NOTES

Practice:

Make sure that all your manifestations should be reflected in all orders and
resolutions of the court by immediately filing to the said court motion for
clarification/correction to rectify the said omission or perhaps error.

You must always make a reservation during pre-trial to submit all other
relevant evidence that are not yet in your possession.

Evaluate all your evidence at hand by consulting it first in accordance with

its governing evidentiary rules (such as those its admissibility, manner of
authentication, establishing its foundation, etc.)

Identify--Authenticate (in a manner accordance with its governing

evidentiary rules detailed on the Judicial Affidavit)-Request opposing
counsel to do necessary comparison and manifest that it is the true and
faithful reproduction of the original-- Request for marking—Formal Offer.

Remedial; Forum Shopping;

Civil Law; Mortgage; Foreclosure; Right of Redemption; Writ of Possession

In Sulit v. Court of Appeals,[1] the Supreme Court held that the failure of
the mortgagee to return to the mortgagor the surplus proceeds of the
foreclosure sale carves out an exception to the general rule that a writ of
possession should issue as a matter of course. To have a better grasp of
the reasons for the Court’s ruling in said case, below is a brief summary
and analysis.

The case of Sulit v. CA stemmed from the extra-judicial foreclosure

conducted by the notary public where Sulit (creditor-mortgagee) emerged
as the highest bidder for the amount of P7,000,000.00. It appears that
Sulit failed to deliver the sale price’s surplus equivalent to at least 40% of
the mortgage debt to the notary public. Instead, he credited it to the
satisfaction of the P4,000,000.00 debt. During redemption period, he
petitioned for the issuance of a writ of possession which the trial court
granted. From the order of the court, the debtor-mortgagor filed a petition
for certiorari with the CA. The CA granted the writ of certiorari and directed
Sulit to remit to the debtor the excess amount of his bid price.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, Sulit’s failure to deliver the
surplus proceeds of the foreclosure sale was considered as an exception
to the general rule that it is ministerial upon the court to issue a writ of
possession even during the period of redemption upon the filing of a bond.
The Court found that such failure was a sufficient justification for the non-
issuance of the writ. The Court also ruled that equitable considerations
demanded the deferment of the issuance of the writ as it would be
highly unfair for the mortgagor, who as a redemptioner might choose to
redeem the foreclosed property, to pay the equivalent amount of the bid
clearly in excess of the total mortgage debt. The Court said:
The general rule that mere inadequacy of price is not sufficient to set
aside a foreclosure sale is based on the theory that the lesser the price
 the easier it will be for the owner to effect the redemption. The same thing
cannot be said where the amount of the bid is in excess of the total
mortgage debt. The reason is that in case the mortgagor decides to
exercise his right of redemption, Section 30 of Rule 39 provides that
the redemption price should be equivalent to the amount of the
purchase price, plus one [percent] monthly interest up to the time of
the redemption, together with the amount of any assessments or
taxes which the purchaser may have paid thereon after purchase,
and interest on such last-named amount at the same rate.
Applying this provision to the present case would be highly iniquitous if
the amount required for redemption is based on P7,000,000.00, because
that would mean exacting payment at a price unjustifiably higher than the
real amount of the mortgage obligation. We need not elucidate on the
obvious. Simply put, such a construction will undeniably be prejudicial to
the substantive rights of private respondent and it could even effectively
prevent her from exercising the right of redemption.” The said ruling
cannot be applied to the case of PBCom v. Yeung. A proper appreciation
and analysis of Sulit show that it cannot be cited in Yeung's case because
the factual milieu obtaining is different.

What is the difference between Sulit and the case of Philippine Bank
of Communications v. Yeung (G.R. No. 179691, December 04, 2013)?

The one year redemption period in Sulit had not yet expired when the
purchaser petitioned the trial court for the issuance of a writ of possession.
In the PBCom v. Yeung, the redemption period had already expired and
the title over the property had already been consolidated in the petitioner’s
name. In Sulit, the inequity the court perceived to justify the deferment of
the issuance of a writ of possession was present because the mortgagor,
who at that time still had the right to exercise his right of redemption, was
prevented from doing so. No such inequity appears in this case inasmuch
as the mortgagor no longer has a right of redemption. In Sulit, the policy of
the law to aid the redemptioner can still be upheld. The policy is no longer
relevant in PBCom v. Yeung since the mortgagee herself, allowed the
redemption period to lapse without exercising her right.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that for the Sulit exception to apply,
the evil sought to be prevented must be present and the reason behind
the exception should clearly exist. It should not be carelessly applied in
cases where the reasons that justified it do not appear, more so where the
factual milieu is different. As discussed above, the Sulit reasons and
circumstances are not present here. The resulting injustice that the Court
tried to avoid in Sulit does not exist. In the absence of any justification for
the exception, the general rule should apply.

[1] G.R. No. 119247, February 17, 1997, 268 SCRA 441, 452.

Taxation; BIR Ruling 046-2000;

Revenue or income from trade, business or other activity, the conduct of

which is not related to the exercise or performance of religious,
educational and charitable purposes or functions shall be subject to
internal revenue taxes when the same is not actually, directly or
exclusively used for the intended purposes. (BIR Ruling 046-2000)
 Section 30 (1) of the 1997 Tax Code listed government educational
institution as one of the organizations exempt from income tax. Section 30
of the Tax Code pertains to various non-stock, non-profit organizations
whose income/revenues received as such are exempt from tax imposed
under Title II of the same Tax Code. Paragraph 3, Section 4 Article XIV of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution categorically exempts from taxes and
duties all revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational
institutions., which are actually, directly and exclusively used for
educational purposes. The exemption is limited to a non-stock, non-
profit educational institution only.

As a non-stock, non-profit government educational institution, U.P. falls

squarely within the purview of the above constitutional provision; hence, it
is eligible to avail of the tax exemption granted thereat with respect to its
revenues derived in pursuance of its educational purpose and when such
revenues are actually, directly and exclusively used therefor. Conversely,
the revenue or income from trade, business or other activity, the conduct
of which is not related to the exercise or performance by such educational
institutions of their educational purposes or functions shall be subject to
internal revenue taxes when the same is not actually, directly or
exclusively used for the intended purpose/s. Department Order No. 149-
95 dated November 24, 1995 amending Finance Department Order No.
137-87 provides that interest income from Philippine currency bank
deposits and yield from deposit substitute instruments used actually,
directly and exclusively in pursuance of the educational purpose for which
an educational institution was created, are exempt from the 20% final
withholding tax imposed Section 27(D)(1) of the Tax Code of 1997, subject
to compliance with the conditions that as a tax-exempt educational
institution, the University shall, on an annual basis, submit to the Revenue
District Office concerned an annual information return and duly audited
financial statement.

Likewise, pursuant to Section 32(B)(7)(g) of the 1997 Tax Code, gains

realized by U.P. from the sale or exchange or retirement of bonds,
debentures or other certificate of indebtedness with maturity of more than
five (5) years, shall also be exempt from income tax. (BIR Ruling No. 046-
2000 dated September 26, 2000)

Taxation; Tax Base of DST on the sale of shares of stock;

The correct tax base in computing the Documentary Stamp Tax due on the
sale of shares of stock is the total par value of the shares, and not their
gross purchase price as explicitly provided under Section 175 of the 1997
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) as amended, as well as Section 4
of Revenue Regulation No. 13-04. (FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 213528,
November 10, 2014 ] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V.
ECO LEISURE AND HOSPITALITY HOLDING COMPANY, INC.)

Administrative Law; Government Owned and Controlled Corporation

(GOCC);

GOCC is defined under Administrative Order No. (AO) 59, Section 2 (a)
and (b), EO 292 (Administrative Code), and R.A. No. 10149 (GOCC
Governance Act of 2011).
Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Effect of Plain Denial;

Accused’s bare denial and assertions cannot prevail over the clear,
positive, and categorical testimony of the victim.

Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeal;

In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review
and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the
appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court’s decision based on
grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal
confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders the
court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from,
increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.

Criminal Law; Registered Owner Liabilities

SUMMARY: If you are planning to sell or donate your car or any motor
vehicle, make sure that you transfer its registration with the Land
Transportation Authority (LTO) from your name to the buyer's or
transferee's name. A deed of sale or donation is not enough.

Under Philippine laws, the registered owner of a motor vehicle whose

operation causes injury to another is legally liable to the latter. In other
words, even if you do not own the motor vehicle anymore, the victim of an
accident involving that vehicle registered under your name can still sue
you in court and make you liable under the "registered owner rule."

In simpler terms, the victim is given by law the choice to sue either the
driver/new owner or the registered owner. Since you are the registered
owner and you are easily identifiable as far as the victim is concerned, you
are open to attack (legal attack, of course, in court) if the car (or any motor
vehicle) involved is still registered under your name.

In the vernacular, hindi sapat na naibenta mo lang ang iyong sasakyan at

hindi sapat na may kasulatan lang kayo. Kailangan mong ipalipat ang
rehistro ng iyong sasakyan at alisin ito sa ilalim ng iyong pangalan para,
kung may mangyari mang aksidente, hindi ikaw ang idedemanda.

According to the Supreme Court, the registered owner of a motor vehicle

whose operation causes injury to another is legally liable to the latter. But
it is error not to allow the registered owner to recover reimbursement from
the actual and present owner by way of its cross-claim. (G.R. No. 167797)

It is well settled that in case of motor vehicle mishaps, the registered

owner of the motor vehicle is considered as the employer of the tortfeasor-
driver , and is made primarily liable for the tort committed by the latter
under Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code.

In Equitable Leasing Corporation v. Suyom, we ruled that in so far as third

persons are concerned, the registered owner of the motor vehicle is the
employer of the negligent driver, and the actual employer is considered
merely as an agent of such owner.
 In that case involving Suyom, a tractor registered in the name of Equitable
Leasing Corporation (Equitable) figured in an accident, killing and
seriously injuring several persons. As part of its defense, Equitable
claimed that the tractor was initially leased to Mr. Edwin Lim under a
Lease Agreement, which agreement has been overtaken by a Deed of
Sale entered into by Equitable and Ecatine Corporation (Ecatine).
Equitable argued that it cannot be held liable for damages because the
tractor had already been sold to Ecatine at the time of the accident and
the negligent driver was not its employee but of Ecatine.

In upholding the liability of Equitable, as registered owner of the tractor,

this Court said that "regardless of sales made of a motor vehicle, the
registered owner is the lawful operator insofar as the public and third
persons are concerned; consequently, it is directly and primarily
responsible for the consequences of its operation."The Court further
stated that "[i]n contemplation of law, the owner/operator of record is the
employer of the driver, the actual operator and employer being considered
as merely its agent." Thus, Equitable, as the registered owner of the
tractor, was considered under the law on quasi delict to be the employer of
the driver, Raul Tutor; Ecatine, Tutor’s actual employer, was deemed
merely as an agent of Equitable.

The lesson here is clear. The seller of a motor vehicle, if he is prudent

enough, should require (and, better, accompany) the buyer to transfer
registration of said vehicle.

Criminal Law; Automatic Criminal Liability of Driver with No Driver’s

License-NO

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has held that, although a violation of
the Traffic Code (such as lack of license or overloading) gives rise to the
presumption of negligence on the part of the violator, contributory
negligence cannot be said to be present if there is no logical or causal
connection between such traffic violation and the resulting injury. In short,
even if one vehicle has no lights or exceeds the gross weight limit, if such
has no relation to the accident, contributory negligence cannot be
appreciated. Below is a quote from G.R. No. 119092 (December 10,
1998).

"First of all, it has not been shown how the alleged negligence of the
Cimarron driver contributed to the collision between the vehicles. Indeed,
petitioner has the burden of showing a causal connection between the
injury received and the violation of the Land Transportation and Traffic
Code. He must show that the violation of the statute was the proximate or
legal cause of the injury or that it substantially contributed thereto.
Negligence, consisting in whole or in part, of violation of law, like any other
negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause
of the injury. Petitioner says that driving an overloaded vehicle with only
one functioning headlight during nighttime certainly increases the risk of
accident, that because the Cimarron had only one headlight, there was
decreased visibility, and that the fact that the vehicle was overloaded and
its front seat overcrowded decreased [its] maneuverability. However, mere
allegations such as these are not sufficient to discharge its burden of
proving clearly that such alleged negligence was the contributing cause of
the injury."
Reynold Villania, on his Facebook page, posted an amazing discussion
on this question. Please read the full text of his explanation below.
TANONG: Sir, ako po ay traffic investigator ng aming estasyon. Hindi ko
po alam ang gagawin ko sa isang kaso dahil dalawa ang bersyon ng mga
kasama ko kung sino ang sasampahan ng kaso. Ito po ang nangyari.
(QUESTION: Sir, I am a traffic investigator in my area's police station. I
don't know what to do regarding this one case where there are two
versions of the story and we do not know whom to file charges against.
Here's what happened.)

Isang Montero ang sumalpok sa Fortuner. Ang drayber ng Montero ay

may lisensya at OR/CR na maybisa. Ang drayber ng Fortuner ay walang
lisensya at wala ng bisa ang OR/CR. Subalit, nasa "right of way" ang
Fortuner. (A Mitsubishi Montero crashed into a Toyota Fortuner. The
Montero's driver has license and registration. The Fortuner's driver has no
driver's license and expired registration. The thing is that the Fortuner was
the one in the right lane during the accident.)

Ayon sa isang grupo sa estasyon, otomatik na dapat na makasuhan ang

drayber ng Fortuner kasi nag maneho siya ng sasakyan ng walang
lisensya. .Ayon naman sa isang grupo, dapat na kasuhan ang Montero
sapagkat siya naman talaga ang puno't dulo ng aksidente. Paglabag sa
trapiko lamang ang kasalan ng Fortuner at hindi dapat na makasuhan.
(One group in the station says the Fortuner's driver should be held
automatically liable since he has not license and registration. Another
group says the Montero's driver should be charged because he is the root
cause of the accident, further saying that the Fortuner's only liability is for
traffic violation.)
SAGOT: Kung binasa natin ang Revised Penal Code Annotated, ibig
sabihin iyong makapal na may mga paliwanag at halimbawa ( ito ang
gamit ng mga abogado), at hindi iyong Codal, ibig sabihin, iyong teksto
lamang (kadalasan gamit ng mga pulis sa training at sa estasyon),
malalaman natin na ang basehan ng criminal negligence o reckless
imprudence ay walang iba kundi - KAPABAYAAN o sa ingles
IMPRUDENCE O NEGLIGENCE. Sa madaling sabi, kung sino iyong may
kapabayaan base sa imbestigasyon ng pulisya, siya ang dapat na
makasuhan. (ANSWER: If you read the annotated version of the
Revised Penal Code, not merely the codal provisions, you will realize
that the basis of criminal negligence or reckless imprudence is
imprudence or negligence. In other words, whoever is found by
police investigation to be negligent or imprudent should be the one
charged of a crime.)

Sa ilalim ng Civil Code, ang isang drayber na may paglabag sa trapiko ,

halimbawa, walang lisensya ay "presumed" negligent. Bakit presumed?
Kasi puwedeng mawala ang presumption kung mayroong siyang
ebidensyang magpapatunay na wala siyang kapabayaan. Hindi sinasabi,
mga kasama, sa Revised Penal Code na kapag ang draybey ay walang
lisensya, siya na ang otomatikong may kasalanan. Itong paniniwala ay
minana natin sa mga sinaunang imbestigador na walang legal na
basehan. (Under the Civil Code, a driver who has committed a traffic
violation - for example, havign no license to drive - is "presumed"
negligent. Why "presumed"? This is because a presumption can be
overturned by evidence proving he has no negligence. Law does not
say, men, that a driver without license is automatically liable in a
criminal negligence case. This belief has been passed down to us by
 ancient investigators without legal basis.)
Sa ating kaso ngayon, base sa kwento ng ating kasama, ang dapat na
makasuhan sa ilalim ng Revised Penal Code ay ang drayber ng Montero,
dahil lumalabas na sa kaniya ang kapabayaan kung bakit nagkaroon ng
aksidente, kahit pa na mayroong siyang lisensya at OR/CR at ang
Fortuner ay wala. Suportado rin ito ng isang kasong nadesisyunan ng
Korte Suprema. Ngayun, kung gusto mong tiketan ang drayber ng
Fortuner dahil sa traffic violation, puwede mo rin gawin yan. (In the case
at bar, based of the facts given, the one liable under the Revised
Penal Code is the Montero's driver, it having been found that he was
the one at fault or with negligence causing the accident, despite the
fact that the Fortuner's driver has no license or registration. This
conclusion is supported by jurisprudence. Now, if you as a police
officer or traffic enforcer choose to issue a ticket against the
Fortuner's driver due to his traffic violation, be my guest.)

Criminal Law; Gossip;

Example.
Juana is a chismosa who gathers her close friends for parties in order to
gossip about other people she hates or dislikes

Q: Is it ok?
A: No.

Article 26 of the New Civil Code provides that "Every person shall respect
the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and
other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not
constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action damages,
prevention and other relief:
. Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;
.Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of
another;
. INTRIGUING to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
. Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs,
lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition.
Q: Is there a (penal) law punishing Chismosas?
A: Yes

"Art. 364. Intriguing against Honor. — The penalty of arresto menor or fine
not exceeding 20,000 pesos shall be imposed for any intrigue which has
for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of a person."
(RPC as amended by RA 10951 )

Intriguing against honor (also known as chismis / intriga) is committed by

any person who shall make any intrigue which has for its principal purpose
to blemish the honor or reputation of another person.

The offender (chismosa / intrigera) without ascertaining the truth of a

defamatory utterance, repeats the same and pass it on to another, to the
damage of the offended party.

Criminal Law; Sudden Attack;

 The mere suddenness of an attack does not necessarily equate to
treachery. The accused must have knowingly, deliberately, and
consciously adopted the means or method to ensure the execution of his
criminal purpose without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
victim might offer, for the same to be appreciated as qualifying
circumstance. (People of the Philippines vs. Noellito Dela Cruz y
Deplomo)

Criminal Law; RA 7610 Anti-Child Abuse; Establishment Liability

Liabilities of an establishment who knowingly allowing minor children to

stay with any person who is not a relative.

Section 5, Article II of RA 7610 stated that establishment’s manager/owner

can be held criminally liable by deriving profit or advantage from a
customer for attempting to commit child prostitution in relation to Section
6, Article V–i.e. when any person who, not being a relative of a child, is
found alone with a child inside the room or cubicle of a house, inn,
apartelle, etc.,

Section 10(d), Article VI stated that any person, owner, manager or one
entrusted with the operation of any public or private place of
accommodation, whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise,
including residential places, who allows any person to take along with him
to such place or places any minor herein described shall be imposed a
penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a fine of not less than
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and the loss of the license to operate
such a place or establishment.

Section 11, Article VII also provides sanctions for establishments or

enterprises which promotes, facilitate, or conduct activities constituting
child prostitution and other sexual abuse, child trafficking, obscene
publications and indecent shows, and other acts of abuse.