You are on page 1of 17

Del Rosario vs NLRC  Petitioner obtained loans from

Republic bank
 Petitioner entered into contract of
 Petitioner executed mortgage on
services with private respondent
certain properties
Calinar Security Agency
 The republic bank procured from
 PaulinoMabuti, NapoleoBorata and
Philippine Guarantee co an
SilvinoTudio filed a complaint
insurance coverage against fire
against both for underpayment of
over the properties of petitioner
salary and benefits
 However in the said note, that
 Petitioner said that complainants
there be no other co-insurance
have no cause of action due to
declared
absence of employee-employer
 A fire burned properties of
relationship
petitioner
 Labor arbiter dismissed the case
 A month later, they claimed
but ordered security agency to pay
benefits from phil guarantee co but
the amounts sought by
denied because petitioner did not
complainants
inform them that they procured
 Security agency appealed to NLRC
other insurances from other
and the latter modified decision
companies
and held the petitioner liable to
 SC ruled that the insured violated
pay complainants
the contract hence they cannot
 SC ruled in favor of the decision by
recover
NLRC that both security agency and
 Courts cannot make contracts for
petitioner are jointly liable for
parties they only enforce them
underpayment
 contracts of insurance are
 Under 106 LC, the Principal (in
construed most favourably to
thiscase, the Petitioner) should be
the insured and, if clear
held jointly and severally liable
andunambiguous, also construed
with the Contractor (in this
in their plain, ordinary and popular
case, theSecurity Agency), in case
sense
the latter fails to pay the wages of
 however violation of contract
its employees. This is more so the
entitles the insurer to rescind
casewithPetitioner considered as
an indirect employer under the Calanoc vs CA
definition stated in Article 107
of thesame Labor Code  MelencioBasilio secured a life
insurance policy from Phil-Am
 Petitioner became the indirect
employer of complainants when Insurance company in the amount
petitioner entered into the of 2k attached tosuplemental
contract of services with the contract covering death by
security agency accident
 He died in a gunshot wound on the
Union MFC vs Republic bank occasion of a robbery committed
 Widow was paid 2k as face value of claiming violation of warranties
the policy and conditions, filing of fraudulent
 Widow demanded additional 2k claims, and that the fire had been
representing the supplemental deliberately caused by QCG or by
policy but the insurer denied other persons in connivance with
him.
because the person died by murder
 QCG, his brother, and some
not by accident
employees were indicted and tried
 Upon appeal in CA, it was ruled for arson, but they were acquitted.
that circumstances surrounding the Thereafter, the civil suit to collect
death was caused by one of the the insurance money proceeded to
risks excluded from the policy its trial.
therefor wife cannot recover  CFI rendered a decision in QCG’s
 SC ruled in favor of insure favor.
 Circumstances of Basilio’s death  SC ruled that Ambiguities or
cannot be taken purely intentional obscurities must be strictly
on the part of Basilio to expose interpreted against the party that
himself to danger caused them.
 There is no proof that the death  This rigid application of the rule has
was the result of intentional killing become necessary in view of
because of the possibility that the current business practices.
malefactor fired a gun to scare  In contrast to contracts entered
away people and it accidentally hit into by parties bargaining on an
the deceased equal footing, a contract of
 Art. 1377 of the New Civil Codeprovides insurance calls for greater
that in case ambiguity, uncertainty strictness and vigilance on the part
or obscurity in the interpretation of of courts of justice with a view to
the terms of thecontract, it shall be protect the weaker party from
construed against the party who abuses and imposition, and
caused such obscurity. prevent their becoming traps for
 Construe in favor of the insured the unwary.
 The contract of insurance is one of
Qua Chee Ganvs Law Union
perfect good
 Qua Chee Gan owned 4 faith (uferrimalfidei) not for the
warehouses or bodegas used for insured alone, but equally so for
the storage of copra and hemp, the insurer; in fact, it is more so for
which were insured with Law the latter, since its dominant
Union, and the leese made payable bargaining position carries with it
to PNB as mortgage of the hemp stricter responsibility.
and copra.  LU is estopped from claiming that
 Fire broke out and destroyed there was a violation of such
bodegas 1, 3 ad 4. QCG informed
warranty, since it knew that from
LU by telegram, and the next day,
the start, the number of hydrants it
fire adjusters arrived to conduct an
investigation. LU resisted payment, demanded never existed, yet it
issued policies and received  January 1, 1957: For the celebration of
premiums. the New Year, the Itogon-Suyoc Mines,
Inc. sponsored a boxing contest for
general entertainment wherein
Ty vs First National Surety and Assurance Eduardo, a non-professional boxer
co Inc participated
 In the course of his bout with
 Petitioner employed as an operator
another non-professional boxer of the
mechanic foreman in a factory same height, weight, and size, Eduardo
insured himself slipped and was hit by his opponent on
 A fire broke out where Ty was the left part of the back of the head,
working and while fighting his way causing Eduardo to fall, with his head
out, injured his left hand by a hitting the rope of the ring
heavy object and was brought to a  He was brought to the Baguio General
hospital Hospital the following day. He died
 His injury caused temporary total due to hemorrhage, intracranial.
disability on his left hand and so he  Simon de la Cruz, the father of the
filed a claim against respondent insured and who was named
beneficiary under the policy,
 Respondent denied stating that it
thereupon filed a claim with the
was not covered in the policy insurance company
because there was no severance of  The Capital Insurance and Surety co.,
amputation of the left hand inc denied stating that the death
 Trial court favored insurer caused by his participation in a boxing
 SC ruled that he petitioner cannot contest was not accidental
claim because it is clear in the  RTC: favored Simon
policy which are only covered by  SC Ruled that death was an accident
the policy.  Eduardo slipped, which was
 Petitioner cannot go beyond the unintentional
 The terms "accident" and "accidental"
clear and express conditions of the
as used in insurance contracts, have
insurance policies, all of which
not acquired any technical
define partial disability as loss of meaning and are construed by the
either hand by amputation courts in their ordinary and common
through the bones of the wrist acceptation
 Petitioner’s disability is only  happen by chance or fortuitously,
temporary without intention and design, and
 Clear provision given ordinary which is unexpected, unusual, and
meaning unforeseen
 event that takes place without one's
De la Cruz vs Capital Ins and surety co foresight or expectation
 event that proceeds from an unknown
 Eduardo de la Cruz, employed as a
cause, or is an unusual effect of a
mucker in the Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc.
known cause and, therefore, not
in Baguio, was the holder of an
expected
accident insurance policy "against
 where the death or injury is not the
death or disability caused by
natural or probable result of the
accidental means"
insured's voluntary act, or if something The shipment was insured with Home
unforeseen occurs in the doing of the Insurance against all risks in the amount of
act which produces the injury, the P1,580,105.06. 53 of the 2361 coils
resulting death is within the protection discharged from the vessel were in bad
of policies insuring against death or order. The Consignee ultimately received
injury from accident the 2,361 coils with 73 coils loose and
 while the participation of the insured partly cut, and 28 coils and partly cut,
in the boxing contest is voluntary, the which had to be considered as scrap. The
injury was sustained when he slid, weight also had a net loss/shortage of
giving occasion to the infliction by his 593.15 kgs, or 1,209.56 lbs. For the
opponent of the blow that threw him loss/damage suffered by the cargo, Home
to the ropes of the ring is not Insurance paid the consignee under its
 The fact that boxing is attended with insurance policy the amount of P3,260.44,
some risks of external injuries does not by virtue of which Home Insurance
make any injuries received in the became subrogated to the rights and
course of the game not accidental actions of the Phelps Dodge. Home
 In boxing as in other equally physically Insurance made demands for payment
rigorous sports, such as basketball or against Eastern Shipping and the
baseball, death is not ordinarily transportation company for
anticipated to result. If, therefore, it reimbursement of the aforesaid amount
ever does, the injury or death can only but each refused to pay the same. (A case
be accidental or produced by some “Home insurance v. NV Nedlloyd Lijnen”
unforeseen happening or event as consolidated with this case is of the same
what occurred in this case nature).
 Furthermore, the policy involved
herein specifically excluded from its Filing its cases in court, Home Insurance
coverage — avers that it is a foreign insurance
(e) Death or disablement consequent company authorized to do business in the
upon the Insured engaging in football, Philippines through its agent, Victor Bello
hunting, pigsticking, steeplechasing, (who holds office at Makati) in both cases.
polo-playing, racing of any kind, In L-34382, Eastern Shipping Lines denies
mountaineering, or motorcycling. the allegation of plaintiff’s capacity to sue
 Death or disablement resulting from for lack of knowledge or information
engagement in boxing contests was sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
not declared outside of the protection thereof, while Angel Jose Transportation
of the insurance contract admits the allegation. In L-34383, NV
Nedlloyd Lijnen, Columbian Philippines,
Home insurance Co vs eastern shipping and Guacods denied plaintiff’s capacity to
lines sue. The court dismissed the complaints in
the two cases on the same ground, that
On 13 January 1967, S. Kajita & Co., on the plaintiff failed to prove its capacity to
behalf of Atlas Consolidated Mining & sue, even if the petitioner had already
Development Corporation, shipped on secured the necessary license to conduct
board the SS ‘Eastern Jupiter’ from Osaka, its insurance business in the Philippines
Japan, 2,361 coils of ‘Black Hot Rolled during the filing of the case. Hence, the
Copper Wire Rods.’ The vessel is owned petition.
and operated by Eastern Shipping Lines.
SC ruled that the objective of the law was The Supreme Court consolidated and
to subject the foreign corporation to the granted the petitions, reversed and set
jurisdiction of our courts. The Corporation aside the CFI decisions. In L-34382 (Civil
Law must be given a reasonable, not an Case 71923), Eastern Shipping Lines and
unduly harsh, interpretation which does Angel Jose Transportation Inc. are ordered
not hamper the development of trade to pay the Home Insurance Company the
relations and which fosters friendly sum of P1,630.22 each with interest at the
commercial intercourse among countries. legal rate from 5 January 1968 until fully
A harsh interpretation would disastrously paid. Each shall also pay one-half of
embarrass trade, unlike if the law is given thecosts. The Court dismissed the
a reasonable interpretation, it would counterclaim of Angel Jose Transportation
markedly help in the development of Inc. In L-34383, N. V. Nedlloyd Lijnen or its
trade. The law simply means that no agent Columbian Phil. Inc. was ordered to
foreign corporation shall be permitted ‘to pay the petitioner the sum of P2,426.98
transact business in the Philippine Islands,’ with interest at the legal rate from 1
as this phrase is known in corporation law, February 1968 until fully paid, the sum of
unless it shall have the license required by P500.00 attorney’s fees, and costs. The
law, and, until it complies with the law, Court dismissed the complaint against
shall not be permitted to maintain any suit Guacods, Inc.
in the local courts. A contrary holding
would bring the law to the verge of Co vs Republic
unconstitutionality, a result which should
Facts: Petitioner was born in Abra and his
be and can be easily avoided. In the
parents are both Chinese. He owes his
present case, the lack of capacity at the
allegiance to the Nationalist Government
time of the execution of the contracts was
of China. He is married to Leonor Go, the
cured by the subsequent registration. Such
marriage having been celebrated in the
is also strengthened by the procedural
Catholic church of Bangued. He speaks and
aspects of these cases.The petitioner
writes English as well as the Ilocano and
sufficiently alleged its capacity to sue
Tagalog dialects. He graduated from the
when it averred in its complaints that it is a
Abra Valley College, and finished his
foreign insurance company, that it is
primary studies in the “Colegio” in
authorized to do business in the
Bangued, both schools being recognized
Philippines, that its agent is Mr. Victor H.
by the government. He has a child two
Bello, and that its office address is the
months old. He has never been accused of
Oledan Building at Ayala Avenue, Makati;
any crime involving moral turpitude. He is
as required by Section 4, Rule 8 of the
not opposed to organized government,
Rules of Court. General denials inadequate
nor is he a member of any subversive
to attack the foreign corporations lack of
organization. He does not believe in, nor
capacity to sue in the light of its positive
practice, polygamy. Since his birth, he has
averment that it is authorized to do so.
never gone abroad. He mingles with the
Nevertheless, even if the plaintiff’s lack of
Filipinos. He prefers a democratic form of
capacity to sue was not properly raised as
government and stated that if his petition
an issue by the answers, the petitioner
is granted he would serve the government
introduced documentary evidence that it
either in the military or civil department.
had the authority to engage in the
He is a merchant dealing in the buy and
insurance business at the time it filed the
sell of tobacco. He also is part owner of a
complaints.
store in Bangued. In his tobacco business,
he has a working capital of P10,000.00 Issue: Whether petitioner failed to comply
which he claims to have been accumulated with the requirements prescribed by law in
thru savings. He contributes to civic and order to qualify him to become a Filipino
charitable organizations like the Jaycees, citizen.
Rotary, Red Cross and to town fiestas. He
likes the customs of the Filipinos because Held: The scope of the word law in
he has resided in the Philippines for a long ordinary legal parlance does not
time. During the year 1956, he claims to necessarily include the constitution, which
have earned P1,000.00 in his tobacco is the fundamental law of the land, nor
business. With respect to the store of does it cover all the principles underlying
which he claims to be a part owner, he our constitution. Further, Philippine law
stated that his father gave him a sum of requires that an alien to conducted himself
less than P3,000.00 representing one- in a proper and irreproachable manner
fourth of the sales. Aside from being a co- during the entire period of his residence in
owner of said store, he receives a monthly the Philippines in his relation with the
salary of P120,00 as a salesman therein. constituted government as well as with
He took a course in radio mechanics and the community in which he is living. In the
completed the same in 1955. He has no present case, in so stating that he believes
vice of any kind. He claims that he has merely in our laws, he did not necessarily
never been delinquent in the payment of refer to those principles embodied in our
taxes. But he admitted that he did not file constitution which are referred to in the
his income tax return when he allegedly law; the belief in democracy or in a
received an amount of not less than democratic form of government is not
P3,000 from his father which he claims to sufficient to comply with the requirement
have invested in his tobacco business. of the law that one must believe in the
principles underlying our constitution.
Petitioner filed his petition for Further, petitioner failed to show that he
naturalization in the trial court. After has complied with his obligation to register
hearing, the court ordered that a his wife and child with the Bureau ofa
certificate of naturalization be issued to course in radio mechanics and completed
petitioner after the lapse of two years the same in 1955. He has no vice of any
from the date the decision becomes final kind. He claims that he has never been
and all the requisites provided for in RA delinquent in the payment of taxes. But he
503. The government appealed the admitted that he did not file his income
decision of the trial court, raising the facts tax return when he allegedly received an
that did not state what principles of the amount of not less than P3,000 from his
Constitution he knew, although when father which he claims to have invested in
asked what laws of the Philippines he his tobacco business.
believes in, he answered “democracy.;
that he stated that his father had already Petitioner filed his petition for
filed his income tax return, when asked naturalization in the trial court. After
why he did not file his income tax returns; hearing, the court ordered that a
and that he presented his alien certificate certificate of naturalization be issued to
of registration, but not the alien petitioner after the lapse of two years
certificates of registration of his wife and from the date the decision becomes final
child. and all the requisites provided for in RA
503. The government appealed the
decision of the trial court, raising the facts required by law for one to file an income
that did not state what principles of the tax return.
Constitution he knew, although when
The Supreme Court reversed the appealed
asked what laws of the Philippines he
decision, hold that the trial court erred in
believes in, he answered “democracy.;
granting the petition for naturalization,
that he stated that his father had already without pronouncement as to costs.
filed his income tax return, when asked
why he did not file his income tax returns;
and that he presented his alien certificate
Velasco vs republic
of registration, but not the alien
certificates of registration of his wife and Petition for naturalization was denied for
child. failure of petitioner to meet the
requirements of the law. The trial court
The scope of the word law in ordinary legal found that there are three names
parlance does not necessarily include the
mentioned in the petition and in the
constitution, which is the fundamental law
documentary evidence submitted in
of the land, nor does it cover all the
principles underlying our constitution. support thereof, namely, Richard Velasco,
Further, Philippine law requires that an Richard C. Velasco, and Richard Chua
alien to conducted himself in a proper and Velasco. While testifying that he has no
irreproachable manner during the entire alias and his full name is Richard Velasco,
period of his residence in the Philippines in the court found that the joint affidavit of
his relation with the constituted said witnesses states that the affiants
government as well as with the community personally know and are acquainted with
in which he is living. In the present case, in Richard Velasco while the documentary
so stating that he believes merely in our evidence shows that his name is Richard
laws, he did not necessarily refer to those Chua Velasco. His qualifications as to
principles embodied in our constitution moral character were attested by Santiago
which are referred to in the law; the belief
Mariano, a sergeant of the Manila Police
in democracy or in a democratic form of
Department, and Mrs. Paz J. Eugenio, a
government is not sufficient to comply
with the requirement of the law that one housekeeper, who admitted thatshe is the
must believe in the principles underlying prospective mother-in-law of petitioner.
our constitution. Further, petitioner failed The trial court likewise found that Mrs. Paz
to show that he has complied with his J. Eugenio, a character witness, is the
obligation to register his wife and child prospective mother-in-law of petitioner,
with the Bureau of Immigration as and such as her testimony is biased. His
required by the Alien Registration Actl; and companion witness Santiago Mariano
further failed tofile his income tax return were also the character witnesses of
despite his fixed salary of P1,440.00 a year brother of petitioner in his petition for
and his profit of P1,000.00 in his tobacco naturalization, a circumstance which in its
business, and received an amount less
opinion indicates that petitioner has a
than P3,000 from his father as one-fourth
limited circle of Filipino friends. The court
of the proceeds of the sale of the store,
finally found that the present income of
the total of which is more than what is
petitioner is only P150.00 a month which,
considering the present high cost of living
and the low purchasing power of our peso, Judge Abiera, approved the record
is neither lucrative now substantial to on appeal, appeal bond and notice
meet the requirement of the law, of appeal in an Order dated
moreover, his mother owns 1/5 of the November 14, 1972.
store where he works for, so this leads one  Climaco filed on January 17, 1973,
to believe that petitioner and family a motion to dismiss the appeal on
perfectly planned this out to show that he the ground that it was not
is eligible for naturalization. perfected within the 30-day
reglementary period, the last day
"naturalization laws should be rigidly
for its filing being June 14, 1972,
enforced and strictly construed in favor of
 The defendant claims that plaintiff
the government and against the applicant"
filed his record on appeal one day
late as the court neither approved
nor denied the motion for
Berkenkottervs CA
extension of time to file the same,
 Declaring null and void the Deed of citing in support of his
Absolute Sale executed by claim jurisprudence
defendants AngustiaSiokon and  The issue in this case is whether
Pedro Rodriguez in favor of Isidro the appeal was perfected on time.
Climaco on the ground that same is  Did the filing on June 13, 1972, of
fictitious and fraudulent and the the ex parte motion for extension
price very fantastic, and order the of five days within which to file the
annulment and cancellation of the record on appeal, which was done
Transfer Certificate of Title issued on the 29th day of the 30-day
in favor of defendant Isidro reglementary period, interrupt the
Climaco, running of said period, considering
 On March 30, 1971, the same that the Court did not act on said
Judge Carlos Abiera rendered an motion but subsequently approved
Amended Decision completely the record on appeal in its Order of
reversing the decision of June 11, November 14, 1972, or 152 days
1969, and sentencing the plaintiff, after the lapse the 30-day period?
now petitioner, to pay total  Petitioner herein actually filed on
damages of P175,000.00 and June 13, 1972, (within the 30-day
attorney's fees of P5,000.00, copy reglementary period) his notice of
of which amended decision was appeal, appeal bond and an ex
received by plaintiff on November parte motion for extension of five
15, 1971. days from June 13th to file the
 plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, an record on appeal. Before the
appeal bond and an ex expiration of the time asked, or on
parte motion for extension of time June 15, 1972, he filed his record
 defendants objected to the on appeal which was approved by
approval of record on appeal but the Court after defendant's
the court through another Judge, objection and hearing thereof on
Osterwaldo Emilia, who succeeded November 14, 1972. Admittedly
the court neither approved nor tacked to the original period, even
denied the ex parte motion for IF THE FAVORABLE ORDER IS
extension of time to file record on ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
appeal. In the case of Reyes v. Sta. THE LATTER. In any event the
Maria, L-29554, November 20, record on appeal must be filed
1972, We held that if the motion within the extension asked (which
for extension filed within the petitioner in this case complied
reglementary period is not acted with), for once said period expires
upon and the extension period and no record on appeal has yet
asked for lapses without the record been filed, the court loses
on appeal having been filed, the jurisdiction to approve the
motion did not suspend the extension unless the delay is due to
running of the period and the right fraud, accident, mistake or
to appeal is lost. excusable neglect.
 But the concurring opinion of  element of rigidity should not be
Justice Barredo, joined by the then affixed to procedural precepts and
Chief Justice, is very pertinent. He made to cover the matter
said:As long as the motion is filed  The mere absence of a formal
within the original period, the order granting the motion for
court does not lose its jurisdiction extension of time to file the record
to act on it even after the on appeal should not be fatal to
expiration of said period, but in the petitioner if the record on
such an event, the appellant appeal filed within the requested
assumes the risk of denial, for if the extension period was approved by
motion is denied, and such denial the Court a quo
takes place after the period for  considering the merits of the case,
appeal has already lapsed, the to dismiss petitioners appeal would
filing of the motion is not not serve the ends of justice
considered as having suspended
Del Rosario vsHamoy
said period. However, if the motion
is granted, then the appeal may be  For want of a one-peso
deemed as made timely, provided documentary stamp in a special
the corresponding notice of appeal power of attorney for pre-trial
have been filed within the purposes, in lieu of the personal
prescribed period.Similarly, the appearance of the plaintiff, the
mere filing within the original petitioner in this case, the
period for appeal of a motion for respondent Judge declared him
extension of time to submit the non-suited and dismissed the
record on appeal would not have complaint "for failure of the
the effect of extending the period plaintiff to appear for pre-trial
for appeal if such motion is denied conference.
after the period has already  The respondent Judge manifestly
lapsed. However, if the motion is erred. He acted with indecent
granted, the extension requested is haste. He could have easily
required the counsel for the partially, and such other matters as
plaintiff to buy the required one- may aid in the prompt disposition
peso documentary stamp outside of the action," and that a party
the court room and affix the same who fails to appear at the pre-trial
to the special power of attorney may be non-suited or considered
and that respite would not have as in default, this rule was by no
taken ten minutes. means intended as an implacable
 By such rigidity he denied the bludgeon but as a tool to assist the
petitioner substantial justice. trial courts in the orderly and
 The plaintiff, through his counsel, expeditious conduct of trials. Time
explained that he was actually and again WE have emphasized
inside the court room while his that the rule should be liberally
lawyer and the defendants' construed in order to promote
counsel, were arguing, but he their object and assist the parties
(plaintiff) was too timorous to in obtaining not only speedy, but
interrupt the proceedings and more importantly, just and
make known his presence to his inexpensive determination of every
counsel or to the court. action and proceeding.
 Despite the immediacy of the  See section2 rule 1 of the rules of
representations and the plausibility court
of this explanation considering the
plaintiff's nescience, being merely
an agricultural tenant and can Alvero vsDela Rosa and Victoriano
hardly write his name, the
 Respondent filed a complaint in CFI
respondent Judge still required him
against petitioner to declare in
to file a written motion and set it
force contract of sale of two
for hearing "in accordance with the
parcels of land between petitioner
Rules of Court."
and Margarita Villarica null and
 The respondent Judge lost sight of
void
the fact that even the Rules of
 Villarica admitted that she sold
Court themselves, fortified by
land
jurisprudence, mandate a liberal
 Petitioner denied complaint and
construction of the rules and the
claimed exlusive ownership of the
pleadings in order to effect
land
substantial justice.
 Respondent judge favoured
 While it is true under Section 1,
private respondent
Rule 20 of the Rules of Court, it is
o 2 parcels of land had been
mandatory for the parties and their
sold by margarita to
counsel to appear at the pretrial to
victoriano for the sum of 6k
consider inter-alia "the possibility
on the condition that
of an amicable settlement, the
purchaser should make a
simplification of the issues, the
down payment of 1.7k and
possibility of obtaining stipulations
or admission of facts, totally or
a monthly payment in 120 o Failure to perfect appeal
equal monthly instalments within time prescribed will
o Victoriano continued to pay cause the judgment to
those monthly payments become final
but because of war time o However appeal or appeal
conditions wanted to bond may be extended by
suspend payments until court upon application
restoration of peace made prior to the
o After the sale, he occupied expiration of the original
it and introduced period
improvements o In the present case, strict
o Villarica forgot the sale of compliance with the rules
the land to victoriano sold of court has been held
the land to Japanese to mandatory and imperative
Alvero o But human laws are
o Both parties having deed of inflexible and no personal
sale consideration should stand
o Alvero filed for MR and was in the way of performing a
denied legal duty.
o Alvero filed a notice of
Gutierrez vs CA
appeal
simultaneouslywithout  Petitioner Leonardo C. Gutierrez is
posting 60pesos bond the provincial treasurer of
o Respondent filed to dismiss Batangas.
appeal  Up to the end of February, 1960,
o Petitioner filed opposition respondent, Silvestre D. Florindo,
alleging that a said bond was a regular and permanent
had been filed and as an market administrator and deputy
excuse for not filing the in the office of said provincial
bond because of the illness treasurer, with a compensation of
of lawyer’s wife P3,300 per annum.
o Respondent dimissed  Florindo was appointed to budget
stating the 60 pesos was officer and assumed office
filed too late  Florindo despite higher position
o According to the received same salary
computation erroneously  It appears that florindo filed a claim
made by the court, the last for differential salary but was
day for filing and perfecting denied stating that there were no
the appeal, in this case, was funds
January 8, 1946, for which  Florindo filed a mandamus in CFI
petitioner should have for company to make such funds
done all procedural actions  The board then abolished the
but the 60 pesos was filed position what Florindo was holding
on Jan 15, 1946
and reassigning him to his old from this date. It should not be
position computed from April 23, 1966,
 Court dismissed mandamus stating when the Court of Appeals acted
failure to exhaust all on the second motion for
administrative remedies but reconsideration: (a) because the
nullifying the abolishment of the same was filed, not by petitioners
said position herein, but, by Gutierrez in his
 CA affirmed nullification and private capacity, who, as such, is
reversed ruling of mandamus not one of petitioners herein; and
ordering petitioner to make certain (b) because the resolution of the
appropriations for the salary of Court of Appeals of April 23, 1966,
respondent did not deny any motion for
 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but, instead
reconsideration granted second motion for
 Florido however said that the MR reconsideration of Gutierrez, in his
was filed 21 days late private capacity.
 Petitoners allege that they asked Bagalanon vs CA
for extension and was granted
 SC ruled that We have repeatedly  On July 18, 1971, a collision
held that the provisions of the law between a motor cab and a
and the rules concerning the passenger jeepney took place in
manner and period of appeal are the City of Dipolog giving rise to
mandatory and jurisdictional two civil cases
requirements essential to enable  Decision was made making
the apellate court to take Petitioner to pay private
cognizance of the appeal. respondents for the damages
 Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of  Cases were appealed in CFI
Court - "appeal by certiorari, from  CFI affirmed previous decision
a judgment of the Court of  Petitioner received the decision of
Appeals," by filing with the the Court of First Instance of
Supreme Court a petition for Zamboanga del Norte, Branch II on
certiorari, "within fifteen (15) days September 25, 1975 but due to
from notice of judgment or of the pressure of work of the petitioners'
denial of his motion for counsel, the petition for review
reconsideration filed in due time ... was actually finished only on
 The motion for reconsideration of October 25, 1975 at about 3:00
petitioners herein - including o'clock in the afternoon of that day
Gutierrez in his official capacity - which was a Saturday.
was denied on March 22, 1966,  Counsel was not able to mail the
and notice thereof was received by petition
them on March 24, 1966. Their  According to RA 6031 petition for
fifteen (15) days to appeal by review must be submitted within
certiorari began to run, therefore, 30 days from notice
 There is no dispute that the the dismissed appeal was frivolous
petitioners failed to file their and for the purpose of delay.
petition for review on October 25,
1975 because when they arrived at City of Manila vs Chinese Community
the Post Office of Dipolog City on Facts: On the 11th day of December, 1916,
Saturday afternoon, the office was the city of Manila presented a petition in
already closed the Court of First Instance of said city,
 petitioners were late only a few praying that certain lands, therein
hours in beating the deadline for particularly described, be expropriated for
filing their petition. It may be the purpose of constructing a public
argued, however, that it was the improvement, specifically for the purpose
fault of the petitioners not to have of extending Rizal Avenue. The Chinese
come on time to the Post Office to Community opposed the said
expropriation, contending that there was
mail the petition, but the fault was
no necessity of taking, that it already had
not serious enough as to amount
public character and that it would it would
to inexcusable negligence.
disturb the resting places of the dead.
 It is evident from the records that
the delay of the filing of the The trial court decided that there was no
petition for review by petitioners necessity for the expropriation of the strip
was far from being intentional and of land and absolved each and all of the
dilatory. defendants from all liability under the
 It has been held in a number of complaint, without any finding as to costs.
From the judgment, the City of Manila
cases that pleadings, as well as
appealed.
remedial laws, should be construed
liberally, in order that litigants may Issue: Whether the Chinese cemetery may
have ample opportunity to prove be validly expropriated by the City of
their respective claims, and that a Manila
possible denial of substantial
justice, due to legal technicalities, Held: The exercise of the right of eminent
domain, whether directly by the State, or
may be avoided.
by its authorized agents, is necessarily in
 A right adherence to the technical derogation of private rights, and the rule
rules of procedure disregards the in that case is that the authority must be
fundamental aim of procedure to strictly construed. No species of property
serve as an aid to justice, not as a is held by individuals with greater tenacity,
means for its frustration and none is guarded by the constitution
 the respondent Court should have and laws more sedulously, than the right
considered the circumstance for to the freehold of inhabitants. When the
the delay in the filing of the legislature interferes with that right, and,
petition in question in petitioners' for greater public purposes, appropriates
favor as one deserving the the land of an individual without his
consent, the plain meaning of the law
respondent Court's leniency.
should not be enlarged by doubtly
Besides there is no showing that
interpretation.
The right of expropriation is not an maintenance as a cemetery, should be a
inherent power in a municipal corporation, question of great concern, and its
and before it can exercise the right some appropriation should not be made for such
law must exist conferring the power upon purposes until it is fully established that
it. When the courts come to determine the the greatest necessity exists therefor. In
question, they must not only find (a) that a this case there is no necessity of taking
law or authority exists for the exercise of since there are other ways by which Rizal
the right of eminent domain, but (b) also Avenue may be expanded to ease the
that the right or authority is being traffic situation.
exercised in accordance with the law. In
the present case there are two conditions The Supreme Court held that there is no
imposed upon the authority conceded to proof of the necessity of opening the
the City of Manila: First, the land must be street through the cemetery from the
private; and, second, the purpose must be record. But that adjoining and adjacent
public. If the court, upon trial, finds that lands have been offered to the city free of
neither of these conditions exists or that charge, which answers every purpose of
either one of them fails, certainly it cannot the City. The Supreme Court, thus,
be contended that the right is being affirmed the judgment of the lower court,
exercised in accordance with law. It is a with costs against the appellant.
well known fact that cemeteries may be
public or private. The former is a cemetery
used by the general community, or Villanueva v. Comelec
neighborhood, or church, while only a (Resolution)
family, or a small portion of the GR L-54718, 4 December 1985
community or neighborhood uses the En Bank, Teehankee (p): 9
latter. Where a emetery is open to the concurring, 2 on leave
public, it is a public use and no part of the
ground can be taken for other public uses Facts: On 4 January 1980, the
under a general authority. And this last day for filing of certificates of
immunity extends to the unimproved and candidacy, one Narciso Mendoza,
unoccupied parts, which are held in good Jr. filed his sworn certificate of
faith for future use. It is alleged, and not candidacy as independent for the
denied, that the cemetery in question may office of vice-mayor of Dolores,
be used by the general community of Quezon in the 30 January 1980
Chinese, which fact, in the general local elections. Later that day,
however, Mendoza filed an
acceptation of the definition of a public
unsworn letter in his own
cemetery, would make the cemetery in
handwriting withdrawing his said
question public property. If that is true,
certificate of candidacy “for
then, of course, the petition of the plaintiff personal reasons.” His unsworn
must be denied, for the reason that the withdrawal had been accepted by
city of Manila has no authority or right the election registrar without
under the law to expropriate public protest nor objection. Later on 25
property. But, whether or not the January 1980, petitioner Crisologo
cemetery is public or private property, its Villanueva, upon learning of his
appropriation for the uses of a public companion Mendoza’s withdrawal,
street, especially during the lifetime of filed his own sworn “Certificate of
those specially interested in its Candidacy in substitution” of
Mendoza’s for the said office of vice Comelec. Further, the will of the
mayor as a one-man independent electorate should be respected, it
ticket. The results showed should not be defeated through the
petitioner to be the clear winner invocation of formal or technical
over respondent with a margin of defects. The will of the people
452 votes. The Municipal Board of cannot be frustrated by a
Canvassers, however, disregarded technicality that the certificate of
all votes cast in favor of petitioner candidacy had not been properly
as stray votes on the basis of the sworn to. This legal provision is
Provincial Election Officer’s mandatory and non-compliance
opinion that petitioner’s name does therewith before the election would
not appear in the certified list of be fatal to the status of the
candidates. The canvassers candidate before the electorate,
accordingly proclaimed respondent but after the people have
Vivencio G. Lirio as the only expressed their will, the result of
unopposed candidate and as the the election cannot be defeated by
duly elected vice mayor of Dolores. the fact that the candidate has not
sworn to his certificate or
On 21 February 1980, Comelec candidacy. The legal requirement
denied the petition of Villanueva, that a withdrawal be under oath
stating that Mendoza’s withdrawal will be held to be merely directory
was not under oath as required by and Mendoza’s failure to observe
Section 27 of the 1978 Election the requirement should be
Code, and that his withdrawal was considered a harmless irregularity.
not made after the last day for The bona fides of petitioner
filing of certificate of candidacy, as Villanueva as a substitute
contemplated by Section 28, but candidate cannot be successfully
on the same day. assailed. The votes cast in his
favor must be counted.
Issue: Whether the informal
withdrawal of Mendoza invalidates The Supreme Court resolved to
the election of Villanueva as vice reconsider and sets aside the
mayor. questioned Resolutions of Comelec
Held: Section 28 of the 1978 and annuls the proclamation of
Election Code provides for such Lirio as elected vice-mayor of
substitute candidates in case of Dolores, Quezon and instead
death, withdrawal or declares petitioner as the duly
disqualification up to mid-day of elected vice-mayor of said
the very day of the elections. municipality and entitled forthwith
Mendoza’s withdrawal was filed on to assume said office, take the
the last hour of the last day for oath of office and discharge its
regular filing of candidacies, which functions. The resolution is made
he had filed earlier that same day.
For all intents and purposes, such
withdrawal should therefore be
In RE Tampoy: Diosdada
considered as having been made
Alberastine, petitioner
substantially and in truth after the
GR L-14322, 25 February 1960
last day, even going by the literal
(107 Phil 100)
reading of the provision by the
En Banc, Bautista Angelo (p): 10 February 1957, the testator died in
concurring here house in Argao.

Facts: On 19 November 1939, On 7 March 1957, or two weeks


Petronila Tampoy, a widow and after, the heir found in the
without children, requested with testament, Carman Aberastine
Bonifacio Minoza to read a died, leaving her mother, the
testament and explain its contents petitioner Diosdada Alberastine.
to her in her house in San Miguel After trial on the probate o a
street, municipality of Argao, document purportedly to be the
province of Cebu in 19 November last and testament of Petronila
1939, which he did in the presence Rampoy, the trial court denied the
of tree instrumental witnesses, petition on the ground that the left
Rosario K. Chan, Mauricio de la hand margin of the first page of
Pena, and Simeona Omboy. After the will does not bear the
confirming the contents of the thumbmark of the testatrix.
testament, she requested Bonifacio Petitioner appealed from this
Minoza to write her name at the ruling. The Court of Appeals
foot of the testament in the second certified the case to the Supreme
page, which he did, and after Court because it involves purely a
which she stamped her question of law.
thumbmark between her name
and surname in the presence of all Issue: Whether the absence of the
three instrumental witnesses. testator’s thumbmark in the first
Bonifacio Minoza also signed at the page is fatal to render the will void
foot of the testament, in the second
page, in the presence of the Held: Statutes prescribing the
testator and all three abovenamed formalities to be observed in the
witnesses. However, the testator, execution of wills are very strictly
just like Bonifacio Minoza, did not construed. A will must be executed
sign on the left margin or any part in accordance with the statutory
of the first page of the testament, requirements; otherwise it is
composed of two pages. All the entirely void. In the present case,
three instrumental witnesses the contention that the petition for
signed at the foot of the probate is unopposed, and that the
acknowledgment written in the three testimonial witnesses
second page of the testament, and testified and manifested to the
the left margin of the first and court that the document expresses
second page, in the presence of the the true and voluntary will of the
testator, Bonifacio Minoza, Atty. deceased, cannot be sustained as
Kintanar, and the others. The it runs counter to the express
testament was executed freely and provision of the law. Since the will
spontaneously, without having suffers the fatal defect, as it does
been threatened, forced and not bear the thumbmark of the
intimidated, and not having testatrix on its first page even if it
exercised on her (the testator) bears the signature of the three
undue influence, being the same in instrumental witnesses, the same
full use of her mental faculties and fails to comply with the law and
enjoying good health. On 22 therefore cannot be admitted to
probate.
The Supreme Court affirmed the
appealed order, without
pronouncement as to costs.