&ation shall esta(lish the
essential ele&ents of the offense charged as defined in the law. 5he raison detre of the require&ent in the
Rules is to ena(le the accused to suita(ly prepare his defense. #ERNANDO 7. MIGUEL v. T$E
$ONORA&LE SANDIGAN&AYAN, G.R. No. 17!"3, )8=; (, !"1!.
Civil Procedure [A**eals] - 6hile the general rule is that appeals raising pure questions of law fro&
decisions of R5C are ta*en to this Court via a Rule 45 petition% decisions of trial courts designated as
'ACs are only appeala(le to the Court of Appeals. SPS. ROMEO LL. PLOPENIO AND ROSIELINDA
PLOPENIO, ET%. v. DEPARTMENT O# AGRARIAN RE#ORM, ET AL.?EDUARDO LL. PLOPENIO,
ET%. v. DEPARTMENT O# AGRARIAN RE#ORM, ET AL., G.R. No. 161"'" - G.R. No. 161"'!, )8=; (,
!"1!
Civil Procedure [,otion for Reconsideration] - 5he procedure adopted (y the R5C was contrary to
that provided in Rule >?% 'ection 5 of the Rules of Court. 5he trial court violated the parties due process
when it proceeded with the trial contrary to the procedure provided (y the Rules of Court. It failed to
resolve respondents +otion for Reconsideration questioning the != 7anuary 0??! ;rder and prevented
petitioners fro& presenting their evidence in chief. MOLDE5 REALTY, IN%. AND ANSELMO AGERO v.
SPS. RI%ARDO ). VILLA&ONA AND GILDA G. VILLA&ONA, AND EDUARDO ). VILLA&ONA., G.R.
No. 171!3, )8=; (, !"1!
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 5his Court cannot review the sa&e issues raised (y petitioners in their
;&ni(us +otion as the sa&e was not passed upon (y the Court of Appeals% since the latter had no
1urisdiction over the ;&ni(us +otion. NEMESIO V. SAY%ON .DE%EASED/, <8><3:38342 >; h:< h4:r<,
)OVEN V. SAY%ON a12 SPOUSE EILLEN G. SAY%ON+ REY V. SAY%ON a12 SPOUSE PA%ITA S.
SAY%ON+ ARNOLD V. SAY%ON a12 SPOUSE EVANGELINE D. SAY%ON+ )EO##REY V. SAY%ON
a12 SPOUSE RO%$EL M. SAY%ON+ a12 %$ARLIE V. SAY%ON v. ANA%LETA &AROT VDA. DE
TULA&ING, DIONISIO &. TULA&ING, AR%ADIA &. TULA&ING, &ALDOMERO &. TULA&ING,
%ARMEN TULA&ING, )ULIA &. TULA&ING, $ILARION &ELIDA, )OEL &. TULA&ING, PA%ITA
TULA&ING, NI%OLAS &. TULA&ING, . $ENIA TULA&ING, VI%TORIA &. TULA&ING, ARMANDO
DEVIRA AND &ENITA &. TULA&ING, G.R. No. 17!(18, )8=; ', !"1!
Civil Procedure [Actionable Docu'ents] - 6hat is apparent is a &ere written and signed
ac*nowledg&ent that &oney was received. 5here are no ter&s and conditions found therein fro& which a
right or o(ligation &ay (e esta(lished. :ence% it cannot (e considered an actiona(le docu&ent upon
which an action or defense &ay (e founded. ROSEDA #ONTELAR OGA,A v. ELI0A&ET$ GA%$E
MENIGIS$I, G.R. No. 1'3"8', )8=; ', !"1!
(*ecial Civil Actions [4n1unction] - 8efore a writ of preli&inary in1unction &ay (e issued% a clear
showing &ust (e &ade that there exists a right to (e protected and that the acts against which the writ is to
(e directed are violative of an esta(lished right. 5he holding of a hearing% where (oth parties can
introduce evidence and present their side% is also required (efore the courts &ay issue a 5R; or an
in1unctive writ.
Benerally% an R5CHs decision to grant or to deny in1unctive relief will not (e set aside on appeal% unless
the trial court a(used its discretion. In granting or denying in1unctive relief% a court a(uses its discretion
when it lac*s 1urisdiction/ fails to consider and &a*e a record of the factors relevant to its deter&ination/
relies on clearly erroneous factual findings/ considers clearly irrelevant or i&proper factors/ clearly gives
too &uch weight to one factor/ relies on erroneous conclusions of law or equity/ or &isapplies its factual
or legal conclusions. %$INA &AN*ING %ORPORATION v. SPOUSES $ARRY %IRIA%O AND EST$ER
%IRIA%O G.R. No. 1'003&, J"l6 11, 2012
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] - A sheriff is &andated to &a*e an esti&ate of the expenses which shall (e
approved (y the court. It is only after the approval of the court that an interested party shall deposit the
a&ount with the cler* of court. pon the return of the writ% the sheriff &ust su(&it a liquidation and
return to the interested party any unspent a&ount. 5he &ere act of receiving the &oney without the prior
approval of the court and without hi& issuing a receipt therefor has (een considered as a &isconduct in
office. LAM&AYONG TEA%$ERS AND EMPLOYEES %OOPERATIVE, r4@r4<41342 :1 3h:< ac3 >; :3<
Ma1aF4r, GUDELIO S. V ALEROSO v. %ARLOS P. DIA0, IN $IS %APA%ITY AS S$ERI## IV,
REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT, &RAN%$ !", TA%URONG %ITY, A.M. No. P-"6-!!(6, )8=; 11, !"1!
Civil Procedure [&actual &indin# of &acts of Lower Courts] - It is aphoristic that a re-exa&ination of
factual findings cannot (e done through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court (ecause as earlier stated% this Court is not a trier of facts/ it reviews only questions of law. 5he
'upre&e Court is not duty-(ound to analyIe and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings
(elow. 5his is already outside the province of the instant $etition for Certiorari. $EIRS O# )OSE
MAR%IAL *. O%$OA, NAMELYG RU&Y &. O%$OA, ET AL. v. G - S TRANSPORT %ORPORATION?G
- S TRANSPORT %ORPORATION VS. $EIRS O# )OSE MAR%IAL *. O%$OA, NAMELYG RU&Y &.
O%$OA, ET AL., G.R. No<. 17""71 - 17"1!, )8=; 16, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Pre%-rial Arief] - 6hile a &otion to declare defendants in default is prohi(ited in
unlawful detainer cases% the failure of the defendants to file a pre-trial (rief within the >-day period (efore
the preli&inary conference necessitates a 1udg&ent (ased on the facts alleged in the Co&plaint.
MURP$Y %$U?ATGAS TRADERS AND MARINELLE P. %$U v. $ON. MARIO &. %APELLAN,
ASSISTING )UDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL %OURT .MET%/, &RAN%$ (", 7UE0ON %ITY, A.M.
No. MT)-11-177', )8=; 16, !"1!
Civil Procedure [A**eals] - It is a settled rule that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part
of due process/ it is &erely a statutory privilege% and &ay (e exercised only in the &anner and in
accordance with the provisions of law. An appeal (eing a purely statutory right% an appealing party &ust
strictly co&ply with the requisites laid down in the Rules. ROSA $. #ENE7UITO, %ORA0ON E.
$ERNANDE0 AND LAURO $. RODRIGUE0 v. &ERNARDO VERGARA, )R., G.R. No. 17!8!', )8=; 18,
!"1!
Civil Procedure [De*ositions] - 5he procedure for ta*ing depositions in cri&inal cases recogniIes
the prosecutionHs right to preserve testi&onial evidence and prove its case despite the unavaila(ility
of its witness. It cannot% however% give license to prosecutorial indifference or unsee&ly
involve&ent in a prosecution witnessH a(sence fro& trial. 5o rule otherwise would effectively
deprive the accused of his funda&ental right to (e confronted with the witnesses against hi&.
Gor purposes of ta*ing the deposition in cri&inal cases% &ore particularly of a prosecution witness
who would foreseea(le (e unavaila(le for trial% the testi&onial exa&ination should (e &ade (efore
the court% or at least (efore the 1udge% where the case is pending as required (y the clear &andate of
'ection !5% Rule !!" of the Revised Rules of Cri&inal $rocedure. $ARRY L. GO, TONNY NGO
)ERRY NGO AND )ANE GO v. T$E PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES AND $IG$DONE
%OMPANY, LTD., ET AL., G.R. No. 18!7, )8=; 18, !"1!.
Civil Procedure [(u''ary ud#'ent] - Relief (y su&&ary 1udg&ent is intended to expedite or
pro&ptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain fro& the pleadings% depositions%
ad&issions and affidavits. 8ut if there (e a dou(t as to such facts and there (e an issue or issues of fact
1oined (y the parties% neither one of the& can pray for a su&&ary 1udg&ent. 6here the facts pleaded (y
the parties are disputed or contested% proceedings for a su&&ary 1udg&ent cannot ta*e the place of a trial.
SPOUSES ROLANDO D. SOLLER AND NENITE T. SOLLER v. $EIRS O# )EREMIAS ULAYAO,
NAMELY, NELSON ULAYAO, #ERELYN ULAYAO-DEL MUNDO, ED)UNNE ULAYAO, ,ILMA
ULAYAO, LAILA ULAYAO, ANALYN ULAYAO, AND LILI&ET$ ULAYAO, G.R. No. 17!, )8=; 18,
!"1!
Civil Procedure [(ervice of Pleadin#s] - 'ervice of pleadings or papers &ust (e &ade on the counsel if
a party is already represented (y one. It is a settled rule that notice to the client will only (e (inding and
effective if specifically ordered (y the Court. 4otice to the client and not to the counsel of record is not
notice within the &eaning of the law. NORMANDY R. &AUTISTA v. MAR*ING G. %RU0, S$ERI## IV,
REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT, &R. 3, ROSALES, PANGASINAN, A.M. No. P-1!-3"6!., )8=; !, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Error of ud#'ent] - Co&plainant was clearly assailing respondents !0 4ove&(er
0??" ;rder% which was unfavora(le to his clients interest. :e was% in truth% alleging an error of 1udg&ent%
which &ay (e addressed through the proper 1udicial re&edy. As such% the error &ay not (e the su(1ect of
an ad&inistrative proceeding. ATTY. #ELINO U. &ANGALAN v. )UDGE &EN)AMIN D. TURGANO,
RT%, &R. 1, LAOAG %ITY, A.M. No. RT)-1!-!317, )8=; !, !"1!.
Civil Procedure [udicial Power] - 7udicial power presupposes actual controversies% the very antithesis
of &ootness. 6here there is no &ore live su(1ect of controversy% the Court ceases to have a reason to
render any ruling or &a*e any pronounce&ent. Courts generally decline 1urisdiction on the ground of
&ootness , save when% a&ong others% a co&pelling constitutional issue raised requires the for&ulation of
controlling principles to guide the (ench% the (ar and the pu(lic/ or when the case is capa(le of repetition
yet evading 1udicial review. %ESAR V. MADRIAGA, )R. v. %$INA &AN*ING %ORPORATION, G.R. No.
1'!377, )8=; !, !"1!
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 7urisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties (ut
continues until the case is ter&inated. MA)OR GENERAL %ARLOS #. GAR%IA, A#P .RET./ v. T$E
E5E%UTIVE SE%RETARY, REPRESENTING T$E O##I%E O# T$E PRESIDENT+ T$E SE%RETARY
O# NATIONAL DE#ENSE VOLTAIRE T. GA0MIN+ T$E %$IE# O# STA##, ARMED #OR%ES O#
T$E P$ILIPPINES, GEN. EDUARDO SL. O&AN, )R., AND LT. GEN. GAUDEN%IO S. PANGILINAN,
A#P .RET./ DIRE%TOR, &UREAU O# %ORRE%TIONS, G.R. No. 1'8(. )8=; 3", !"1!
Evidence [Credibility of Witness] - It has (een consistently held that in cri&inal cases the evaluation of
the credi(ility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial 1udge% whose conclusion
thereon deserves &uch weight and respect (ecause the 1udge has the direct opportunity to o(serve said
witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES
v. %RISTINA GUSTA#SSON Y NA%UA, G.R. No. 17'!6, )8=; 3", !"1!
Civil Procedure [&orce 4ntervenor] - Npon service of the writ of garnish&ent% the garnishee
(eco&es a )virtual party) or )forced intervenor) to the case and the trial court there(y acquires
1urisdiction to (ind the garnishee to co&ply with its orders and processes.K &AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINE
ISLANDS v. %ARLITO LEE LEE, G.R. No. 1'"1((, A8F8<3 1, !"1!
Civil Procedure [&ailure to Attac) Relevant Docu'ents] - 'ection > of Rule 49 of the Rules of Court
authoriIes the dis&issal of apetition for failure to attachrelevant% not &erely incidental% pleadings. RADIO
P$ILIPPINE NET,OR*, IN%., ET AL. v. RUT$ #. YAP, ET AL., G.R. No. 187713, A8F8<3 1, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Writ of Possession] - Any question regarding the regularity and validity of the
&ortgage or its foreclosure cannot (e raised as a 1ustification for opposing the petition for the
issuance of the writ of possession. 5he said issues &ay (e raised and deter&ined only after the
issuance of the writ of possession. SPOUSES %$ARLIE #ORTALE0A AND O#ELIA #ORTALE0A
v. SPOUSES RAUL LAPITAN AND RONA LAPITAN, G.R. No. 178!88, A8F8<3 1, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Attac)'ent of Docu'ents on A**eal] - 5he attached docu&ents are sufficient for the
appellate court to decide the case at (ar considering that the 'AC resolution contains state&ents of the
factual antecedents &aterial to the case. 5he assailed 'AC Resolution is the only &aterial portion of the
record that should (e annexed with the petition for the CA to decide on the correctness of the 'ACs
interpretation of the law and 1urisprudence on the &atter (efore it. MANUEL D. YNGSON )R. .IN $IS
%APA%ITY AS T$E LI7UIDATOR O# AR%AM - %OMPANY, IN%./ v. P$ILIPPINE NATIONAL
&AN*, G.R. No. 17113!, A8F8<3 1, !"1!
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] - 5he rules clearly &andate the sheriff or other proper officer to file a
return and when necessary% periodic reports% with the court which issued the writ of execution. 5he writ of
execution shall (e returned to the court i&&ediately after the 1udg&ent had (een partially or fully
satisfied. In case the writ is still unsatisfied or only partially satisfied >? days after the officers receipt of
the sa&e% said officer shall file a report with the court stating the reasons therefor. 'u(sequently% the
officer shall periodically file with the court a report on the proceedings ta*en to enforce the writ every >?
days until said writ is fully satisfied or its effectivity expires. 5he officer is further required to furnish the
parties with copies of the return and periodic reports. ASTORGA AND REPOL LA, O##I%ES,
REPRESENTED &Y ATTY. ARNOLD &. LUGARES V. LEODEL N. RO5AS, S$ERI## IV, REGIONAL
TRIAL %OURT, &RAN%$ 66, MA*ATI %ITY, A.M. No. P-1!-3"!', A8F8<31, !"1!
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 5he allegations in the co&plaint and the reliefs prayed for are the
deter&inants of the nature of the action and of which court has 1urisdiction over the &atter. EDITO
GUL#O AND EMMANUELA GUL#O v. )OSE P. AN%$ETA, G.R. No. 173"1, A8F8<3 1, !"1!.
Civil Procedure [Default] - A defendant who has (een declared in default is precluded fro& raising any
other ground in his appeal fro& the 1udg&ent (y default since% otherwise% he would then (e allowed to
adduce evidence in his defense% which right he had lost after he was declared in default.
6hile it &ay (e said that (y defaulting% leaves hi&self at the &ercy of the court % the Rules nevertheless
see to it that any 1udg&ent against hi& &ust (e in accordance with the evidence required (y law. 5he
evidence of the plaintiff% presented in the defendants a(sence% cannot (e ad&itted if it is (asically
inco&petent. Although the defendant would not (e in a position to o(1ect% ele&entary 1ustice requires that
only legal evidence should (e considered against hi&. RO&ERTO OTERO v. ROGER TAN G.R. No.
!""13(, A8F8<3 1, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [Warrantless Arrest] - $rior 1ustification for intrusion or prior lawful intrusion is
not an ele&ent of an arrest in flagrante delicto.
A legiti&ate warrantless arrest necessarily cloa*s the arresting police officer with authority to validly
search and seiIe fro& the offender -!. dangerous weapons% and -0. those that &ay (e used as proof of the
co&&ission of an offense. MARGARITA AM&RE Y %AYUNI v. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES
G.R. No. 1'13!, A8F8<3 1, !"1!
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] -As a &atter of law% once a 1udg&ent (eco&es final% the prevailing party is
entitled as a &atter of right to a 6rit of Axecution as &andated (y 'ection !% Rule >" of the !""# Rules of
Civil $rocedure. MINDANAO TERMINAL AND &RO*ERAGE SERVI%E, IN%. v. %OURT O# APPEALS
AND P$ILIPPINE PORTS AUT$ORITY?P$ILIPPINE PORTS AUT$ORITY VS. $ON. %ESAR M.
SOLIS, ET%., ET AL., $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"1!?a8F8<3!"1!?163!86.@26B O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 163!86 -
G.R. No. 166"! A8F8<3 !!, !"1!
Civil Procedure [!enue] -5he plaintiff or the defendant &ust (e residents of the place where the
action has (een instituted at the ti&e the action is co&&enced. :owever% if the plaintiff does not reside in
the $hilippines% the co&plaint in such case &ay only (e filed in the court of the place where the defendant
resides. T$EODORE AND NAN%Y ANG, REPRESENTED &Y ELDRIGE MARVIN &. A%ERON v.
SPOUSES ALAN AND EM ANG, G.R. No. 186''3, A8F8<3 !!, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Doctrine of 4''utability] - 5he doctrine of i&&uta(ility of a final 1udg&ent has not
(een a(solute% and has ad&itted several exceptions% a&ong the&< -a. the correction of clerical errors/ -(.
the so-called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no pre1udice to any party/ -c. void 1udg&ents/ and -d.
whenever circu&stances transpire after the finality of the decision that render its execution un1ust and
inequita(le. UNIVERSITY O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, ET AL. v. $ON. AGUSTIN S. DI0ON, ET AL., G.R.
No. 17118!, A8F8<3 !3, !"1!
Civil Procedure[ Dis'issal of actions]%Th4 %o8r3 aFr44< H:3h 3h4 a@@4==a34 co8r3 Hh41 :3 r8=42
3ha3 3h4 2:<A:<<a= o6 3h4 coA@=a:13 aFa:1<3 3h4 DoH?Occ:2413a= 246412a13< 2o4< 1o3 carr; H:3h :3
3h4 2:<A:<<a= o6 3h4 cro<<-c=a:A< aFa:1<3 3h4A. T$E DO, %$EMI%AL %OMPANY AND
O%%IDENTAL %$EMI%AL %ORPORATION v. %E%ILIO A&ENON, ET AL.,B.R. 4os. !#"0>0 T
B.R. 4o. !#"0"?% August 0>% 0?!0
Re'edial Law [Preli'inary Considerations]Th4 @r:1c:@=4 o6 <8><3a13:a= coA@=:a1c4 r4coF1:94< 3ha3
4L:F41c:4< a12 <:38a3:o1< 2o occa<:o1a==; 24Aa12 <oA4 6=4L:>:=:3; :1 3h4 r:F:2 a@@=:ca3:o1 o6 3h4 r8=4< o6
@roc428r4 a12 3h4 =aH<. Tha3 r8=4< o6 @roc428r4 Aa; >4 Aa12a3or; :1 6orA a12 a@@=:ca3:o1 2o4< 1o3
6or>:2 a <hoH:1F o6 <8><3a13:a= coA@=:a1c4 8124r M8<3:6:a>=4 c:rc8A<3a1c4<, >4ca8<4 <8><3a13:a=
coA@=:a1c4 2o4< 1o3 4S8a34 3o a 2:<r4Far2 o6 >a<:c r8=4<. MA*ATI S$ANGRI-LA $OTEL AND
RESORT, IN%. v. ELLEN )O$ANNE $ARPER, ET AL.,B.R. 4o. !="""=% August 0"% 0?!0
Civil Procedure[,eanin# of &oru' ()o**in#]%#or8A <ho@@:1F :< a1 ac3 o6 a @ar3;, aFa:1<3 HhoA a1
a2v4r<4 M82FA413 or or24r ha< >441 r4124r42 :1 o14 6or8A, o6 <44E:1F a12 @o<<:>=; F433:1F a 6avora>=4
o@:1:o1 :1 a1o3h4r 6or8A, o3h4r 3ha1 >; a@@4a= or <@4c:a= c:v:= ac3:o1 6or c4r3:orar:. I3 Aa; a=<o >4 3h4
:1<3:383:o1 o6 3Ho or Aor4 ac3:o1< or @roc442:1F< Fro81242 o1 3h4 <aA4 ca8<4 o1 3h4 <8@@o<:3:o1 3ha3 o14
or 3h4 o3h4r co8r3 Ho8=2 AaE4 a 6avora>=4 2:<@o<:3:o1. Th4 4<3a>=:<h42 r8=4 :< 3ha3 6or 6or8A <ho@@:1F 3o
4L:<3, >o3h ac3:o1< A8<3 :1vo=v4 3h4 <aA4 3ra1<ac3:o1<, <aA4 4<<413:a= 6ac3< a12 c:rc8A<3a1c4<, a12 A8<3
ra:<4 :2413:ca= ca8<4< o6 ac3:o1<, <8>M4c3 Aa334r, a12 :<<84<. DOROTEA %ATAYAS v. $ON. %OURT O#
APPEALS, SPE%IAL #ORMER T,ENTIET$ DIVISION, %E&U %ITY, ET AL.%B.R. 4o. !9999?% August
0"% 0?!0
Civil Procedure[ E3ecution]%I1 coA@83:1F 3h4 3:A4 =:A:342 6or <8:1F o83 o6 a1 4L4c83:o1, a=3ho8Fh 3h4r4
:< a83hor:3; 3o 3h4 co13rar;, 3h4 F414ra= r8=4 :< 3ha3 3h4r4 <ho8=2 1o3 >4 :1c=8242 3h4 3:A4 Hh41 4L4c83:o1
:< <3a;42, 4:3h4r >; aFr44A413 o6 3h4 @ar3:4< 6or a 246:1:34 3:A4, >; :1M81c3:o1, >; 3h4 3aE:1F o6 a1 a@@4a=
or Hr:3 o6 4rror <o a< 3o o@4ra34 a< a <8@4r<424a<, >; 3h4 24a3h o6 a @ar3; or o3h4rH:<4. A1; :134rr8@3:o1
or 24=a; occa<:o142 >; 3h4 24>3or H:== 4L3412 3h4 3:A4 H:3h:1 Hh:ch 3h4 Hr:3 Aa; >4 :<<842 H:3ho83 <c:r4
6ac:a<. )UAN &. &ANE0, )R. v. $ON. %RISANTO %. %ON%EP%ION, IN $IS %APA%ITY AS T$E
PRESIDING )UDGE O# T$E RT%-&ULA%AN, MALOLOS %ITY, AND T$E ESTATE O# T$E LATE
RODRIGO GOME0, REPRESENTED &Y ITS ADMINISTRATI5, TSUI YU* YING,B.R. 4o. !5"5?=%
August 0"% 0?!0
Evidence[Ad'issibility of Evidence]%Ev:241c4 :< a2A:<<:>=4 Hh41 :3 :< r4=4va13 3o 3h4 :<<84 a12 :< 1o3
4Lc=8242 >; 3h4 =aH or 3h4 r8=4< or :< coA@43413 LEONARDO NOTARTE, ET AL. v. GODO#REDO
NOTARTE,B.R. 4o. !=?9!4% August 0"% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [!erification and Certification A#ainst $on%&oru' ()o**in#] - A1
81a83hor:942 coA@=a:13 2o4< 1o3 @ro28c4 a1; =4Fa= 4664c3. $41c4, 3h4 co8r3 <ho8=2 2:<A:<< 3h4
coA@=a:13 o1 3h4 Fro812 3ha3 :3 ha< 1o M8r:<2:c3:o1 ov4r 3h4 coA@=a:13 a12 3h4 @=a:13:66. ATTY. #E
7. PALMIANO-SALVADOR, v. %ONSTANTINO ANGELES, <8><3:38342 >; LU0 G. ANGELES,B.R.
4o. !#!0!"% 'epte&(er >% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [Question of Law] - Th4 S8@r4A4 %o8r3 :< 1o3 a 3r:4r o6 6ac3<. I3 :< 1o3 o8r 681c3:o1 3o
r4v:4H, 4LaA:14 a12 4va=8a34 or H4:Fh 3h4 @ro>a3:v4 va=84 o6 3h4 4v:241c4 @r4<41342. A S84<3:o1 o6 6ac3
Ho8=2 ar:<4 :1 <8ch 4v413. A=3ho8Fh M8r:<@r8241c4 a2A:3< o6 <4v4ra= 4Lc4@3:o1< 3o 3h4 6or4Fo:1F r8=4<, 3h4
@r4<413 ca<4 2o4< 1o3 6a== 8124r a1; o6 3h4A. MAGDI,ANG REALTY %ORPORATION, ET AL. v. T$E
MANILA &AN*ING %ORPORATION, <8><3:38342 >; #IRST SOVEREIGN ASSET MANAGEMENT .SPV-
AM%/, IN%.,B .R. 4o. !"55"0% 'epte&(er 5% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [Raffle of Cases] - G:v41 3h4 8rF413 1a38r4 o6 TRO or :1M81c3:o1 ca<4<, 4ach o6 3h4A
ha2 3o >4 :AA42:a34=; a3341242 3o. Th:< @4c8=:ar:3; A8<3 hav4 =42 3o 3h4 a2o@3:o1 o6 3h4 @rac3:c4 o6
ra66=:1F <8ch ca<4< 24<@:34 3h4:r 18A>4r >4:1F =4<< 3ha1 3h4 18A>4r o6 3h4 &ra1ch4< :1 Ma12a=8;o1F
%:3;. Th4 @rac3:c4 2:2 1o3 a><o=834=; co13rav414 %:rc8=ar No. 7 :1 v:4H o6 3h4 c:rc8=ar :3<4=6 4L@r4<<=;
4Lc4@3:1F 8124r :3< 6o8r3h @araFra@h, <8@ra, a1; :1c:2413a= or :134r=oc83or; Aa334r o6 <8ch 8rF413 1a38r4
.=:E4 a TRO a@@=:ca3:o1/ 3ha3 A:Fh3 1o3 Ha:3 6or 3h4 r4F8=ar ra66=4. GOVERNMENT SERVI%E
INSURAN%E SYSTEM, >; ATTY. LU%IO L. YU, )R.,v. E5E%UTIVE )UDGE MARIA A. %AN%INO-
ERUM,A.+. 4o. R57-?"-!=0% 'epte&(er 5% 0?!0
Evidence [Entries in .fficial Records] % E13r:4< :1 o66:c:a= r4cor2< Aa24 :1 3h4 @4r6orAa1c4 o6 h:< 283;
>; a @8>=:c o66:c4r o6 3h4 Ph:=:@@:14<, or >; a @4r<o1 :1 3h4 @4r6orAa1c4 o6 a 283; <@4c:a==; 41Mo:142 >;
=aH, ar4 @r:Aa 6ac:4 4v:241c4 o6 3h4 6ac3< 3h4r4:1 <3a342. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. %ALE5TO
D. #UNDALES,B.R. 4o. !=49?9% 'epte&(er 5% 0?!0
Cri'inal Procedure [Warrantless Arrest] % U124r S4c3:o1 .a/, R8=4 113 o6 3h4 R8=4< o6 %o8r3,
a @4r<o1 Aa; >4 arr4<342 H:3ho83 a Harra13 :6 h4 Bha< coAA:3342, :< ac38a==; coAA:33:1F, or :<
a334A@3:1F 3o coAA:3 a1 o6641<4.B Th4 acc8<42 Ha< ca8Fh3 :1 3h4 ac3 o6 coAA:33:1F a1 o6641<4
28r:1F a >8;->8<3 o@4ra3:o1. ,h41 a1 acc8<42 :< a@@r4h41242 :1 6=aFra134 24=:c3o a< a r4<8=3 o6 a
>8;->8<3 o@4ra3:o1, 3h4 @o=:c4 o66:c4r< ar4 1o3 o1=; a83hor:942 >83 283;->o812 3o arr4<3 h:A 4v41
H:3ho83 a Harra13. A1 arr4<3 Aa24 a634r a1 413ra@A413 o@4ra3:o1 2o4< 1o3 r4S8:r4 a Harra13
:1a<A8ch a< :3 :< co1<:24r42 a va=:2 BHarra13=4<< arr4<3.B PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v.
)OSE ALMODIEL ALIAS BDO DONG ASTRO&AL,B,B.R. 4o. 0??"5!% 'epte&(er 5% 0?!0
Cri'inal Procedure [De'urrer to Evidence] % A QAo3:o1 6or =4av4 o6 co8r3 3o 6:=4 24A8rr4r 3o
4v:241c4 <ha== <@4c:6:ca==; <3a34 :3< Fro812< a12 <ha== >4 6:=42 H:3h:1 a 1o1-4L3412:>=4 @4r:o2 o6 6:v4 ./
2a;< a634r 3h4 @ro<4c83:o1 r4<3< :3< ca<4.R Th:< @4r:o2 r81< o1=; a634r 3h4 co8r3 <ha== hav4 r8=42 o1 3h4
@ro<4c83:o1N< 6orAa= o664r 6or 3ha3 :< Hh41 :3 ca1 >4 244A42 3o hav4 r4<342 :3< ca<4. ELSA &. REYES v.
SANDLGAN&AYAN AND PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES
B.R. 4o. !4=9?#% !9#0?0% !9#00>% and !9#0#!% 'epte&(er 5% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [Perfection of A**eal] % ,h:=4 3h4 @4r64c3:o1 o6 a1 a@@4a= :1 3h4 Aa114r a12
3h4 @4r:o2 @r4<cr:>42 >; =aH :< Aa12a3or; a12 M8r:<2:c3:o1a= a12 14c4<<ar:=;, 3h4 6a:=8r4 3o
co16orA 3o 3h4 r8=4< H:== r4124r 3h4 M82FA413 6or r4v:4H 6:1a= a12 81a@@4a=a>=4. &; Ha; o6
4Lc4@3:o1, hoH4v4r, A:1or =a@<4< ar4 a3 3:A4< 2:<r4Far242 :1 or24r 3o F:v4 284 co8r<4 3o a@@4a=<
6:=42 >4;o12 3h4 r4F=4A413ar; @4r:o2 o1 3h4 >a<:< o6 <3ro1F a12 coA@4==:1F r4a<o1<, <8ch a<
<4rv:1F 3h4 412< o6 M8<3:c4 a12 @r4v413:1F a Frav4 A:<carr:aF4 3h4r4o6. ANITA %. VIAN0ON, $EIR
O# T$E LATE LU%ILA %ANDELARIA GON0ALES v. MINOPLE MA%ARAEG,B.R. 4o. !#!!?#%
'epte&(er 5% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [urisdiction2 - RA '!8!, Hh:ch 3ooE 4664c3 o1 A@r:= !3, !""(, 4L@a1242 3h4 M8r:<2:c3:o1
o6 3h4 %o8r3 o6 TaL A@@4a=< .%TA/ 3o :1c=824, aAo1F o3h4r<, 3h4 @oH4r 3o r4v:4H >; a@@4a= 24c:<:o1<,
or24r< or r4<o=83:o1< o6 3h4 R4F:o1a= Tr:a= %o8r3< :1 =oca= 3aL ca<4< or:F:1a==; 24c:242 or r4<o=v42 >;
3h4A :1 3h4 4L4rc:<4 o6 3h4:r or:F:1a= or a@@4==a34 M8r:<2:c3:o1. %ITY O# IRIGA v. %AMARINES SUR III
ELE%TRI% %OOPERATIVE IN%.,B.R. 4o. !"0"45% 'epte&(er 5% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [(u''ons] - Th4 6812aA413a= r8=4 :< 3ha3 M8r:<2:c3:o1 ov4r a 246412a13 :1 a c:v:= ca<4
:< acS8:r42 4:3h4r 3hro8Fh <4rv:c4 o6 <8AAo1< or 3hro8Fh vo=813ar; a@@4ara1c4 :1 co8r3 a12 <8>A:<<:o1
3o :3< a83hor:3;. I6 a 246412a13 ha< 1o3 >441 @ro@4r=; <8AAo142, 3h4 co8r3 acS8:r4< 1o M8r:<2:c3:o1 ov4r
:3< @4r<o1, a12 a M82FA413 r4124r42 aFa:1<3 :3 :< 18== a12 vo:2. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT &AN* v.
)ULIE %$ANDUMAL,B.R. 4o. !"59!"% 'epte&(er 5% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [!oluntary A**earance] - Th8<, :3 Ha< r8=42 3ha3 3h4 6:=:1F o6 Ao3:o1< 3o a2A:3 a1<H4r,
6or a22:3:o1a= 3:A4 3o 6:=4 a1<H4r, 6or r4co1<:24ra3:o1 o6 a 246a8=3 M82FA413, a12 3o =:63 or24r o6 246a8=3
H:3h Ao3:o1 6or r4co1<:24ra3:o1 :< co1<:24r42 vo=813ar; <8>A:<<:o1 3o 3h4 3r:a= co8r3N< M8r:<2:c3:o1.
PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT &AN* v. )ULIE %$ANDUMAL,B.R. 4o. !"59!"% 'epte&(er 5% 0?!0
(*ecial Civil Action [E1ect'ent] - ,4==-<433=42 :< 3h4 r8=4 3ha3 @4r<o1< Hho occ8@; 3h4 =a12 o6 a1o3h4r
a3 3h4 =a334rN< 3o=4ra1c4 or @4rA:<<:o1, H:3ho83 a1; co13rac3 >43H441 3h4A :< >o812 >; a1 :A@=:42
@roA:<4 3ha3 3h4; H:== vaca34 3h4 <aA4 8@o1 24Aa12, 6a:=:1F Hh:ch a <8AAar; ac3:o1 6or 4M4c3A413 :< 3h4
@ro@4r r4A42; aFa:1<3 3h4A. ANTIO7UIA DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION AND )AMAI%A REALTY
- MAR*ETING %ORPORATION v. &EN)AMIN P. RA&A%AL, EULALIA %ANTALE)O, TERESITA
%ANTALE)O, RUDY RAMOS, DOMINGO AGUILAR, DOMINGO %ANTALE)O, VIRGINIA
%ANTALE)O, DUL%E A7UINO, ROGELIO REDONDO, VIRGILIO %ANTALE)O, #RAN%IS%O
LUM&RES AND RODOL#O DELA %ERNA,B.R. 4o. !4==4>% 'epte&(er ?5% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [4ndis*ensable Party] - Th4 a><41c4 o6 a1 :12:<@41<a>=4 @ar3; :1 a ca<4 r4124r< a==
<8><4S8413 ac3:o1< o6 3h4 co8r3 18== a12 vo:2 6or Ha13 o6 a83hor:3; 3o ac3, 1o3 o1=; a< 3o 3h4 a><413 @ar3:4<
>83 4v41 a< 3o 3ho<4 @r4<413. $ER %APA%ITY AS PRESIDING )UDGE O# T$E RT%-MANDALUYONG
%ITY-&RAN%$ !11 AND GIL&ERT GUY,B.R. 4o. !="4=9 T B.R. 4o. !="9""% 'epte&(er 5% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [&res) Period Rule] - I1 N4;@4< v. %o8r3 o6 A@@4a=< .S4@34A>4r 1(, !""/, H4 r8=42
3ha3 3o <3a12ar2:94 3h4 a@@4a= @4r:o2< @rov:242 :1 3h4 R8=4< o6 %o8r3 a12 3o a66or2 =:3:Fa13< a 6a:r
o@@or381:3; 3o a@@4a= 3h4:r ca<4<, 3h4 %o8r3 244A< :3 @rac3:ca= 3o a==oH a 6r4<h @4r:o2 o6 6:63441 .1/ 2a;<
H:3h:1 Hh:ch 3o 6:=4 3h4 1o3:c4 o6 a@@4a= :1 3h4 RT%, co81342 6roA r4c4:@3 o6 3h4 or24r 2:<A:<<:1F a Ao3:o1
6or 14H 3r:a= or Ao3:o1 6or r4co1<:24ra3:o1. Sa:2 B6r4<h @4r:o2 r8=4B a=<o a:A< 3o r4F:A413 or AaE4 3h4
a@@4a= @4r:o2 81:6orA. I3 4ra2:ca34< 3h4 co168<:o1 a< 3o Hh41 3h4 6:63441 .1/-2a; a@@4a= @4r:o2 <ho8=2
>4 co81342 T 6roA r4c4:@3 o6 1o3:c4 o6 M82FA413 or 6roA r4c4:@3 o6 1o3:c4 o6 6:1a= or24r a@@4a=42 6roA.
SUI%O INDUSTRIAL %ORP., ET AL, v. $ON. MARILYN LAGURA-YAP, ET. AL.,B.R. 4o. !###!!%
'epte&(er 5% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [Pay'ent of Doc@et &ees] - Pa;A413 o6 3h4 68== aAo813 o6 2ocE43 644< :< a1
:12:<@41<a>=4 <34@ 3o 3h4 @4r64c3:o1 o6 a1 a@@4a=, a12 3h4 %o8r3 acS8:r4< M8r:<2:c3:o1 ov4r a1; ca<4 o1=;
8@o1 <8ch @a;A413. $oH4v4r, 3h4<4 <aA4 r8=4< Aa; >4 r4=aL42, 6or @4r<8a<:v4 a12 H4:Fh3; r4a<o1<, 3o
r4=:4v4 a =:3:Fa13 o6 a1 :1M8<3:c4 coAA41<8ra34 H:3h h:< 6a:=8r4 3o coA@=; H:3h @roc428r4. )OSE
VI%ENTE ATILANO II, $EIRS O# %ARLOS V. TAN r4@r4<41342 >; %o1ra2 *. Ta1, %ar=o< *. Ta1,
%aA:=o *ar= *. Ta1, %ar:<a Ro<412a T. Go, N4=:2a #. A3:=a1o a12 I<:2ra *. Ta1 v. $ON. )UDGE
TI&ING A. ASAALI, PRESIDING )UDGE O# T$E REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT O# 0AM&OANGA %ITY
AND ATLANTI% MER%$ANDISING, IN%.,B.R. 4o. !#4"=0% 'epte&(er !?% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [Parties to an Action] - I3 :< H4==-<433=42 3ha3 1o Aa1 <ha== >4 a664c342 >; a1;
@roc442:1F 3o Hh:ch h4 :< a <3ra1F4r, a12 <3ra1F4r< 3o a ca<4 ar4 1o3 >o812 >; a M82FA413 r4124r42 >;
3h4 co8r3. EL4c83:o1 o6 a M82FA413 ca1 o1=; >4 :<<842 aFa:1<3 o14 Hho :< a @ar3; 3o 3h4 ac3:o1. )OSE
VI%ENTE ATILANO II, $EIRS O# %ARLOS V. TAN r4@r4<41342 >; %o1ra2 *. Ta1, %ar=o< *. Ta1,
%aA:=o *ar= *. Ta1, %ar:<a Ro<412a T. Go, N4=:2a #. A3:=a1o a12 I<:2ra *. Ta1 v. $ON. )UDGE
TI&ING A. ASAALI, PRESIDING )UDGE O# T$E REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT O# 0AM&OANGA %ITY
AND ATLANTI% MER%$ANDISING, IN%.,B.R. 4o. !#4"=0% 'epte&(er !?% 0?!0
Evidence [&indin#s of &act of t)e -rial Courts] - ,h41 3h4 :<<84< r4vo=v4 o1 Aa334r< o6 cr42:>:=:3; o6
H:314<<4<, 3h4 6:12:1F< o6 6ac3 o6 3h4 3r:a= co8r3, :3< ca=:>ra3:o1 o6 3h4 34<3:Ao1:4< o6 3h4 H:314<<4<, a12 :3<
a<<4<<A413 o6 3h4 @ro>a3:v4 H4:Fh3 3h4r4o6, a< H4== a< :3< co1c=8<:o1< a1chor42 o1 <a:2 6:12:1F<, ar4
accor242 h:Fh r4<@4c3, :6 1o3 co1c=8<:v4 4664c3. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. ,EN%ESLAO
NELMIDA, ET AL.,B.R. 4o. !=45??% 'epte&(er !!% 0?!0
Evidence [Esto**el] - R8=4 131, S4c3:o1 !.a/ o6 3h4 R8=4< o6 %o8r3, 4181c:a3:1F 3h4 @r:1c:@=4 o6 4<3o@@4=,
<3a34<, B,h414v4r a @ar3; ha<, >; h:< oH1 24c=ara3:o1, ac3 or oA:<<:o1, :13413:o1a==; a12 24=:>4ra34=; =42
a1o3h4r 3o >4=:4v4 a @ar3:c8=ar 3h:1F 3o >4 3r84, a12 3o ac3 8@o1 <8ch >4=:46, h4 ca11o3, :1 a1; =:3:Fa3:o1
ar:<:1F o83 o6 <8ch 24c=ara3:o1, ac3 or oA:<<:o1, >4 @4rA:3342 3o 6a=<:6; :3.B A3 @o:13 :< To=42o v. $;241,
Hh4r4 3h4 %o8r3 h4=2 3ha3 Ba @ar3; 3o a co13rac3 ca11o3 241; 3h4 va=:2:3; 3h4r4o6 a634r 41Mo;:1F :3< >4146:3<
H:3ho83 o83raF4 3o o14N< <41<4 o6 M8<3:c4 a12 6a:r14<<.B P$ILIPPINE NATIONAL &AN* v. SPOUSES
ALE)ANDRO a12 MYRNA RE&LANDO,B.R. 4o. !"4?!4% 'epte&(er !0% 0?!0
(*ecial Civil Actions [ust Co'*ensation] - S433=42 :< 3h4 r8=4 3ha3 o1=; 3h4 RT%, <:33:1F a< a SA%,
co8=2 AaE4 3h4 6:1a= 2434rA:1a3:o1 o6 M8<3 coA@41<a3:o1. Mor4ov4r, :3 A8<3 >4 <3r4<<42 3ha3 M8<3
coA@41<a3:o1 6or 3h4 cro@< a12 :A@rov4A413< :< :1<4@ara>=4 6roA 3h4 va=8a3:o1 o6 3h4 raH =a12< a< 3h4
6orA4r ar4 @ar3 a12 @arc4= o6 3h4 =a334r. Ev41 :6 <4@ara34=; va=842, 3h4<4 A8<3 >4 aHar242 3o 3h4
=a12oH14r :rr4<@4c3:v4 o6 3h4 1a38r4 o6 oH14r<h:@ o6 3h4 <a:2 cro@< a12 :1<3a==a3:o1<. $EIRS O#
LEONARDO &ANAAG, NAMELYG MARTA R. &ANAAG, TERESITA &. MENDO0A, $ONORATO R.
&ANAAG, IMELDA R. &ANAAG, DIOSDADO R. &ANAAG, PRE%IOSA &. POSADAS, AND ANTONIO
R. &ANAAG, SPOUSES PEDRO MENDO0A AND TERESITA MENDO0A, AND $ONORATO R.
&ANAAG v. AMS #ARMING %ORPORATION AND LAND &AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINES,B.R. 4o.
!=#=?!% 'epte&(er !>% 0?!0
(*ecial Civil Action [E1ect'ent] - I1 a1 81=aH68= 243a:14r, 3h4 246412a13N< @o<<4<<:o1 o6 3h4 @=a:13:66N<
@ro@4r3; :< >a<42 o1 3h4 @=a:13:66N< @4rA:<<:o1 4L@r4<<42 3hro8Fh a1 4L@r4<< or :A@=:42 co13rac3 >43H441
3h4A. Th4 246412a13N< @o<<4<<:o1 >4coA4< :==4Fa= o1=; Hh41 3h4 @=a:13:66 24Aa12< 3h4 r438r1 o6 3h4
@ro@4r3;, 4:3h4r >4ca8<4 o6 3h4 4L@:ra3:o1 o6 3h4 r:Fh3 3o @o<<4<< :3 or 3h4 34rA:1a3:o1 o6 3h4:r co13rac3,
a12 3h4 246412a13 r468<4< 3o h442 3h4 24Aa12. 0OSIMA IN%ORPORATED v. LILIA SALIM&AGAT AND
ALL PERSONS %LAIMING RIG$TS UNDER $ER,G.R. 4o. !#4>#9% 'epte&(er !0% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [Real Party%in%4nterest] - A1 ac3:o1 6or r4co1v4;a1c4 :< a1 ac3:o1 ava:=a>=4 3o
a @4r<o1 Hho<4 @ro@4r3; ha< >441 Hro1F68==; r4F:<34r42 8124r 3h4 Torr41< <;<34A :1 a1o3h4rN<
1aA4. ,h:=4 :3 :< a r4a= ac3:o1, :3 :< a1 ac3:o1 :1 @4r<o1aA, 6or :3 >:12< a @ar3:c8=ar :12:v:28a=
o1=;, a=3ho8Fh :3 co1c4r1< 3h4 r:Fh3 3o a1 :13a1F:>=4 3h:1F. A1; M82FA413 :1 3h:< ac3:o1 :< >:12:1F
o1=; 8@o1 3h4 @ar3:4< @ro@4r=; :A@=4a242. Th:< :< :1 E44@:1F H:3h 3h4 @r:1c:@=4 3ha3 4v4r; ac3:o1
A8<3 >4 @ro<4c8342 or 24641242 :1 3h4 1aA4 o6 3h4 r4a= @ar3;-:1-:134r4<3, :.4., 3h4 @ar3; Hho
<3a12< 3o >4 >4146:342 or :1M8r42 >; 3h4 M82FA413 :1 3h4 <8:3, or 3h4 @ar3; 413:3=42 3o 3h4 ava:=< o6
3h4 <8:3, a< 4A>o2:42 :1 S4c3:o1 !, R8=4 3 o6 3h4 R8=4< o6 %o8r3. %ARMEN%ITA GUI0ANO,
<8><3:38342 >; h4r h4:r<, 1aA4=;G EUGENIO M. GUI0ANO, )R., 43.a=., v. REYNALDO S.
VENERA%ION,B.R. 4o. !"!!0=% 'epte&(er !0% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [(ervice of Pleadin#s] - S4c3:o1 !, R8=4 1o6 3h4 R8=4< o6 %o8r3 @rov:24 3ha3 S4rv:c4 :<
3h4 ac3 o6 @rov:2:1F a @ar3; H:3h a co@; o6 3h4 @=4a2:1F or @a@4r co1c4r142. I6 a1; @ar3; ha< a@@4ar42 >;
co81<4=, <4rv:c4 8@o1 h:A <ha== >4 Aa24 8@o1 h:< co81<4= or o14 o6 3h4A, 81=4<< <4rv:c4 8@o1 3h4 @ar3;
h:A<4=6 :< or24r42 >; 3h4 co8r3., %RISPINO PANGILINAN v. )O%ELYN N. &ALAT&AT AND VI%ENTE
A. &ALAT&AT,B.R. 4o. !#?#=#% 'epte&(er !0% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [&oru' ()o**in#] - Th4 4<<41c4 o6 6or8A <ho@@:1F :< 3h4 6:=:1F o6 A8=3:@=4 <8:3<
:1vo=v:1F 3h4 <aA4 @ar3:4< 6or 3h4 <aA4 ca8<4 o6 ac3:o1, 4:3h4r <:A8=3a14o8<=; or <8cc4<<:v4=;, 6or 3h4
@8r@o<4 o6 o>3a:1:1F a 6avora>=4 M82FA413., %RISPINO PANGILINAN v. )O%ELYN N. &ALAT&AT AND
VI%ENTE A. &ALAT&AT, B.R. 4o. !#?#=#% 'epte&(er !0% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [Litis Pedentia] - To co1<3:3834 =:3:< @412413:a, 1o3 o1=; A8<3 3h4 @ar3:4< :1 3h4 3Ho
ac3:o1< >4 3h4 <aA4+ 3h4r4 A8<3 a< H4== >4 <8><3a13:a= :2413:3; :1 3h4 ca8<4< o6 ac3:o1 a12 :1 3h4 r4=:46<
<o8Fh3., %RISPINO PANGILINAN v. )O%ELYN N. &ALAT&AT AND VI%ENTE A. &ALAT&AT,B.R. 4o.
!#?#=#% 'epte&(er !0% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [,otion for Reconsideration] - A Ao3:o1 6or r4co1<:24ra3:o1 :< a co12:3:o1 <:14 S8a
1o1 6or 3h4 6:=:1F o6 a @43:3:o1 6or c4r3:orar:. I3< @8r@o<4 :< 3o Fra13 a1 o@@or381:3; 6or 3h4 co8r3 3o corr4c3
a1; ac38a= or @4rc4:v42 4rror a33r:>8342 3o :3 >; 3h4 r4-4LaA:1a3:o1 o6 3h4 =4Fa= a12 6ac38a= c:rc8A<3a1c4<
o6 3h4 ca<4. %OMMISSIONER O# INTERNAL REVENUE v. %OURT O# TA5 APPEALS AND AYALA
LAND, IN%.,B.R. 4o. !"?9=?% 'epte&(er !>% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [Res udicata] - #or r4< M82:ca3a, :1 :3< co1c4@3 a< a >ar >; 6orA4r M82FA413 3o a@@=;,
3h4 6o==oH:1F A8<3 >4 @r4<413G
1. Th4 6orA4r M82FA413 or or24r :< 6:1a=+
!. I3 :< r4124r42 >; a co8r3 hav:1F M8r:<2:c3:o1 ov4r 3h4 <8>M4c3 Aa334r a12 3h4 @ar3:4<+
3. I3 :< a M82FA413 or a1 or24r o1 3h4 A4r:3<+ a12,
(. Th4r4 :< >43H441 3h4 6:r<3 a12 3h4 <4co12 ac3:o1 :2413:3; o6 @ar3:4<, :2413:3; o6 <8>M4c3 Aa334r, a12
:2413:3; o6 ca8<4< o6 ac3:o1. SOLID&AN* UNION, ET.AL v. METROPOLITAN &AN* AND TRUST
%OMPANY, B.R. 4o. !5>#""% 'epte&(er !#% 0?!0
Evidence [C)ain of Custody] - ,ha3 :< Aa34r:a= 6or a @ro<4c83:o1 o6 3h4 o6641<4 o6 :==4Fa=
<a=4 o6 2a1F4ro8< 2r8F< :< 3h4 @roo6 3ha3 3h4 3ra1<ac3:o1 or <a=4 ac38a==; 3ooE @=ac4,
co8@=42 H:3h 3h4 @r4<413a3:o1 :1 co8r3 o6 4v:241c4 o6 cor@8< 24=:c3:. Th4 @ro<4c83:o1
ach:4v42 3h:< =4v4= o6 @roo6 3hro8Fh 4v:241c4 <866:c:413=; 4<3a>=:<h:1F 3h4 =:1E< :1 3h4 cha:1
o6 c8<3o2; o6 3h4 <4:942 <ha>86roA 3h4 3:A4 o6 :3< <4:98r4 813:= :3 Ha< @r4<41342 :1 co8r3.
PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. RONALD DE )ESUS Y. APA%I&LE AND AMELITO DELA
%RU0Y PUA,B.R. 4o. !"!#5>% 'epte&(er !#% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [Certiorari] - A <@4c:a= c:v:= ac3:o1 6or c4r3:orar: :< 1o3 3h4 @ro@4r r4A42; 3o a<<a:= 3h4
241:a= o6 a Ao3:o1 3o S8a<h a1 :16orAa3:o1. Th4 4<3a>=:<h42 r8=4 :< 3ha3, Hh41 <8ch a1 a2v4r<4
:134r=oc83or; or24r :< r4124r42, 3h4 r4A42; :< 1o3 3o r4<or3 6or3hH:3h 3o c4r3:orar:, >83 3o co13:184 H:3h
3h4 ca<4 :1 284 co8r<4 a12, Hh41 a1 816avora>=4 v4r2:c3 :< ha1242 2oH1, 3o 3aE4 a1 a@@4a= :1 3h4 Aa114r
a83hor:942 >; =aH, DANILO R. 7UERI)ERO, )O$NNY P. LILANG AND IVENE D. REYES v. LINA
PALMES-LIMITAR, ISAGANI G. PALMES AND T$E %OURT O# APPEALS,B.R. 4o. !9949#%
'epte&(er !#% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [Perfection of A**eal] - Th4 r8=4< o1 3h4 3:A4=; @4r64c3:o1 o6 a1 a@@4a= :1 a1 4=4c3:o1
ca<4 r4S8:r4< 3Ho 2:664r413 a@@4a= 644<, o14 3o >4 @a:2 :1 3h4 3r:a= co8r3 3oF43h4r H:3h 3h4 6:=:1F o6 3h4
1o3:c4 o6 a@@4a= H:3h:1 6:v4 2a;< 6roA 1o3:c4 o6 3h4 24c:<:o1, a12 3h4 o3h4r 3o >4 @a:2 :1 3h4 %OMELE%
%a<h D:v:<:o1 H:3h:1 3h4 1-2a; @4r:o2 6roA 3h4 6:=:1F o6 3h4 1o3:c4 o6 a@@4a=. &IENVENIDO ,ILLIAM
D. LLOREN v. T$E %OMMISSION ON ELE%TIONS a12 ROGELIO PUA, )R.,B.R. 4o. !"9>55%
'epte&(er !=% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [4''utability of ud#'ent] - Th4 r8=4 o1 :AA83a>:=:3; o6 M82FA413, 3ha3 o1c4 a
M82FA413 a33a:1< 6:1a=:3; :3 >4coA4< :AA83a>=4 a12 81a=34ra>=4 hoH4v4r 81M8<3 3h4 r4<8=3 o6 4rror Aa;
a@@4ar, :< 1o3 a><o=834. Th4 @oH4r 3o <8<@412 or 4v41 2:<r4Far2 r8=4< o6 @roc428r4 ca1 >4 <o @4rva<:v4
a12 coA@4==:1F a< 3o a=34r 4v41 3ha3 Hh:ch 3h:< %o8r3 :3<4=6 ha2 a=r4a2; 24c=ar42 6:1a=. *EPPEL %E&U
S$IPYARD, IN%. v. PIONEER INSURAN%E AND SURETY %ORPORATION,B.R. 4;'. !=?="9-"#%
'epte&(er !=% 0?!0
Cri'inal Procedure [Preli'inary 4nvesti#ation] - A @r4=:A:1ar; :1v4<3:Fa3:o1 :< h4=2 >46or4 a1
acc8<42 :< @=ac42 o1 3r:a= 3o <4c8r4 3h4 :11oc413 aFa:1<3 ha<3;, Aa=:c:o8<, a12 o@@r4<<:v4 @ro<4c83:o1+ 3o
@ro34c3 h:A 6roA a1 o@41 a12 @8>=:c acc8<a3:o1 o6 a cr:A4, a< H4== a< 6roA 3h4 3ro8>=4, 4L@41<4<, a12
a1L:43; o6 a @8>=:c 3r:a=. I3 :< a=<o :1341242 3o @ro34c3 3h4 <3a34 6roA hav:1F 3o co128c3 8<4=4<< a12
4L@41<:v4 3r:a=<. SR. v. $ON. LEILA DE LIMA, IN $ER %APA%ITY AS SE%RETARY O# )USTI%E, ET
AL.?GLORIA MA%APAGAL-ARROYO v. %OMMISSION ON ELE%TIONS, ET%., ET AL.,B.R. 4o.
!""?=0% B.R. 4o. !""?=5 T B.R. 4o. !""!!=% 'epte&(er !=% 0?!0
Evidence [C)ain of Custody] - %ha:1 o6 %8<3o2;B A4a1< 3h4 28=; r4cor242 a83hor:942
Aov4A413< a12 c8<3o2; o6 <4:942 2r8F< or co13ro==42 ch4A:ca=< or @=a13 <o8rc4< o6 2a1F4ro8<
2r8F< or =a>ora3or; 4S8:@A413 o6 4ach <3aF4, 6roA 3h4 3:A4 o6 <4:98r4?co16:<ca3:o1 3o r4c4:@3 :1
3h4 6or41<:c =a>ora3or; 3o <a64E44@:1F 3o @r4<413a3:o1 :1 co8r3 6or 24<3r8c3:o1. S8ch r4cor2 o6
Aov4A413< a12 c8<3o2; o6 <4:942 :34A <ha== :1c=824 3h4 :2413:3; a12 <:F1a38r4 o6 3h4 @4r<o1 Hho
h4=2 34A@orar; c8<3o2; Ha< o6 3h4 <4:942 :34A, 3h4 2a34 a12 3:A4 Hh41 <8ch 3ra1<64r o6 c8<3o2;
Aa24 :1 3h4 co8r<4 o6 <a64E44@:1F a12 8<4 :1 co8r3 a< 4v:241c4, a12 3h4 6:1a= 2:<@o<:3:o1.
PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. MO$AMAD ANG*O& Y MLANG,B.R. 4o. !"!?90% 'epte&(er !"%
0?!0
Evidence [Circu'stantial Evidence] - D:r4c3 4v:241c4 Ha< 1o3 3h4 o1=; A4a1< o6 @rov:1F ra@4 >4;o12
r4a<o1a>=4 2o8>3. %:rc8A<3a13:a= 4v:241c4 Ho8=2 a=<o >4 3h4 r4=:a>=4 A4a1< 3o 2o <o. ,ha3 Ha< 4<<413:a=
Ha< 3ha3 3h4 81>roE41 cha:1 o6 3h4 4<3a>=:<h42 c:rc8A<3a1c4< =42 3o 1o o3h4r =oF:ca= co1c=8<:o1 4Lc4@3
3h4 a@@4==a13N< F8:=3. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. EDGARDD LUPA%Y #LORES,B .R. 4o.
!=00>?% 'epte&(er !"% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [Liberal Construction of t)e Rules] - Th:< %o8r3 H:== 1o3 co12o14 a cava=:4r a33:3824
3oHar2< @roc428ra= r8=4<. I3 :< 3h4 283; o6 4v4r; A4A>4r o6 3h4 >ar 3o coA@=; H:3h 3h4<4 r8=4<. Th4; ar4
1o3 a3 =:>4r3; 3o <44E 4Lc4@3:o1< <ho8=2 3h4; 6a:= 3o o><4rv4 3h4<4 r8=4< a12 ra3:o1a=:94 3h4:r oA:<<:o1 >;
harE:1F o1 =:>4ra= co1<3r8c3:o1. MARIA %ONSOLA%ION RIVERA-PAS%UAL v. SPOUSES MARILYN
LIM AND GEORGE LIM AND T$E REGISTRY O# DEEDS O# VALEN0UELA %ITY,B.R. 4o. !"!=>#%
'epte&(er !"% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [Res udicata] - A coA@=a:13 Aa; >4 2:<A:<<42 @8r<8a13 3o 3h4 2oc3r:14 o6 r4< M82:ca3a
Hh41, 8@o1 3h4 M8L3a@o<:3:o1 a12 coA@ar:<o1 o6 3h4 ac3:o1 <o8Fh3 3o >4 :<<842 a12 a @r4v:o8< o14, 3h4r4
:< .1/ a1 :2413:3; >43H441 3h4 @ar3:4< or a3 =4a<3 <8ch a< r4@r4<413:1F 3h4 <aA4 :134r4<3 :1 >o3h ac3:o1<+ .!/
a <:A:=ar:3; o6 r:Fh3< a<<4r342 a12 r4=:46 @ra;42 6or a12 .3/ :2413:3; :1 3h4 3Ho @ar3:c8=ar< :< <8ch 3ha3 a1;
M82FA413 Hh:ch Aa; >4 r4124r42 :1 3h4 o3h4r ac3:o1 H:==, r4Far2=4<< o6 Hh:ch @ar3; :< <8cc4<<68=, 68==;
a2M82:ca34 or <433=4 3h4 :<<84< ra:<42 :1 3h4 ac3:o1 8124r co1<:24ra3:o1. RI0AL %OMMER%IAL
&AN*ING %ORPORATION v. DOLORES $ILARIO, TERESITA $ILARIO, T$ELMA $ILARIO O%$AO
AND EDUARDO $ILARIO,B.R. 4o. !9?449% 'epte&(er !"% 0?!0
Provisional Re'edies [4n1unction] - Th4 Aa:1 ac3:o1 6or :1M81c3:o1 :< 2:<3:1c3 6roA 3h4 @rov:<:o1a= or
a1c:==ar; r4A42; o6 @r4=:A:1ar; :1M81c3:o1 Hh:ch ca11o3 4L:<3 4Lc4@3 o1=; a< @ar3 or a1 :1c:2413 o6 a1
:124@412413 ac3:o1 or @roc442:1F. A< a Aa334r o6 co8r<4, :1 a1 ac3:o1 6or :1M81c3:o1, 3h4 a8L:=:ar; r4A42;
o6 @r4=:A:1ar; :1M81c3:o1, Hh43h4r @roh:>:3or; or Aa12a3or;, Aa; :<<84. &P P$ILIPPINES, IN%.
.#ORMERLY &URMA$ %ASTROL P$ILIPPINES, IN%./ VS. %LAR* TRADING %ORPORATION,B.R.
4o. !#50=4% 'epte&(er !"% 0?!0
Civil Procedure [&inality of ud#'ents] - It is worthy to note that once the R5C has rendered a decision
in the exercise of its appellate 1urisdiction% such decision shall% under Rule #?% 'ection 0! of the Rules of
Court% (e i&&ediately executory% without pre1udice to an appeal via petition for review (efore the Court
of Appeals andJor 'upre&e Court. LU%IA NA0AR VDA. DE #ELI%IANO v. ROMEO L. RIVERA,
S$ERI## IV, REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT, O##I%E O# T$E %LER* O# %OURT, VALEN0UELA %ITY,
A.M. NO. P-11-!'!". .#ORMERLY O%A I.P.I. NO. "'-33""-P/, SEPTEM&ER 1', !"1!.
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 4othing in the 8'$s charter confers on the 8'$ the 1urisdiction or
authority to deter&ine this *ind of clai&s% arising out of a su(sequent transfer or assign&ent of evidence
of inde(tedness , a &atter that appropriately falls within the co&petence of courts of general 1urisdiction.
&AN* O# %OMMER%E VS. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT &AN* AND &ANG*O SENTRAL NG
PILIPINAS, G.R. No<. 1((7"-71, S4@34A>4r !(, !"1! - &ANG*O SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS VS.
PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT &AN*, G.R. No<. 1(8'-'", S4@34A>4r !(, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Re'edies] % 5he institution of an ad&inistrative co&plaint is not the proper re&edy for
correcting the action of a 1udge alleged to have gone (eyond the nor&s of propriety% where a sufficient
1udicial re&edy exists. )ORGE D. &A%ULI v. )UDGE MENDEL, A.M. No. RT)-"'-!17', S4@34A>4r !(,
!"1!
Provisional Re'edies [4n1unction] - 5he grant or denial of a writ of preli&inary in1unction in a pending
case rests on the sound discretion of the court ta*ing cogniIance of the case% since the assess&ent and
evaluation of evidence towards that end involves findings of facts left to the said court for its conclusive
deter&ination. LU%IA O. MAGTI&AY v. )UDGE %ADER P. INDAR, AI $A)., REGIONAL TRIAL
%OURT, &RAN%$ 1(, %OTA&ATO %ITY, A.M. No. RT)-11-!!71, S4@34A>4r !(, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Parties in an Action] - A decision rendered on a co&plaint in a civil action or
proceeding does not (ind or pre1udice a person not i&pleaded therein% for no person shall he adversely
affected (y the outco&e of a civil action or proceeding in which he is not a party. :ence% such person
cannot (ring an action for the annul&ent of the 1udg&ent under Rule 4# of the !""# Rules of Civil
$rocedure% except if he has (een a successor in interest (y title su(sequent to the co&&ence&ent of the
action% or the action or proceeding is in re& the 1udg&ent in which is (inding against hi&. DARE
ADVENTURE #ARM %ORPORATION v. SPOUSES #ELI5 AND NENITA NG, SPOUSES MARTIN AND
A0U%ENA NG AND AGRIPINA R. GO%-ONG, ET AL., G.R. No. 1611!!, S4@34A>4r !(, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Auction (ale] - It was% thus% incu&(ent upon hi& to co&ply with the require&ents of
'ection !5% Rule >" of the Rules of Court -Rules. prior to the sale% na&ely% -a. to cause the posting of the
notice for 0? days in > pu(lic places in $asig City where the sale was to ta*e place/ -(. to cause the
pu(lication of the notice once a wee* for two consecutive wee*s in a newspaper of general circulation%
selected (y raffle/ -c. to serve a written notice of the sale to the 1udg&ent o(ligors at least three days
(efore the sale. DIONISIO P. PILOT v. RENATO &. &ARON, S$ERI## IV, REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT,
&RAN%$ !6(, PASIG %ITY, A.M. No. P-1!-3"87. .#orA4r=; A.M. O%A IPI No. "8-!7!"-P/, S4@34A>4r
!(, !"1!
Evidence [Circu'stantial Evidence] % Cirect evidence is not the sole &eans of esta(lishing guilt (eyond
reasona(le dou(t. Although a witness &ay not have actually seen the very act of co&&ission of a cri&e%
he &ay still (e a(le to positively identify a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a cri&e as for instance
when the latter is the person or one of the persons last seen with the victi& i&&ediately (efore and right
after the co&&ission of the cri&e. 5his is the second type of positive identification% which for&s part of
circu&stantial evidence% which% when ta*en together with other pieces of evidence constituting an
un(ro*en chain% leads to the only fair and reasona(le conclusion% which is that the accused is the author of
the cri&e to the exclusion of all others. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. &EN)AMIN &RAVO Y
ESTA&ILLO, G.R. No. 18!8!, S4@34A>4r !(, !"1!
Sp,+i*l Pro+,,-i)#$ .7ri% o/ A(p*ro2 - 5he A&paro Rule was not pro&ulgated with the intent to &a*e
it a to*en gesture of concern for constitutional rights. 5hus% despite the lac* of certain contents% which the
Rules on the 6rits of A&paro and :a(eas Cata generally require% for as long as their a(sence under
exceptional circu&stances can (e reasona(ly 1ustified% a petition should not (e suscepti(le to outright
dis&issal. IN T$E MATTER O# T$E PETITION #OR T$E ,RIT O# AMPARO AND T$E ,RIT O#
$A&EAS DATA IN #AVOR O# #RAN%IS SAE0, #RAN%IS SAE0, PETITIONER v. GLORIA
MA%APAGAL ARROYO, ET AL, G.R. No. 18333, S4@34A>4r !, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Certification a#ainst $on%&oru' ()o**in#] - 'ection 5% Rule # of the Rules of Court
&andates that it should (e the plaintiff or principal party who should sign the certification against foru&
shopping. A petition is flawed when the certification is signed only (y the counsel and not (y the party%
(ecause it is the party% and not the counsel% who is in the (est position to *now whether he actually filed
or caused the filing of a petition. TOMAS T. TEODORO ET.AL., v. %ONTINENTAL %EMENT
%ORPORATION, G.R. No. 163, S4@34A>4r !6, !"1!
Provisional Re'edies [4n1unction] - In1unction is a 1udicial writ% process or proceeding where(y a party
is ordered to do or refrain fro& doing a certain act. It &ay (e the &ain action or &erely a provisional
re&edy for and as an incident in the &ain action.)

Gor an in1unction to issue% the following essential
requisites &ust (e present< -!. there &ust (e a right in esse or the existence of a right to (e protected/ and
-0. the act against which the in1unction is directed to constitute a violation of such right. AGOO RI%E
MILL %ORPORATION .REPRESENTED &Y ITS PRESIDENT, *AM &IA* Y. %$AN, )R./ v. LAND
&AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No. 173"36, S4@34A>4r !6, !"1!
Civil Procedure [4ndis*ensable Party] - Gailure to i&plead an indispensa(le party is not a ground for
the dis&issal of an action% as the re&edy in such case is to i&plead the party clai&ed to (e indispensa(le%
considering that parties &ay (e added (y order of the court% on &otion of the party or on its own initiative
at any stage of the action. LIVING K SENSE, IN%. v. MALAYAN INSURAN%E %OMPANY, IN%.
G.R. No. 1'373, S4@34A>4r !6, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [Aail] - nder the present rule% the grant of (ail is a &atter of discretion upon
conviction (y the R5C of an offense not punisha(le (y death% reclusion perpetua or life i&prison&ent% as
here.
In the exercise of that discretion% the proper courts are to (e guided (y the funda&ental principle that the
allowance of (ail pending appeal should (e exercised not with laxity (ut with grave caution and only for
strong reasons% considering that the accused has (een in fact convicted (y the trial court. %YRIL
%ALPITO 7UI v. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No. 1'6161, S4@34A>4r !6, !"1!.
Provision Re'edies [4n1unction] - 6rits of preli&inary in1unction shall only (e issued with hearing and
prior notice to the party or person sought to (e en1oined. 'hould great or irrepara(le in1ury result to the
applicant (ased on affidavits or the verified application (efore the &atter can (e heard with prior notice to
the parties% the court &ay issue a te&porary restraining order effective for a period of 0? days. 6ithin the
0?-day period% the court &ust notify the other party and order hi& to show cause why in1unction should
not (e granted. SPS. )ESUS G. %RISOLOGO AND NANNETTE &. %RISOLOGO v. )UDGE GEORGE E.
OMELIO, REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT, &R. 1(, DAVAO %ITY, A.M. NO. RT)-1!-!3!1, Oc3o>4r 3, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Petition for Rerview under Rule 45] - It &ust (e stressed that in petitions for review
under Rule 45 only questions of law &ay (e raised% unless the petitioner shows that the case falls under
the recogniIed exceptions.
5his rule% however% ad&its of certain exceptions. In niwide 'ales Realty and Resources Corporation v.
5itan-I*eda Construction and Cevelop&ent Corporation% the Court citing the case of Cavid v.
Construction Industry and Ar(itration Co&&ission% ruled that% as exceptions% factual findings of
construction ar(itrators &ay (e reviewed (y this Court when the petitioner proves affir&atively that<

-!. the award was procured (y corruption% fraud or other undue &eans/
-0. there was evident partiality or corruption of the ar(itrators or any of the&/
->. the ar(itrators were guilty of &isconduct in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and
&aterial to the controversy/
-4. one or &ore of the ar(itrators were disqualified to act as such under 'ection nine of
Repu(lic Act 4o. =#9 and willfully refrained fro& disclosing such disqualifications or of
any other &is(ehavior (y which the rights of any party have (een &aterially pre1udiced/
or
-5. the ar(itrators exceeded their powers% or so i&perfectly executed the&% that a &utual%
final and definite award upon the su(1ect &atter su(&itted to the& was not &ade.
;ther recogniIed exceptions are as follows< -!. when there is a very clear showing of grave a(use of
discretion resulting in lac* or loss of 1urisdiction as when a party was deprived of a fair opportunity to
present its position (efore the Ar(itral 5ri(unal or when an award is o(tained through fraud or the
corruption of ar(itrators% -0. when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the CIAC%
and ->. when a party is deprived of ad&inistrative due process. R.V. SANTOS %OMPANY, IN%. v. &ELLE
%ORPORATION, G.R. No<. 1'61-6!, Oc3o>4r 3, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [Wit)drawal of 4nfor'ation] - In resolving a &otion to dis&iss a case or to
withdraw an Infor&ation% the trial court should not rely solely and &erely on the findings of the pu(lic
prosecutor or the 'ecretary of 7ustice. It is the courts (ounden duty to assess independently the &erits of
the &otion% and this assess&ent &ust (e e&(odied in a written order disposing of the &otion.
P$ILIPPINE NATIONAL &AN* v. LILIAN S. SORIANO, G.R. No. 16("1 , Oc3o>4r 3, !"1!
Provisional Re'edies [4n1unction] - 'ince in1unction is the strong ar& of equity% he who &ust apply for
it &ust co&e with equity or with clean hands. 5his is so (ecause a&ong the &axi&s of equity are -!. he
who see*s equity &ust do equity% and -0. he who co&es into equity &ust co&e with clean hands. PALM
TREE ESTATES, IN%., ET AL. v. P$ILIPPINE NATIONAL &AN*, G.R. No. 1'37", Oc3o>4r 3, !"1!
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - Gor the trial court to validly acquire 1urisdiction to hear and decide a
petition for reconstitution filed under 'ection !?% in relation to 'ection " of Repu(lic Act 4o. 09% it is
required that thirty days (efore the date of hearing% -!. a notice (e pu(lished in two successive issues of
the ;fficial BaIette at the expense of the petitioner% and that -0. such notice (e posted at the &ain
entrances of the provincial (uilding and of the &unicipal hall where the property is located. 5he notice
shall state the following< -!. the nu&(er of the certificate of title% -0. the na&e of the registered owner% ->.
the na&es of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title% -4. the location of the
property% and -5. the date on which all persons having an interest in the property &ust appear and file
such clai& as they &ay have. REPU&LI% O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. ANGEL T. DOMINGO AND
&EN)AMIN T. DOMINGO, G.R. No. 1'731, Oc3o>4r 1", !"1!
Civil Procedure [Lis Pendens] % 'AC. !4. 4otice of lis pendens. - In an action affecting the title or the
right of possession of real property% the plaintiff and the defendant% when affir&ative relief is clai&ed in
his answer% &ay record in the office of the registry of deeds of the province in which the property is
situated a notice of the pendency of the action. 'aid notice shall contain the na&es of the parties and the
o(1ect of the action or defense% and a description of the property in that province affected there(y. ;nly
fro& the ti&e of filing such notice for record shall a purchaser% or encu&(rancer of the property affected
there(y% (e dee&ed to have constructive notice of the pendency of the action% and only of its pendency
against the parties designated (y their real na&es. MR $OLDINGS, LTD. v. %ITADEL $OLDINGS,
IN%ORPORATED, VER%INGETORI5 %ORP., MANILA GOL# AND %OUNTRY %LUG, IN%. AND
MAR%OPPER MINING %ORP., G.R. No. 13(78, Oc3o>4r 1", !"1!
(*ecial Proceedin#s [A**oint'ent of Ad'inistrator] - +ere de&onstration of interest in the estate to
(e settled does not ipso facto entitle an interested person to co-ad&inistration thereof. 4either does
squa((ling a&ong the heirs nor adverse interests necessitate the discounting of the order of preference set
forth in 'ection 9% Rule #=. Indeed% in the appoint&ent of ad&inistrator of the estate of a deceased person%
the principal consideration rec*oned with is the interest in said estate of the one to (e appointed as
ad&inistrator. Biven Isa(els unassaila(le interest in the estate as one of the decedents legiti&ate
grandchildren and undou(ted nearest )next of *in%) the appoint&ent of A&ilio III as co-ad&inistrator of
the sa&e estate% cannot (e a de&anda(le right. It is a &atter left entirely to the sound discretion of the
Court and depends on the facts and the attendant circu&stances of the case. EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III v.
ISA&EL %O)UANG%O-SUNTAY, G.R. NO. 183"3, O%TO&ER 1", !"1!
(*ecial Civil Actions [Conte'*t] - 5here are two *inds of pu(lications relating to court and to court
proceedings which can warrant the exercise of the power to punish for conte&pt< -!. that which tends to
i&pede% o(struct% e&(arrass or influence the courts in ad&inistering 1ustice in a pending suit or
proceeding/ and -0. that which tends to degrade the courts and to destroy pu(lic confidence in the& or
that which tends to (ring the& in any way into disrepute. GOVERNOR ENRI7UE T. GAR%IA, )R.,
AURELIO %. ANGELES, )R., EMERLINDA S. TALENTO, AND RODOL#O $. DE MESA v. LEO
RU&EN %. MANRI7UE, G.R. No. 186'!, Oc3o>4r 1", !"1!
(*ecial Proceedin#s [(ettle'ent of Estate] - 5he effect of excluding the heirs in the settle&ent of estate
was elucidated in 'egura v. 'egura% thus<
It is clear that 'ection ! of Rule #4 does not apply to the partition in question which was null and void as
far as the plaintiffs were concerned. 5he rule covers only valid partitions. 5he partition in the present case
was invalid (ecause it excluded six of the nine heirs who were entitled to equal shares in the partitioned
property. nder the rule )no extra1udicial settle&ent shall (e (inding upon any person who has not
participated therein or had no notice thereof.) As the partition was a total nullity and did not affect the
excluded heirs% it was not correct for the trial court to hold that their right to challenge the partition had
prescri(ed after two years fro& its execution. NAPOLEON D. NERI ET. AL.v. $EIRS O# $AD)I YUSOP
UY AND )ULP$A I&RA$IM UY, G.R. No. 1'(366, Oc3o>4r 1", !"1!.
Civil Procedure [Petition for Review on Certiorari] - A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
and a petition for certiorari under Rule 95 are &utually exclusive re&edies. Certiorari cannot co-exist
with an appeal or any other adequate re&edy.

If a petition for review is availa(le% even prescri(ed% the
nature of the questions of law intended to (e raised on appeal is of no consequence. It &ay well (e that
those questions of law will treat exclusively of whether or not the 1udg&ent or final order was rendered
without or in excess of 1urisdiction% or with grave a(use of discretion. 5his is i&&aterial. 5he re&edy is
appeal% not certiorari as a special civil action MARIETTA N. PORTILLO v. RUDOL# LIET0, IN%.,
RUDOL# LIET0 AND %OURT O# APPEALS, G.R. No. 1'63', Oc3o>4r 1", !"1!
Evidence [&actual &indin#s of &act of Labor .fficials] - 5he settled rule is that factual findings of
la(or officials% who are dee&ed to have acquired expertise in &atters within their 1urisdiction% are
generally accorded not only respect (ut even finality (y the courts when supported (y su(stantial
evidence. 4onetheless% these findings are not infalli(le. 6hen there is a showing that they were arrived at
ar(itrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record% they &ay (e exa&ined (y the courts. NOR*IS
TRADING %ORPORATION v. )OA7UIN &UENAVISTA, ET AL., G.R. No. 18!"18, Oc3o>4r 1", !"1!
Civil Procedure [Petition for Review on Certiorari] - $etitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules Court are li&ited only to questions of law and not of fact. 5he rule% however% ad&its of
several exceptions% to wit< )-!. the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are
contradictory/ -0. the findings are grounded entirely on speculation% sur&ises or con1ectures/ ->. the
inference &ade (y the Court of Appeals fro& its findings of fact is &anifestly &ista*en% a(surd or
i&possi(le/ -4. there is grave a(use of discretion in the appreciation of facts/ -5. the appellate court% in
&a*ing its findings% goes (eyond the issues of the case and such findings are contrary to the ad&issions of
(oth appellant and appellee/ -9. the 1udg&ent of the Court of Appeals is pre&ised on a &isapprehension
of facts/ -#. the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which% if properly considered% will
1ustify a different conclusion/ and -=. the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of
the trial court or are &ere conclusions without citation of specific evidence% or where the facts set forth (y
the petitioner are not disputed (y respondent% or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
pre&ised on the a(sence of evidence (ut are contradicted (y the evidence on record.) $EIRS O# AL&INA
G. AMPIL ET.AL. v. TERESA MANA$AN AND MARIO MANA$AN, G.R. No. 17''", Oc3o>4r 11,
!"1!.
Civil Procedure [Court 4nterference] - 5he 1udg&ent or order of a court of co&petent 1urisdiction &ay
not (e interfered with (y any court of concurrent 1urisdiction for the si&ple reason that the power to open%
&odify or vacate the said 1udg&ent or order is not only possessed (y (ut is restricted to the court in which
the 1udg&ent or order is rendered or issued. T$E $EIRS O# T$E LATE SPOUSES LAURA YADNO
AND PUGSONG MAT-AN, NAMELY, LAURO MAT-AN, #E MAT-AN LAOYAN, )ULIA MAT-AN
*ITANI, ANA MAT-AN MALANI, DARIO MAT-AN AND VI%TOR MAT-AN, Hho ar4 r4@r4<41342 >;
3h4:r co-@43:3:o14r NENA MAT-AN %LEMENT v. T$E $EIRS O# T$E LATE SPOUSES MAURO AND
ELISA AN%$ALES, NAMELY, )O$NNY S. AN%$ALES, &ELMORE S. AN%$ALES, &ENSON S.
AN%$ALES, &RIGETTE S. $ARASYMU*, RITA A. *A,A, AND NENITA S. AN%$ALES, G.R. No.
17(8!, Oc3o>4r 11, !"1!
Civil Procedure [&ilin# of Answer] - It &ust (e e&phasiIed% however% that it is not &andatory on the
part of the trial court to ad&it an Answer which is (elatedly filed where the defendant is not yet declared
in default. 'ettled is the rule that it is within the discretion of the trial court to per&it the filing of an
answer even (eyond the regle&entary period% provided that there is 1ustification for the (elated action and
there is no showing that the defendant intended to delay the case. $E%TOR $ERNANDE0 VS. SUSAN
SAN PEDRO AGON%ILLO, G.R. No. 1'(1!!, Oc3o>4r 11, !"1!
Civil Procedure [A'end'enet of Pleadin# to Confor' to Evidence] - 5he failure of a party to a&end
a pleading to confor& to the evidence adduced during trial does not preclude ad1udication (y the court on
the (asis of such evidence which &ay e&(ody new issues not raised in the pleadings. x x x Although% the
pleading &ay not have (een a&ended to confor& to the evidence su(&itted during trial% 1udg&ent &ay
nonetheless (e rendered% not si&ply on the (asis of the issues alleged (ut also on the issues discussed and
the assertions of fact proved in the course of the trial. 5he court &ay treat the pleading as if it had (een
a&ended to confor& to the evidence% although it had not (een actually a&ended. x x x
Clearly% a court &ay rule and render 1udg&ent on the (asis of the evidence (efore it even though the
relevant pleading had not (een previously a&ended% so long as no surprise or pre1udice is there(y caused
to the adverse party. $ut a little differently% so long as the (asic require&ents of fair play had (een &et% as
where the litigants were given full opportunity to support their respective contentions and to o(1ect to or
refute each otherHs evidence% the court &ay validly treat the pleadings as if they had (een a&ended to
confor& to the evidence and proceed to ad1udicate on the (asis of all the evidence (efore it. SPOUSES
MINIANO &. DELA %RU0 AND LETA L. DELA %RU0 v. ANA MARIE %ON%EP%ION, G.R. No.
17!8!, Oc3o>4r 11, !"1!
Civil Procedure [&actual &indin# of &acts of Ad'inistrative .fficials] - A re-exa&ination of factual
findings cannot (e done through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
5he Court is not a trier of facts/ it reviews only questions of law.
5he factual findings of ad&inistrative officials and agencies that have acquired expertise in the
perfor&ance of their official duties and the exercise of their pri&ary 1urisdiction are generally accorded
not only respect (ut% at ti&es% even finality if such findings are supported (y su(stantial evidence. 5he
factual findings of these quasi-1udicial agencies% especially when affir&ed (y the CA% are (inding on the
Court although there are recogniIed exceptions to this rule. NGEI MULTI-PURPOSE %OOPERATIVE
IN%. AND $ERNAN%ITO RON7UILLO V. #ILIPINAS PALMOIL PLANTATION IN%. AND DENNIS
VILLAREAL, G.R. No. 18('", Oc3o>4r 11, !"1!
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 6hat deter&ines the 1urisdiction of the court is the nature of the action
pleaded as appearing fro& the allegations in the co&plaint. 5he aver&ents in the co&plaint and the
character of the relief sought are the &atters to (e consulted. #E V. RAPSING, TITA %. VILLANUEVA
AND ANNIE #. APARE)ADO, r4@r4<41342 >; E2Far A@ar4Ma2o v. $ON. )UDGE MA5IMINO R. A&LES,
O# RT%-&RAN%$ (7, MAS&ATE %ITY+ SSGT. EDISON RURAL, ET AL., G.R. No. 1718, Oc3o>4r 1,
!"1!
Civil Procedure [A**eal] - 5hus% even if the Court were to re&and these cases to the CA for
inter&ediate review% the CA would only (e constrained to dis&iss appellants appeal% as he is considered
a fugitive fro& 1ustice. ;n this score% 'ection =% Rule !04 of the Rules of Court is relevant.
It (ears to stress that the right to appeal is &erely a statutory privilege% and% as such% &ay (e exercised
only in the &anner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. 5he party who see*s to avail of the
sa&e &ust co&ply with the require&ents of the Rules% failing which% the right to appeal is lost. PEOPLE
O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. VAL DE LOS REYES AND DONELGO, G.R. No<. 13"71( - 13'63(, Oc3o>4r
16, !"1!
Evidence [-esti'onial Evidence] - In the a(sence of relevant docu&entary evidence or an express
ad&ission fro& the accused% the (are testi&ony of the victi&s &other or a &e&(er of the fa&ily would
suffice only if the victi& is alleged to (e (elow seven years of age and what is sought to (e proved is that
she is less than !0 years old. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. ALE)ANDRO VIO)ELA Y ASARTIN
G.R. No. 1771(", Oc3o>4r 17, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [(ufficiency of 4nfor'ation] - It is not the designation of the offense in the
Infor&ation that governs% rather it is the allegations that &ust (e considered in deter&ining what cri&e is
charged. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. VAL DELOS REYES, G.R. No. 17737, Oc3o>4r 17, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Certification a#ainst $on%&oru' ()o**in#] - It &ust (e *ept in &ind that while the
require&ent of the certification of non-foru& shopping is &andatory% nonetheless% the require&ents &ust
not (e interpreted too literally and% thus% defeat the o(1ective of preventing the undesira(le practice of
foru& shopping.
:ence% the signature of the representative of the other co-plaintiffs &ay (e considered as su(stantial
co&pliance with the rule on verification and certification of non-foru& shopping% consistent with this
CourtHs pronounce&ent that when all the petitioners share a co&&on interest and invo*e a co&&on cause
of action or defense% the signature of only one of the& in the certification against foru& shopping
su(stantially co&plies with the rules. SM LAND, IN%. .#ORMERLY S$OEMART, IN%./ ET.AL. v. %ITY
O# MANILA, ET.AL., G.R. No. 1'711, Oc3o>4r !!, !"1!.
Civil Procedure [4''utability of ud#'ents] - A decision that has acquired finality (eco&es
i&&uta(le and unaltera(le. 5his quality of i&&uta(ility precludes the &odification of a final 1udg&ent%
even if the &odification is &eant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. 5his is a funda&ental
principle in our 1ustice syste&% without which there would (e no end to litigations. Indeed% the principle
of conclusiveness of prior ad1udications is not confined in its operation to the 1udg&ents of what are
ordinarily *nown as courts% (ut extends to all (odies upon which 1udicial powers had (een conferred.5he
only exceptions to the rule on the i&&uta(ility of final 1udg&ents are -!. the correction of clerical errors%
-0. the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no pre1udice to any party% and ->. void 1udg&ents.)
LEO A. GON0ALES v. SOLID %EMENT %ORPORATION AND ALLEN 7UERU&IN, G.R. No. 1'8(!3,
Oc3o>4r !3, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Writ of Certiorari] - 5he sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors
of 1urisdiction% which includes the co&&ission of grave a(use of discretion a&ounting to lac* of
1urisdiction. In this regard% &ere a(use of discretion is not enough to warrant the issuance of the writ.
SPOUSES $UM&ERTO DELOS SANTOS AND %ARMEN%ITA DELOS SANTOS v. METROPOLITAN
&AN* AND TRUST %OMPANY, G.R. No. 138!, Oc3o>4r !(, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [Res udicata] - 5he ele&ents of res 1udicata are< -!. the 1udg&ent sought to (ar
the new action &ust (e final/ -0. the decision &ust have (een rendered (y a court having 1urisdiction over
the su(1ect &atter and the parties/ ->. the disposition of the case &ust (e a 1udg&ent on the &erits/ and -4.
there &ust (e as (etween the first and second action% identity of parties% su(1ect &atter% and causes of
action. 'hould identity of parties% su(1ect &atter% and causes of action (e shown in the two cases% then res
1udicata in its aspect as a )(ar (y prior 1udg&ent) would apply. If as (etween the two cases% only identity
of parties can (e shown% (ut not identical causes of action% then res 1udicata as )conclusiveness of
1udg&ent) applies. P0L0 UY REALTY %ORPORATION v. ALS MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
%ORPORATION AND ANTONIO S. LITON)U, G.R. No. 166(6!, Oc3o>4r !(, !"1!
Civil Procedure [&res) Period Rule] - 5he Nfresh period ruleK equally applied to appeals involving
cri&inal cases. 6hile 4eypes was silent on the applica(ility of the )fresh period rule) to cri&inal cases%
the issue was squarely addressed in @u v. 5atad which expanded the scope of the doctrine in 4eypes to
cri&inal cases in appeals of conviction under 'ec. 9% Rule !00 of the Revised Rules of Cri&inal
$rocedure. ROLE5 RODRIGUE0 Y OLAYRES v. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES AND ALLIED
DOME%7 SPIRITS AND ,INES, r4@r4<41342 >; ALLIED DOME%7 P$ILS., IN%., G.R. No. 1'!7'',
Oc3o>4r !(, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [De'urrer to Evidence] - After the prosecution rests its case% and the accused files
a Ce&urrer to Avidence% the trial court is required to evaluate whether the evidence presented (y the
prosecution is sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused (eyond reasona(le dou(t. If the
trial court finds that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient and grants the accusedHs Ce&urrer to
Avidence% the ruling is an ad1udication on the &erits of the case which is tanta&ount to an acquittal and
&ay no longer (e appealed. Any further prosecution of the accused after an acquittal would% thus% violate
the constitutional proscription on dou(le 1eopardy. LITO &AUTISTA AND )IMMY AL%ANTARA v.
S$ARON G. %UNETA-PANGILINAN, G.R. No. 18'7(, Oc3o>4r !(, !"1!
Evidence [Alibi and Denials] - Ali(is and denials are generally disfavored (y the courts for
(eing wea*. 5hey cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the
cri&e. 5hree% for ali(i to prosper% the accused &ust prove not only that they were so&ewhere else when
the cri&e was co&&itted% (ut also that it was physically i&possi(le for the& to (e at the scene of the
cri&e at the ti&e of its co&&ission. Gourth% ali(i assu&es significance or strength only when it is a&ply
corro(orated (y credi(le and disinterested witnesses. Gifth% ali(i is an issue of fact that hinges on the
credi(ility of witnesses% and the assess&ent &ade (y the trial court M unless patently and clearly
inconsistent M &ust (e accepted.
It is clear% therefore% that in order for the defense of ali(i to prosper% the accused should de&onstrate% (y
clear and convincing evidence% that he or she was so&ewhere else when the (uy-(ust operation was
conducted% and that it was physically i&possi(le for hi& or her to (e present at the scene of the cri&e
either (efore% during% or after the offense was co&&itted 2 2 2 Gurther&ore% considering that ali(i as
evidence is negative in nature and self-serving% it cannot attain &ore credi(ility than the testi&onies of
prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v.
ASIA MUSA Y PINASALO, ARA MONONGAN Y PAPAO, #AISA$ A&AS Y MAMA, AND MI*E
SOLALO Y MILO*, G.R. No. 1''73, Oc3o>4r !(, !"1!.
Civil Procedure [Petition for Review on Certiorari] - In a petition for review on certiorari% the
Courts power of 1udicial review is li&ited only to questions of law and that questions of fact
cannot (e entertained% except in certain instances. TOM TAN, ANNIE U. TAN AND NAT$ANIEL
TAN v. $EIRS O# ANTONIO #. YAMSON, G.R. No. 16318!, Oc3o>4r !(, !"1
Evidence [Aurden of Proof] - In civil cases% the specific rule as to the (urden of proof is that the plaintiff
has the (urden of proving the &aterial allegations of the co&plaint which are denied (y the answer/ and
the defendant has the (urden of proving the &aterial allegations in his answer% which sets up new &atter
as a defense. 5his rule does not involve a shifting of the (urden of proof% (ut &erely &eans that each
party &ust esta(lish his own case. VSD REALTY - DEVELOPMENT %ORPORATION v. UNI,IDE
SALES, IN%. AND DOLORES &AELLO TE)ADA,, G.R. No. 17"677, Oc3o>4r !(, !"1!.
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - It is axio&atic that the nature of an action and whether the
tri(unal has 1urisdiction over such action are to (e deter&ined fro& the &aterial allegations of
the co&plaint% the law in force at the ti&e the co&plaint is filed% and the character of the relief
sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or so&e of the clai&s averred.
7urisdiction is not affected (y the pleas or the theories set up (y defendant in an answer to the
co&plaint or a &otion to dis&iss the sa&e. REPU&LI% O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, r4@r4<41342 >; 3h4
R4F:o1a= EL4c83:v4 D:r4c3or o6 3h4 D4@ar3A413 o6 E1v:ro1A413 a12 Na38ra= R4<o8rc4<, R4F:o1a= O66:c4
No. 3 v. ROMAN %AT$OLI% AR%$&IS$OP O# MANILA, G.R. No. 1'!''(, Nov4A>4r 1!, !"1! -
SAMA$ANG *A&U$AYAN NG SAN LOREN0O ***, IN%., r4@r4<41342 >; :3< V:c4 Pr4<:2413
041a:2aT8r=a v. ROMAN %AT$OLI% AR%$&IS$OP O# MANILA, G.R. No. 1'!'7, Nov4A>4r 1!,
!"1!
Civil Procedure [Certiorari] - 3C$ cannot exploit the re&edy of certiorari after it had lost its right to
appeal. V.%. PON%E %OMPANY, IN%. v. MUNI%IPALITY O# PARADA7UE AND SAMPAGUITA
$ILLS $OMEO,NERS ASSO%IATION, IN%., G.R. No. 178(31, Nov4A>4r 1!, !"1!
(*ecial Civil Actions [Conte'*t] - A charge for indirect conte&pt% such as diso(edience to a courts
lawful order% is initiated either &otu proprio (y order of or a for&al charge (y the offended court% or (y a
verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of docu&ents or papers involved
therein% and upon full co&pliance with the require&ents for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in
the court concerned. It cannot (e initiated (y a &ere &otion LU%IANO LADANO v. #ELINO NERI, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 1786!!, Nov4A>4r 1!, !"1!
Evidence [Docu'entary Evidence] - And )while a (aptis&al certificate &ay (e considered a
pu(lic docu&ent% it can only serve as evidence of the ad&inistration of the sacra&ent on the date
specified (ut not the veracity of the entries with respect to the childs paternity. 5hus% x x x
(aptis&al certificates are per se inad&issi(le in evidence as proof of filiation and they cannot (e
ad&itted indirectly as circu&stantial evidence to prove the sa&e.) ANTONIO PERLA v. MIRASOL
&ARING AND RANDY PERLA, G.R. No. 17!(71, Nov4A>4r 1!, !"1!
Civil Procedure [A**eals] - 'ection 0-a.% Rule 4! of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that in
special proceedings% as in this case% the appeal shall (e &ade (y record on appeal. IN T$E MATTER O#
T$E PETITION #OR T$E PRO&ATE O# T$E LAST ,ILL AND TESTAMENT O# ENRI7UE S.
LOPE0 RI%$ARD &. LOPE0 v. DIANA )EANNE LOPE0, MARY&ET$ DE LEON AND VI%TORIA L.
TUA0ON, G.R. No. 18''8(, Nov4A>4r 1!, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Errors and ,ista@es] - As a rule% a client is (ound (y his counsels conduct%
negligence and &ista*e in handling a case. 8ut the rule ad&its of exceptions. In several rulings% the Court
held the client not concluded (y the negligence% inco&petence or &ista*e of the counsel. DENNIS 7.
MORTEL v.SALVADOR E. *ERR, G.R. No. 16!'6, Nov4A>4r 1!, !"1!
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - CARA8 does not )exercise concurrent 1urisdiction with the 'AC in 1ust
co&pensation cases. 5he deter&ination of 1ust co&pensation is 1udicial in nature
In accordance with settled principles of ad&inistrative law% pri&ary 1urisdiction is vested in the CAR to
deter&ine in a preli&inary &anner the 1ust co&pensation for the lands ta*en under the agrarian refor&
progra&% (ut such deter&ination is su(1ect to challenge (efore the courts. 5he resolution of 1ust
co&pensation cases for the ta*ing of lands under agrarian refor& is% after all% essentially a 1udicial
function. LAND &AN* O#T$E P$ILIPPINES v. $ONEY%OM& #ARMS %ORPORATION, G.R. No.
166!', Nov4A>4r 1!, !"1!
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - ndou(tedly% in vesting in fa&ily courts exclusive original 1urisdiction
over cri&inal cases involving &inors% the law (ut see*s to protect their welfare and (est interests. Gor this
reason% when the need for such protection is not co&pro&ised% the Court is a(le to relax the rule. In
several cases%

for instance% the Court has held that the CA en1oys concurrent 1urisdiction with the fa&ily
courts in hearing petitions for ha(eas corpus involving &inors. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v.
$ON. MA. T$ERESA L. DELA TORRE- YADAO, IN $ER %APA%ITY AS PRESIDING )UDGE,
&RAN%$ 81, REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT O# 7UE0ON %ITY, $ON. MA. NATIVIDAD M. DI0ON, IN
$ER %APA%ITY AS E5E%UTIVE )UDGE O# T$E REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT O# 7UE0ON %ITY,
PAN#ILO M. LA%SON, )E,EL #. %ANSON, ROMEO M. A%OP, #RAN%IS%O G. 0U&IA, )R.,
MI%$AEL RAY &. A7UINO, %E0AR O. MAN%AO II, 0ORO&A&EL S. LAURELES, GLENN G.
DUMLAO, ALMARIO A. $ILARIO, )OSE ER,IN T. VILLA%ORTE, GIL %. MENESES, ROLANDO
ANDUYAN, )OSELITO T. ES7UIVEL, RI%ARDO G. DANDAN, %EASAR TANNAGAN, VI%ENTE P.
ARNADO, RO&ERTO T. LANG%AUON, ANGELITO N. %AISIP, ANTONIO #RIAS, %I%ERO S.
&A%OLOD, ,ILLY NUAS, )UANITO &. MANAOIS, VIRGILIO V. PARAGAS, ROLANDO R. )IMENE0,
%E%ILIO T. MORITO, REYNALDO %. LAS PINAS, ,IL#REDO G %UARTERO, RO&ERTO O.
AG&ALOG, OSMUNDO &. %ARINO, NOR&ERTO LASAGA, LEONARDO GLORIA, ALE)ANDRO G
LI,ANAG, ELMER #ERRER AND ROMY %RU0, G.R. No<. 16!1((-(, Nov4A>4r 13, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Certiorari] - 6e stress that in a special civil action for certiorari% the petitioner carries
the (urden of proving not &erely reversi(le error% (ut grave a(use of discretion a&ounting to lac* or
excess of 1urisdiction% on the part of the pu(lic respondent for his issuance of the i&pugned order. Brave
a(use of discretion is present )when there is a capricious and whi&sical exercise of 1udg&ent as is
equivalent to lac* of 1urisdiction% such as where the power is exercised in an ar(itrary or despotic &anner
(y reason of passion or personal hostility% and it &ust (e so patent and gross as to a&ount to an evasion of
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perfor& the duty en1oined or to act at all in conte&plation of law.)
In other words% the tri(unal or ad&inistrative (ody &ust have issued the assailed decision% order or
resolution in a capricious or despotic &anner. ISA&ELITA P. GRAVIDES v. %OMMISSION ON
ELE%TIONS AND PEDRO %. &OR)AL, G.R. No. 1''(33, Nov4A>4r 13, !"1!
(*ecial Proceedin#s [Writ of A'*aro] - In the application for a writ of a&paro% the alleged threat to
rights to life% li(erty and security &ust (e actual% and not &erely one of supposition or with the
li*elihood of happening. IN T$E MATTER O# T$E PETITION #OR T$E ISSUAN%E O# A ,RIT O#
AMPARO IN #AVOR O# LILI&ET$ LADAGA V. MA)OR GENERAL REYNALDO MAPAGU,
%OMMANDING GENERAL O# T$E P$ILIPPINE ARMYCS 1"T$ IN#ANTRY DIVISION, ET AL.?IN
T$E MATTER O# T$E PETITION #OR T$E ISSUAN%E O# A ,RIT O# AMPARO IN #AVOR O#
ANGELA A. LI&RADO-TRINIDAD VS MA)OR GENERAL REYNALDO MAPAGU, %OMMANDING
GENERAL O# T$E P$ILIPPINE ARMYCS 1"T$ IN#ANTRY DIVISION, ET AL.IN T$E MATTER #O
T$E PETITION #OR T$E ISSUAN%E O# A ,RIT O# AMPARO IN #AVOR O# %ARLOS ISAGANI T.
0ARATE VS. MA)OR GENERAL REYNALDO MAPAGU, %OMMANDING GENERAL O# T$E
P$ILIPPINE ARMYCS 1"T$ IN#ANTRY DIVISION, ET AL., G.R. No. 18'68', Nov4A>4r 13, !"1!
Civil Procedure [,otion to Dis'iss] - 5he rule is% however% different with respect to intra-corporate
controversies. nder 'ection =% Rule ! of the Interi& Rules of $rocedure for Intra-Corporate
Controversies% a &otion to dis&iss is a prohi(ited pleading. ALDERSGATE %OLLEGE, IN%., ARSENIO
L. MENDO0A, IGNA%IO A. GALINDE0, ,ILSON E. SAGADRA%A, AND #ILIPINAS MEN0EN v.
)UNI#EN #. GAUUAN, ARTEMIO M. VILLALU0, SR., TERESITA ARREOLA, #ORTUNATA ANDAYA,
SALVADOR %. A7UINO, RO&ERTO M. TUGA,IN )OSE O. RUPA%, -AND- ALDERSGATE
%OLLEGE, IN%., DR. ,ILLIE A. DAMAS%O, REV. ELMER V. LUNA, )EM0 R. LUDAN, SAMUEL V.
#ULGEN%IO, REV. ISMAEL A. DAMAS%O, VI%ENTE V. RAMEL, SALVADOR %. A7UINO, %AMILO
V. GALLARDO, NORMALITA %. ORDONE0, AND ARSENIO L. SOLIMEN, G.R. No. 1'!'1, Nov4A>4r
1(, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Question of Law] - 5hus% the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not
the appellation given to such question (y the party raising the sa&e/ rather% it is whether the appellate
court can deter&ine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence% in which case% it is a
question of law/ otherwise it is a question of fact. LAND &AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINES VS. %RISPIN D.
RAMOS AND DEPARTMENT O# PU&LI% ,OR*S AND $IG$,AYS, G.R. No. 18166(, Nov4A>4r 1(,
!"1!
Civil Procedure [Lac)es] - 5he ele&ents of laches &ust (e proven positively. Daches is evidentiary in
nature% a fact that cannot (e esta(lished (y &ere allegations in the pleadings. Avidence is of ut&ost
i&portance in esta(lishing the existence of laches (ecause there is )no a(solute rule as to what constitutes
laches or staleness of de&and/ each case is to (e deter&ined according to its particular circu&stances.)
3erily% the application of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court as its application is
controlled (y equita(le considerations. )A%* ARROYO v. &O%AGO INLAND DEVCT. %ORP .&IDE%O/,
ET AL., G.R. No. 16788", Nov4A>4r 1(, !"1!
Civil Procedure [(ervice] - $ersonal service is required precisely (ecause it often happens that hearings
do not push through (ecause% while a copy of the &otion &ay have (een served (y registered &ail (efore
the date of the hearing% such is received (y the adverse party already after the hearing. 5hus% the rules
prefer personal service. 8ut it does not altogether prohi(it service (y registered &ail when such service%
when adopted% ensures as in this case receipt (y the adverse party. NATIVIDAD LIM v. NATIONAL
PO,ER %ORPORATION, SPOUSES RO&ERTO LL. AR%INUE AND ARA&ELA AR%INUE., G.R. No.
17878', Nov4A>4r 1(, !"1!
Evidence [Dyin# Declaration] - 5he rule is that% in order to &a*e a dying declaration ad&issi(le% a fixed
(elief in inevita(le and i&&inent death &ust (e entered (y the declarant. It is the (elief in i&pending
death and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders the dying declaration ad&issi(le.
It is not necessary that the approaching death (e presaged (y the personal feelings of the deceased. 5he
test is whether the declarant has a(andoned all hopes of survival and loo*ed on death as certainly
i&pending. As such% the CA incorrectly ruled that there were dying declarations. RODOL#O &EL&IS,
)R. Y %OMPETENTE AND AL&ERTO &RU%ALES v. PEOLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No. 181"!,
Nov4A>4r 1(, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [Warrantless Arrest] - Arrest without warrant% when lawful , A peace officer or a
private person &ay% without a warrant% arrest a person<
-a. 6hen% in his presence% the person to (e arrested has co&&itted% is actually
co&&itting% or is atte&pting to co&&it an offense/
-(. 6hen an offense has 1ust (een co&&itted and he has pro(a(le cause to (elieve (ased
on personal *nowledge of facts or circu&stances that the person to (e arrested has
co&&itted it/ and
-c. 6hen the person to (e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped fro& a penal
esta(lish&ent or place where he is serving final 1udg&ent or is te&porarily confined
while his case is pending% or has escaped while (eing transferred fro& one confine&ent
to another.
PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. GODO#REDO MARIANO Y #ELI%IANO AND ALLAN DORINGO
Y GUNAN, G.R. No. 1'11'3, Nov4A>4r 1(, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [Desistance or Recantation] - 6e have repeatedly ruled in a nu&(er of cases that
&ere desistance or recantation (y the co&plainant does not necessarily result in the dis&issal of an
ad&inistrative co&plaint against any &e&(er of the (ench. ERNESTO $E&RON v. )UDGE MATIAS M.
GAR%IA II, REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT, &RAN%$ 1', &A%OOR %ITY, %AVITE, A.M. No. RT)-1!-
!33(, Nov4A>4r 1(, !"1!
Civil Procedure [!erification] - A pleading required to (e verified which contains a verification (ased
on )infor&ation and (elief) or upon )*nowledge% infor&ation and (elief) or lac*s a proper verification%
shall (e treated as an unsigned pleading. NESTOR N. PADAL$IN, ET AL. v. NELSON D. LAVIDA, G.R.
No. 183"!6, Nov4A>4r 1(, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [Preli'inary 4nvesti#ation] % 5he Court adheres to the view that a preli&inary
investigation serves not only the purposes of the 'tate% (ut &ore i&portantly% it is a significant part of
freedo& and fair play which every individual is entitled to. It is thus the duty of the prosecutor or the
1udge% as the case &ay (e% to relieve the accused of going through a trial once it is deter&ined that there is
no sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of pro(a(le cause to for& a sufficient (elief that the accused
has co&&itted a cri&e. LILY SY v. $ON. SE%RETARY O# )USTI%E MA. MER%EDITAS N.
GUTIERRE0 &ENITO #ERNANDE0 GO, &ERT$OLD LIM, )ENNI#ER SY GLENN &EN TIA* SY AND
MERRY SY., G.R. No. 1717', Nov4A>4r 1(, !"1!
Civil Procedure [&ailure to &ile Answer] - 5he spouses +agtoto failed to show that their failure to file
a ti&ely Answer was due to fraud% accident% &ista*e or excusa(le negligence and that they have a
&eritorious defense. RU&EN %. MAGTOTO AND ARTEMIA MAGTOTO v. %OURT O# APPEALS AND
LEONILA DELA %RU0, G.R. No. 177'!, Nov4A>4r !1, !"1!
Civil Procedure [(ervice of (u''ons] - If the defendant is a corporation organiIed under the laws of
the $hilippines or a partnership duly registered% service &ay (e &ade on the president% &anager%
secretary% cashier% agent% or any of its directors. ELLI%E AGRO-INDUSTRIAL %ORPORATION,
r4@r4<41342 >; :3< %ha:rAa1 o6 3h4 &oar2 o6 D:r4c3or< a12 Pr4<:2413, RAUL E. GALA V. RODEL T.
YOUNG, DEL#IN %$AN, )IM ,EE, a12 GUIA G. DOMINGO, G.R. No. 17("77, Nov4A>4r !1, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Effect of filin# a ,otion for Reconsideartion] - As a consequence of the &otion to
dis&iss that defendant 4arciso filed% the running of the period during which the rules required her to file
her answer was dee&ed suspended. 6hen the trial court denied her &otion to dis&iss% therefore% she had
the (alance of her period for filing an answer under 'ection 4% Rule !9 within which to file the sa&e (ut
in no case less than five days% co&puted fro& her receipt of the notice of denial of her &otion to dis&iss.
ELOISA R. NAR%ISO v. ESTELITA P. GAR%IA, G.R. No. 1'6877, Nov4A>4r !1, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Procedural ,ista@es] - 5he general rule is that a client is (ound (y the acts% even
&ista*es% of his counsel in the real& of procedural technique. 5he (asis is the tenet that an act perfor&ed
(y counsel within the scope of a )general or i&plied authority) is regarded as an act of the client.
GOTES%O PROPERTIES, IN%. v. SPOUSES EDNA AND AL&ERTO MORAL, G.R. No. 17683(,
Nov4A>4r !1, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Actionable Docu'ents] - 8$Is cause of action is not (ased only on the docu&ent
containing the 5er&s and Conditions acco&panying the issuance of the 8$I credit card in favor of Dedda.
5herefore% the docu&ent containing the 5er&s and Conditions governing the use of the 8$I credit card is
not an actiona(le docu&ent conte&plated in 'ection #% Rule = of the !""# Rules of Civil $rocedure. As
such% it is not required (y the Rules to (e set forth in and attached to the co&plaint. ANITA A. LEDDA
v.&AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINE ISLANDS, G.R. No. !""868, Nov4A>4r 1!, !"1!
Civil Procedure [Contents of Decisions] - 5he Court finds in this case no (reach of the constitutional
&andate that decisions &ust express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which they are (ased.
5he trial courts Cecision is co&plete% clear% and concise. $etitioners should (e re&inded that in &a*ing
their indict&ent that the trial courts Cecision fails to express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
on which it is (ased% they should not &ista*e (revity for levity )OA7UIN G. %$UNG, )R., PA0
ROYERA0-SOLER, AND MANSUETO MA%EDA v. )A%* DANIEL MONDRAGON, .DE%EASED/,
SU&STITUTED &Y $IS SISTERS NAMELYG TEOTIMA M. &OUR&ON, EMMA M. MILLAN, EUGENIA
M. RAMA AND ROSARIO M. %A&ALLES+ %LARINDA REGIS-S%$MIT0 AND MARIA LINA
MALMISA, G.R. No. 17'7(, Nov4A>4r !1, !"1!
Civil Procedure [E3ecution] - 'ection "% Rule >" of the Rules of Court does not prohi(it the respondent
sheriffs fro& garnishing the co&plainants (an* deposits on the sa&e day that a copy of the writ of
execution was served on the 1udg&ent o(ligor. In 5orres v. Ca(ling% we held that a sheriff is not required
to give the 1udg&ent de(tor ti&e to raise cash. 5he reason for this is to ensure that the availa(le property
is not lost. 6e even disciplined a sheriff who failed to i&&ediately levy on the personal properties of the
de(tor who refused to pay the a&ount stated in the writ of execution VI%SAL DEVELOPMENT
%ORPORATION v. ATTY. )ENNI#ER $. DELA %IU)0-&UENDIA, :1 h4r ca@ac:3; a< EL-O66:c:o Sh4r:66
o6 3h4 O66:c4 o6 3h4 %=4rE o6 %o8r3- R4F:o1a= Tr:a= %o8r3 o6 Ma1:=a+ a12 M4<<r<. NAT$ANIEL #. A&AYA,
LUIS A. ALINA, LORELE5 &. ILAGAN a12 MARIO P. VILLANUEVA, :1 3h4:r ca@ac:3:4< a< Sh4r:66< IV
o6 3h4 O66:c4 o6 3h4 %=4rE o6 %o8r3- R4F:o1a= Tr:a= %o8r3 o6 Ma1:=a, A.M. No. P-1!-3"'7, Nov4A>4r !6,
!"1!
Evidence [4nventory] % Alleged non-co&pliance with 'ection 0! of Article II of R.A. 4o. "!95 was not
raised (efore the trial court (ut only for the first ti&e on appeal. 5his cannot (e done. PEOPLE O# T$E
P$ILIPPINES v. )OSEP$ RO&ELO ; TUNGALA, G.R. No. 18(181, Nov4A>4r !6, !"1!.
(*ecial Civil Actions [E1ect'ent] - 5he co&plainants in unlawful detainer cases cannot si&ply anchor
their clai&s on the validity of the owners title. $ossession de facto &ust also (e proved. #IORELLO R.
)OSE v<. RO&ERTO AL#UERTO, ERNESTO &A%AY, ILUMINADO &A%AY, MANUEL &ANTA%ULO,
LETTY &AR%ELO, )ING &ERME)O, MILNA &ERME)O, PA&LO &ERME)O, )$ONNY &OR)A,
&ERNADETTE &UENA#E, AL#REDO %ALAGOS, ROSAURO %ALAGOS, ALE5 %$A%ON, AIDA
%ONSULTA, %ARMEN %ORPU0, RODOL#O DE VERA, ANA DELA ROSA, RUDY DING, )OSE
ES%ASINAS, GORGONIO ESPADERO, DEMETRIO ESTRERA, ROGELIO ESTRERA, EDUARDO
EVARDONE, ANTONIO GA&ALEDO, ARSENIA GARING, NAR%ING GUARDA, NILA LE&ATO,
ANDRADE LIGAYA, $ELEN LOPE0, RAMON MA%AIRAN, DOMINGO NOLAS%O, )R., #LORANTE
NOLAS%O, REGINA OPERARIO, %ARDING OR%ULLO, #ELI%ISIMO PA%ATE, %ONRADO P
AMINDALAN, )UN PARIL, RENE SANTOS, DOMINADOR SELVELYE)O, VILLAR, )O$N DOE, )ANE
DOE a12 U1E1oH1 Occ8@a13< o6 O=:var4< %oA@o812, Pha<4 II, &ara1Fa; Sa1 D:o1:<:o, ParaUaS84 %:3;
Civil Procedure [&ailure to Prosecute] - ;nce a case is dis&issed for failure to prosecute% the dis&issal
has the effect of an ad1udication on the &erits and is understood to (e with pre1udice to the filing of
another action unless otherwise provided in the order of dis&issal. PA&LO PUA v. LOURDES L.
DEYTO, DOING &USINESS UNDER T$E NAME O# B)D GRAINS %ENTER,B AND )ENNELITA
DEYTO ANG A.*.A. B)ANET ANGB, G.R. No. 173336 Nov. !6,!"1!
Evidence [Public Docu'ents] % 5he contested docu&ents are court decisions and orders% which are
undou(tedly pu(lic in character. As pu(lic docu&ents% their due execution and authenticity need not (e
proved to &a*e the& ad&issi(le in evidence. 5heir existence &ay (e evidenced (y an official pu(lication
or (y a copy attested (y the officer having the legal custody of the record. PA0 DEL ROSARIO v. #ELI5
$. LIM%AO%O, 0. RO)AS AND &ROS., REPU&LI% O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, a12 REGISTER O#
DEEDS O# TAGAYTAY %ITY, G.R. No. 1773'!. Nov4A>4r !6, !"1!.
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 'u(1ect &atter 1urisdiction is conferred (y law% not (y the consent or
acquiescence of any or all of the parties. In turn% the issue on whether a suit co&es within the penu&(ra
of a statutory confer&ent is deter&ined (y the allegations in the co&plaint% regardless of whether or not
the suitor will (e entitled to recover upon all or part of the clai&s asserted. EDUARDO M.
%O)UANG%O, )R. v<. REPU&LI% O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No. 18"7", Nov4A>4r !7, !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [Probable Cause] % $ro(a(le cause% for purposes of filing a cri&inal infor&ation% is
descri(ed as )such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded (elief that a cri&e has (een
co&&itted and the respondent is pro(a(ly guilty thereof% and should (e held for trial.)
5hus% the deter&ination of the existence of pro(a(le cause necessitates the prior deter&ination of whether
a cri&e or an offense was co&&itted in the first place. :ere% we find that there was no pro(a(le cause to
indict respondents% (ecause the cri&e of unfair co&petition was not co&&itted. S$IRLEY #. TORRES v.
IMELDA PERE0 a12 RODRIGO PERE0, G.R. No. 188!!. Nov4A>4r !8, !"1!.
Evidence [Cor*us Delicti] - 5o discharge its duty of esta(lishing the guilt of the accused (eyond
reasona(le dou(t% therefore% the $rosecution &ust prove the corpus delicti. 5hat proof is vital to a
1udg&ent of conviction.

;n the other hand% the $rosecution does not co&ply with the indispensa(le
require&ent of proving the violation of 'ection 5 of Repu(lic Act 4o. "!95 when the dangerous drugs
are &issing (ut also when there are su(stantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seiIed
dangerous drugs that raise dou(ts a(out the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.
PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v<. LOUIE %ATA%LAN Y DEDALA, G.R. No. 18'33" Nov4A>4r !8,
!"1!
Civil Procedure [,otion for Reconsideration] % 'ection 0% Rule 50 of the !""# Rules of Civil
$rocedure% as a&ended% provides that no second &otion for reconsideration of a 1udg&ent or final
resolution (y the sa&e party shall (e entertained. 5his conte&plates a situation where a second &otion for
reconsideration is filed (y the sa&e party assailing the sa&e 1udg&ent or final resolution. :ere% the
&otion for reconsideration of petitioner was filed after the appellate court rendered an A&ended Cecision
totally reversing and setting aside its previous ruling. :ence% petitioner is not precluded fro& filing
another &otion for reconsideration fro& the A&ended Cecision. MA. MER%EDES L. &AR&A v. LI%EO
DE %AGAYAN UNIVERSITY, G .R. No. 1'387. Nov4A>4r !8, !"1!
Provisional Re'edies [Preli'inary 4n1unction] - 5he issuance of a writ of preli&inary in1unction is
discretionary upon the trial court (ecause the assess&ent and evaluation of evidence towards that end
involve findings of facts left to the said court for its conclusive deter&ination. It will not (e set aside
unless it was issued with grave a(use of discretion. GEORGE S. $. SY, DOING &USINESS UNDER T$E
NAME AND STYLE O# OPM INTERNATIONAL %ORPORATION v. AUTO&US TRANSPORT
SYSTEMS, IN%, G.R. No. 1768'8, D4c4A>4r "3, !"1!
Civil Procedure [,atters $ot Raised] - 5he theory of the case principle for(ids an issue which was
neither averred in the co&plaint nor raised during the trial in the court (elow to (e raised for the first ti&e
on appeal as it would (e offensive to the (asic rules of fair play% 1ustice and due process. LORETO &OTE
v. SPOUSES RO&ERT VELOSO AND GLORIA VELOSO, G.R. No. 1'(!7", D4c4A>4r "3, !"1!
Evidence [Aurden of Proof] - Aven where the creditor alleges non-pay&ent% the general rule is that the
onus rests on the de(tor to prove pay&ent% rather than on the creditor to prove non-pay&ent. ;nce
the de(tor has introduced evidence of pay&ent% the (urden of going forward with the evidence - as
distinct fro& the general (urden of proof , shifts to the creditor% who is then under a duty of producing
so&e evidence to show non-pay&ent. SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION, REPRESENTED &Y
ITS ADMINISTRATOR v. EN%ARNA%ION &. TORMON, EDGARDO &. ALISA)E, LOURDES M.
DO&LE, TERESITA 7. LIM, EDMUNDO R. )ORNADAL, )IMMY %. VILLANUEVA , DEANNA M.
)AN%E, $ENRY G. DO&LE, REYNALDO D. LU0ANA, MEDELYN P. TO7UILLO, SEVERINO A.
ORLIDO, R$ODERI%* VS. ALIPOON, )ONAT$AN %ORDERO, DANILO &. &IS%O%$O, &ELLO %.
LU%ASAN, LU&ERT V. TIVE, AND T$E %OMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. No. 1'6(", D4c4A>4r "(,
!"1!
Civil Procedure [Real Party%in%4nterest] - It is well-settled that Nevery action &ust (e prosecuted or
defended in the na&e of the real party in interest Nwho stands to (e (enefited or in1ured (y the 1udg&ent
in the suit% or (y the party entitled to the avails of the suit.K $rocedural law (asically &andates that Nall
cri&inal actions co&&enced (y co&plaint or (y infor&ation shall (e prosecuted under the direction and
control of a pu(lic prosecutor.K In appeals of cri&inal cases (efore the Court of Appeals and (efore this
Court% the ;'B is the appellate counsel of the $eople. DANTE LA )IMENE0, IN $IS %APA%ITY AS
PRESIDENT AND REPRESENTATIVE O# UNLAD S$IPPING - MANAGEMENT %ORPORATION v.
$ON. ED,IN SORONGON .IN $IS %APA%ITY AS PRESIDING )UDGE O# &RAN%$ !1( O# T$E
REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT O# MANDALUYONG %ITY/, SO%RATES ANT0OULATOS, %ARMEN
ALAMIL, MAR%ELI GA0A AND MAR*OS AVGOUSTIS , G.R. No. 1786"7, D4c4A>4r ", !"1!
Civil Procedure [&indin#s of &act of t)e Lower Courts] - It is a settled rule that the factual findings of
the Court of Appeals affir&ing those of the trial court are final and conclusive and &ay not (e reviewed
on appeal% except under any of the following circu&stances< -!. the conclusion is grounded on
speculations% sur&ises or con1ectures/ -0. the inference is &anifestly &ista*en% a(surd or i&possi(le/ ->.
there is grave a(use of discretion/ -4. the 1udg&ent is (ased on a &isapprehension of facts/ -5. the
findings of fact are conflicting/ -9. there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings
are (ased/ -#. the finding of a(sence of facts is contradicted (y the presence of evidence on record/ -=. the
findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court/ -". the CA &anifestly overloo*ed certain
relevant and undisputed facts that% if properly considered% would 1ustify a different conclusion/ -!?. the
findings of the CA are (eyond the issues of the case/ and -!!. such findings are contrary to the ad&issions
of (oth parties. LAGRIMAS DE )ESUS 0AMORA v. SPOUSES &EATRI0 0AMORA $IDALGO
MIRANDA AND ARTURO MIRANDA, ROSE MARIE MIRANDA GUANIO, MARY )ULIE %RISTINA S.
ANG, )ESSIE )AY S. ANG, )ASPER )O$N S. ANG AND T$E REGISTER O# DEEDS #OR DAVAO
%ITY, G.R. No. 16!'3", D4c4A>4r ", !"1!
Civil Procedure [&in#s of &acts of Ad'inistrative .fficials] - It is significant that the R5C upheld the
deter&ination of $ARAC only after considering the relevant evidence of the parties. 5here(y% it did not
act ar(itrarily. +oreover% factual findings of ad&inistrative officials and agencies -$ARAC. that have
acquired expertise in the perfor&ance of their official duties and the exercise of their pri&ary 1urisdiction
are generally accorded not only respect (ut% at ti&es% even finality if such findings are supported (y
su(stantial evidence. 5his is (ecause of their special *nowledge and expertise over &atters falling under
their 1urisdiction. LAND &AN* O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. SPOUSES ROSA AND PEDRO %OSTO, G.R.
No. 17(6(7, D4c4A>4r ", !"1!
Civil Procedure [,oot and Acade'ic] - An issue or a case (eco&es &oot and acade&ic when it ceases
to present a 1usticia(le controversy% so that a deter&ination of the issue would (e without practical use
and value. In such cases% there is no actual su(stantial relief to which the petitioner would (e entitled and
which would (e negated (y the dis&issal of the petition. EDUARDO T. A&AD v. LEONARDO &IASON
AND GA&RIEL A. MAGNO, G.R. No. 1'1''3, D4c4A>4r ", !"1!
Civil Procedure [(co*e of Review by t)e (u*re'e Court] - 5his Court is not a trier of facts. In the
exercise of its power of review% the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and (inding and
consequently% it is not our function to analyIe or weigh evidence all over again. 5here are% however%
recogniIed exceptions to this rule such as when there is a divergence (etween the findings of facts of the
4DRC and that of the CA. &EST ,EAR GARMENTS AND?OR ,ARREN PARDILLA v. ADELAIDA &.
DE LEMOS AND %E%ILE M. O%U&ILLO, G.R. No. 1'1!81, D4c4A>4r ", !"1!
Provisional Re'edies [Preli'inary 4n1unction] - It is the finding of evident partiality which constitutes
legal ground for vacating the Award in favor of RC8C and not the disagree&ent with &atters of law or
facts deter&ined (y the ar(itrators. As to the in1unction filed (y 8C;% it &ust (e noted that in1unction is
not a cause of action in itself% (ut &erely a provisional re&edy% an ad1unct to a &ain suit. 6hen the act
sought to (e en1oined has (eco&e fait acco&pli% the prayer for provisional re&edy should (e denied.
R%&% %APITAL %ORPORATION v. &AN%O DE ORO UNI&AN*, IN%.+ &AN%O DE ORO UNI&AN*,
IN% VS. %OURT O# APPEALS AND R%&% %APITAL %ORPORATION, G.R. No<. 1'6171, 1''!38,
D4c4A>4r 1", !"1!
Civil Procedure [A**eals] - Allowing an appeal% even if (elatedly filed% should never (e ta*en
lightly. 5he 1udg&ent attains finality (y the lapse of the period for ta*ing an appeal without such appeal
or &otion for reconsideration (eing filed. Resort to a li(eral application% or suspension of the application
of procedural rules% &ust re&ain as the exception to the well-settled principle that rules &ust (e co&plied
with for the orderly ad&inistration of 1ustice. Aven if the (elated appeal was due to the fault of counsel%
there can (e no li(eral application (ecause of the oft-repeated ruling that the negligence and &ista*es of
counsel (ind the client. 5he only exception would (e where the lawyerHs gross negligence would result in
the grave in1ustice of depriving his client of the due process of law. &UILDING %ARE %ORPORATION ?
LEOPARD SE%URITY - INVESTIGATION AGEN%Y AND?OR RUPERTO PROTA%IO v. MYRNA
MA%ARAEG, G.R. No. 1'837, D4c4A>4r 1", !"1!
Cri'inal Procedure [Probable Cause] % $ro(a(le cause is a reasona(le ground of presu&ption that a
&atter is% or &ay (e% well founded on such a state of facts in the &ind of the prosecutor as would lead a
person of ordinary caution and prudence to (elieve% or entertain an honest or strong suspicion% that a thing
is so. 5he ter& does not &ean )actual or positive cause) nor does it i&port a(solute certainty. It is &erely
(ased on opinion and reasona(le (elief. 5hus% a finding of pro(a(le cause does not require an inquiry into
whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is (elieved that the act or
o&ission co&plained of constitutes the offense charged. &URGUNDY REALTY %ORPORATION v.
)OSE#A B)INGB %. REYES AND SE%RETARY RAUL GON0ALE0 O# T$E DEPARTMENT O#
)USTI%E , G.R. No.181"!1, D4c4A>4r 1", !"1!
Civil Procedure [A**eals] - 5he perfection of an appeal in the &anner and within the period prescri(ed
(y law is &andatory. Gailure to confor& to the rules regarding appeal will render the 1udg&ent final and
executory and% hence% unappeala(le.
It is settled that questions of fact cannot (e raised in an original action for certiorari. ;nly esta(lished or
ad&itted facts can (e considered. RAUL &. ES%ALANTE v. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES a12
T$E$ONORA&LE%OURTO# APPEALS, #ORMER SPE%IAL T,ENTIET$ DIVISION a12
EIG$TEENT$ DIVISION, %OURT O# APPEALS, %E&U %ITY, G.R. No. 1'!7!7, )a18ar; ', !"13
Cri'inal Procedure [Probable Cause] - 5he Court re&ains &indful of the esta(lished principle that the
deter&ination of pro(a(le cause is essentially an executive function that is lodged with the pu(lic
prosecutor and the 'ecretary of 7ustice. :owever% equally settled is the rule that courts retain the power to
review findings of prosecutors in preli&inary investigations% although in a &ere few exceptional cases
showing grave a(use of discretion. ANTONIO L TAN, )R. v. YOS$ITSUGU MATSUURA AND
%AROLINA TAN)UT%O?ANTONIO L. TAN, )R. VS. )ULIE O %UA.,G.R. No<. 17'""3 - 1'816.
)a18ar; ', !"13
Cri'inal Procedure [Deter'ination of Evidence] - As a rule% the 'ecretarys findings are not su(1ect to
interference (y the courts% save only when he acts with grave a(use of discretion a&ounting to lac* or
excess of 1urisdiction/ or when he grossly &isapprehends facts/ or acts in a &anner so patent and gross as
to a&ount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perfor& the duty en1oined (y law/ or when
he acts outside the conte&plation of law. 6hen the 'ecretary &ade a deter&ination (ased on his own
appreciation of the pieces of evidence he effectively assu&ed the function of a trial 1udge in the
evaluation of the pieces of evidence and% there(y% acted outside his 1urisdiction &ARON A. VILLANUEVA
AND T$E SE%RETARY O# )USTI%E v. EDNA R. %APARAS , G.R. No. 1'"'6', )a18ar; 3", !"13
Civil Procedure [Relief Prayed &or] - It is settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the
pleadings or in excess of what is (eing sought (y the party.
7udging fro& how respondents for&er counsel handled the cause of his clients% there is no dou(t that he
was grossly negligent in protecting their rights% to the extent that they were deprived of their property
without due process of law. In fine% respondents did not lose the re&edies of new trial% appeal% petition for
relief and other re&edies through their own fault. LETI%IA DIONA, R4@r4<41342 >; h4r A33or14;-:1-6ac3,
MAR%ELINA DIONA v. SONNY A. &ALANGUE, ROMEO A. &ALANGUE, REYNALDO A. &ALANGUE,
AND ESTE&AN A. &ALANGUE, )R.G.R. No. 173', )a18ar; "7, !"13
Civil Procedure [Certification a#ainst $on%&oru' ()o**in#] -A defective certification is generally
not cura(le (y its su(sequent correction. And while it is true that in so&e cases the Court considered such
a (elated su(&ission as su(stantial co&pliance% it )did so only on sufficient and 1ustifia(le grounds that
co&pelled a li(eral approach while avoiding the effective negation of the intent of the rule on non-foru&
shopping. MARY LOUISE R. ANDERSON v. ENRI7UE $O, G.R. No. 17!'". )a18ar; 7, !"13
(*ecial Civil Actions [4n1unction] - A writ of preli&inary in1unction% as provided for in 'ec. >% Rule 5=
of the Rules of Court% &ay (e issued only upon clear showing of an actual existing right to (e protected
during the pendency of the principal action. 5he requisites of a valid in1unction are the existence of a right
and its actual or threatened violations. 5hus% to (e entitled to an in1unctive writ% the right to (e protected
and the violation against that right &ust (e shown. TML GAS*ET INDUSTRIES, IN%. v. &PI #AMILY
SAVINGS &AN*, IN%., G.R. No. 188768, )a18ar; "7, !"13
Civil Procedure [(*ecial A**earance] - $rescinding fro& the foregoing% it is thus clear that< -!. special
appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance/ -0. Accordingly%
o(1ections to the 1urisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant &ust (e explicitly &ade% i.e.%
set forth in an unequivocal &anner/ ->. Gailure to do so constitutes voluntary su(&ission to the
1urisdiction of the court% especially in instances where a pleading or &otion see*ing affir&ative relief is
filed and su(&itted to the court for resolution. OPTIMA REALTY %ORPORATION v. $ERT0 P$IL.
E5%LUSIVE %ARS, IN%., G.R. No. 183"3, )a18ar; "', !"13
Civil Procedure [Dro**in# of Parties] - nder the Rules% parties &ay (e dropped or added (y order of
the court on &otion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such ter&s as are
1ust. A'5RADDA ACA4 ;R$IA4; v. '$;'A' A45;4I; C. 5;+A' A4C +@R4A . 5;+A'.
% B.R. 4o. !#=9!!. 7anuary !4% 0?!>
Civil Procedure [(ubstantial Co'*liance] - 6hile the Rule &andates the su(&ission of a 1oint
declaration% this &ay (e li(erally construed especially in cases where there is su(stantial co&pliance with
the Rule. It (ears &ention that this Court had in nu&erous cases granted even the late posting of the
appeal (ond. ROLANDO L. %ERVANTES v. PAL MARITIME %ORPORATION AND?OR ,ESTERN
S$IPPING AGEN%IES, PTE., LTD. , G.R. No. 17!"', )a18ar; 16, !"13
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - Axcess of 1urisdiction% as distinguished fro& a(sence of 1urisdiction
&eans that an act% though within the general power of a tri(unal% (oard or officer is not authoriIed% and
invalid with respect to the particular proceeding% (ecause the conditions which alone authoriIe the
exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. 5he supervisory 1urisdiction of the court to
issue a certiorari writ cannot (e exercised in order to review the 1udg&ent of the lower court as to intrinsic
correctness% either upon the law or the facts of the case. In the a(sence of a showing that there is a reason
for the court to annul the decision of the concerned tri(unal or to su(stitute its own 1udg&ent% it is not the
office of the Court in a petition for certiorari to inquire into the correctness of the assailed decision or
resolution. ,INSTON #. GAR%IA, IN $IS %APA%ITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER O#
T$E GOVERNMENT SERVI%E INSURAN%E SYSTEM .GSIS/, v. %OURT O# APPEALS AND RUDY %.
TESORO, G.R. No. 16'"", )a18ar; !8, !"13
Civil Procedure [Conclusiveness of u#e'ent] - nder the principle of conclusiveness of 1udg&ent%
when a right or fact has (een 1udicially tried and deter&ined (y a court of co&petent 1urisdiction% or when
an opportunity for such trial has (een given% the 1udg&ent of the court% as long as it re&ains unreversed%
should (e conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with the&. 'tated differently% conclusiveness of
1udg&ent (ars the re-litigation in a second case of a fact or question already settled in a previous case.
%ITY O# %E&U v. APOLINIO M. DEDAMO, )R., G.R. No. 17!8!. )a18ar; 3", !"13
Civil Procedure [4ssues $ot Raised in t)e Lower Court] - As a rule% a party who deli(erately adopts a
certain theory upon which the case is tried and decided (y the lower court% will not (e per&itted to change
theory on appeal. $oints of law% theories% issues and argu&ents not (rought to the attention of the lower
court need not (e% and ordinarily will not (e% considered (y a reviewing court% as these cannot (e raised
for the first ti&e at such late stage MA5I%ARE P%I& %IGNA $EALT$%ARE .NO, MA5I%ARE
$EALT$%ARE %ORPORATION/, ERI% S. NU&LA, )R. M.D. AND RUT$ A. ASIS, M.D. v. MARIAN
&RIGITTE A. %ONTRERAS, M.D., G.R. No. 1'(3!. )a18ar; 3", !"13
Evidence [Dyin# Declaration] - Rules of Court states that a dying declaration is ad&issi(le as evidence
if the following circu&stances are present< -a. it concerns the cause and the surrounding circu&stances of
the declarants death/ -(. it is &ade when death appears to (e i&&inent and the declarant is under a
consciousness of i&pending death/ -c. the declarant would have (een co&petent to testify had he or she
survived/ and -d. the dying declaration is offered in a case in which the su(1ect of inquiry involves the
declarants death. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. RAMIL RARUGAL ALIAS BAMAY &ISAYAB, G.R.
No. 1886"3. )a18ar; 16, !"13
Evidence [Credibility of Witness] - It is ele&entary in the rule of evidence that inconsistencies in the
testi&onies of prosecution witnesses with respect to &inor details and collateral &atters do not affect the
su(stance of their declaration nor the veracity or weight of their testi&ony. In fact% these &inor
inconsistencies enhance the credi(ility of the witnesses% for they re&ove any suspicion that their
testi&onies were contrived or rehearsed. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. &EN)AMIN PETELUNA
AND A&UNDIO &INONDO, G.R. No. 187"(8. )a18ar; !3, !"13
Civil Procedure [Esto**el] - In 'ection 0 -(.% Rule !>! of the Rules of Court% *nown as estoppel against
tenants % what a tenant is estopped fro& denying is the title of his landlord at the ti&e of the
co&&ence&ent of the landlord-tenant relation.If the title asserted is one that is alleged to have (een
acquired su(sequent to the co&&ence&ent of that relation% the presu&ption will not apply. )UANITA
ERMITADO, REPRESENTED &Y $ER ATTORNEY-IN-#A%T, ISA&ELO ERMITADO v. LAILANIE M.
PAGLAS, G.R. No. 17((36. )a18ar; !3, !"13
Evidence [Alibi] - Gor ali(i to prosper% it is necessary that the accused &ust prove that he was so&ewhere
else when the cri&e was co&&itted and that it was physically i&possi(le for hi& to have (een at the
scene of the cri&e.In one case% the Court defined physical i&possi(ility as the distance (etween the place
where the accused was when the cri&e transpired and the place where it was co&&itted% as well as the
facility of access (etween the two places. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. ANTONIO &ASALLO Y
ASPRE%, G.R. No. 18!(7. )a18ar; 3", !"13
(*ecial Civil Actions [4n1unction] - It is a deeply ingrained doctrine in $hilippine re&edial law that a
preli&inary in1unctive writ under Rule 5= issues only upon a showing of the applicants Nclear legal
rightK (eing violated or under threat of violation (y the defendant. Any hint of dou(t or dispute on the
asserted legal right precludes the grant of preli&inary in1unctive relief. E5E%UTIVE SE%RETARY, ET
AL. v. #ORERUNNER MULTI RESOUR%ES, IN%., G.R. No. 1''3!(. )a18ar; 7, !"13
Civil Procedure [4nterlocutory .rder] - 5he re&edy against an interlocutory order not su(1ect of an
appeal is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 95 provided that the interlocutory order is
rendered without or in excess of 1urisdiction or with grave a(use of discretion. MA. %ARMINIA %.
%ALDERON .#ORMERLY MA. %ARMINIA %ALDERON-RO5AS/, r4@r4<41342 >; h4r a33or14;-:1-6ac3,
MARY%RIS V. &ALDEVIA v. )OSE ANTONIO #. RO5AS, G.R. No. 18'. )a18ar; ', !"13
Civil Procedure [6ierarc)y of Courts] - Accordingly% every litigant &ust re&e&(er that the Court is
not the only 1udicial foru& fro& which to see* and o(tain effective redress of his or her grievances. As a
rule% the Court is a court of last resort% not a court of first instance. :ence% every litigant who (rings
petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari% prohi(ition and &anda&us should ever (e &indful of the
policy on the hierarchy of courts% the o(servance of which is explicitly defined and en1oined in 'ection 4
of Rule 95. SPOUSES AUGUSTO G. DA%UDAO AND O#ELIA R. DA%UDAO v. SE%RETARY O#
)USTI%E RAUL M. GON0ALES O# T$E DEPARTMENT O# )USTI%E , G.R. No. 188"6. )a18ar; 8,
!"13
Civil Procedure [Petition for Review] - 5he Court is not a trier of facts and does not nor&ally underta*e
the re-exa&ination of the evidence presented (y the contending parties during the trial of the case.
SPE%IAL PEOPLE, IN%. #OUNDATION r4@r4<41342 >; :3< %$AIRMAN, RO&ERTO P. %ERI%OS v.
NESTOR M. %ANDA, ET AL. , G.R. No. 16"'3!. )a18ar; 1(, !"13
(*ecial Civil Actions [,anda'us] - A doctrine well-e&(edded in our 1urisprudence is that &anda&us
will issue only when the petitioner has a clear legal right to the perfor&ance of the act sought to (e
co&pelled and the respondent has an i&perative duty to perfor& the sa&e. SPE%IAL PEOPLE, IN%.
#OUNDATION r4@r4<41342 >; :3< %$AIRMAN, RO&ERTO P. %ERI%OS v. NESTOR M. %ANDA, ET
AL. , G.R. No. 16"'3!. )a18ar; 1(, !"13
(*ecial Civil Actions [Conte'*t] - Conte&pt of court is defined as a diso(edience to the court (y acting
in opposition to its authority% 1ustice% and dignity% and signifies not only a willful disregard of the courts
order% (ut such conduct which tends to (ring the authority of the court and the ad&inistration of law into
disrepute or% in so&e &anner% to i&pede the due ad&inistration of 1ustice. 5o (e considered
conte&ptuous% an act &ust (e clearly contrary to or prohi(ited (y the order of the court. RIVULET
AGRO-INDUSTRIAL %ORPORATION v. ANT$ONY PARUNGAO, ET AL., G.R. No. 1'7"7. )a18ar;
1(, !"13
(*ecial Civil Actions [E3*ro*riation] - 5he &ar*et value of a piece of property is the price that
&ay (e agreed upon (y parties willing (ut not co&pelled to enter into a sale. As expected% a seller in dire
need of funds will accept less% and a (uyer desperate to acquire naturally agrees to pay &ore% than what
the property is truly worth. REPU&LI% O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, r4@r4<41342 >; 3h4 DEPARTMENT O#
PU&LI% ,OR*S AND $IG$,AYS v. $EIRS O# SPOUSES PEDRO &AUTISTA AND VALENTINA
MALA&ANAN, G.R. No. 181!18. )a18ar; !8, !"13
(*ecial Civil Actions [E3*ro*riation] - A co&&issioners land valuation which is not (ased on any
docu&entary evidence is &anifestly hearsay and should (e disregarded (y the court. NATIONAL PO,ER
%ORPORATION v. SPOUSES RODOL#O 0A&ALA AND LILIA &AYLON, G.R. No. 173!". )a18ar; 3",
!"13
(*ecial Civil Actions [E1ect'ent] - $ossession in forci(le entry suits refers only to possession
de facto% or actual or &aterial possession% and not possession flowing out of ownership/ these are different
legal concepts

for which the law provides different re&edies for recovery of possession. 5he word
)possession) in forci(le entry suits refers to nothing &ore than prior physical possession or possession de
facto% not possession de 1ure

or legal possession in the sense conte&plated in civil law. NENITA
7UALITY #OODS %ORPORATION v. %RISOSTOMO GALA&O, ET AL., G.R. No. 17(1'1. )a18ar; 3",
!"13
(*ecial Civil Actions [E3*ro*riation] - 5he deter&ination of 1ust co&pensation in e&inent
do&ain proceedings is a 1udicial function and no statute% decree% or executive order can &andate that its
own deter&ination shall prevail over the courtHs findings. Any valuation for 1ust co&pensation laid down
in the statutes &ay serve only as a guiding principle or one of the factors in deter&ining 1ust
co&pensation% (ut it &ay not su(stitute the courtHs own 1udg&ent as to what a&ount should (e awarded
and how to arrive at such a&ount. :ence% 'ection >A of R.A. 4o. 9>"5% as a&ended% is not (inding upon
this Court. )ESUS L. %A&A$UG AND %ORONA%ION M. %A&A$UG v. NATIONAL PO,ER
%ORPORATION, G.R. No. 186"6'. )a18ar; 3", !"13
Civil Procedure [urisdiction] - 5he 1urisdiction of the Construction Industry Ar(itration Co&&ission
-CIAC. is conferred (y law. 'ection 4! of Axecutive ;rder -A.;.. 4o. !??=% otherwise *nown as the
Construction Industry Ar(itration Daw% )is (road enough to cover any dispute arising fro&% or connected
with construction contracts% whether these involve &ere contractual &oney clai&s or execution of the
wor*sK. T$E MANILA INSURAN%E %OMPANY, IN%. v. SPOUSES RO&ERTO AND AIDA AMURAO,
G.R. No. 17'6!8. )a18ar; 16, !"13
(*ecial Proceedin#s [(ettle'ent of Estate] - Clai&s which &ust (e filed under the notice. If not filed%
(arred/ exceptions. , All clai&s for &oney against the decedent% arising fro& contract% express or i&plied%
whether the sa&e (e due% not due% or contingent% all clai&s for funeral expenses and expenses for the last
sic*ness of the decedent% and 1udg&ent for &oney against the decedent% &ust (e filed within the ti&e
li&ited in the notice. METROPOLITAN &AN* - TRUST %OMPANY v. A&SOLUTE MANAGEMENT
%ORPORATION, G.R. No. 17"('8. )a18ar; ', !"13
Evidence [Credibility of Witness]% 5i&e and again% the Court has steadfastly ruled that inconsistencies
on &inor and trivial &atters only serve to strengthen rather than wea*en the credi(ility of witnesses for
they erase the suspicion of rehearsed testi&ony. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. LINDA ALVI0 Y
YAT%O AND ELI0A&ET$ DELA VEGA Y &AUTISTA, G.R. No. 17718. #4>r8ar; 6, !"13
Evidence[ Ad'issibility of Evidence]-A perusal of the law reveals that failure to strictly co&ply with
'ection 0! of Repu(lic Act 4o. "!95 will not render an arrest illegal or the ite&s seiIed fro& the accused
inad&issi(le in evidence. 6hat is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seiIed ite&s are
preserved for they will (e used in the deter&ination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. PEOPLE
O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. MALI* MANALAO YALAUYA, G.R. No. 187('6. #4>r8ar; 6, !"13
Evidence[Credibility of Witness]-It is a settled rule that the trial courts assess&ent of the credi(ility of
the witnesses and their testi&onies is entitled to great weight and will not (e distur(ed on appeal. 'uch
rule will not apply only when it appears that a fact of weight and su(stance has (een overloo*ed%
&isapprehended% or &isapplied (y the Court. After an exhaustive review and exa&ination of the records
of this case% the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the consistent ruling of the R5C and the Court of
Appeals. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. VI%TOR DE )ESUS Y GAR%IA, G.R. No. 1'87'(.
#4>r8ar; 6, !"13
Cri'inal Procedure [A**eal]-An appeal ta*en (y one or &ore of several accused shall not affect those
who did not appeal% except insofar as the 1udg&ent of the appellate court is favora(le and applica(le to
the latter. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. PO! EDUARDO VALDE0 - ED,IN VALDE0, G.R. No.
176"!, #4>r8ar; 13, !"13
Cri'inal Procedure[,otion &or $ew -rial]-5he 1udg&ent or orders of courts should attain finality at
so&e definite ti&e fixed (y law. ;therwise% there would (e no end to litigation. A new trial &ay only (e
granted (y the court on &otion of the accused% or &otu proprio with the consent of the accused N-a.t any
ti&e (efore a 1udg&ent of conviction (eco&es final. 5he &ost i&portant requisite is that the evidence
could not have (een discovered and produced at the trial even with reasona(le diligence. REYNANTE
TADE)A, ET AL. v. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No. 1(336. #4>r8ar; !", !"13
Evidence[Wei#)t and (ufficiency of Evidence]-As a rule% recantation is viewed with disfavor firstly
(ecause the recantation of her testi&ony (y a vital witness of the 'tate is exceedingly unrelia(le% and
secondly (ecause there is always the possi(ility that such recantation &ay later (e repudiated. PEOPLE
O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. TOMAS TEODORO Y ANGELES, G.R. No. 17876. #4>r8ar; !", !"13
Evidence[Rules of Ad'issibility]%An extra1udicial confession is (inding only on the confessant. It
cannot (e ad&itted against his or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against the&. 5he exception
provided under 'ec. >?% Rule !>? of the Rules of Court to the rule allowing the ad&ission of a conspirator
requires the prior esta(lish&ent of the conspiracy (y evidence other than the confession. Relationship%
association and co&panionship do not prove conspiracy. GERRY A. SALAPUDDIN v. T$E %OURT O#
APPEALS, GOV. )UM A*&AR, AND NOR-R$AMA ). INDANAN , G.R. No. 18(681. #4>r8ar; !, !"13
Civil Procedure[urisdiction]3erily% in Bancho-on v. 'ecreatry of Da(or and A&ploy&ent% the Court
e&phatically stated that<
It is a rule of universal application% al&ost% that courts of 1ustice constituted to pass upon su(stantial rights
will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved/ they decline 1urisdiction of &oot
cases. And where the issue has (eco&e &oot and acade&ic% there is no 1usticia(le controversy% so that a
declaration thereon would (e of no practical use or value. 5here is no actual su(stantial relief to which
petitioners would (e entitled and which would (e negated (y the dis&issal of the petition. P$ILIPPINE
LONG DISTAN%E TELEP$ONE %OMPANY, IN%. v. EASTERN TELE%OM P$ILIPPINES, G.R. No.
163"37. #4>r8ar; 6, !"13
Civil Procedure[Res udicata]-8y the doctrine of res 1udicata% )a final 1udg&ent or decree on the &erits
(y a court of co&petent 1urisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later
suits on all points and &atters deter&ined in the for&er suit.) 5o apply this doctrine in the for& of a )(ar
(y prior 1udg&ent%) there &ust (e identity of parties% su(1ect &atter% and causes of action as (etween the
first case where the first 1udg&ent was rendered and the second case that is sought to (e
(arred.HYPERLINK "http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri201/!e"201/#r$1%&00$201.ht'l" (l
"!nt)1"
4!
All these requisites are present in the case at (ar. NERIE %. SERRANO v. AM&ASSADOR
$OTEL, IN%. AND YOLANDA %$AN G.R. No. 1'7""3. #4>r8ar; 11, !"13
Civil Procedure[Effect of failure to *lead]-nder 'ection !% Rule " of the Rules of Court% defenses and
o(1ections not pleaded either in a &otion to dis&iss or in the answer are dee&ed waived% with the
following exceptions< -!. lac* of 1urisdiction over the su(1ect &atter/ -0. litis pendentia/ ->. res 1udicata/
and -4. prescription of the action. Clearly% petitioner cannot change its defense after the ter&ination of the
period of testi&ony and after the exhi(its of (oth parties have already (een ad&itted (y the court. 5he
non-inclusion of this (elated defense in the pre-trial order (arred its consideration during the trial. 5o rule
otherwise would put the adverse party at a disadvantage since he could no longer offer evidence to re(ut
the new theory. Indeed% parties are (ound (y the deli&itation of issues during the pre-trial. LI%OM%EN,
IN%. v. ENGR. SALVADOR A&AIN0A, ET%. G.R. No. 1''781. #4>r8ar; 18, !"13
Civil Procedure[A**eal of Quasi%udicial A#encies to CA]-5he require&ent of the ti&ely filing of a
&otion for reconsideration as a precondition to the filing of a petition for certiorari accords with the
principle of exhausting ad&inistrative re&edies as a &eans to afford every opportunity to the respondent
agency to resolve the &atter and correct itself if need (e. LEPANTO %ONSOLIDATED MINING
%OMPANY v. T$E LEPANTO %APATA0 UNION , G.R. No. 17"86. #4>r8ar; 18, !"13
Civil Procedure[Cause of Action]-In actions at law% the general practice is to try all the issues in a case
at one ti&e/ and it is only in exceptional instances where there are special and persuasive reasons for
departing fro& this practice that distinct causes of action asserted in the sa&e case &ay (e &ade the
su(1ects of separate trials. 6hether this reasona(ly &ay (e done in any particular instance rests largely in
the courts discretion. METROPOLITAN &AN* AND TRUST %OMPANY, AS SU%%ESSOR-IN-
INTEREST O# ASIAN &AN* %ORPORATION v. $ON. EDIL&ERTO G. SANDOVAL, ET AL. G.R. No.
16'677. #4>r8ar; 18, !"13
Civil Procedure[,otion to Re%o*en case]-In +o1ar% et al. v. Agro Co&&ercial 'ecurity 'ervice
Agency% Inc.% the Court explained that it is the partys duty to infor& the court of its counsels de&ise%
and failure to apprise the court of such fact shall (e considered negligence on the part of said party. O.
VENTANILLA ENTERPRISES %ORPORATION v. ADELINA S. TAN AND S$ERI## REYNANTE G.
VELAS7UE0, PRESIDING )UDGE, G.R. No. 18"3!. #4>r8ar; !", !"13
Civil Procedure [4ntervention]-A &otion for intervention% li*e any other &otion% has to co&ply with the
&andatory require&ents of notice and hearing% as well as proof of its service% save only for those that the
courts can act upon without pre1udice to the rights of the other parties. A &otion which fails to co&ply
with these require&ents is a worthless piece of paper that cannot and should not (e acted
upon. REPU&LI% O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. $ON. RAMON S. %AGUIAO, ET%., ET AL. G.R. No.
17(38. #4>r8ar; !", !"13
Civil Procedure[ A'ended and (u**le'ental Pleadin#s]nder 'ection =% Rule !? of the Rules of
Court% an a&ended co&plaint supersedes an original one. As a consequence% the original co&plaint is
dee&ed withdrawn and no longer considered part of the record. PADILLA MER%ADO, 0ULUETA
MER%ADO, ET AL. v<. SPOUSES AGUEDO ESPINA AND LOURDES ESPINA
G.R. No. 173'87. #4>r8ar; !, !"13
Civil Procedure[ E3ecution9 (atisfaction and effect of ud#'ents]'ince the writ of execution was
&anifestly void for having (een issued without co&pliance with the rules% it is without any legal effect. In
other words% it is as if no writ was issued at all. Consequently% all actions ta*en pursuant to the void writ
of execution &ust (e dee&ed to have not (een ta*en and to have had no effect. ;therwise% the Court
would (e sanctioning a violation of the right to due process of the 1udg&ent de(tors respondent-spouses
herein. MA%ARIO DIA0 %ARPIO v. %OURT O# APPEALS, SPOUSES GELA%IO G. GLORIA AND
MAR%ELINA PRE ORIA, G.R. No. 1831"!. #4>r8ar; !7, !"13
Civil Procedure[Preli'inary 4n1unction]-It is required (efore the issuance of a writ of preli&inary
in1unction that clai&ants show the existence of a right to (e protected. &ALA)ADIA, ET AL. v. ATTY.
&RAIN MAS,ENGM, IN $IS %APA%ITY AS REGIONAL $EARING O##I%ER, N%IP-%AR, ET AL.
G.R. No. 18"88!. #4>r8ar; !7, !"13
Cri'inal Procedure[Preli'inary 4nvesti#ation]-5he settled policy is that the courts will not interfere
with the executive deter&ination of pro(a(le cause for the purpose of filing an infor&ation% in the
a(sence of grave a(use of discretion. 5hat a(use of discretion &ust (e so patent and gross as to a&ount to
an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perfor& a duty en1oined (y law or to act at all in
conte&plation of law% such as where the power is exercised in an ar(itrary and despotic &anner (y reason
of passion or hostility. x x x. LORELI LIM PO v. DEPARTMENT O# T$E )USTI%E, ET AL.?ANTONIO
NG %$IU VS. %OURT O# APPEALS, ET AL.G.R. No<. 1'1'8 - G.R. No. 1'7"'8. #4>r8ar; 11, !"13
Civil Procedure[A**eals]-5he Court had li*ewise% in nu&erous ti&es% affir&ed that points of law%
theories% issues and argu&ents not (rought to the attention of the lower court need not (e% and ordinarily
will not (e% considered (y a reviewing court% as these cannot (e raised for the first ti&e at such late stage.
8asic considerations of due process underlie this rule. %AROLINA .%ARLINA/ VDA. DE #IGURA%ION,
ET AL. v. EMILIA #IGURA%ION-GERILLA ,G.R. No. 1133(. #4>r8ar; 13, !"13
(*ecial Civil Action[Certiorari]-In a special civil action for certiorari (rought against a court with
1urisdiction over a case% the petitioner carries the (urden to prove that the respondent tri(unal co&&itted
not a &erely reversi(le error (ut a grave a(use of discretion a&ounting to lac* or excess of 1urisdiction in
issuing the i&pugned order. RO&ERTO &ORDOMEO, ET AL. v. %OURT O# APPEALS, $ON.
SE%RETARY O# LA&OR, ET AL.,G.R. No. 161'6. #4>r8ar; !", !"13
Civil Procedure[A**eals]-5he 'upre&e Court is not a trier of facts% and unless the case falls under any
of the well-defined exceptions% the 'upre&e Court will not delve once &ore into the findings of facts. In
the instant case% the factual findings of the CA and the R5C are star*ly contrasting% which warrants
another review of its factual finding. %ASILANG, ANGELO A. %ASILANG, RODOL#O A. %ASILANG
AND ATTY. ALI%IA &. #A&IA, :1 h4r ca@ac:3; a< %=4rE o6 %o8r3 a21 EL-o66:c:o Sh4r:66 o6 Pa1Fa<:1a1
a12?or h4r 28=; a83hor:942 r4@r4<413a3:v4, G.R. No. 18"!6'. #4>r8ar; !", !"13
Cri'inal Procedure[Prosecution of .ffenses]-5he following procedural requisites &ust (e satisfied
(efore the accused &ay (e punished for indirect conte&pt< -!. there &ust (e an order requiring the
respondent to show cause why he should not (e cited for conte&pt/ -0. the respondent &ust (e given the
opportunity to co&&ent on the charge against hi&/ and ->. there &ust (e a hearing and the court &ust
investigate the charge and consider respondents answer. ;f these requisites% the law accords ut&ost
i&portance to the third as it e&(odies ones right to due process. :ence% it is essential that the alleged
conte&ner (e granted an opportunity to &eet the charges against hi& and to (e heard in his defenses.
$ON. MEDEL ARNALDO &. &ELEN, :1 h:< o66:c:a= ca@ac:3; a< Pr4<:2:1F )82F4 o6 3h4 R4F:o1a= Tr:a=
%o8r3, &r. 36, (3h )82:c:a= R4F:o1, %a=aA>a %:3; v. )OSE# AL&ERT S. %OMILANG,G.R. No. 18((87.
#4>r8ar; !7, !"13
Cri'inal Procedure[Arrest]A valid warrantless arrest which 1ustifies a su(sequent search is one that is
carried out under the para&eters of 'ection 5-a.% Rule !!> of the Rules of Court!4which requires that the
apprehending officer &ust have (een spurred (y pro(a(le cause to arrest a person caught in flagrante
delicto. RAMON MARTINE0 Y GO%O?RAMON GO%O Y MARTINE0 v. PEOPLE O# T$E
P$ILIPPINES,G.R. No. 1'86'(. #4>r8ar; 13, !"13
Evidence[Rules of Ad'issibility]%If properly authenticated% the entries serve as evidence of the status of
the account of the petitioners. the Court has explained that such entries are accorded unusual relia(ility
(ecause their regularity and continuity are calculated to discipline record *eepers in the ha(it of precision/
and that if the entries are financial% the records are routinely (alanced and audited/ hence% in actual
experience% the whole of the (usiness world function in reliance of such *ind of records. SPS. 7UIRINO
V. DELA %RU0 - GLORIA DELA %RU0 v. PLANTERS PRODU%TS, IN%.,G.R. No. 186('. #4>r8ar;
18, !"13
Evidence[ Wei#)t and (ufficiency of Evidence]-Circu&stantial evidence is defined as that evidence
that indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact-finder draws fro& the evidence
esta(lished. It is sufficient for conviction if< OaL there is &ore than one -!. circu&stance/ O(L the facts fro&
which the inferences are derived are proven/ and OcL the co&(ination of all the circu&stances is such as to
produce a conviction (eyond reasona(le dou(t. PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. P?SUPT. ARTEMIO
E. LAMSEN, ET AL., G.R. No. 1'8338. #4>r8ar; !", !"13
Evidence[Wei#)t and sufficiency of Evidence]$ositive identification pertains essentially to proof of
identity and not per se to that of (eing an eyewitness to the very act of co&&ission of the cri&e.
PEOPLE O# T$E P$ILIPPINES v. )O$N ALVIN PONDIVIDA,G.R. No. 188'6' . #4>r8ar; !7, !"13
(*ecial Civil Action[,anda'us]+anda&us shall issue when any tri(unal% corporation% (oard%
officer or person unlawfully neglects the perfor&ance of an act that the law specifically en1oins
as a duty resulting fro& an office% trust% or station. It is proper when the act against which it is
directed is one addressed to the discretion of the tri(unal or officer. In &atters involving the
exercise of 1udg&ent and discretion% &anda&us &ay only (e resorted to in order to co&pel
respondent tri(unal% corporation% (oard% officer or person to ta*e action% (ut it cannot (e used to
direct the &anner or the particular way discretion is to (e exercised% or to co&pel the retraction
or reversal of an action already ta*en in the exercise of 1udg&ent or discretion. DATU ANDAL
AMPATUAN, )R. V. SE%. LEILA DE LIMA, AS SE%RETARY O# T$E DEPARTMENT O# )USTI%E, ET
AL.$YPERLIN* Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?1'7!'1.@26B O3
BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 1'7!'1, A@r:= 3, !"13
Civil Procedure[(u''ons]-It was not shown that the security guard who received the su&&ons in
(ehalf of the petitioner was authoriIed and possessed a relation of confidence that petitioner would
definitely receive the su&&ons. 5his is not the *ind of service conte&plated (y law. 5hus% service on the
security guard could not (e considered as su(stantial co&pliance with the require&ents of su(stituted
service. SI5TO N. %$U V. MA%$ ASIA TRADING %ORPORATION,$YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?18(333.@26B O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
18(333, A@r:= 1, !"13
Cri'inal Procedure[Wei#)t and (ufficiency of Evidence]Cirect evidence is not the sole
&eans of esta(lishing guilt (eyond reasona(le dou(t since circu&stantial evidence% if sufficient%
can supplant the a(sence of direct evidence. 6hile this provision appears to refer only to
cri&inal cases% we have applied its principles to ad&inistrative cases. %IVIL SERVI%E
%OMMISSION V. ARLI% ALMO)UELA, $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?1'(368.@26B O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
1'(368. A@r:= !, !"13
Civil Procedure[Litis Pendentia]-nder the esta(lished 1urisprudence on litis pendentia% the
following considerations predo&inate in the ascending order of i&portance in deter&ining which
action should prevail< -!. the date of filing% with preference generally given to the first action
filed to (e retained/ -0. whether the action sought to (e dis&issed was filed &erely to pree&pt
the later action or to anticipate its filing and lay the (asis for its dis&issal/ and ->. whether the
action is the appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues (etween the parties. #ILM
DEVELOPMENT %OUN%IL O# T$E P$ILIPPINES V.SM PRIME $OLDINGS, IN%., $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?1'7'37.@26B O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
1'7'37. A@r:= 3, !"13
Civil Procedure [A**eals]-5he Court considers the attach&ents of 'egundinas petition for
review -i.e.% the certified true copies of the +5C decision dated Ge(ruary 4% 0???% the R5C
decision dated 4ove&(er 0"% 0???% and the R5C order dated April 00% 0??0. already sufficient
to ena(le the CA to pass upon her assigned errors and to resolve her appeal even without the
pleadings and other portions of the records. 5o still deny due course to her petition for not
attaching the co&plaint and the answer despite the +5C decision having su(stantially
su&&ariIed their contents was to ignore the spirit and purpose of the require&ent to give
sufficient infor&ation to the %A. SEGUNDINA A. GALVE0 V. SPS. $ONORIO %. MONTANO AND
SUSANA P. MONTANO, ET AL.$YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?17((.@26B O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
17((, A@r:= 3, !"13
(*ecial Civil Action[4n1unction]-As no clear right that warrants the extraordinary protection of an
in1unctive writ has (een shown (y '8I and +GII to exist in their favor% the first require&ent for the grant
of a preli&inary in1unction has not (een satisfied. In the a(sence of any requisite% and where facts are
shown to (e wanting in (ringing the &atter within the conditions for its issuance% the ancillary writ of
in1unction &ust (e struc* down for having (een rendered in grave a(use of discretion. SOLID
&UILDERS, IN%. AND MEDINA) #OODS INDUSTRIES, IN%. V. %$INA &AN*ING %ORPORATION,
$YPERLIN* Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?17'66.@26B O3
BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 17'66. A@r:= 3, !"13
Civil Procedure [Cause of Action]-5he petitioners counterclai& is a per&issi(le direct attac* to the
validity of respondents torrens title. As such counterclai&% it involves a cause of action separate fro&
that alleged in the co&plaint/ it has for its purpose the vindication of a right in as &uch as the co&plaint
si&ilarly see*s the redress of one. As the plaintiff in his own counterclai&% the petitioner is equally
entitled to the opportunity granted the plaintiff in the original co&plaint% to esta(lish his cause of action
and to prove the right he asserts. NEMESIO #IRA0A, SR., V. SPS. %LAUDIO AND EU#RE%ENA
UGAY,$YPERLIN* Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?16838.@26B O3
BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 16838, A@r:= 3, !"13
Civil Procedure[urisdiction]-In ad&inistrative cases involving the concurrent 1urisdiction of
two or &ore disciplining authorities% the (ody where the co&plaint is filed first% and which opts
to ta*e cogniIance of the case% acquires 1urisdiction to the exclusion of other tri(unals exercising
concurrent 1urisdiction. 'ince the co&plaint against the petitioner was initially filed with the
;ffice of the ;&(uds&an% the ;&(uds&anHs exercise of 1urisdiction is to the exclusion of the
sangguniang (ayan whose exercise of 1urisdiction is concurrent. #RAN*LIN ALE)ANDRO V.
O##I%E O# T$E OM&UDSMAN #A%T-#INDING AND INTELLIGEN%E &UREAU,$YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?1731!1.@26B O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
1731!1, A@r:= 3, !"13
Civil Procedure[E3ecution]-5he applica(le rule at the ti&e of the execution sale on +arch !5% !"#0 is
Rule >"% 'ection != of the !"94 Rules of Court. 5his rule does not require personal written notice to the
1udg&ent de(tor. 5he foregoing rule does not require written notice to the 1udg&ent o(ligor. Respondents
are thus correct in their argu&ent that at the ti&e of the execution sale on +arch !5% !"#0% personal notice
to the petitioners was not required under Rule >"% 'ection != of the !"94 Rules of Court. Indeed% notice to
the 1udg&ent o(ligor under the !"94 Rules of Court was not required% or was &erely optional/ pu(lication
and posting sufficed. MAR%ELINO AND VITALIANA DALANGIN V. %ELEMENTE PERE0, ET
AL.,,$YPERLIN* Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?17878.@26B O3
BP>=a1EBG.R. No. 17878. A@r:= 3, !"13
Civil Procedure[Res udicata]5he petition should not (e dis&issed on the ground of res 1udicata since
this is (ased on 1urisprudence and issuances not yet in existence at the ti&e of the pro&ulgation of the
Courts decision in PPA v. %OA, 43 a=. AMELIA A7UINO, ET. AL V. P$ILIPPINE PORTS
AUT$ORITY,G.R. No. 181'73, A@r:= 17, !"13
Civil Procedure[Certification a#ainst non%foru' s)o**in#]-$etitioners share a co&&on interest and
defense inas&uch as they collectively clai& a right not to (e dispossessed of the su(1ect lot (y virtue of
their and their deceased parents construction of a fa&ily ho&e and occupation thereof for &ore than !?
years. 5he co&&onality of their stance to defend their alleged right over the controverted lot thus gave
petitioners x x x authority to infor& the Court of Appeals in (ehalf of the other petitioners that they have
not co&&enced any action or clai& involving the sa&e issues in another court or tri(unal% and that there
is no other pending action or clai& in another court or tri(unal involving the sa&e issues. $EIRS O#
LA0ARO GALLARDO, ET AL. V. POR#ERIO SOLIMAN, ET AL.,HYPERLINK
"http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/!"#/apri$!"#/"%&'(.pd)" *t "+,$an-"G.R. No. 178'!,
A@r:= 1", !"13
Civil Procedure[A**eals]%5he right to appeal is statutory and one who see*s to avail of it &ust co&ply
with the statute or rules. 5he require&ents for perfecting an appeal within the regle&entary period
specified in the law &ust (e strictly followed as they are considered indispensa(le interdictions against
needless delays. +oreover% the perfection of an appeal in the &anner and within the period set (y law is
not only &andatory (ut 1urisdictional as well% hence failure to perfect the sa&e renders the 1udg&ent final
and executory. And% 1ust as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescri(ed period%
so also does the prevailing party have the correlative right to en1oy the finality of a decision in his favor.
&OARD,AL* &USINESS VENTURES, IN%. V. ELVIRA A. VILLAREAL .DE%EASED/ SU&STITUTED
&Y REYNALDO P. VILLAREAL, )R., ET A,$YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?18118!.@26B O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
18118!, A@r:= 1", !"13
Evidence[Rules of Ad'issibility]-7urisprudence dictates that an affidavit is &erely hearsay
evidence where its affiantJ&a*er did not ta*e the witness stand. 5he sworn state&ent of Ignacio
is of this *ind. 5he affidavit was not identified and its aver&ents were not affir&ed (y affiant
Ignacio. Accordingly% Axhi(it N>K &ust (e excluded fro& the 1udicial proceedings (eing an
inad&issi(le hearsay evidence. It cannot (e dee&ed a declaration against interest for the &atter
to (e considered as an exception to the hearsay rule (ecause the declarant was not the seller
-A&ilio.% (ut his father -Ignacio.. ROGELIO DANTIS V. )ULIO MAG$INANG, )R.$YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?1'16'6.@26B O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
1'16'6. A@r:= 1", !"13
(*ecial Civil Action[Preli'inary 4n1unction]-Gor the issuance of a writ of preli&inary in1unction to (e
proper% it &ust (e shown that the invasion of the right sought to (e protected is &aterial and su(stantial%
that the right of co&plainant is clear and un&ista*a(le and that there is an urgent and para&ount necessity
for the writ to prevent serious da&age. In the a(sence of a clear legal right% the issuance of the in1unctive
writ constitutes grave a(use of discretion. In this case% respondents failed to show that they have a right to
(e protected and that the acts against which the writ is to (e directed are violative of the said right. T$E
SPE%IAL AUDIT TEAM, %OMMISSION ON AUDIT V. %OURT O# APPEALS AND GOVERNMENT
SERVI%E INSURAN%E SYSTEM, $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?17(788.@26B O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
17(788, A@r:= 11, !"13
Civil Procedure[Res udicata]5he doctrine of res 1udicata applies only to 1udicial or quasi-
1udicial proceedings% and not to the exercise of ad&inistrative powers. Ad&inistrative powers
here refer to those purely ad&inistrative in nature% as opposed to ad&inistrative proceedings that
ta*e on a quasi-1udicial character. %ARLITO %. EN%INAS V. PO1 AL#REDO P. AGUSTIN, )R., AND
PO1 )OEL S. %AU&ANG, $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?187317.@26B O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
187317. A@r:= 11, !"13
Civil Procedure[Res udicata]Res 1udicata &eans Na &atter ad1udged/ a thing 1udicially acted upon or
decided/ a thing or &atter settled (y 1udg&ent.K It lays the rule that an existing final 1udg&ent or decree
rendered on the &erits% without fraud or collusion% (y a court of co&petent 1urisdiction% upon any &atter
within its 1urisdiction% is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies% in all other actions or suits
in the sa&e or any other 1udicial tri(unal of concurrent 1urisdiction on the points and &atters in issue in
the first suit. $EIRS O# MA5IMINO DERLA V. $EIRS O# %ATALINA DERLA VDA. DE $IPOLITO,
G.R. No. 17717, A@r:= 13, !"11
(*ecial Civil Action[Bnlawful Detainer]-In this case% although petitioner alone filed the
co&plaint for unlawful detainer% he stated in the co&plaint that he is one of the heirs of the late
Dilia Castigador% his &other% who inherited the su(1ect lot% fro& her parents. $etitioner did not
clai& exclusive ownership of the su(1ect lot% (ut he filed the co&plaint for the purpose of
recovering its possession which would redound to the (enefit of the co-owners. 'ince petitioner
recogniIed the existence of a co-ownership% he% as a co-owner% can (ring the action without the
necessity of 1oining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs. REY %ASTIGADOR %ATEDRILLA V.
MARIO AND MARGIE LAURON,$YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?17'"11.@26B O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
17'"11, A@r:= 1, !"13
Civil Procedure[A**eals fro' Quasi udicial A#encies to CA]A decision or award of a voluntary
ar(itrator is appeala(le to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 4>. ROYAL PLANT ,OR*ERS
UNION V. %O%A-%OLA &OTTLERS P$ILIPPINES, IN%. $YPERLIN*
Bh33@G??<c.M82:c:ar;.Fov.@h?M8r:<@r8241c4?!"13?a@r:=!"13?1'8783.@26B O3 BP>=a1EBG.R. No.
1'8783. A@r:= 1, !"13