Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tanta No
Tanta No
VS.
DOMINALDA ESPINA-CABOVERDE, EVE CABOVERDE-YU, FE CABOVERDE-
LABRADOR AND JOSEPHINE E. CABOVERDE, RESPONDENTS.
JULY 29, 2013
GR NO. 203585
FACTS:
HELD:
SC IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS
ISSUE #1
First, Dominaldas alleged need for income to defray her medical expenses
and support is not a valid justification for the appointment of a receiver. The
approval of an application for receivership merely on this ground is not only
unwarranted but also an arbitrary exercise of discretion because financial
need and like reasons are not found in Sec. 1 of Rule 59 which prescribes
specific grounds or reasons for granting receivership. The RTCs insistence
that the approval of the receivership is justified under Sec. 1(d) of Rule 59,
which seems to be a catch-all provision, is far from convincing. To be clear,
even in cases falling under such provision, it is essential that there is a clear
showing that there is imminent danger that the properties sought to be
placed under receivership will be lost, wasted or injured.
Second, there is no clear showing that the disputed properties are in danger
of being lost or materially impaired and that placing them under receivership
is most convenient and feasible means to preserve, administer or dispose of
them.
ISSUE #2
Sec. 2 of Rule 59 is very clear in that before issuing the order appointing a
receiver the court shall require the applicant to file a bond executed to the
party against whom the application is presented. The use of the word "shall"
denotes its mandatory nature; thus, the consent of the other party, or as in
this case, the consent of petitioners, is of no moment. Hence, the filing of an
applicants bond is required at all times. On the other hand, the requirement
of a receivers bond rests upon the discretion of the court.
RYAN VIRAY, PETITIONER,
VS.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
NOVEMBER 11, 2013
G.R. No. 205180
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and the factual findings of the trial
court, when sustained by the appellate court, are binding in the absence of
any indication that both courts misapprehended any fact that could change
the disposition of the controversy.
FACTS:
An Information for qualified theft was filed against petitioner Ryan Viray
before the Regional Trial Court. The accused admitted that he was employed
as a dog caretaker of private complainant ZenaidaVedua (Vedua) and was
never allowed to enter the house and he worked daily from 5:00 to 9:00 in
the morning. The prosecution presented evidence that private complainant
Vedua maintains 75 dogs at her compound in Caridad, Cavite City. To assist
her in feeding the dogs and cleaning their cages, private complainant
employed the accused who would report for work from 6:00 a.m. to 5:30
p.m. Private complainant left for Batangas and when she returned, noticed
several belongings were missing. She discovered that the main doors of her
house were destroyed. A plastic bag was also found on top of her stereo,
which was located near the bedroom. The plastic bag contained a t-shirt and
a pair of shorts later found to belong to accused. Several witnesses saw the
accused inside the house during the incident.
After the parties rested their respective cases, the trial court rendered a
Decision, holding that the offense charged should have been robbery and not
qualified theft as there was an actual breaking of the screen door and the
main door to gain entry into the house. Similarly, Viray cannot be properly
charged with qualified theft since he was not a domestic servant but more of
a laborer paid on a daily basis for feeding the dogs of the complainant. In
this light, the trial court found that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence
to conclude that Viray was the one responsible for the taking of valuables
belonging to Vedua. The Regional Trial Court found petitioner Viray guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of robbery. During the appeal, the Court of Appeals
affirmed with modification that the accused-appellant is convicted for the
crime of qualified theft.
ISSUE:
HELD:
ISSUE #1:
ISSUE #2