Limketkai Sons Milling vs.

CA
G.R. No. 118509. December 1, 1995

Facts: On June 23, 1988, Pedro Revilla, Jr., a licensed real estate broker was given formal authority by BPI
to sell the lot for P1,000.00 per square meter. The owners of the Philippine Remnants concurred this
arrangement. Broker Revilla contacted Alfonso Lim of petitioner company who agreed to buy the land.
On July 9, 1988, Revilla formally informed BPI that he had procured a buyer, herein petitioner. On July 11,
1988, petitioner's officials, Alfonso Lim and Albino Limketkai, went to BPI to confirm the sale.
VicePresident Merlin Albano and Asst. Vice-President Aromin entertained them. The parties agreed that
the lot would be sold at P1,000.00 per square meter to be paid in cash. The authority to sell was on a first
come, first served and non-exclusive basis; there is no dispute over petitioner's being the first comer and
the buyer to be first served. Alfonso Lim then asked if it was possible to pay on terms. The bank officials
stated that there was no harm in trying to ask for payment on terms because in previous transactions, the
same had been allowed. It was the understanding, however, that should the term payment be
disapproved, then the price shall be paid in cash. Two or three days later, petitioner learned that its offer
to pay on terms had been frozen. Alfonso Lim went to BPI on July 18, 1988 and tendered the full payment
of P33,056,000.00 to Albano. The payment was refused because Albano stated that the authority to sell
that particular piece of property in Pasig had been withdrawn from his unit. The same check was tendered
to BPI Vice-President Nelson Bona who also refused to receive payment. An action for specific
performance with damages was thereupon filed on August 25, 1988 by petitioner against BPI. In the
course of the trial, BPI informed the trial court that it had sold the property under litigation to NBS on July
14, 1989.

Issue: Whether or not such contract is covered by the statute of frauds.

Held: In the case at bench, the allegation that there was no concurrence of the offer and the acceptance
upon the cause of the contract is belied by the testimony of the very BPI official with whom the contract
was perfected. Aromin and Albano concluded the sale for BPI. The issue that the deed of sale still had to
be signed and notarized does not mean that no contract had already been perfected. A sale of land is valid
regardless of the form it may have been entered into. The requisite form under Article 1458 of the Civil
Code is merely for greater efficacy or convenience and the failure to comply does not affect the validity
and binding effect of the act between parties. Therefore, such contract that was made constituted fraud
and is covered by the statute of frauds. BPI should be held liable and can be sued for damages.
No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
Constitution without its advice and concurrence. (Sec. 30, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

Fabian v. Desierto,
G.R. No. 129742, 16 September 1998.

Facts:

Fabian filed an administrative charge for grave misconduct against Agustin committed by him as then
DPWH Assistant Regional Director of Region IV-A. The Ombudsman found Agustin guilty but upon
reconsideration, he was exonerated.

Facts:
Fabian elevated the case to the SC, arguing that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman
Act of 1989) provides that all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the
Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari
within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the
motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Issue:
May administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman
be appealed to the Supreme Court without its advise and concurrence?

Held:

No. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal to this Court from
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. It violates the
proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution against a law which increases the appellate
jurisdiction of this Court. The constitutional prohibition was intended to give this Court a measure
of control over cases placed under its appellate Jurisdiction.Otherwise, the indiscriminate enactment
of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction would unnecessarily burden the Court.

Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 was declared INVALID.

Villavert vs. Desierto

G.R. No. 133715. February 23, 2000

Facts:

An administrative charge for grave misconduct was filed against Villavert, Sales & Promotion Supervisor
of PCSO Cebu Branch. The Graft Investigation Officer recommended the dismissal of the case.
However, Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas issued a Memorandum finding Villavert guilty of the charge.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Sec. 27 of
RA6770.

Issue:
May decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases be appealed to the Supreme Court?

Held:
No. In Fabian vs. Desierto, Sec. 27 of RA 6770, which authorizes an appeal to this Court from decisions of
the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, was declared violative of the
proscription in Sec. 30, Art. VI, of the Constitution against a law which increases the appellate jurisdiction
of this Court without its advice and consent. In addition, the Court noted that Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure precludes appeals from quasi-judicial agencies, like the Office of the Ombudsman, to
the Supreme Court. Consequently, appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, as reiterated in the
subsequent case of Namuhe v. Ombudsman.