You are on page 1of 2

VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

VS COURT OF APPEALS
GR No. 168062
June 29, 2010

FACTS: This case was a case of ejectment. Victorias Milling Corporation, Inc. (VMCI) filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer and damages against International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPI) before the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of E.B. Magalona-Manapla on March 4, 2004. Six days after, the sheriff
summoned the human relations department head of IPI, Danilo Magsalang. On March 19, 2004, IPI
answered with express reservation stating that the said Answer should not be construed as a waiver of
the lack of jurisdiction of the MCTC over the IPI for non-service of summons on the proper person and
filed an Omnibus Motion for Hearing of Affirmative Defenses raised in the Answer. It further filed a
motion for suspension of proceedings. The MCTC ruled denied the motion for suspension of proceedings
and denied the motion for reconsideration.
IPI filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA)-Cebu City, questioning the
MCTCs jurisdiction in summoning Magsalang. The Cebu City CA issued a writ of preliminary injunction to
the MCTC and gave the parties twenty days after receiving the resolution to simultaneously file their
memoranda amplifying their positions and supporting their arguments with pertinent jurisprudence on
the matter. VMCI filed a petition for certiorari, hence this case.
ISSUES: Whether or not the Cebu City CA gravely abused its discretion by ordering the issuance of the
writ of injunction, failing to dismiss outright the petition of certiorari and prohibition by the IPI and
blatantly disregarding of the court hierarchy
HELD: Rule 70, Section 13 (7) of the Rules of Court prohibits a petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court on forced entry or unlawful detainer
cases. The Rule on Summary Procedure, by way of exception, permits only a motion to dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter but it does not mention the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the person. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius is a concept in Statutory Construction
which provides that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of all others. In the case at
bar, continuing the proceedings with the MCTC was more in accord with justice, the purpose of the Rule
on Summary Procedure and the proper administration of justice. The Cebu City-CA should have indeed
dismissed outright the petition for certiorari filed by IPI. The petition was granted and the resolutions
and the writ of injunction issued by the said CA were nullified and set aside. A dismissal of the petition
for certiorari filed by the IPI in the Cebu City-CA was also ordered.

PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN
GR No. 164185
July 23, 2008
FACTS: Private respondent Alejandro Villapando ran for mayor in San Vicente, Palawan in the May 1998
elections and won. He designated Orlando Tiape, his wifes relative, as his municipal administrative and
development planning consultant from January 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999. Tiape ran for mayor in
Kitcharao, Agusan del Sur in the same elections but lost. Villapando and Tiape were charged with
violation of Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code which states: any public officer who shall knowingly
nominate or appoint to any public office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefor, shall suffer
the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos. Villapando pleaded not guilty while
the case on Tiape was dismissed upon his death on July 26, 2000. Villapondo filed a Demurrer to
Evidence. The Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan granted his demurrer and acquitted him because
the legal qualifications contemplated in the said provision did not pertain to the one year prohibition
on appointment as provided for in Section 6, Article IX-B of the Constitution (no candidate who has lost
in any election shall, within one year after such election, be appointed to any office in the government
or any government-owned or controlled corporation or in any of their subsidiaries) and Section 94 (b) of
the Local Government Code (except for losing candidates in barangay elections, no candidate who lost in
any election shall, within one year after such election, be appointed to any office in the government or
any government-owned or controlled corporation or in any of their subsidiaries. Petitioner argues that
the court erred when it ruled that temporary prohibition is not synonymous with the absence of lack of
legal qualification). The Office of the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, then
filed a petition for certiorari assailing the Sandiganbayans decision.
ISSUES: Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in interpreting the legal
disqualification in Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code did not include the one year prohibition as
provided by Section 6, Article IX-B of the Constitution and Section 94 (b) of the Local Government Code
and in giving due course and granting the demurrer of Villapando.
HELD: The Sandiganbayans decision had no basis in law or jurisprudence. The legal disqualification in
Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code simply means disqualification under the law; it cannot be read as
excluding temporary disqualification in order to exempt therefrom the legal prohibitions under Section
6, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and Section 94 (b) of the Local Government Code of 1991. Ubi lex
non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus: where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not
distinguish. There should be no distinction in the application of a law where none is indicated. It was
held that the Sandiganbayan indeed acted with grave abuse of discretion. The petition was granted and
the decision of the Sandiganbayan was declared null and void. The records of the case were to be
remanded to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings.