You are on page 1of 14

#131

ATTY. FE Q. PALMIANO-SALVADOR, petitioner VS. CONSTANTINO


ANGELES, substituted BY LUIZ G. ANGELES, respondent
GR NO. 171219 (3 SEPTEMBER, 2012)

FACTS:

Respondent is one of the registered owner of a land which was occupied by Galiga, a
lessee, from 1979-1993. Galiga sold the land to petitioner on 1993, which the former
pretended to be the owner of the land. Upon learning about the occupation of petitioner to
his land, he sent a letter to him informing him to vacate the property and filed a complaint
for ejectment thru Rosario Diaz, Jr. on October 1994. The MeTC rendered its decision in
favor of the respondent.

Petitioner filed a petition, claiming that Diaz has no authority to file the complaint which
was denied. Thus, raised his petition to the CA. The CA affirmed the RTCs decision.

ISSUES:

What then, is the effect of a complaint filed by those who has no authority to represent a
plaintiff in filing an action?

HELD:

A complaint is filed for and on behalf of the plaintiff by ones who is not authorized to do
so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any
legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no
jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff. Therefore, MeTC never acquired
jurisdiction over this case and all proceedings before it were null and void.

#132

JUDGE ARMANDO S. ADLAWAN, complainant VS. ESTRELLA P.


CAPILITAN, respondent
AM NO. P 12 3080 (29 AUGUST 2012)

FACTS:

Respondent admitted to complainant that she was pregnant to a married


man, who claimed that hes already separated from his wife. Thus, she
succumbs to the temptation. Complainant felt duty-bound to report the
matter to court.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the respondent is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct.

HELD:

Yes. She claimed that the man who impregnated her represented to be
separated from hi, the fact remains that the man is still married. Thus, there
is no doubt that respondent engaged in sexual relation with a married man,
which not only violate the moral standards expected of employees of the
judiciary but also a desecration of the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

#133

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee VS. RAUL BERIBER y


FUENTES @ JERRY FUENTES y IGNACIO @ GERRY BERIBER @
BONG @ RAUL FUENTES, appellant
GR NO. 195243 (29 AUGUST 2012)

FACTS:

October 3, 2000, Mrs. Vergara was found dead inside their house, lying
lifeless on a bamboo bed. During that time victims husband went to Quezon
City at 6am, leaving her, his children, and the appellant. Appellant works at
their rice mill as a helper. According to witnesses, appellant seems to be
restless and that he went in and out of the victims house a couple of times.
The last time they saw him; he was carrying his bag and never came back.
Henry, the husband, came home and found the inside of the house in disarray
and his wife covered in blood.

Appellant was apprehended in Capiz and has been using different allias to
avoid the authorities. He was brought back to San Pablo and was tried. He
was later found guilty and was sentenced to death, which was later reduced
to a lesser punishment in the retrial.

ISSUES:

Whether or not appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of


robbery with homicide.

HELD:

Yes. Appellant was not seen by the victims family since the crime. The
flight of an accused, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a
circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be establish, for a truly
innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to
defend himself and assert his innocence.

#134

ESTRELLA TAGLAY, petitioner VS. JUDGE MARIVIC TRABAJO


DARAY and LOVERIE PALACAY, respondents
GR NO. 164258 (22 AUGUST 2012)

FACTS:

June 2, 2001, 2:30pm, petitioner entered the home of private respondent


Palacay uninvited. There and then, maltreated, boxed, and choked her
(Palacay). A pre-trial was set on August 13, 2002, later on they found out
that the private respondent was a minor. Thus, the case was transferred to
Digos RTC as stated in RA 8369 and circular 11-99.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case.

HELD:

No. The information filed with the MCTC cannot be used as a basis for valid
indictment. There is no point in proceeding under defective information that
could never be the basis of a valid conviction. The information filed with the
MCTC must thus first be amended and thereafter filed with the RTC.
Pending the filing of such information, the RTC has not yet acquired
jurisdiction.

#135

(STANFILCO) DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner VS. RENALDO B.


RODRIGUEZ and LIBORIO AFRICA, respondents
GR NO. 174646 (22 AUGUST 2012)

FACTS:

Africa is the registered owner of a 17 hectares Banana Plantation at General


Santos. On November 1, 1966, he entered into a Farm Management Contract
(FMC) with his farm manager Yuchengco. The management rights were
transferred to Checkered Farm Inc., which the latter entered an Exclusive
Purchasing Agreement with petitioner. Checkered Farms allowed petitioner
to introduced installations and improvements in the farm and to dismantle
and remove all non-permanent installations and improvements it has
introduced upon the expiration of the contract.

October 15, 1991, Africa gave the land to Rodriguez as payments of his
obligations to him. Rodriguez made a proposal to petitioners allowing them
to continue operations and management which the latter denied and instead
offered to grant the same terms and conditions as those given to independent
small growers in General Santos. As no agreement was reached petitioner
dismantled and removed all improvements introduced in the farm damaging
the land and its crops.
On April 1992, respondent filed a complaint for recovery and sum of money
and damages against petitioners which was granted by the RTC.

Both petitioner and respondent filed an appeal to the CA, whose decision in
favor to respondent with modification of the RTCs decision.

ISSUES:

Whether or not petitioner is liable to respondents for damages when the


agreement with Checkered farm is damnum absque injuria.

HELD:

Yes. Damnum Absque Injuria, the legitimate exercise of a persons right,


even of it causes loss to another, does not automatically result in an
actionable injury. The law does not prescribe a remedy for the loss. This
principle, however does not apply when there is an abuse of a persons right
as in this case. Petitioner exercised such right arbitrarily, unjustly and
excessively resulting in damaged to respondents plantation.

#136

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner VS. BANK OF THE


PHILIPPINE ISLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-METRO MANILA,
respondent
GR NO 175678 (22 AUGUST 2012)

FACTS:

Respondent, employees of the BPI, has existing Collective Bargaining


Agreement with the petitioner BPI. The CBA provides loan benefits and
relatively low interest rates. Thereafter, petitioner issued a no Negative
Data Bank policy (no NDB) for the implementation/availment of the
manpower loans which the respondent objected. The issue was raised to the
Voluntary Arbitrator whose decision was in favor to respondent.

The petitioner appealed to the CA, affirming the latters decision.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the no NDB violates the respondent CBA.

HELD:

Yes. The no NDB policy is a new condition which is never contemplated in


the CBA and at some point, unreasonable to the employees because it
provide that before an employee or his/her spouse can avail of the loan
benefits under the CBA, the said employee or his or her spouse must not be
listed in the no NDB.

#137

ROMEO M. MONTALLANA, petitioner VS. OFFICE of the


OMBUDSMAN and the HONOR COURT OF APPEALS (15TH DIVISION),
respondents
GR NO.179677 (15 AUGUST 2012)

FACTS:

August 18, 2001, the Manor Hotel at Kamias Road, Quezon City was
engulfed by fire that killed 74 people and injured several others. Upon
investigation, it was found that the cause was a faulty electrical wiring
systems. In conclusion, the cause of the incident was due to gross negligence
of the public officials and the local government, who are incharge in the
licensing operation of the Manor Hotel.

The formal complaint was filed against petitioner and several other officials,
before the Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the OMB for grave
misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and gross
negligence. June 17, 2003, petitioner was found guilty. On July 26, 2004, the
OMB issued a memorandum that modified the decision, stating that the
benefits he received must be returned to the government.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. He sought


to the CA but was also denied.

ISSUES:

Whether or not petitioner is liable for the acts and omission of his
subordinates.

HELD:

Yes. It was incumbent on petitioner as head of the Electrical Division to see


to it that proper annual inspections are conducted on the existing electrical
installations in Quezon City.

Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized


by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where
there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a
conscious indifference to consequences, insofar as other persons may be
affected.

#138

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee VS. ALSHER BERMEJO y


LUMPAYAO, appellant
GR NO. 195307 (6 AUGUST 2012)

FACTS:

AAA, private complainant, 20 years old, single and unemployed, lives in


Misamis Occidental and neighbor of appellant. She moved to Makati City
and stayed with her brothers BBB and CCC, and her cousin DDD, while
looking for work. Appellant, construction worker, stays with them.

November 3, 2007, 9pm, CCC, DDD and appellant was drinking outside the
house while AAA was inside. 1am November 4, she went to bed and the
others went in. 3am, AAA was asleep on the wooden bed, while CCC and
appellant were asleep on the floor. Appellant then went beside her and kissed
her. He threatened to kill her if she makes any noise. She was shocked and
was unable to do anything but cry. He raped her. After the deed, appellant
said hell marry her and fell asleep. AAA didnt repot immediately because
of fear.

7am, appellant, CCC and DDD went to mass, afterwards AAA went to mass.
7pm, AAA told DDD what happened and DDD told CCC, which the latter
told BBB. AAA, CCC, and DDD report the incident. AAA was examined.
Result showed deep-healed lacerations was evident and probably caused 21
days prior. No spermatozoa were found inside her private parts. November
5, 2007, appellant was arrested. On his defense, he said that they were lovers
from 2003-2004. During his stay with them, he and AAA had 2 sexual
encounters, first was October 31, 2007 and on November 4, 2007 which are
both consensual.

April 15, 2008, the RTC found appellant guilty of the crime of rape.
Appellant then raised the case to the CA, which affirmed the latters
decision.

ISSUES:

HELD:

No. The conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual
assault is of utmost importance in establishing the truth or falsity of the
charge of rape. In the present case, the acts of AAA after the alleged rape are
totally uncharacteristic of one who has been raped. Her indifference on the
lingering presence of the appellant at the scene of the alleged crime after the
same happened instead of immediately reporting the incident naturally
makes her testimony tainted with uncertainty. AAAs failure to resist the
alleged assault indubitably casts doubt on her credibility and the veracity of
her narration of the incident.

#139

MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA, AFP (RET), petitioner VS. THE


EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, representing the OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT; SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE VOLTAIRE T.
GAZMIN; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP, GENERAL EDUARDO SL.
OBANM, JR. AND LT. GENERAL GAUDENCIO S. PANGILINAN, AFP
(RET), DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, respondents
GR NO. 198554 (JULY 30, 2012)

FACTS:

Petitioner is a retired AFP M.Gen. charged with the violation of the 96 th


article of war and 97th article of war. He failed to disclose all his assets for
the year 2003 and 2002, becoming an immigrant of USA thereby violating
his oath. He has found guilty and was dishonorably discharge from the
service, forfeited all pay and allowances due and to become due and to be
confined at hard labor at such place the authority may direct for a period of 2
years. The petitioner being a general, the case needs confirmation of the
president. After 6 years of confinement, the office of the President confirmed
the sentence.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the President has jurisdiction in issuing the confirmation of


petitioners sentence.

HELD:

Yes. Petitioner was an officer on the active service when he committed the
violations. Clearly the General Court Martial has jurisdiction of the case.
Having established the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial over the
case and the person of the petitioner the President, as Commander-in-chief,
therefore acquired the jurisdiction to confirm petitioners sentence and
mentioned in Art 47 of the Article of War.

#140

SPOUSES RAMON VILLUGA and MERCIDITA VILLUGA, petitioners


VS. KELLY HARDWARE and CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY Inc.,
represented by ERNESTO V. YU, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT and
GENERAL MANAGER, respondent
GR NO. 176570 (18 JULY 2012)

FACTS:

November 19, 1992 January 5, 1993, the spouses Villuga made purchases
of construction supplies from Kelly Hardware in the sum of P 259,809.50,
which has not been paid up to this time. Thus, Kelly filed a complaint to the
RTC on March 3, 1995. The rendered decision was in favor to Kelly.

Petitioners, on their answer to the allegations, said that they already made
payments on March 4 and August 9, 1994 amounting to P 130, 301.80. Thus,
the remaining balance should not be P 259, 809.50. Respondent say that the
payment made was deducted to their other obligations that the petitioners
owed from them.

September 4, 1997, respondent filed a motion to expunge with motion for


summary judgment which was granted.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. It was then
raised to the CA which was also denied.

ISUUES:

Whether or not the summary judgment issued by the RTC was proper and
with legal bases.

HELD:

Yes. Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to avoid long drawn


out litigations and useless delays. Such judgment us generally based on the
facts proven summarily by affidavits, disposition, pleadings, or admissions
of the parties.

In their case, petitioners did not assert that the payment made should be
deducted to the sum sought to recover by respondent, leading the court to no
other conclusion that these payment were indeed applied to their other debts.