132.

PRESIDENTIAL BROADCAST STAFF-RADIO TELEVISION MALACAÑANG (PBS-RTVM)

VS. VERGEL P. TABASA.
G.R. NO. 234624. FEBRUARY 26, 2020 [DATE UPLOADED: 06/22/2020]
FACTS:
Vergel Tabasa is the accused in an administrative case for Sexual Harassment committed
against SHARMILA KAYE ANGCO, a contractual employee of the PBS-TV.
According to Angco, the first incident of harassment transpired on Dec. 28, 2012 while
she was watching Eat Bulaga in the Engineering Office of PBS-TV. As she was seated on
the sofa, Tabasa cornered and tickled her right knee causing her to hit a nearby cabinet.
The incident left her crying in humiliation, but instead of apologizing, Tabasa even
taunted her saying “Oh, umiyak ka daw.”
A Committee was constituted to investigate on Angco’s complaint. Thereafter, the
Committee adjudged Tabasa guilty of simple misconduct. Because the offense is the
second one, the Committee meted out the penalty of dismissal from service pursuant to
the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases (RRACCS) CSC MC No. 30-1989.
The CSC affirmed the decision. Upon elevation the CA, it modified the penalty from
dismissal to a 6-month suspension. The CA also considered the length of service of
Tabasa as mitigating circumstance.
Thru a petition for certiorari under rule 45 of the Rules of Court, PBS now seeks to
reverse the CA ruling.
ISSUE: WHETHER THE REDUCTION OF THE PENALTY IS PROPER
No. It is improper because the facts established by the lower courts are undisputed,
and the law applicable on the matter is clear and unambiguous. The Court sees no
reason to depart from the findings of fact of the Committee as well as the CSC.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action; more
particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer. The rules on prescribing the
penalty of dismissal for the commission of a second less grave offense is clear and
unambiguous under the RRACCs. It is unfair to fault the offended party for their own
perception of the incident. An incident may be made in jest for the offender but may in
fact be offensive to the other. It was clear based on records that the offense was
committed.
Length of service is an alternative circumstance. It may be appreciated either as
aggravating of mitigating depending on the factual milieu of each case. Here, the
witnesses even showed the lack of professionalism of the accused despite being in the
service for 28 years.
133. FRANCISCO PAGDANGANAN VS. ATTY. ROMEO C. PLATA A.C. No. 12701. February
26, 2020 [Date Uploaded: 06/22/2020]
FACTS:
An administrative case for disbarment was filed by Francisco Pagdanganan against
respondent, Atty. Romeo C. Plata (Atty. Plata), before the IBP.

Atty. Plata is the legal counsel of an owner of a land in Taytay, Rizal while Pagdanganan
is a member of the Samahang Maralita ng Sitio Bato-Bato Neighborhood Association,
Inc. (SAMANAI).

On May 5, 2009, SAMANAI entered into a contract to sell with the land owner to buy
and occupy a portion of the land. SAMANAI failed to pay the remaining balance in
monthly installments causing the land-owner to file for unlawful detainer against the
occupants atty. Pagdanganan. The case was granted by the MTC.

For the alleged unfair and untruthful statements made in the Sinumpaang Salaysay
against him and his client, Atty. Plata filed a case for Perjury with Damages on
September 11, 2012 against the counsel of SAMANAI Atty. Equila. He also claimed Ten
Million Pesos (Pl 0,000,000.00) as moral damages; Ten Million Pesos (Pl0,000,000.00) as
exemplary damages; and Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PS00,000.00) as litigation
expenses.

In response, Pagdanganan filed a complaint with the IBP. The IBP then suspended from
the practice of law for a period of two years. Its ruling is mainly premised on the undue
filing of the perjury case even if Pagdanganan himself did not even sign the supposed
untruthful SS.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE SUSPENSION OF ATTY. PAGDANGANAN IS PROPER.

RULING: Yes. It has been consistently emphasized by the Court that "membership in the
bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not
only learned in law, but also known to possess good moral character, x x x honesty, and
integrity, x x x in order to promote the public's faith in the legal profession. "

However, when lawyers, in the performance of their duties, act in a manner that
prejudices not only the rights of their clients, but also of their colleagues and their
colleagues' clients, appropriate disciplinary measures under the law, such as suspension
and disbarment, must apply to rectify their wrongful acts.30 Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court, as amended, provides:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court;

grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of
soliciting cases at Jaw for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
134. JOSUE A. ANTOLINO VS. HANSEATIC SHIPPING PHILS. INC., ET AL.
G.R. No. 245917. February 26, 2020 [Date Uploaded: 08/04/2020]
FACTS:
Petitioner Antolino was hired by respondent Hanseat1c Shipping Phils. Inc. (Hanseatic)
on behalf of its foreign principal, respondent Leonhard & Blumberg Reederei7 GMBH &
Co. KG, to work as a bosun on board the M/V Hansa Fresenburg.

While performing his duties on board the vessel, Antolino met an accident resulting in
an elbow injury. It was found out through an examination in Singapore that he had a
fracture. He was immediately repatriated to the Philippines where he was subjected to
physiotherapy.

He failed to attend his next medical examination because of financial difficulties. After
his next examination, his doctor requested him to sign a “fit to work” examination. He
refused, because he was still experiencing pain.

He consulted another physician and was declared unfit for sea duty. His request for a
third opinion was unheeded so he filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for disability
benefits.

The LA granted his petition but the NLRC reversed it on the ground that it was his fault
for failing to attend his scheduled medical check-up. The CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE: Whether such fault is sufficient for the denial of the Medical Disability Benefits.

RULING: Yes. The Court finds that Antolino had unjustifiably abandoned his medical
treatment, resulting in the forfeiture of his disability benefits.

Seafarers assume the duty to regularly report to the company-designated physician for
treatment. The POEA-SEC, in unmistakable terms, makes this requirement mandatory.
This is because a seafarer's wellness is a concern not only of the employer, but more so
of the seafarer himself. Surely, it is in all of his best interests that he be kept physically
fit for sea duty, primarily so that he is not stripped of a means of sustenance for himself
and his family and, secondly, so that he may continue in his pursuit of providing for the
nation as a whole. Therefore, when a seafarer abandons his medical treatment, the law
steps in to declare the forfeiture of any disability benefits that may have theretofore
been claimed.

Relevantly, Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC provides that the seafarer shall submit
himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company designated physician
within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to
do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as
compliance. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to
the company designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the
company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to
comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the
right to claim the above benefits.
135. The People of the Philippines Vs. Flor Pueyo alias Tito Flong
G.R. No. 192327. February 26, 2020 [Date Uploaded: 08/04/2020]

FACTS:

On November 24, 1998, Pueyo was charged with the crime of violation of Section 10(a)
of RA 7610. AAA is a minor. One of her neighbors was accused Pueyo, whom she called
"Tito Flor." AAA's father and Pueyo worked for the same employer who allowed them to
reside in the said compound. On that day of incident, AAA was playing with her younger
brother, CCC, 9 and two other playmates on a bulldozer parked near her residence.
Pueyo, who was doing welding works nearby, got angry at the children and told them to
climb down the bulldozer. All except AAA complied. She went down and sat with her
legsspread apart on a pile of coconut lumber. It was then that Pueyo approached AAA
and poked a welding rod onto her genital area.

AAA cried in pain and saw that her private part was bleeding but she did not
immediately tell anyone about what transpired. She was later on subjected to medical
examination which revealed lacerations on her hymen and vagina.

The RTC found Pueyo guilty of statutory rape under RA 7610. Now, he contends that
AAA has the tendency to balucinate and that the lacerations were self-inflicted and are
injuries from her nails scratching her genitals.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

RULING: No. The ruling was based on the clear identification and testimony of the
minor, that against mere denials and alibi is accorded greater weight.

Successful prosecutions for statutory rape charges falling under Art. 266-A(2) rely on
only two requisites: (1) the victim is a child, male or female, under 12 years of age, and
(2) that the accused inserted any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of
the victim. In relation to Section S(b) of RA 7610, the apparent circumstances fit
squarely as sexual assault: AAA, 6 years young at the time of the incident, received a
penetrating blow onto her vagina that almost extended to her anus by a welding rod
wielded by Pueyo. The severity of the genital injury inflicted upon AAA cannot be more
telling of Pueyo's abusive intent. 1AAA's consent to Pueyo's vile act holds no relevance
here - it is settled that a child's consent is immaterial because of his or her presumed
incapacity of discerning evil from good.

All told, the acts of Pueyo have been shown to fall within the punitive purview of rape
by sexdal assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
The similar case of People v. Tulagan (G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019) dictates the
indeterminate penalty of twelve ( 12) years, ten ( 10) months, and twenty -one (21) days
of reclusion I temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty
(20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, as the correct penalty therefor
136. Republic of the Philippines Vs. Jorge Castillo, et al.
G.R. No. 190453. February 26, 2020 [Date Uploaded: 06/19/2020]
FACTS:
This is an expropriation case.
In 1980, the Solicitor General, acting in behalf of petitioner Republic of the Philippines
(RP), filed a Complaint for Expropriation before the Court of First Instance of Dagupan
City against respondents.
It was sufficiently established by the SG that RP had the authority to expropriate. The
only issue remaining is the reckoning period of the computation of just compensation in
view of the following:
(a) date of taking in 1947;
(b) date of the filing of the original Complaint in 1980; or
(c) date of filing of the Amended Complaint in 1989

ISSUE: When should the computation for just compensation be reckoned?

RULING:
At the filing of the original complaint in 1980. In this case, the date of taking was not
sufficiently established by evidence. The Court said:
Relevant herein is our ruling in National Power Corporation (NPC v. Tiangco (2543
Phil. 637 (2007), wherein NPC filed a complaint for expropriation on November
20, 1990 and then later on amended the said complaint in 1993. We ruled that
the landowners should be paid the value of the property as of the time of the
filing of the complaint which is deemed to be the time of taking of the property,
to wit: The trial court fixed the value of the property at its 1984 val ue, while the
CA, at its 1993 worth. Neither of the two determinations is correct. For purposes
of just compensation, the respondents should be paid the value of the property as
of the time of the filing of the complaint which is deemed to be the time of taking
of the property. It was certainly unfair for the trial court to have considered a
property value several years behind its worth at the time the complaint in this
case was filed on November 20, I 990. The landowners are necessarily
shortchanged, considering that, as a rule, land values enjoy steady upward
movement. It was likewise erroneous for the appellate court to have fixed the
value of the property on the basis of a 1993 assessment. NPC would be paying
too much. Petitioner corporation is correct in arguing that the respondents should
not profit from an assessment made years after the taking.
Xxx
137. Irene R. Puno Vs. Atty. Redentor S. Viaje
A.C. No. 12085. February 26, 2020 [Date Uploaded: 06/23/2020]
FACTS:
This is a disbarment case.
Through a verified Complaint-Affidavit, Irene R. Puno filed with the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP a complaint against Atty. Redentor S. Viaje. She is seeking the
latter's disbarment from the practice of law because the lawyer allegedly intimidated
her into signing a Voting Trust Agreement thereby surrendering to the latter her shares
in Goldmine Realty Development Corporation (GRDC) and making him the controlling
stockholder and Corporate Secretary of GRDC.
Atty. Viaje was the former counsel of GRDC. According to the complaint, in January
2007, Atty. Viaje asked complainant to sign an Affidavit of Non-Holding of Annual
Stockholders Meeting of GRDC supposedly for the purpose of updating the corporation's
General Information Sheet. Without her knowledge, her knowledge, Atty. Viaje made it
appear that the said affidavit was executed and signed on December 20, 2006 when the
same was in fact signed in January 2007. She only discovered later that Atty. Viaje
became the controlling stockholder of GRDC.
Atty Viaje proposed the voting trust agreement when summons were served to
complainant in a case for recovery of duplicate copy of a TCT of a property owned by
GRDC.
She also alleges that Atty. Viaje abused his position as legal counsel to increase his
leverage and control the corporation.
The CBD-IBP recommended a 2-year suspension for Atty. Viaje. This was affirmed by the
Office of the Bar Confidant.
Atty. Viaje is, in sum, merely ‘evasive’ of the allegations.
ISSUE: Whether the penalty of suspension is proper.
RULING: No. The Court ruled for disbarment.

The Court has held that, "when the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is
not enough that he[/she] denies the charges against him[/her]; he[/she] must meet the
issue and overcome the evidence against him[/her]. · He[/she] must show proof that
he[/ she] still maintains that degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is
expected of him[/her].

The Court gave due weight to the findings of fact of the IBP and the OBC and found no
reason to depart therefrom. It was clearly established that Atty. Viaje indeed took
advantage of his position until he has gained substantial control of the corporation
which is owned by the family of complainant.
138. People of the Philippines Vs. Florentino Labuguen y Francisco alias “Tinong” and
Romeo Zuñiga...
G.R. No. 223103. February 24, 2020 [Date Uploaded: 06/16/2020]
FACTS:
Florentino Labuguen y Francisco alias "Tinong" (Labuguen) and Romeo Zuniga y Pilarta
(Zuniga) were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with
Homicide and Frustrated Homicide.
On Appeal. Romeo Zuniga pleads the mitigating circumstance "irresistible force and/or
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury” positing that he "was compelled or
forced at gun point by one of his co-accused in robbing and killing the house of one
Manuel Padre.
However, the findings of the RTC show that the everyone was wearing bonnets at the
time they barged in and pointed rifles to the accused. It was clearly established that the
event was premeditated.
ISSUE: Is the conviction of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide proper?
RULING:
No, the Court cites the case of People vs Tidong:
There is no special complex crime of robbery with homicide and double frustrated
homicide. The offense should have been designated as robbery with homicide alone,
regardless of the number of homicides or injuries committed. These other felonies have,
at the most and under appropriate circumstances, been considered merely as generic
aggravating circumstances which can be offset by mitigating circumstances. The term
"homicide" in paragraph 1 of Article 294 is used in its generic sense, that is, any act that
results in death. Any other act producing injuries short of death is integrated in the
"homicide" committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, assuming, of
course, that the homicide is consummated. If no death supervenes, the accused should
be held liable for separate crimes of robbery and frustrated or attempted homicide or
murder (provided that there was intent to kill) if the latter offenses were not necessary
for the commission of the robbery, or for a complex crime of robbery and frustrated or
attempted homicide or murder under Article 48 of the Code if the latter offenses were
the necessary means for the commission of robbery.
495. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner vs. LANCASTER PHILIPPINES
INC., Respondent. (G.R. No. 183408; July 12, 2017)
FACTS:
The CIR issued letters of authority (LOA) to revenue officers to examine Lancaster's
books for FY 1997-1998. Later, the CIR issued deficiency income tax assessment (DITA)
against Lancaster for FY 1998-1999. Moreover, the CIR flagged Lancaster's alleged
deviation from generally accepted accounting principles in using a "cropping year" not in
line with its FY. Finally, Lancaster applied for deductions for the taxable year in which
the tobaccos crops were realized not in the FY in which the expenses were incurred. The
CIR disallowed these deductions.
On appeal, the CTA resolved that there was excess of authority on the part of the CIR
and its revenue officers, citing the disparity in coverage between the LOA and the DITA.
However, this issue was never raised by Lancaster.
ISSUE: Whether the CTA has authority to rule upon the authority of Revenue Officers of
the CIR.
RULING: Yes, the CTA has jurisdiction to rule upon other matters arising under the
National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the BIR.
Since it is the power of the CIR to examine and assess taxpayers, and it is pursuant to
such power that the CIR authorized its revenue officers to conduct an examination of
the books of account and accounting records of Lancaster, and eventually issue a
deficiency assessment against it, such power being one granted by the Tax Code, the
CTA has power to judge this issue.