Atty.

Lozada advised her to secure police report and execute affidavit of loss & to
file petition for owners duplicate copy

Petition was filed on her behalf w/o her knowledge and neither she signed petition
nor testify- she was abroad.

She claims to be manipulated by Atty. Lozada- Atty. Lozada and Sison filed crim
charges for perjury & false testimony against her

Frias prayed for dismissal and counter-claim for moral and exemplary dmaages.
RTC DECISION
Frias was orderd as it is due to ff consideration:

Fraudulent scheme- filing of affidavit of loss with the knowledge that Sison has the
owners duplicate copy- MORAL DAMAGES.

Petitioners denial cannot be accorded credence.

Pay 2M as stated in their MOA.

CA
Affirmed RTCs decision with modification- reduced interest rate from 32% to 25%.
CA found that 1M given to Atty. Lozada partly commission/loan
Resp did not replace stale checks bec. She will not but property
MD is good because she knows all along that responded has a copu.
Loan is not a loan if it has no interest start by June.
Motion for Recon denied.
SC ISSUES
Whether or not compounded interest should be limited only to 6 months as contained
in the MOA
Whether or not respondent is entitled to Moral Damages
Whether or not corrective, ED, & AFees is proper even if not mentioned in the
decision
CA- affirmed with modification
SC Consideration
For the last 6 mos refers only to the 2 nd 6mos referred in the contract, regardless of
how long respondent will pay.
Moral Damages awarded on the erroneous finding that she used a fraudulent scheme
to deprive resp of her security of the loan; that such finding is baseless since
petitioner was acquitted from perjury and false testimony.
Art.31 provides for Civil Action based on an obligation not of act/omission complained
as felony, may proceed independently of criminal proceedings & regardless of the
merit of the latter.
Because she failed for affidavit of loss and petition for copy.
Atty. Lozada not taken stand to corroborate her claim.
Witness Benilda Ynfante was not able to establish pets claim that the title was
returned to Atty. Lozada

FRIAS vs. SAN DIEGO-SISON

Facts

Petitioner (Frias) owns a house and lot acquired from Island Masters Realty and
Development Corporation (IMRDC).

Frias (as First Party) entered a MOA with Sison (Second Party) with these terms:
o
Sison has 6 months to notify her intention to purchase the land for 6.4M. Upon the
notice, Sison must pay the remaining 3.4M.
o
Prior to the 6 mos., Frias may sell the property to other persons provided that the
amount of 3M shall be paid including interest prevailing compounded bank interest
plus amt of sale in excess of 7M, if sold more than 7M.
o
In case Frias doesnt have a buyer, no interest shall be charged on 3M, in the event
Sison decides not to buy. Frias, then, have to pay remaining 3M provided amt shall
earn compounded interest for the last 6 mos.- treated as a loan and property shall be
considered security for mortgage.

Frias received 2M cash and 1M post-dated check (stale). She then gave the TCT No. in
the name of IMRDC & Deed of Sale bet. Frias and IMRDC.

Sison decided not to buy the property dated 3/91 and received by Frias 6/91. Frias failed
to pay Sison 2M.

RTC
o
Frias tried to deprive Sison of the security of the loan by false report of the loss of
owners copy of TCT at Taguig Police.
o
Frias said loss of her owners copy of TCT No. 168173, executing an affidavit of loss
& filing a petition for the issuance of new owners duplicate copy with RTC Makatiordered public prosecutor to conduct investigation of Friass perjury and false
testimony.
o
Respondent prayed for the ex-party issuance of writ of preliminary attachment,
payment of 2M @ 36% pa from 12/7/91, moral, corrective and exemplary damages of
100K and 200K Attys Fees.
o
4/6/93- Ex judge of RTC issued writ upon the filing of bond in the amt of 2M.
o
Petitioner filed amended answer- involving Atty. Lozada, Sisons lawyer, of the ff:

She worked to sign without reading the contract

TCT and Deed of Sale between her and IMRDC were entrusted to Atty. Lozada
and never returned to resp for not consummation of sale.

Atty. Lozada took 1M and never returned it.

She was never informed of Sisons decision w/in 6 mos.

TCT and D of Sale were stolen in her car.

o
o
o
o

o
o
o
o
o
o

o
o

Attys fees- RTC did not explain the finding of facts and law to justifythat CA had
erred from.
o
SC deleted attys fee- the RTC must clearly explain and justify in the body of the
o
decision.
o

CONTINENTAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORP vs. MONTANO, NMCSC-SUPER

Facts:

Granting of bereavement leave and death insurance for the death of Rolando
Hortillanos (employee of Continental Steel) unborn child.

2006- Hortillanos wife had premature delivery, resulting to the death of child.

Hortillano was able to avail the paternity leave, but was unable to claim the
bereavement leave and other death benefits.

Resulted to grievance machinery and conferences- directed to National

Conciliation and Mediation Board of DOLE to file Notice to Arbitrate.

Atty. Montano became the Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator.

CBA did not specifically stated that the dependent should be born alive.

Cited the case of Dugan (Mayer Steel)- received all benefits for the death of a 24week old unborn child- MMK Steel and Mayer Steel are located in the same
compound.

Union invoked Article 1702- provides that all doubts in labor legislations and labor
contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety of and decent living for the
laborer.

Continental Steel claimed that the unborn child is w/o legal personality.

2 elements: (1) death; (2) status as legitimate dependent- Art 40-42, contended
that only one with civil personality could die.

Arbitrators resolution ruled in favor of Hortillano, granting him all benefits and pay.
o
Continental Steel will pay 4,939.00 for bereavement leave pay, 11,550.00 for
death benefits- 16,489.00

CA- Continental steel asserted that the status of a child could only be determined
upon birth.

CA affirmed Atty. Montanos Resoultion- and denied the motion for

reconsideration of Continental Steel

SC

Elements of Bereavement Leave:

Death
Death of dependent
Legitimate relations of the dependent to the employee
Presentation of a document to prove such death (death certificate)
Article 40- conceived child acquires personality only when it is born; Art 41defines when a child is considered born; Art. 42- civil personality extinguished by
death.
Art 37- Juridical capacity inherent to natural person and is lost only thru death.
Accdg to SC- Civil code does not explicitly state that only those who have
acquired juridical personality could die.
Unborn child could be a dependent under the CBA. Legitimate child implies a
product of a valid and lawful marriage. Art 164 of Family Code- Children
conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate
SC RULING:
Petition is denied
Affirmed decision of CA and Resolution of Atty. Montano.

MARCOS vs COMELEC, Montejo

o
o
o

Facts:

Imelda Romualdez Marcos filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of
Representative of the First District of Leyte, with the info stating her residence as 7

mos. (1 yr requirement)

Cirilo Roy Montejo filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification with o
COMELEC, contending that Marcos lacked the Constitutions one year residency
o
requirement.

Marcos filed Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy changing 7 mos to

since childhood at the Provincial Election Supervisor of Leyte and COMELEC
Head Office.- honest misinterpretation, always maintained Tacloban as her o
domicile or residence.

Second Division of COMELEC voted the Petition for Disqualification

meritorious, canceling her original COC.

Issue: Validity of the orginal COC after the lapse of the deadline for filing COCs,
and petitioners compliance with one year residency requirement.
COMELEC did not believe that it was an error, basing on facts and evidences that
the transfer of residence happened last week of August 1994, summing up to only
7 months; and amended COC cannot be admitted by the Commission.
It was also clear that residency requirement was not complied.
DOMICILE- fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or
pleasure, one intends to return. Marcos revealed her lack of intention to make
Tacloban her domicile.
DOMICILE BY CHOICE:
Residence or bodily presence in the new locality
Intention to remain
Intention to abandon old domicile
COMELEC denied the Motion for Reconsideration; also allowing petitioners
proclamation should the result show she obtained the highest votes. On the same
day, COMELEC reversed it, suspending the proclamation.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the First
District of Leyte for a period of one year (Qualifications)
Whether or not the COMELEC properly exercised its jurisdiction in disqualifying
petitioner mandated by the Omnibus Election Code for disqualification cases
under Art 78
Whether or not the HOR Electoral Tribunal assumed exclusive jurisdiction over
the question of Petitioners qualification.