UCLASS Bar Operations 2012: Ace the Bar, Race the Car

University of Cebu
College of Law
UCLASS Bar Operations
Remedial Law Society
REMEDIAL LAW
JURISPRUDENCE
2012
by:
Civil Procedure Evidence Special Proceedings and

Sub-group Leader Sub-group Leader: Special Civil Actions
Jhonryl Caluya Sarah Vanessa Lacno Sub-group Leader:
Members: Members: Jimson Yankee
Michelle Liao Leonides Alcoy
Rodelo Damaolao Norberto Robel
Provisional Remedies
Criminal Procedure Sub-group Leader:
Sub-group Leader Lilian delos Santos
Cindy Baguio Member:
Member: Adrian Gutang
Euvic Ferrer
Bar Operations 2012: Ace the Bar, Race the Car!

References: Law Textbooks, Codes, Reviewers, Notes, Compilations, Articles and Internet Sources
For Private and Personal Use Only

Remedial Law Jurisprudence
University of Cebu College of Law UCLASS Bar Operations: Remedial Law Society
Bar Operations 2012: Ace the Bar, Race the Car ! For Private and
Personal Use Only 2
University of Cebu
College of Law
REMEDIAL LAW
JURISPRUDENCE
2012
by:

Euvic Ferrer


University of Cebu
College of Law
REMEDIAL LAW
JURISPRUDENCE
2012
by:

Euvic Ferrer


SELECTED SUPREME
August 2009
COURT DECISIONS Evidence: Conviction relating to violations of

Section 45 of the NIRC not a ground for
disqualification to be appointed as an executor of
IN the will.
REMEDIAL LAW The propriety of granting letters testamentary to

respondents, do not fall within any ground which can be
the subject of a direct appeal to this Court. The CA was
thus correct in declaring that the "issues raised by
petitioner do not fall within the purview of Section 17 of
the Judiciary Act of 1948 such that the Supreme Court
should take cognizance of the instant case. Since
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES respondent Ferdinand Marcos II has appealed his
conviction relating to four violations of Section 45 of the
Principles NIRC, the same should not serve as a basis to disqualify
him to be appointed as an executor of the will of his
father. More importantly, even assuming arguendo that
January 2008 his conviction is later on affirmed, the same is still
insufficient to disqualify him as the "failure to file an
income tax return" is not a crime involving moral
Writ of Habeas Corpus, the restraint of liberty must turpitude ("not every criminal act involves moral
be in the nature of an illegal and involuntary turpitude," and that ''as to what crime involves moral
deprivation of freedom of action . turpitude is for the Supreme Court to determine "). The
In order to justify the grant of the writ of habeas "failure to file an income tax return" is not a crime
corpus, the restraint of liberty must be in the nature of involving moral turpitude as the mere omission is already
an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of a violation regardless of the fraudulent intent or
action. In The Matter Of The Petition Of Habeas willfulness of the individual. The filing of a "fraudulent
Corpus Of Eufemia E. Rodriguez, Filed By Edgardo E. return with intent to evade tax" is a crime involving
Veluz vs. Luisa R. Villanueva And Teresita R. moral turpitude as it entails willfulness and fraudulent
Pabello, Respondents. G.R. No. 169482 January 29, intent on the part of the individual. The same, however,
2008 cannot be said for "failure to file a return" where the
mere omission already constitutes a violation. Thus, this
Court holds that even if the conviction of respondent
June 2008 Marcos II is affirmed, the same not being a crime
involving moral turpitude cannot serve as a ground for
his disqualification. Republic of the Philippines vs.
Writ of Amparo. Issuance of the writ must be Ferdinand R. Marcos II and Imelda R. Marcos, G.R. Nos.
supported by justifying allegations of fact. To start 130371 &130855 August 4, 2009
off with the basics, the writ of amparo was originally
conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the
number of killings and enforced disappearances, and to November 2009
the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to
address these extraordinary concerns. It is intended to
address violations of or threats to the rights to life, Evidence: Writs cover not only actual but also
liberty or security, as an extraordinary and independent threats of unlawful acts or omissions.
remedy beyond those available under the prevailing
Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What The coverage of the writs is limited to the protection of
it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely rights to life, liberty and security. And the writs cover not
property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall only actual but also threats of unlawful acts or omissions.
issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds . Petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data are
Consequently, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo - in line extraordinary remedies which cannot be used as tools to
with the extraordinary character of the writ and the stall the execution of a final and executory decision in a
reasonable certainty that its issuance demands - requires property dispute. P/Supt. Felixberto Castillo, et. al vs.
that every petition for the issuance of the writ must be Dr. Amanda T. Cruz, et. al, G.R. No. 182165 November
supported by justifying allegations of fact. Clear from 25, 2009
these statements - both sworn and unsworn - is the
overriding involvement of property issues as the petition Evidence: In Writ of Amparo.
traces its roots to questions of physical possession of the
property disputed by the private parties. Daniel This Decision reflects the nature of the Writ of Amparo –
Masangkay Tapuz, et al vs. Honorable Judge Elmo Del a protective remedy against violations or threats of
Rosario, et. Al G.R. No. 182484 June 17, 2008
Bar Operations 2012: Ace the Bar, Race the Car ! For Private and Personal Use Only
5
violation against the rights to life, liberty and security. It or accountable for this disappearance, and to define
does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability and impose the appropriate remedies to address it. The
for the disappearance; rather, it determines burden for the public authorities to discharge in these
responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced situations, under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, is
disappearance for purposes of imposing the appropriate twofold. The first is to ensure that all efforts at
remedies to address the disappearance. Responsibility disclosure and investigation are undertaken under pain
refers to the extent the actors have been established by of indirect contempt from this Court when
substantial evidence to have participated in whatever governmental efforts are less than what the individual
way, by action or omission, in an enforced situations require. The second is to address the
disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court disappearance, so that the life of the victim is
shall craft, among them, the directive to file the preserved and his or her liberty and security restored.
appropriate criminal and civil cases against the In these senses, our orders and directives relative to
responsible parties in the proper courts. Accountability, the writ are continuing efforts that are not truly
on the other hand, refers to the measure of remedies terminated until the extrajudicial killing or enforced
that should be addressed to those who exhibited disappearance is fully addressed by the complete
involvement in the enforced disappearance without determination of the fate and the whereabouts of the
bringing the level of their complicity to the level of victim, by the production of the disappeared person
responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with and the restoration of his or her liberty and security,
knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and and, in the proper case, by the commencement of
who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, criminal action against the guilty parties.
but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary  Enforced disappearances have been said to be "a
diligence in the investigation of the enforced double form of torture," with "doubly paralyzing impact
disappearance. In all these cases, the issuance of the for the victims," as they "are kept ignorant of their own
Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary goal of fates, while family members are deprived of knowing
addressing the disappearance, so that the life of the the whereabouts of their detained loved ones" and
victim is preserved and his liberty and security are suffer as well the serious economic hardship and
restored. poverty that in most cases follow the disappearance of
 The Amparo Rule should be read, too, as a work in the household breadwinner.
progress, as its directions and finer points remain to  In 1992, in response to the reality that the insidious
evolve through time and jurisprudence and through the practice of enforced disappearance had become a
substantive laws that Congress may promulgate. global phenomenon, the UN General Assembly adopted
 The petitioner may not be able to describe with the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from
certainty how the victim exactly disappeared, or who Enforced Disappearance (Declaration).
actually acted to kidnap, abduct or arrest him or her,  Fourteen years after (or on December 20, 2006), the
or where the victim is detained, because these UN General Assembly adopted the International
information may purposely be hidden or covered up by Convention for the Protection of All Persons from
those who caused the disappearance. In this type of Enforced Disappearance (Convention). Article 2 of the
situation, to require the level of specificity, detail and Convention defined enforced disappearance as follows:
precision that the petitioners apparently want to read For the purposes of this Convention, "enforced
into the Amparo Rule is to make this Rule a token disappearance" is considered to be the arrest,
gesture of judicial concern for violations of the detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation
constitutional rights to life, liberty and security. of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or
 In general, there are three different kinds of groups of persons acting with the authorization,
"disappearance" cases: support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a
refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by
1. those of people arrested without witnesses or concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the
without positive identification of the arresting agents disappeared person, which place such a person outside
and are never found again; the protection of the law. [Emphasis supplied]
2. those of prisoners who are usually arrested without  The Convention is the first universal human rights
an appropriate warrant and held in complete isolation instrument to assert that there is a right not to be
for weeks or months while their families are unable to subject to enforced disappearance and that this right is
discover their whereabouts and the military authorities non-derogable. It provides that no one shall be
deny having them in custody until they eventually subjected to enforced disappearance under any
reappear in one detention center or another; and circumstances, be it a state of war, internal political
3. those of victims of "salvaging" who have disappeared instability, or any other public emergency. It obliges
until their lifeless bodies are later discovered. State Parties to codify enforced disappearance as an
offense punishable with appropriate penalties under
 As the law now stands, extra-judicial killings and their criminal law. It also recognizes the right of
enforced disappearances in this jurisdiction are not relatives of the disappeared persons and of the society
crimes penalized separately from the component as a whole to know the truth on the fate and
criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings and whereabouts of the disappeared and on the progress
enforced disappearances and are now penalized under and results of the investigation. Lastly, it classifies
the Revised Penal Code and special laws. enforced disappearance as a continuing offense, such
 Our intervention is in determining whether an enforced that statutes of limitations shall not apply until the fate
disappearance has taken place and who is responsible and whereabouts of the victim are established.
6
 The Court is guided, in acting on Amparo cases, by the

reality that the Philippines is a member of the UN, Establishing that his right to travel was impaired in the
bound by its Charter and by the various conventions manner and to the extent that it amounted to a serious
we signed and ratified, particularly the conventions violation of his right to life, liberty and security, for which
touching on humans rights. there exists no readily available legal recourse or
 While the Philippines is not yet formally bound by the remedy. Petitioner invokes this extraordinary remedy of
terms of the Convention on enforced disappearance (or the writ of amparo for the protection of his right to
by the specific terms of the Rome Statute) and has not travel. He insists that he is entitled to the protection
formally declared enforced disappearance as a specific covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo because the
crime, enforced disappearance as a State practice has HDO is a continuing actual restraint on his right to travel.
been repudiated by the international community, so The Court is thus called upon to rule whether or not the
that the ban on it is now a generally accepted principle right to travel is covered by the Rule on the Writ of
of international law, which we should consider a part of Amparo. The restriction on petitioner’s right to travel as a
the law of the land, and which we should act upon to consequence of the pendency of the criminal case filed
the extent already allowed under our laws and the against him was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to
international conventions that bind us. establish that his right to travel was impaired in the
 Past experiences in other jurisdictions show that the manner and to the extent that it amounted to a serious
evidentiary difficulties are generally threefold. First, violation of his right to life, liberty and security, for which
there may be a deliberate concealment of the identities there exists no readily available legal recourse or
of the direct perpetrators. Second, deliberate remedy. In Canlas et al. v. Napico Homeowners
concealment of pertinent evidence of the Association I – XIII, Inc. et al. this Court ruled that: “This
disappearance is a distinct possibility; the central piece new remedy of writ of amparo which is made available by
of evidence in an enforced disappearance – i.e., the this Court is intended for the protection of the highest
corpus delicti or the victim’s body – is usually possible rights of any person, which is his or her right to
concealed to effectively thwart the start of any life, liberty and security. The Court will not spare any
investigation or the progress of one that may have time or effort on its part in order to give priority to
begun. Third is the element of denial; in many cases, petitions of this nature.” Reverend Father Robert P.
the State authorities deliberately deny that the Reyes, Petitioner, vs. Raul M. Gonzalez, Et. Al, G.R. No.
enforced disappearance ever occurred. 182161 December 3, 2009
 We cannot be very strict in our evidentiary rules and Writ Amparo. This Court has established, as applied to
cannot consider evidence the way we do in the usual the unique facts and developments of this case – we
criminal and civil cases; precisely, the proceedings believe and so hold that the government in general,
before us are administrative in nature where, as a rule, through the PNP and the PNP-CIDG, and in particular, the
technical rules of evidence are not strictly observed. Chiefs of these organizations together with Col. Kasim,
Thus, while we must follow the substantial evidence should be held fully accountable for the enforced
rule, we must observe flexibility in considering the disappearance of Tagitis. Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Jr. vs.
evidence we shall take into account. Mary Jean B. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498 December 3, 2009
 The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all
the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, and to Rule on the Writ of Amparo requires the conduct an
consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under exhaustive and meaningful investigation and exercise the
our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with extraordinary diligence. We conclude that the PNP and
the admissible evidence adduced. In other words, we the AFP have so far failed to conduct an exhaustive and
reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason – i.e., meaningful investigation into the disappearance of Jonas
to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand Burgos, and to exercise the extraordinary diligence (in
and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced the performance of their duties) that the Rule on the Writ
evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be of Amparo requires. Edita T. Burgos vs. Chief Of Staff of
admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test. the Armed Forces of the Philippines, et. al G.R. No.
 Under this definition, the elements that constitute 183713
enforced disappearance are essentially fourfold:
1. arrest, detention, abduction or any form of

deprivation of liberty; January 2010
2. carried out by agents of the State or persons or
groups of persons acting with the authorization, Receivership: Not an action.
support or acquiescence of the State;
3. followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention, But receivership is not an action. It is but an auxiliary
or a concealment of the fate of the disappeared remedy, a mere incident of the suit to help achieve its
person; and purpose. Consequently, it cannot be said that the grant
4. placement of the disappeared person outside the of receivership in one case will amount to res judicata on
protection of the law. the merits of the other cases. (Evelina G. Chavez and
Aida Chavez-Deles vs. Court Of Appeals and Atty. Fidela
Y. Vargas, G.R. No. 174356 January 20, 2010)
December 2009
Writ of Amparo. February 2010
7
such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from

Writ of Amparo. any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to
enable him to fully attend to the performance of his
Establishing the observance of extraordinary diligence by official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and
judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch
public official in the performance of duty. The failure to
and anything which impairs his usefulness in the
establish that the public official observed extraordinary discharge of the many great and important duties
diligence in the performance of duty does not result in imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs
the automatic grant of the privilege of the amparo writ. It the operation of the Government.
does not relieve the petitioner from establishing his or  Substantial evidence is more than a mere imputation of
her claim by substantial evidence. The omission or wrongdoing or violation that would warrant a finding of
inaction on the part of the public official provides, liability against the person charged; it is more than a
scintilla of evidence. It means such amount of relevant
however, some basis for the petitioner to move and for
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
the court to grant certain interim reliefs. Gen. Alexander adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally
B. Yano, et. al vs. Cleofas Sanchez and Marciana Medina, reasonable minds might opine otherwise.
G.R. No. 186640 February 11, 2010
Separate Opinion
Writ of preliminary injunction : NCIP has power to
issue.
CARPIO MORALES
 The ponencia’s ambivalence on the applicability of the
We have already ruled on the power of the NCIP to issue doctrine of command responsibility overlooks its general
a writ of preliminary injunction in City Government of acceptance in public international law, which warrants its
Baguio City v. Atty. Masweng (2009). The facts of that incorporation into Philippine
case are practically identical to those of this case save for law via the incorporationclause of the Constitution.
the fact that the land being claimed there is a portion of  Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the
the Busol Forest Reserve. The petitioners in that case Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of
sought the intervention of this Court after the CA upheld international law as part of the law of the land. Based on
the jurisdiction of the NCIP and affirmed the TROs issued the clarification provided by then Commissioner Adolfo
by the latter. In City Government of Baguio City, we Azcuna, now a retired member of this Court, during the
held: xxx the NCIP may issue temporary restraining deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, the
orders and writs of injunction without any prohibition import of this provision is that
against the issuance of the writ when the main action is the incorporated law would have the force of a statute.
for injunction. The power to issue temporary restraining  The most authoritative enumeration of the sources of
orders or writs of injunction allows parties to a dispute international law, Article 38 of the Statute of the
over which the NCIP has jurisdiction to seek relief against International Court of Justice (ICJ Statute), 2 does not
any action which may cause them grave or irreparable specifically include "generally accepted principles of
damage or injury. (City of Baguio and the Head of the international law." To be sure, it is not quite the same as
Demolition Team-Engr. Banez vs Atty. Brain Masweng, the "general principles of law" recognized under Article
GR 165003 February 2, 2010) 38(1) (c) of the ICJ Statute. Renowned publicist Ian
Brownlie suggested, however, that "general principles of
Temporary Restraining order or Injunction: Test for international law" may refer to rules of customary law, to
issuance. general principles of law as in Article 38(1) (c), or to
logical propositions resulting from judicial reasoning on
The test for issuing a TRO or an injunction is whether the the basis of existing international law and municipal
facts show a need for equity to intervene in order to analogies.
protect perceived rights in equity. (Sportswear  Indeed, judicial reasoning has been the bedrock of Phili
Manufacturing Corp. and Naresh K. Gidwani ppine jurisprudence on the determination of generallyacc
vs. Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc Et. Al, G.R. No. 184434 epted principles of international law and consequent appli
February 8, 2010) cation of the incorporation clause.
 That proceeding under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo
Writ of Amparo. does not determine criminal, civil or administrative
liability should not abate the applicability of the doctrine
 The Court subsequently made it abundantly clear of command responsibility. Taking Secretary of National
in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, a case likewise resolved Defense v. Manalo16 and Razon v. Tagitis in proper
under the umbrella of the 1987 Constitution, that indeed context, they do not preclude the application of the
the President enjoys immunity during her incumbency, doctrine of command responsibility to Amparo cases.
and why this must be so:  Neither does Republic Act No. 9851 emasculate the
Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his applicability of the command responsibility doctrine to
tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in Amparo cases. The short title of the law is the "Philippine
any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide Act on Crimes against International Humanitarian Law,
for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity Genocide, and Other Crimes against
of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if Humanity." Obviously, it should, as it did, only treat of
he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as superior responsibility as a ground for criminal
8
responsibility for the crimes covered. Such limited protection of constitutional rights through procedural
treatment, however, is merely in keeping with the remedies. Lourdes D. Rubrico, et. al vs. Gloria
statute’s purpose and not intended to rule out the Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 183871 February 18, 2010
application of the doctrine of command responsibility to
other appropriate cases.
March 2010
BRION
 With RA 9851, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is now a
procedural law anchored, not only on the constitutional Injunction: Merely a provisional remedy. Injunction is not
rights to the rights to life, liberty and security, but on a a cause of action in itself, but merely a provisional
concrete statutory definition as well of what an "enforced remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. (Joseph Bernardez, v.
or involuntary disappearance" is. Commission on Elections and Avelino Tolean, G.R. No.
 Two aspects relevant to the present case have been 190382 March 9, 2010)
touched upon by this law, namely, the definition of
enforced or involuntary disappearance, and liability under
the doctrine of command responsibility. Under Section September 2010
3(g) of the law, "enforced or involuntary disappearance"
is now defined as follows:
 (g) "Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons" Injunction against a national government project.
means the arrest, detention, or abduction of persons by,
or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a 1) No court, aside from the Supreme Court, may enjoin a
State or a political organization followed by a refusal to "national government project" unless the matter is one of
acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue such
information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons that unless the act complained of is enjoined, grave
with the intention of removing from the protection of the injustice or irreparable injury would arise.
law for a prolonged period of time. 2) Section 2(a) of Republic Act No. 8975 provides:
 The doctrine of command responsibility is a substantive Section 2. Definition of Terms. – (a) "National
rule that establishes criminal or administrative liability government projects" shall refer to all current and future
that is different from the purpose and approach of the national government infrastructure, engineering works
Amparo Rule. As we have painstakingly explained and service contracts, including projects undertaken by
in Secretary of Defense v. Manalo4 and Razon v. government-owned and -controlled corporations, all
Tagitis,5 the Amparo Rule merely provides for a projects covered by Republic Act No. 6975, as amended
procedural protective remedy against violations or by Republic Act No. 7718, otherwise known as the Build-
threats of violations of the constitutional rights to life, Operate-and-Transfer Law, and other related and
liberty and security. It does not address criminal, civil or necessary activities, such as site acquisition, supply
administrative liability as these are matters determined and/or installation of equipment and materials,
from the application of substantive law. implementation, construction, completion, operation,
 As heretofore mentioned, a new law – RA 9851 – has maintenance, improvement, repair and rehabilitation,
recently been passed relating to enforced disappearance regardless of the source of funding.
and command responsibility. Section 10 of this law
explicitly makes superiors criminally liable under the 3) In the BOT Law as amended by Republic Act No. 7718,
doctrine of command responsibility, as follows:6 the national infrastructure and development projects
 Section 10. Responsibility of Superiors. – In addition to covered by said law are enumerated in Section 2(a) as
other grounds of criminal responsibility for crimes defined follows:
and penalized under this Act, a superior shall be SEC. 2. Definition of Terms. - The following terms used in
criminally responsible as a principal for such crimes this Act shall have the meanings stated below:
committed by subordinates under his/her effective (a) Private sector infrastructure or development
command and control, or effective authority and control projects - The general description of infrastructure or
as the case may be, as a result of his/her failure to development projects normally financed and operated by
properly exercise control over such subordinates, where: the public sector but which will now be wholly or partly
o That superior either knew or, owing to the implemented by the private sector, including but not
circumstances at the time, should have known that the limited to, power plants, highways, ports, airports,
subordinates were committing or about to commit such canals, dams, hydropower projects, water supply,
crimes; irrigation, telecommunications, railroads and railways,
o That superior, failed to take all necessary and transport systems, land reclamation projects, industrial
reasonable measures within his/her power to prevent or estates of townships, housing, government buildings,
repress their commissio0n or to submit the matter to the tourism projects, markets, slaughterhouses, warehouses,
competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. solid waste management, information technology
Thus, liability under the doctrine of command networks and database infrastructure, education and
responsibility is no longer simply administrative (based health facilities, sewerage, drainage, dredging, and other
on neglect of duty), 7 but is now criminal. This new infrastructure and development projects as may be
development all the more stresses that the doctrine of authorized by the appropriate agency pursuant to this
command responsibility has limited application to the Act. Such projects shall be undertaken through
Rule on the Writ of Amparo whose concern is the contractual arrangements as defined hereunder and such
9
other variations as may be approved by the President of 1. Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data
the Philippines. provides:
4) Republic Act No. 9184, also known as the Government Section 1. Habeas Data. – The writ of habeas data is a
Procurement Reform Act, defines infrastructure projects remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in
in Section 5(k) thereof in this manner: life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an
(k) Infrastructure Projects - include the construction, unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee
improvement, rehabilitation, demolition, repair, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
restoration or maintenance of roads and bridges, gathering, collecting or storing of data or information
railways, airports, seaports, communication facilities, civil regarding the person, family, home and correspondence
works components of information technology projects, of the aggrieved party.
irrigation, flood control and drainage, water supply,
sanitation, sewerage and solid waste management 2. The habeas data rule, in general, is designed to
systems, shore protection, energy/power and protect by means of judicial complaint the image,
electrification facilities, national buildings, school privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information
buildings, hospital buildings and other related of an individual. It is meant to provide a forum to enforce
construction projects of the government. (Department of one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy, thus
Foreign Affairs and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, v. safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a person’s
Hon. Franco T. Falcon and BCA International Corporation, right to life, liberty and security against abuse in this age
G.R. No. 176657 September 1, 2010) of information technology.

3. It bears reiteration that like the writ of amparo,
Writ of Amparo. The doctrine of command responsibility habeas data was conceived as a response, given the lack
is a rule of substantive law that establishes liability and, of effective and available remedies, to address the
by this account, cannot be a proper legal basis to implead extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced
a party-respondent in an amparo petition. The writ of disappearances. Its intent is to address violations of or
amparo is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial threats to the rights to life, liberty or security as a
relief consisting of the appropriate remedial measures remedy independently from those provided under
and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order prevailing Rules.
to address specific violations or threats of violation of the
constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. While the 4. The writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to
principal objective of its proceedings is the initial protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when
determination of whether an enforced disappearance, the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor
extralegal killing or threats thereof had transpired—the are vague or doubtful. Employment constitutes a
writ does not, by so doing, fix liability for such property right under the context of the due process
disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be clause of the Constitution. It is evident that respondent’s
criminal, civil or administrative under the applicable reservations on the real reasons for her transfer - a
substantive law. The inapplicability of the doctrine of legitimate concern respecting the terms and conditions of
command responsibility in an amparo proceeding does one’s employment - are what prompted her to adopt the
not, by any measure, preclude impleading military or extraordinary remedy of habeas data. Jurisdiction over
police commanders on the ground that the complained such concerns is inarguably lodged by law with the NLRC
acts in the petition were committed with their direct or and the Labor Arbiters.
indirect acquiescence. In which case, commanders may
be impleaded—not actually on the basis of command 5. In another vein, there is no showing from the facts
responsibility—but rather on the ground of their presented that petitioners committed any unjustifiable or
responsibility, or at least accountability. The writ of unlawful violation of respondent’s right to privacy vis-a-
habeas data was conceptualized as a judicial remedy vis the right to life, liberty or security. To argue that
enforcing the right to privacy, most especially the right to petitioners’ refusal to disclose the contents of reports
informational privacy of individuals. The writ operates to allegedly received on the threats to respondent’s safety
protect a person’s right to control information regarding amounts to a violation of her right to privacy is at best
himself, particularly in the instances where such speculative. (Manila Electric Company, et. al v. Rosario
information is being collected through unlawful means in Gopez Lim G.R. No. 184769, October 5, 2010)
order to achieve unlawful ends. In the Matter of the
Petition for the Writ of Amparo and the Writ Of Habeas
Data In Favor Of Melissa C. Roxas, Melissa C. Roxas Vs. January 2011
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Et. Al, G.R. No. 189155
September 7, 2010 Writ of Preliminary Injunction: Issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction rests upon the sound discretion of
the trial court. Respondent Spouses dela Cruz actually
October 2010 took possession of the property before the real estate
mortgage covering it was foreclosed, and had in fact
Writ of Habeas Data. The Supreme Court held that cancelled the TD in Spouses Perez' name and had one
the writ of habeas data does not apply to labor cases. Its issued in their name. It appears, however, that
salient pronouncements are quoted below: petitioners did not inform Branch 16, RTC of the previous
sale of the property to third parties, herein respondent
10
Spouses dela Cruz, and the latter's actual possession Dela Rosa vs. Heirs of Juan Valdez et. al, G.R. No.
thereof. The rule is well-entrenched that the issuance of 159101: July 27, 2011)
the writ of preliminary injunction rests upon the sound
discretion of the trial court. It bears reiterating that
Section 4 of Rule 58 gives generous latitude to the trial
courts in this regard for the reason that conflicting claims
in an application for a provisional writ more often than
not involve a factual determination which is not the
function of appellate courts. Hence, the exercise of sound
judicial discretion by the trial court in injunctive matters
must not be interfered with except when there is
manifest abuse, which is wanting in the present case.
(Spouses Isagani and Diosdada Castro, Petitioners, v.
Spouses Regino Se et. al, G.R. No. 190122: January 10,
2011)
Writ of Preliminary Injunction: Issuance rests also on

prevention of multiplicity of suits. The jurisdictional
foundation for the issuance of a writ of injunction rests
not only in the existence of a cause of action and in the
probability of irreparable injury, among other
considerations, but also in the prevention of multiplicity
of suits. (Spouses Isagani and Diosdada Castro v.
Spouses Regino Se et. al, G.R. No. 190122: January 10,
2011)
July 2011
Mandatory preliminary Injunction. *Judge:

Mandatory injunction must be strictly construed
than that of a prohibitory injunction. A preliminary
mandatory injunction is more cautiously regarded than a
mere prohibitive injunction since, more than its function
of preserving the status quo between the parties, it also
commands the performance of an act. Accordingly, the
issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is
justified only in a clear case, free from doubt or dispute.
When the complainant's right is doubtful or disputed, he
does not have a clear legal right and, therefore, the
issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is
improper. While it is not required that the right claimed
by applicant, as basis for seeking injunctive relief, be
conclusively established, it is still necessary to show, at
least tentatively, that the right exists and is not vitiated
by any substantial challenge or contradiction. (Sps.
Gonzalo T. Dela Rosa & Cristeta Dela Rosa vs. Heirs of
Juan Valdez et. al, G.R. No. 159101: July 27, 2011)
Mandatory preliminary Injunction: Not appropriate

in parcel of land dispute. Again it must be stressed
that as a general rule a parcel of land in dispute cannot
be taken from one party and given to another by an
injunctive writ.
Mandatory preliminary Injunction: Based solely on

initial and incomplete evidence adduced. Indeed, a
writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on
initial and incomplete evidence adduced by the applicant
(herein petitioner). The evidence submitted during the
hearing of the incident is not conclusive, for only a
"sampling" is needed to give the trial court an idea of the
justification for its issuance pending the decision of the
case on the merits. (Sps. Gonzalo T. Dela Rosa & Cristeta
11
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES integrity of the WOPL, the results thereof and other
related proposals it has committed to undertake to the
Case Digests UP Institute of: Civil Engineering within five (5) days
from notice. The UP Institute of Civil Engineering is
granted one (1) week from receipt of the requested
May 2011 documents from FPIC within which to file its report.
West Tower Condominium Corporation, on behalf of

the Residents of West Tower Condo and in June 2011
representation of Barangay Bangkal, and others,
including Minors and Generations Yet Unborn v. Eliza M. Hernandez, et al. v. Placer Dome, Inc.
First Philippine Industrial Corporation, First Gen. (G.R. No. 195482, June 21, 2011)
Corporation and Their Respective Board of
Directors and Officers, John Does and Richard Roes Facts:
(G.R. No. 194239, May 31, 2011)
In the Resolution dated 8 March 2011, the Court granted
Facts: petitioners' prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan
and for the service of said writ as well as the summons
Petitioners filed their Petition for Issuance of a Writ of issued in the case, by their counsel and representative,
Kalikasan. On November 19, 2010, Chief Justice Renato Civic Action Group Ltd./APS International, Ltd. In the
C. Corona issued a Writ of Kalikasanwith a Temporary same resolution, the Court likewise ordered respondents
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO), requiring the Placer Dome, Inc. (PDI) and Barrick Gold Corporation
First Philippine Industrial Corporation (FPIC) and First (BGC) to make a verified return of the same writ and
Gen Corporation (FGC) to make a Verified Return within a referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for
non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt hearing, reception of evidence and rendition of judgment.
thereof pursuant to Section 8, Rule 7 of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases. The TEPO enjoined On 17 May 2011, BGC filed a Clarificatory Manifestation;
FPIC and FGC to: (a) cease and desist from operating the dated 16 May 2011, alleging that it received the
pipeline until further orders;(b) check the structural Resolution dated 4 May 2011 issued by the CA's First
integrity of The whole span of the 117-kilometer Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 00001, the decretal portion of
pipelinewhile implementing sufficient measures to which states: "ACTING on the pending incidents, We
prevent and avert any untoward incidents that may result hereby resolve as follows: In order to attain a judicious
from any leak of the pipeline; and (c) make a Report determination of the Urgent Motion for Ruling on
thereon within 60 days from receipt thereof. Jurisdiction, the petitioners are DIRECTED to submit their
COMMENT within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.
Through a letter dated May 9, 2011, Department of
Energy (DOE) Undersecretary Atty. Jose M. Layug, Jr. BGC calls the attention of the Court to the fact, among
seeks clarification and confirmation on the coverage of other matters, that the foregoing resolution is in conflict
the Writ of Kalikasan and the accompanying TEPO, i.e., with their resolution dated 12 April 2011 which required
whether they cover both the WOPL and the BOPL. petitioners to file their comment to its Urgent Motion for
Ruling on Jurisdiction ; and, that consequently, there is a
Issue: need to clarify which court exercises jurisdiction over the
case in order to shed light to the procedural paths
Whether or not only the WOPL System is covered by the available to the parties.
Writ of Kalikasan and the TEPO.
Ruling:
Ruling:
Pursuant to Section 3, Rule VII of the Rules of Procedure
It is apparent from the Petition for Issuance of a Writ of for Environmental Cases, petitions for the Writ of
Kalikasan; that what petitioners sought to stop operating Kalikasan"shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with
is the WOPL, where the leak was found, affecting the any of the stations of the Court of Appeals." It was in
vicinity of West Tower Condominium. Only the WOPL is consonance with this provision that, on 8 March 2011,
covered by the Writ of Kalikasan and the TEPO. the Court issued the Resolution which, after granting the
Writ of Kalikasan sought by petitioners, referred the case
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby clarifies and confirms that to the CA for hearing, reception of evidence and rendition
what is covered by the November 19, 2010 Writ of of judgment. Considering said referral of the case to the
Kalikasan and TEPO is only the WOPL System of CA, its re-docketing of the petition as CA-G.R. SP No.
respondent FPIC. Consequently, the FPIC can resume 00001 and its conduct of proceedings relative thereto, it
operation of its BOPL System; is imperative that the various motions and incidents filed
by the parties, together with the entire records of the
WHEREFORE,finding the request of the UP Institute of case, be likewise referred to said Court in observance of
Civil Engineering to be meritorious, FPIC is hereby the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and in the interest of
ordered to submit documents regarding testing protocols the orderly and expeditious conduct of the proceedings in
it has undertaken to check for leaks and the structural the case.
12
University of Cebu
College of Law
REMEDIAL LAW
JURISPRUDENCE
2012
by:

Euvic Ferrer


CRIMINAL PROCEDURE People of the Philippines vs. Ricky Alfredo y Norman,

G.R. No. 188560, December 15, 2010.
Principles
Mandamus; filing of information.
The Rules provided that mandamus will lie if (1) any

December 2010
tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins
as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; or
Information, motion to quash.
unlawfull excludes another from the use and enjoyment
of a right or office to which such other is entitled; and (2)
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court committed
there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
grave abuse of discretion when it quashed the
ordinary course of law other than the remedy of
Information on the ground that the elements of Bigamy
mandamus being invoked. In the present case,
were rendered incomplete after respondent presented
petitioners insist that mandamus is proper since Villordon
documents to prove a fact, which the trial court believed
committed grave abuse of discretion by unreasonably
would negate the allegation in the Information that there
refusing to file an information despite the fact that the
was a first valid marriage, i.e., the respondent presented
evidence indicates otherwise. The Supreme Court
proof that he later obtained a judicial declaration of
disagreed with petitioners. The matter of deciding who to
nullity of the first union following the celebration of a
subsequent marriage. According to the Court, the motion prosecute is a prerogative of the prosecutor. In Hipos v.
Judge Bay, the Supreme Court held that the remedy of
to quash filed by respondent was a hypothetical
mandamus, as an extraordinary writ, lies only to compel
admission of the facts alleged in the Information for
an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a
which reason, thus the trial court cannot consider
discretionary one. Mandamus will not issue to control the
allegations contrary to those appearing on the face of the
exercise of discretion by a public officer where the law
information. The documents showing that: (1) the court
imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in
has decreed that the marriage of petitioner and
reference to any manner in which he is required to act,
respondent is null and void from the beginning; and (2)
because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not
such judgment has already become final and executory
that of the court. The only time the discretion of the
and duly registered with the Municipal Civil Registrar of
prosecutor will stand review by mandamus is when the
Naval, Biliran are pieces of evidence that seek to
prosecutor gravely abuses his discretion. Ernesto
establish a fact contrary to that alleged in the
Marcelo, Jr. and Lauro Llames vs. Rafael R. Villordon,
Information that a first valid marriage was subsisting at
Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon City, G.R. No.
the time the respondent contracted a subsequent
173081, December 15, 2010.
marriage. These should not have been considered at all
because matters of defense cannot be raised in a motion
to quash. Myrna P. Antone vs. Leo Beronillar, G.R. No.
January 2011
183824, December 8, 2010.
Arraignment; suspension. The grounds for suspension
Judgment; when rendered by judge other than the
of arraignment under section 11, Rule 116 of the Rules of
original trial court judge.
Court are the following: (a) the accused appears to be
suffering from an unsound mental condition which
Accused contends further that the judge who penned the
effectively renders him unable to fully understand the
appealed decision is different from the judge who heard
charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In
the testimonies of the witnesses and was, thus, in no
such case, the court shall order his mental examination
position to render a judgment, as he did not observe
and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose; (b)
firsthand their demeanor during trial. The Supreme Court
there exists a prejudicial question; and (b) a petition for
did not agree ruling that the fact that the trial judge who
review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at
rendered judgment was not the one who had the
either the Department of Justice or the Office of the
occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses
President; Provided, that the period of suspension shall
during trial, but merely relied on the records of the case,
not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the
does not render the judgment erroneous, especially
petition with the reviewing office. Spouses Trinidad, et al
where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its
vs. Victor Ang, G.R. No. 192898, January 31, 2011.
conclusion. The circumstance that the Judge who
rendered the judgment was not the one who heard the
witnesses, does not detract from the validity of the Arraignment; suspension.While the pendency of a
verdict of conviction. Even a cursory perusal of the petition for review is a ground for suspension of the
Decision would show that it was based on the evidence arraignment, the same rule limits the deferment of the
presented during trial and that it was carefully studied, arraignment to a period of 60 days reckoned from the
with testimonies on direct and cross examination as well filing of the petition with the reviewing office. It follows
as questions from the Court carefully passed upon. therefore that after the expiration of said period, the trial
Further, the transcripts of stenographic notes taken court is bound to arraign the accused or to deny the
during the trial were extant and complete. Hence, there motion to defer arraignment. Spouses Trinidad, et al vs.
was no impediment for the judge to decide the case. Victor Ang, G.R. No. 192898, January 31, 2011.
14
Custodial Investigation.
Arrest; warrantless arrest. Custodial investigation refers to “any questioning initiated
by law enforcement officers after a person has been
An arrest made during the commission of a crime does taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom
not require a warrant. Such warrantless arrest is
of action in any significant way.” This presupposes that
considered reasonable and valid under Rule 113, section he is suspected of having committed a crime and that the
5(a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. In the
investigator is trying to elicit information or a confession
instant case, contrary to accused-appellants’ contention, from him. The rule begins to operate at once, as soon as
there was indeed a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante
the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an
delicto. Consider the circumstances immediately prior to unsolved crime, and direction is aimed upon a particular
and surrounding the arrest of accused-appellants: (1)
suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom
the police officers received information from an operative the police would then direct interrogatory questions
about an ongoing shipment of contraband; (2) the police
which tend to elicit incriminating statements. The
officers, with the operative, proceeded to Villa Vicenta assailed statements herein were spontaneously made by
Resort in Barangay Bignay II, Sariaya, Quezon; (3) they
petitioner and were not at all elicited through
observed the goings-on at the resort from a distance of questioning. It was established that petitioner, together
around 50 meters; and (4) they spotted the six accused-
with his cousin Fiscal Jayona, personally went to the
appellants loading transparent bags containing a white police station and voluntarily made the statement that
substance into a white L-300 van. Evidently, the
Leticia jumped out of his vehicle at around 12:30 a.m. of
arresting police officers had probable cause to suspect September 9, 1992. Thus, the Regional Trial Court and
that accused-appellants were loading and transporting
the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that the
contraband, more so when Hwan, upon being accosted, constitutional procedure for custodial investigation is not
readily mentioned that they were loading shabu and
applicable in the instant case. Benjamin Jesalva vs.
pointed to Tan as their leader. Thus, the arrest of People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187725, January 19,
accused-appellants – who were caught in flagrante
2011.
delicto of possessing, and in the act of loading into a
white L-300 van, shabu, a prohibited drug under RA
6425, as amended – is valid. People of the Philippines vs. Information; test for sufficiency. The fundamental
Ng Yik bun, et al, G.R. No. 180452. January 10, 2010. test in determining the adequacy of the averments in an
information is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically
Arrest; warrantless arrest. admitted, would establish the essential elements of the
crime. Matters extrinsic or evidence aliunde should not be
The appellant questioned the validity of his arrest and the considered. The following are the essential elements for
search conducted inside his car in the absence of a an offense punishable under Section 3(e) of RA 3019: (a)
warrant. The Supreme Court ruled that the arrest was that the accused are public officers or private persons
valid pursuant to section 5, paragraph (b) of Rule 113 of charged in conspiracy with them; (b) that said public
the Rules of Court, which provides that a “peace officer officers committed the prohibited acts during the
or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a performance of their official duties or in relation to their
person: . . . (b) when an offense has in fact been public positions; (c) that they caused undue injury to any
committed and he has personal knowledge of facts party, whether the Government or a private party; (c)
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed that such injury was caused by giving unwarranted
it.” Item (b), which is the second instance provided under benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and
the foregoing rule when a lawful warrantless arrest can (d) that the public officers acted with manifest partiality,
be made, necessitates two stringent requirements before evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. People
a warrantless arrest can be effected: (1) an offense has of the Philippines vs. Robert P. Balao, et al, G.R. No.
just been committed; and (2) the person making the 176819, January 26, 2011.
arrest has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it. The records of Information; test for sufficiency. Clearly, the
the case here show that both requirements are present. allegations in the 5 March 2001 information, if
The police officers present at the Magallanes Commercial hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential
Center were able to witness the pay-off which effectively elements of the crime. The information stated that (1)
consummates the crime of kidnapping. They all saw Balao, Lazarte, Jr., Angsico, and Dacalos were the
appellant take the money from the car trunk of Jepson. general manager, team head of the Visayas Management
Such knowledge was then relayed to the other police Office, and Visayas division manager, respectively, of the
officers stationed in Fort Bonifacio where appellant was National Housing Authority; (2) they committed the
expected to pass by. It is sufficient for the arresting team prohibited acts “in or about the month of March, 1992,”
that they were monitoring the pay-off for a number of “while in the performance of their official functions;” (3)
hours long enough for them to be informed that it was they caused undue injury to the Government in the
indeed appellant, who was the kidnapper. This is amount of P232,628.35, “supposedly for the excavation
equivalent to personal knowledge based on probable and roadfilling works on the Pahanocoy Sites and
cause. People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Uyboco y Services Project in Bacolod City despite the fact that no
Ramos, G.R. No. 178039, January 19, 2011. such works were undertaken”; (4) they gave
“unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to
15
accused Arceo C. Cruz and A.C. Construction and Ombudsman/Antonio M. Carandang vs. Sandiganbayan,
themselves;” and (5) they acted “with deliberate intent, G.R. No. 148076/G.R. No. 153161, January 12, 2011.
with manifest partiality and evident bad faith.” People of
the Philippines vs. Robert P. Balao, et al, G.R. No. Sandiganbayan; jurisdiction. The respective jurisdictions
176819, January 26, 2011.
of the respondents as expressly defined and delineated
by the law are lacking in this case. A corporation is
Judgment; absence of accused at promulgation . considered a government-owned or -controlled
corporation only when the Government directly or
The accused who failed to appear at the promulgation of indirectly owns or controls at least a majority or 51%
the judgment of conviction shall lose the remedies share of the capital stock. Although it is true that the
available under the Rules of Court against the judgment Sandiganbayan (Second Division) ordered the transfer to
— (a) the filing of a motion for new trial or the PCGG of Benedicto’s shares that represented 72.4%
reconsideration (Rule 121), and (b) an appeal from the of the total issued and outstanding capital stock of RPN,
judgment of conviction (Rule 122). However, the Rules such quantification of Benedicto’s shareholding cannot be
allow the accused to regain his standing in court in order controlling in view of Benedicto’s timely filing of a motion
to avail of these remedies by: (a) his surrender, and (b) for reconsideration whereby he clarified and insisted that
his filing of a motion for leave of court to avail of these the shares ceded to the PCGG had accounted for only
remedies, stating therein the reasons for his absence, 32.4%, not 72.4%, of RPN’s outstanding capital stock.
within 15 days from the date of promulgation of With the extent of Benedicto’s holdings in RPN remaining
judgment. If the trial court finds that his absence was unresolved with finality, concluding that the Government
for a justifiable cause, the accused shall be allowed to held the majority of RPN’s capital stock as to make RPN a
avail of the said remedies within 15 days from notice or government-owned or -controlled corporation would be
order finding his absence justified and allowing him the bereft of any factual and legal basis. Antonio M.
available remedies against the judgment of conviction. Carandang vs. Hon. Desierto, Office of the
Edward Garrick Villena and Percival Doroja vs. People of Ombudsman/Antonio M. Carandang vs. Sandiganbayan,
the Philippines, Nomar B. Degeron, et al, G.R. No. G.R. No. 148076/G.R. No. 153161, January 12, 2011.
184091, January 31, 2011.
Warrantless searches and seizures; when allowed.
Judgment; absence of accused at promulgation.
Settled is the rule that no arrest, search or seizure can
Petitioners’ mere filing of notices of appeal through their be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent
new counsel, therein only explaining their absence during judicial authority. The Constitution guarantees the right
the promulgation of judgment, cannot be considered an of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
act of surrender despite the fact that said notices were papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
filed within 15 days from September 28, 2007, the seizures. It further decrees that any evidence obtained in
purported date when their new counsel personally violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any
secured a copy of the judgment of conviction from the purpose in any proceeding. Nevertheless, the
Regional Trial Court. The term “surrender” under Section constitutional proscription against warrantless searches
6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court contemplates an act and seizures admits of certain legal and judicial
whereby a convicted accused physically and voluntarily exceptions, as follows: (1) warrantless search incidental
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court to suffer to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126
the consequences of the verdict against him. The filing of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; (2)
of notices of appeal cannot suffice as a physical and seizure of evidence in plain view; (3) search of a moving
voluntary submission of petitioners to the Regional Trial vehicle; (4) consented warrantless search; (5) customs
Court’s jurisdiction. It is only upon petitioners’ valid search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and
surrender, and only after proper motion, that they can emergency circumstances. People of the Philippines vs.
avail of the remedy of appeal. Absent compliance with Nelida Dequina, Joselito Jundoc and Nora Jingabo, G.R.
these requirements, their notices of appeal, the initiatory No. 177570, January 19, 2011.
step to appeal from their conviction, were properly
denied due course. Edward Garrick Villena and Percival Warrantless searches and seizures; when allowed.
Doroja vs. People of the Philippines, Nomar B. Degeron,
et al, G.R. No. 184091, January 31, 2011. “Transport” as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is
defined to mean “to carry or convey from one place to
Sandiganbayan; jurisdiction. another.” The evidence in this case shows that at the
time of their arrest, accused-appellants were caught in
The Ombudsman has jurisdiction over administrative flagrante carrying/transporting dried marijuana leaves in
cases involving grave misconduct committed by the their traveling bags. PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco
officials and employees of government-owned or need not even open Dequina’s traveling bag to determine
-controlled corporations. The Sandiganbayan has its content because when the latter noticed the police
jurisdiction to try and decide criminal actions involving officers’ presence, she walked briskly away and in her
violations of R.A. 3019 committed by public officials and hurry, accidentally dropped her traveling bag, causing
employees, including presidents, directors and managers the zipper to open and exposed the dried marijuana
of government-owned or -controlled corporations. bricks therein. Since a crime was then actually being
Antonio M. Carandang vs. Hon. Desierto, Office of the committed by the accused-appellants, their warrantless
16
arrest was legally justified, and the following warrantless (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there
search of their traveling bags was allowable as incidental is a probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty
to their lawful arrest. People of the Philippines vs. Nelida thereof. It is a means of discovering which person or
Dequina, Joselito Jundoc and Nora Jingabo, G.R. No. persons may be reasonably charged with a crime. It is
177570, January 19, 2011. well-settled that the determination of probable cause for
the purpose of filing an information in court is an
executive function which pertains at the first instance to
the public prosecutor and then to the Secretary of
May 2011
Justice. The Secretary of Justice may reverse or modify
the resolution of the prosecutor, after which he shall
Appeal; criminal cases.
direct the prosecutor concerned either to file the
corresponding information without conducting another
It is the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case
preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for
that the appeal throws the whole case open for review
dismissal of the complaint or information with notice to
and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite,
the parties. George Miller v. Secretary Hernando B.
and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether
Perez, et al, G.R. No. 165412, May 30, 2011.
they are assigned or unassigned. Michael San Juan y
Cruz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 177191, May
30, 2011. Jurisdiction; Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with

Appeal; relaxation of prohibition against new
similarly authorized agencies. In this case, the Supreme
issues.
Court debunked petitioners’ argument that because they
are not presidential appointees, it is only the
Elementary principles of due process forbid the pernicious
Ombudsman which has jurisdiction over them. The
procedural strategy of adopting new theories for the first
Supreme Court ruled that the power of the Ombudsman
time before the Supreme Court – it not only catches off-
to investigate offenses involving public officials is not
guard the opposing party, it also denies judges the
exclusive, but is concurrent with other similarly
analytical benefit uniform theorizing affords. Thus, courts
authorized agencies of the government in relation to the
generally refuse to pass upon freshly raised theories.
offense charged. Therefore, with respect to petitioners,
This rule would have been applied in this case were it not
the Ombudsman may share its authority to conduct an
for the fact that petitioner’s liberty is at stake and the
investigation concerning administrative charges against
Office of the Solicitor General partially views his cause
them with other agencies. Theron V. Lacson v. The Hon.
with favor. Santiago Paera v. People of the
Executive Secretary, et al/Jaime R. Millan and Bernardo
Philippines, G.R. No. 181626, May 30, 2011.
T. Viray v. The Hon. Executive Secretary, et al, G.R. No.
165399 & 165475/G.R. No. 165404 & 165489, May 30,
Criminal procedure; aggravating circumstances. 2011.
The Regional Trial Court erred in appreciating the

Jurisdiction; Sandiganbayan.
aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and treachery
which were not specifically alleged in the information.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that since
Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules
respondent stands charged for violating Section 3(e) of
on Criminal Procedure provides that aggravating
R.A. No. 3019 in his capacity as president of ExpoCorp —
circumstances must be alleged in the information,
a private corporation and not a government-owned or
otherwise, they cannot be considered against the accused
controlled corporation –he (respondent) is beyond the
even if they are proven during the trial. People of the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. People of the
Philippines v. Ricky Ladiana y Davao and Antonio Manuel
Philippines v. Luis J. Morales, G.R. No. 166355, May 30,
Uy, G.R. No. 174660, May 30, 2011.
2011.
Probable cause; definition.

Jurisdiction; Sandiganbayan.
Probable cause is defined as the existence of such facts
Section 5, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution defines
and circumstances as would excite the belief in a
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The
reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the
Sandiganbayan “shall have jurisdiction over criminal and
knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged
civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such
was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.
other offenses committed by public officers and
George Miller v. Secretary Hernando B. Perez, et al, G.R.
employees, including those in government-owned or
No. 165412, May 30, 2011.
controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may
be determined by law. R.A. 8249 (which amended P.D.
Probable cause; determination. 1606), delineated the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
which reads in part – “The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
To determine the existence of probable cause, there is exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
need to conduct preliminary investigation. A preliminary
investigation constitutes a realistic judicial appraisal of (a) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
the merits of a case. Its purpose is to determine whether otherwise known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices
17
Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, et al v. Atty. Antonio F. Montemayor, G.R. No. 170146,
Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one June 8, 2011.
or more of the accused are officials occupying the
following positions in the government whether in a Appeal; respect for trial court’s findings of fact.
permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the
commission of the offense: (1) Officials of the executive Since the prosecution and the defensein this case
branch occupying the positions of regional director and presented very different facts of the case, it was
higher, otherwise classified as Grade ’27′ and higher, of obligatory upon the Regional Trial Court (“RTC”) to
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 determine which of these facts should be given great
(Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including: weight and credence. The RTC gave credence to the
(i)Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, which the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, Court of Appeals (“CA”) found to be without grave abuse
assessors, engineers and other provincial department of discretion. The CA likewise did not make any finding
heads;(ii) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the that the RTC overlooked or misinterpreted a material
Sangguniang Panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, fact. In fact, the CA affirmed the factual determination
engineers and other city department heads;(iii)Officials of made by the RTC. As explained and discussed in a
the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul multitude of cases, the trial court judge is in the best
and higher;(iv)Philippine army and air force colonels, position to make this determination as the judge was the
naval captains, and all officers of higher rank; (v)Officers one who personally heard the accused and the witnesses,
of the Philippine National Police while occupying the as well as observed their demeanor and the manner in
position of provincial director and those holding the rank which they testified during trial. Accordingly, the trial
of senior superintendent or higher; (vi) City and court’s finding of facts and its assessment of the
provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials credibility of the witnesses will not be disturbed or
and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and interfered with. People of the Philippines v. Darius
special prosecutor; (vii) Presidents, directors or Bautista y Orsino @ Dada, G.R. No. 191266, June 6,
trustees, or managers of government-owned or 2011.
-controlled corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations; (2) Members of Congress and Criminal procedure; motion to dismiss or withdraw
officials thereof classified as Grade ’27′ and up under the
Information.
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; (3)
Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
Well-entrenched is the rule that once a case is filed with
provisions of the Constitution; (4) Chairmen and the court, any disposition of it rests on the sound
members of Constitutional Commissions, without
discretion of the court. In thus resolving a motion to
prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and (5) All dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information, the trial
other national and local officials classified as Grade ’27′
court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of
and higher under the Compensation and Position the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice. It is the
Classification Act of 1989.
court’s bounden duty to assess independently the merits
of the motion, and this assessment must be embodied in
(b) Other offenses or felonies whether simple or a written order disposing of the motion. While the
complexed with other crimes committed by the public recommendation of the prosecutor or the ruling of the
officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not binding on
this section in relation to their office. courts. By relying solely on the manifestation of the
public prosecutor and the resolution of the DOJ
Secretary, the trial court abdicated its judicial power and
(c) Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
refused to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. The
connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A,
said Orders were thus stained with grave abuse of
issued in 1986. People of the Philippines v. Luis J.
discretion and violated the complainant’s right to due
Morales, G.R. No. 166355, May 30, 2011.
process. They were void, had no legal standing, and
produced no effect whatsoever. Joseph C. Cerezo v.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 185230, June 1, 2011.
June 2011
Administrative cases; res judicata. Criminal procedure; probable cause.
Dismissal of a criminal action does not foreclose Jurisprudence has established rules on the determination
institution of an administrative proceeding against the
of probable cause. In Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman
same respondent, nor carry with it the relief from (Mindanao), it was held that a finding of probable cause
administrative liability. Res judicata did not set in
needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely
because there is no identity of causes of action. than not a crime has been committed and there is
Moreover, the decision of the Ombudsman dismissing the
enough reason to believe that it was committed by the
criminal complaint cannot be considered a valid and final accused. It need not be based on clear and convincing
judgment. On the criminal complaint, the Ombudsman
evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing
only had the power to investigate and file the appropriate absolute certainty of guilt. A finding of probable cause
case before the Sandiganbayan. Hon. Waldo Q. Flores,
merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a
pronouncement of guilt.The term does not mean “actual
18
and positive cause” nor does it import absolute certainty. People of the Philippines vs. Bingky Campos, et al, G.R.
It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. No. 176061, July 4, 2011.
Moreover, probable cause does not require an inquiry
into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a Criminal procedure; mandatory institution of civil
conviction. In the case at bar, the Office of the and criminal actions in the Sandiganbayan.
Ombudsman found sufficient reason to believe that a
violation of R.A. 3019 has been committed and that the In their Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the Supreme
petitioners are probably guilty thereof. Marcelo G. Court, petitioners contend that the Regional Trial Court or
Ganaden, et al v. The Hon. Office of the Ombudsman, et any other court no has jurisdiction to try Civil Case No.
al, G.R. No. 169359-61, June 1, 2011. 00-00089 given that in cases cognizable by
Sandiganbayan, there is a mandatory simultaneous
institution and joint determination of the civil liability with
Double jeopardy; elements.
the criminal action and the express prohibition to file the
said civil action separately from the criminal action as
Double jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid
provided under Section 4 of R.A. 8249. In dismissing the
indictment, (2) before a competent court, (3) after
petition, the Supreme Court ruled that the subject civil
arraignment, (4) when a valid plea has been entered,
case (i.e., Civil Case No. 00-00089) does not fall within
and (5) when the defendant was convicted or acquitted,
the purview of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249. P/Chief
or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated
Inspector Fernando Billedo, et al vs. Wilhemina Wagan,
without the express consent of the accused. None of
these requisites applies where the Ombudsman only et al, G.R. No. 175091, July 13, 2011.
conducted a preliminary investigation of the same
criminal offense against the respondent public officer. Criminal procedure; mandatory institution of civil
The dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation and criminal actions in the Sandiganbayan.
does not constitute double jeopardy, preliminary
investigation not being part of the trial. Hon. Waldo Q. Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 contemplates only two (2)
Flores, et al v. Atty. Antonio F. Montemayor, G.R. No. situations and these were correctly pointed out by the
170146, June 8, 2011. public respondent as follows: First, a criminal action has
been instituted before the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate courts after the requisite preliminary
Prejudicial publicity; totality-of-circumstances test. investigation, and the corresponding civil liability must be
simultaneously instituted with it; and second, the civil
Respecting the possible influence of media coverage on case, filed ahead of the criminal case, is still pending
the impartiality of trial court judges, petitioners correctly when the criminal action was filed, in which case, the civil
explain that prejudicial publicity insofar as it undermines case should be transferred to the court trying the
the right to a fair trial must pass the “totality of criminal case for consolidation and joint determination.
circumstances” test, applied in People v. Teehankee, Jr. Evidently, Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 finds no application
and Estrada v. Desierto, that the right of an accused to a in this case since no criminal action has been filed before
fair trial is not incompatible to a free press, that the Sandiganbayan or any appropriate court. Thus, there
pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of is no appropriate court to which the subject civil case can
an accused to a fair trial, and that there must be be transferred or consolidated as mandated by the said
allegation and proof of the impaired capacity of a judge provision. P/Chief Inspector Fernando Billedo, et al vs.
to render a bias-free decision. Mere fear of possible Wilhemina Wagan, et al, G.R. No. 175091, July 13, 2011.
undue influence is not tantamount to actual prejudice
resulting in the deprivation of the right to a fair trial. Re:
Criminal procedure; mandatory institution of civil
Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple and criminal actions in the Sandiganbayan.
Murder Cases against Maguindanao Governor Zaldy
Ampatuan, et al, A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC/A.M. No. 10-11-6- It is also illogical to consider the civil case as abandoned
SC/A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC, June 14, 2011.
simply because the criminal cases against petitioners
were dismissed at the preliminary stage. A reading of the
latter part of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8294 suggests that
July 2011 the civil case will only be considered abandoned if there
is a pending criminal case and the civil case was not
Criminal cases; burden of proof. transferred to the court trying the criminal case for joint
determination. The criminal charges against petitioners
Well-settled is the rule in criminal cases that the might have been dismissed at the preliminary stage for
prosecution has the burden of proof to establish the guilt
lack of probable cause, but it does not mean that the civil
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, once case instituted prior to the filing of the criminal
the accused admits the commission of the offense
complaints is already baseless as the complainants can
charged but raises a justifying circumstance as a prove their cause of action in the civil case by mere
defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. He cannot
preponderance of evidence. P/Chief Inspector Fernando
rely on the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution Billedo, et al vs. Wilhemina Wagan, et al, G.R. No.
for even if it is weak, it cannot be doubted especially
175091, July 13, 2011.
after he himself has admitted the killing. This is because
a judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order.
Appeal of criminal case; extent of review.
19
Alibi; requisites.
An appeal in criminal case opens the entire case for
review on any question, including one not raised by the Physical impossibility is the distance and the facility of
parties. The Supreme Court cited the ruling in U.S. v. access between the situs criminis and the place where he
Abijan, 1 Phil 83 (1902), now embodied in Section 11, says he was when the crime was committed. Noting the
Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, which provides: “The distances between Bagong Silang, where Nelson was
Court of Appeals may reverse, affirm, or modify the killed, and the respective locations of Leonardo and
judgment and increase or reduce the penalty imposed by Cleofe at the time the crime was committed, given the
the trial court, remand the case to the Regional Trial relative proximity of the places, the availability of
Court for new trial or retrial, or dismiss the case.” The transportation, and the physical fitness of both accused
reason behind this rule is that when an accused appeals to travel, it was not impossible for them to have
from the sentence of the trial court, he waives the traversed to and from the scene of the crime and their
constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and alleged locations that fateful evening of January 10,
throws the whole case open to the review of the 2001. People of the Philippines v. Cleofe Baroquillo y
appellate court, which is then called upon to render such Villanueva, et al, G.R. No. 184960, August 24, 2011.
judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or
unfavorable to the appellant. People of the Philippines vs.
Alibi; requisites.
Felipe Mirandilla Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011.
The Supreme Court debunked accused-appellant’s
defense of alibi and rejected his argument that his alibi
August 2011 should be given credence because it was corroborated by
credible and disinterested witnesses. In People v. Estoya,
Absence of preliminary investigation waived. the Supreme Court laid down the jurisprudential
guidelines in assessing the proffered defense of alibi as
The absence of a proper preliminary investigation must follows: (a) alibis and denials are generally disfavored by
be timely raised and must not have been waived. This is the courts for being weak; (b) they cannot prevail over
to allow the trial court to hold the case in abeyance and the positive identification of the accused as the
conduct its own investigation or require the prosecutor to perpetrators of the crime; (c) for alibi to prosper, the
hold a reinvestigation, which, necessarily involves a re- accused must prove not only that they were somewhere
examination and re-evaluation of the evidence already else when the crime was committed, but also that it was
submitted by the complainant and the accused, as well as physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the
the initial finding of probable cause which led to the filing crime at the time of its commission; (d) alibi assumes
of the Informations after the requisite preliminary significance or strength only when it is amply
investigation.Here, it is conceded that Villarin raised the corroborated by credible and disinterested witnesses; (e)
issue of lack of a preliminary investigation in his Motion alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on the credibility of
for Reinvestigation. When the Ombudsman denied the witnesses, and the assessment made by the trial court –
motion, he never raised this issue again. It was only unless patently and clearly inconsistent – must be
after the trial court rendered judgment against him that accepted. Measured against the foregoing yardstick,
he once again assailed the conduct of the preliminary accused-appellant’s defenses of alibi and denial cannot
investigation in the Motion for Reconsideration. prosper. People of the Philippines v. Juanito Appattad,
Whatever argument Villarin may have regarding the G.R. No. 193188, August 10, 2011.
alleged absence of a preliminary investigation has
therefore been mooted. By entering his plea, and Alibi; requisites.
actively participating in the trial, he is deemed to have
waived his right to preliminary investigation. Crisostomo Alibis and denials are inherently weak defenses. This is
Villarin and Aniano Latayada v. People of the Philippines,
understandably so because said defenses can be easily
G.R. No. 175289, August 31, 2011. fabricated by an accused in order to escape criminal
liability. Likewise, it was stated in People v. Estoya that
Alibi; requisites. alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the
Alibi is indeed a good defense and could certainly crime. Notably, these defenses crumble in light of
exculpate a person accused of a crime. However, this is positive identification by truthful witnesses. An alibi is
true only if the accused’s alibi strictly meets the following evidence negative in nature and self-serving, and, thus,
requisites: (a) his presence at another place at the time cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of
of the commission of the crime; and (b) the physical prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive
impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime. evidence. In the present case, AAA positively identified
Here, neither Cleofe nor Leonardo was able to establish accused-appellant in her testimony as the very
by clear and convincing evidence that not only was he perpetrator of the crime of rape committed against her.
somewhere else when Nelson was killed, but also that it People of the Philippines v. Juanito Appattad, G.R. No.
was physically impossible for him to have been at the 193188, August 10, 2011.
scene of the crime. People of the Philippines v. Cleofe
Baroquillo y Villanueva, et al, G.R. No. 184960, August Defense of denial.
24, 2011.
20
Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing by Robert P. Guzman v. Randolph S. Ting, G.R. Nos.
evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence which has 192435-36, September 14, 2011.
far less evidentiary value than the testimony of credible
witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Appellant’s Conviction; only moral certainty required.
bare denial cannot be accorded credence for lack of
evidentiary support. Appellant’s failure to produce What is necessary for the prosecution to ensure
Galope as a witness to corroborate her story is fatal to
conviction in criminal cases is not absolute certainty but
her cause. People of the Philippines v. Virginia Baby P. only moral certainty that the accused is guilty of the
Montaner, G.R. No. 184053, August 31, 2011.
crime charged. Here, the prosecution has sufficiently
proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
Non-appearance at the pre-trial conference;
doubt. The victim’s testimony is worthy of belief, she
sanctions. having no ill motive to fabricate what she said against
her stepfather. More, contrary to the claims of the
Under Section 3, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of accused, there is nothing in the testimony of the victim
Criminal Procedure, if the counsel for the accused or the
that would elicit suspicion as to the veracity of her story.
prosecutor does not appear at the pre-trial conference For one thing, the fact that she did not shout for help or
and does not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of
resist the sexual advances of the accused does not
cooperation, the court may impose proper sanctions or disprove the fact that he raped her. People of the
penalties. Pursuant to the foregoing provision, the court
Philippines v. Alejo Taroy y Tarnate, G.R. No. 192466,
may sanction or penalize counsel for the accused if the September 7, 2011.
following concur: (1) counsel does not appear at the pre-
trial conference; and (2) counsel does not offer an
acceptable excuse. There is no cavil that petitioners Criminal cases; venue is jurisdictional.
failed to appear at the pre-trial conference in Davao City
on April 27, 2006. The crux of the matter in this case Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. It can neither
then is, did petitioners present an acceptable or valid be waived nor subjected to stipulation. The right venue
excuse for said non-appearance? Under the must exist as a matter of law. Thus, for territorial
circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioners jurisdiction to attach, the criminal action must be
failed to present an acceptable or valid excuse for their instituted and tried in the proper court of the
non-appearance during the pre-trial conference. The municipality, city, or province where the offense was
petitioners here were fined as a sanction of their non- committed or where any of its essential ingredients took
appearance during the pre-trial conference. Atty. Emelia place. The Informations filed with the RTC of La Trinidad
H. Garayblas and Atty. Renato G. Dela Cruz v. Hon. state that the crimes were committed in the victim and
Gregory Ong, et al, G.R. No. 174507-30, August 3, 2011. the offender’s house in City Limit, Tuding, Municipality of
Itogon, Province of Benguet. This allegation conferred
territorial jurisdiction over the subject offenses on the
September 2011 RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. People of the Philippines
vs.Alejo Taroy y Tarnate, G.R. No. 192466, September
Appeal; legal personality to appeal 7, 2011.
Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of case.
The crucial issue in this case concerns petitioner’s legal Motion to quash; procedure when motion to quash
personality to challenge before the Supreme Court the denied.
dismissal by the Sandiganbayan of the criminal cases
against respondent. Petitioner is not the proper party to In the usual course of procedure, a denial of a motion to
file the present action. Section 4 (c) of P.D. No. 1606, as quash filed by the accused results in the continuation of
amended, clearly provides that “in all cases elevated to the trial and the determination of the guilt or innocence
the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the of the accused. If a judgment of conviction is rendered
Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through and the lower court’s decision of conviction is appealed,
its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the the accused can then raise the denial of his motion to
Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive quash not only as an error committed by the trial court
Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.” A private but as an added ground to overturn the latter’s ruling. In
complainant in a criminal case before the Sandiganbayan this case, the petitioner did not proceed to trial but opted
is allowed to appeal only the civil aspect of the criminal to immediately question the denial of his motion to quash
case after its dismissal by said court. Petitioner is not via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
even the offended party or private complainant in the Rules of Court. As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash
main case. While petitioner’s name was included in the is an interlocutory order and is not appealable; an appeal
caption of the cases as private complainant during the from an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section
preliminary investigation and re-investigation 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a
proceedings in the Office of the Ombudsman, it is the proper subject of a petition for certiorari which can be
City of Tuguegarao which suffered damage as a used only in the absence of an appeal or any other
consequence of the subject purchase of lands by adequate, plain and speedy remedy. The plain and
respondent and, hence, is the private complainant in the speedy remedy upon denial of an interlocutory order is to
main case. City Government of Tuguegarao, represented proceed to trial as stated above. A direct resort to a
special civil action for certiorari is an exception rather
21
than the general rule, and is a recourse that must be respondent from further proceeding in the case.”
firmly grounded on compelling reasons. Joel Galzote y Churchille V. Mari and People of the Philippines v. Hon.
Soriaga v. Jonathan Briones and People of the Rolando L. Gonzales, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 39, Sogo,
Philippines, G.R. No. 164682, September 14, 2011. Southern Leyte and PO1 Rudyard Paloma y Torres, G.R.
No. 187728, September 12, 2011.
Petition for certiorari; the Supreme Court is a court
of last resort. Right of accused to speedy trial. In this case, the
Supreme Court debunked petitioners’ argument that the
The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must so RTC dismissed the criminal case against private
remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions respondent too hurriedly, despite the provision in Section
assigned to it by the fundamental charter and 10 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 (Republic Act No.
immemorial tradition. It cannot and should not be 8493), now incorporated in Section 3, Rule 119 of the
burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first Rules of Court which provides that “[a]ny period of delay
instance. Its original jurisdiction to issue the so-called resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused”
extraordinary writs should be exercised only where such as “delays resulting from orders of inhibition, or
absolutely necessary or where serious and important proceedings relating to change of venue of cases or
reasons exist therefor. Hence, that jurisdiction should transfer from other courts” shall “be excluded in
generally be exercised relative to actions or proceedings computing the time within which trial must commence.”
before the Court of Appeals, or before constitutional or A careful reading of the above rule would show that the
other tribunals, bodies or agencies whose acts for some only delays that may be excluded from the time limit
reason or another are not controllable by the Court of within which trial must commence are those resulting
Appeals. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is from proceedings concerning the accused. The time
also within the competence of the Court of Appeals or a involved in the proceedings in a petition for transfer of
Regional Trial Court, it is in either of these courts that the venue can only be excluded from said time limit if it was
specific action for the writ’s procurement must be the accused who instituted the same. Hence, in this
presented. This is, and should continue, to be the policy case, the time during which the petition for transfer of
in this regard, a policy that courts and lawyers must venue filed by the private complainant is pending cannot
strictly observe. Churchille V. Mari and People of the be excluded from the time limit of thirty (30) days from
Philippines v. Hon. Rolando L. Gonzales, Presiding Judge, receipt of the pre-trial order imposed in Section 1, Rule
RTC, Br. 39, Sogo, Southern Leyte and PO1 Rudyard 119 of the Rules of Court. An accused’s right to speedy
Paloma y Torres, G.R. No. 187728, September 12, 2011. trial is deemed violated only when the proceeding is
attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays.
Petition for certiorari; rule that the Supreme Court Churchille V. Mari and People of the Philippines v. Hon.
is a court of last resort relaxed. Rolando L. Gonzales, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 39, Sogo,
Southern Leyte and PO1 Rudyard Paloma y Torres, G.R.
No. 187728, September 12, 2011.
In this case, although the petition is dismissible since
petitioners failed to observe the doctrine on hierarchy of
courts, the Supreme Court finds sufficient reason to relax Right of accused to speedy trial.
the rule in this case since it also involves the issue of
double jeopardy, necessitating it to look into the merits In determining whether petitioner was deprived of the
of the petition. The Supreme Court did not dismiss the right to speedy trial, the factors to consider and balance
petition. In Pacoy v. Cajigal, the Supreme Court opted are the following: (a) duration of the delay; (b) reason
not to strictly apply said doctrine, since the issue therefor; (c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it;
involved is double jeopardy which is considered to be one and (d) prejudice caused by such delay. Here, it must be
of the most fundamental constitutional rights of an emphasized that private respondent had already been
accused. Churchille V. Mari and People of the Philippines deprived of his liberty on two occasions. First, during the
v. Hon. Rolando L. Gonzales, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. preliminary investigation before the MCTC, when he was
39, Sogo, Southern Leyte and PO1 Rudyard Paloma y incarcerated from November 18, 2004 to March 16,
Torres, G.R. No. 187728, September 12, 2011. 2005, or a period of almost four months; then again,
when an Information had already been issued and since
rape is a non-bailable offense, he was imprisoned
Petition for transfer of venue.
beginning June 27, 2008 until the case was dismissed on
January 16, 2009, or a period of over 6 months. Verily,
Petitioners in this case are mistaken in their notion that
there can be no cavil that deprivation of liberty for any
mere pendency of their petition for transfer of venue
duration of time is quite oppressive. Because of private
should interrupt proceedings before the trial court. Such
respondent’s continued incarceration, any delay in trying
a situation is akin to having a pending petition for
the case would cause him great prejudice. Thus, it was
certiorari with the higher courts. In People v. Hernandez,
absolutely vexatious and oppressive to delay the trial in
the Supreme Court ruled that “delay resulting from
the subject criminal case to await the outcome of
extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders”
petitioners’ petition for transfer of venue, especially in
must be read in harmony with Section 7, Rule 65 of the
this case where there is no temporary restraining order
Rules of Court which provides that the “[p]etition [under
or writ of preliminary injunction issued by a higher court
Rule 65] shall not interrupt the course of the principal
against herein public respondent from further proceeding
case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of
in the case. Churchille V. Mari and People of the
preliminary injunction has been issued against the public
22
Philippines v. Hon. Rolando L. Gonzales, Presiding Judge, the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such
RTC, Br. 39, Sogo, Southern Leyte and PO1 Rudyard as the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden
Paloma y Torres, G.R. No. 187728, September 12, 2011. pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a
reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply;
or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the
October 2011 hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone,
the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or
Alibi. lack of it; the scant or full realization of the solemnity of
an oath, the carriage and mien. People of the Philippines
Alibi, as a defense, is inherently weak and crumbles in v. Jerry Jacalne, G.R. No. 168552, October 3, 2011.
light of positive identification by truthful witnesses.
Denial is negative and self-serving and cannot be given Credibility of witnesses; findings of trial court
greater evidentiary weight over the testimony of a respected.
credible witness who positively testified that the appellant
was at the locus criminis and was the last person seen The settled rule is that the trial court’s conclusions on the
with the victim. In this case, Jose unequivocally testified credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally
that he saw the appellant at the vicinity of Caran-caran accorded great weight and respect, and at times even
on October 9, 2000, the day of the murder. More finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or
importantly, Jose testified that he saw the appellant, circumstances of weight and value which the lower court
together with four (4) other men, walking with Resuelo overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly
Sr. – while the latter was hog-tied – on the day of the considered, would alter the result of the case. Since the
murder. Jose’s testimony not only establishes a strong trial judge had the direct and singular opportunity to
circumstance to establish the appellant’s culpability – observe the facial expression, gesture and tone of voice
since the victim was last seen with the appellant and his of the complaining witnesses while testifying, it was truly
companions – but also strongly negates the appellant’s competent and in the best position to assess whether the
alibi that he was not in Caran-caran at the time of the witness was telling the truth. People of the Philippines v.
murder. In this case, the appellant is guilty beyond Marciano Dollano Jr., G.R. No. 188851, October 19,
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and clearly 2011.
merits the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the
accessory penalties provided by law. People of the Credibility of witnesses; findings of trial court
Philippines v. Edwin Villamor, et al, G.R. No. 187497,
respected.
October 12, 2011.
It has been held that in a prosecution for violation of the
Conspiracy. Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes a contest of
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. Since it was
Conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony. the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the
Conspiracy which determines criminal culpability need
witnesses’ demeanor and deportment while testifying,
not entail a close personal association or at least an the rule is that the trial court’s assessment of their
acquaintance between or among the participants to a
credibility is entitled to great respect, and even finality,
crime. It need not be shown that the parties actually unless facts of weight and substance bearing on the
came together and agreed in express terms to enter into
elements of the crime have been overlooked,
and pursue a common design. The assent of the minds misapprehended or misapplied. Here, while accused-
may be and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually
appellant was not conclusively shown to have
inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which,
contradicted himself as regards the time when the plastic
taken together, indicate that they are parts of some
sachet was shown to him by the police, the perception of
complete whole as ruled in People v. Mateo Jr. Here, it the trial court on the matter has to be relied upon. The
can be deduced from petitioner and his co-accused’s
court a quo cites this as only one of several material
collective conduct, viewed in its totality, that there was a inconsistencies and incredible statements made by
common design, concerted action and concurrence of
accused-appellant during the trial. In fine, there is no
sentiments in bringing about the crime committed. Ho sufficient basis to reverse the ruling of the Court of
Wai Pang v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176229,
Appeals affirming the trial court’s conviction of accused-
October 19, 2011. appellant for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165. People of
the Philippines v. Ricardo Mondejar y Bocarili, G.R. No.
Credibility of witnesses; findings of trial court 193185, October 12, 2011.
respected.
Credibility of witnesses; recantation of private
The findings of the trial court on the credibility of complainants in rape case insufficient.
witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the
highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the In this case, the trial and appellate courts gave credence
absence of any clear showing that the trial court
to the testimonies of AAA and BBB when they were
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or presented as witnesses for the prosecution. They found
circumstances of weight and substance which would have
that their clear narration of how the offenses were
affected the result of the case. The trial court has the committed and their categorical statement that appellant
singular opportunity to observe the witnesses through
committed them, are sufficient to warrant the conviction
23
of the appellant for four counts of rape. The recantation an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect
of both private complainants are insufficient to warrant may be undertaken only by the State through the
the reversal of appellant’s conviction. People of the Solicitor General. . . . The private offended party or
Philippines v. Marciano Dollano Jr., G.R. No. 188851, complainant may not take such appeal. However, the
October 19, 2011. said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil
aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.” Benjamin
Bangayan, Jr. v. Sally Go Bangayan/Resally De AsisDelfin
Demurrer to evidence; when not equivalent to an
v. Sally Go Bangayan, G.R. No. 172777/G.R. No.
acquittal.
172792, October 19, 2011.
As a general rule, an order granting the accused’s
demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal. There are Demurrer to evidence; Office of the Solicitor
certain exceptions, however, as when the grant thereof General.
would not violate the constitutional proscription on
double jeopardy. When there is a finding that there was A perusal of the petition for certiorari filed by Sally Go
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in before the CA discloses that she sought reconsideration
dismissing a criminal case by granting the accused’s of the criminal aspect of the case. Specifically, she
demurrer to evidence, its judgment is considered void. prayed for the reversal of the trial court’s order granting
Hon. Judge Jesus B. Mupas, et al v. People of the petitioners’ demurrer to evidence and the conduct of a
Philippines, thru its duly authorized representative, the full blown trial of the criminal case. It is apparent that
Legal Service, DSWD, Quezon City, et al, G.R. No. her only desire was to appeal the dismissal of the
189365, October 12, 2011. criminal case against the petitioners. Because bigamy is
a criminal offense, only the OSG is authorized to
prosecute the case on appeal. Benjamin Bangayan, Jr. v.
Demurrer to evidence; when not equivalent to an
Sally Go Bangayan/Resally De AsisDelfin v. Sally Go
acquittal.
Bangayan, G.R. No. 172777/G.R. No. 172792, October
19, 2011.
In this case, the Supreme Court agrees with the Court of
Appeal’s disquisition that the lower court’s grant of the
demurrer to evidence of petitioner Zafra was attended by Mandamus; proper remedy when individuals
grave abuse of discretion. The prosecution’s evidence arbitrarily excluded from information.
was prima facie sufficient to prove the criminal charges
filed against her for her inexcusable negligence, subject Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the
to the defense that she may present in the course of a performance of a ministerial duty imposed by law upon
full-blown trial. The lower court improperly examined the the respondent. In matters involving the exercise of
prosecution’s evidence in light of only one mode of judgment and discretion, mandamus may only be
committing the crimes charged; that is, through positive resorted to, to compel the respondent to take action; it
acts. The appellate court correctly concluded that the cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular
crime of malversation may be committed either through way discretion is to be exercised. In the exercise of his
a positive act of misappropriation of public funds or investigatory and prosecutorial powers, the Ombudsman
passively through negligence by allowing another to is generally no different from an ordinary prosecutor in
commit such misappropriation. In the instant case, the determining who must be charged. He also enjoys the
Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Court of same latitude of discretion in determining what
Appeals that the trial court committed grave abuse of constitutes sufficient evidence to support a finding of
discretion when it granted the accused’s demurrer to probable cause (that must be established for the filing of
evidence, as such, the Supreme Court deem the trial an information in court) and the degree of participation of
court’s consequent order of acquittal void. Hon. Judge those involved or the lack thereof. His findings and
Jesus B. Mupas, et al v. People of the Philippines, thru its conclusions on these matters are not ordinarily subject to
duly authorized representative, the Legal Service, DSWD, review by the courts except when he gravely abuses his
Quezon City, et al, G.R. No. 189365, October 12, 2011. discretion, i.e., when his action amounts to an evasion of
a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, or when he acts outside the
Demurrer to evidence; Office of the Solicitor
contemplation of law. If, on the basis of the same
General.
evidence, the Ombudsman arbitrarily excludes from an
indictment some individuals while impleading all others,
The acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case
the remedy of mandamus lies since he is duty-bound, as
against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General
a rule, to include in the information all persons who
acting on behalf of the State. The private complainant or
appear responsible for the offense involved. Erdito
the offended party may question such acquittal or
Quarto v. The Hon. Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, et al,
dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused
G.R. No. 169042, October 5, 2011.
is concerned. People v. Santiago states: “It is well-settled
that in criminal cases where the offended party is the
State, the interest of the private complainant or the Positive Identification of perpetrator.
private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus,
in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant’s role When is identification of the perpetrator of a crime
is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a positive and reliable enough for establishing the
criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt? The
24
identification of a malefactor, to be positive and sufficient to satisfy the requirements for an alibi to be considered
for conviction, does not always require direct evidence plausible. Republic of the Philippines v. Arnold T.
from an eyewitness; otherwise, no conviction will be Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October 11, 2011.
possible in crimes where there are no eyewitnesses.
Indeed, trustworthy circumstantial evidence can equally
Promulgation of judgment; presence of accused
confirm the identification and overcome the mandatory.
constitutionally presumed innocence of the accused.
Thus, the Supreme Court has distinguished two types of Perjury is not a light felony or offense contemplated by
positive identification in People v. Gallarde, to wit: (a)
Rule 120, Sec. 6. It was therefore mandatory for
that by direct evidence, through an eyewitness to the petitioner to be present at the promulgation of the
very commission of the act; and (b) that by
judgment. Despite notice, however, petitioner was absent
circumstantial evidence, such as where the accused is when the MTCC promulgated its judgment on 25 August
last seen with the victim immediately before or after the
2009. Pursuant to Rule 120, Sec. 6, it is only when the
crime. People of the Philippines v. Delfin Caliso, G.R. No. accused is convicted of a light offense that a
183830, October 19, 2011.
promulgation may be pronounced in the presence of his
counsel or representative. In case the accused failed to
Positive Identification of perpetrator. appear on the scheduled date of promulgation despite
notice, and the failure to appear was without justifiable
Amegable asserted that she was familiar with Caliso cause, the accused shall lose all the remedies available in
because she had seen him pass by in her barangay the Rules against the judgment. One such remedy was
several times prior to the killing. Such assertion indicates the motion for reconsideration of the judgment of the
that she was obviously assuming that the killer was no MTCC filed by petitioner on 28 August 2009. Absent a
other than Caliso. As matters stand, therefore, Caliso’s motion for leave to avail of the remedies against the
conviction hangs by a single thread of evidence, the judgment, the MTCC should not have entertained
direct evidence of Amegable’s identification of him as the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Thus, petitioner
perpetrator of the killing. But that single thread was thin, had only 15 days from 25 August 2009 or until 9
and cannot stand sincere scrutiny. Her identification of September 2009 to file his motion for probation. The
Caliso as the perpetrator did not have unassailable motion for probation filed on 5 November 2009 was filed
reliability, the only means by which it might be said to be out of time. Anselmo De Leon Cuyo v. People of the
positive and sufficient. People of the Philippines v. Delfin Philippines, G.R. No. 192164, October 12, 2011.
Caliso, G.R. No. 183830, October 19, 2011.
November 2011
Positive Identification of perpetrator.
Alibi and denial. As his main defenses, appellant puts
The test to determine the moral certainty of an
forward denial and alibi which has consistently been
identification is its imperviousness to skepticism on
regarded as inherently weak defenses and must be
account of its distinctiveness. To achieve such
rejected when the identity of the accused is satisfactorily
distinctiveness, the identification evidence should
and categorically established by the eyewitnesses to the
encompass unique physical features or characteristics,
offense, especially when such eyewitnesses have no ill
like the face, the voice, the dentures, the distinguishing
motive to testify falsely. People of the Philippines v.
marks or tattoos on the body, fingerprints, DNA, or any
Arnel Manjares, G.R. No. 185844, November 23, 2011.
other physical facts that set the individual apart from the
rest of humanity. A witness’ familiarity with the accused,
Alibi and denial.
although accepted as basis for a positive identification,
does not always pass the test of moral certainty due to
In the instant case, the defense failed to show that the
the possibility of mistake. People of the Philippines v.
victim and sole eyewitness to the crimes of rape was
Delfin Caliso, G.R. No. 183830, October 19, 2011.
motivated by ill will. Moreover, for the defense of alibi to
prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at
Positive Identification of perpetrator. some other place at the time of the commission of the
A positive identification which is categorical and crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him
consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.
part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter prevails Appellant’s own categorical admission that he regularly
over a denial which, if not substantiated by clear and went to the alleged boarding house of the victim and his
convincing evidence is negative and self-serving evidence two other children to give them their provisions for food
undeserving of weight in law. They cannot be given and other expenses cast major doubt on his defense of
greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible alibi because, even if it were true, this only demonstrates
witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. In this that it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at
case, Beatriz Raguirag positively identified the accused as the locus delicti when the victim was repeatedly
the one who had shot her husband. She was firm and raped. People of the Philippines v. Arnel Manjares, G.R.
consistent throughout her testimony. The Supreme Court No. 185844, November 23, 2011.
did not see any ill motive on her part in testifying against
her own relative regarding the death of her husband. Appeal.
Thus, there is no reason to question her credibility as a
witness. On the other hand, the accused miserably failed
25
It is settled that in a criminal case, an appeal throws the Defense; alibi.

whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of
the appellate court to correct such errors as may be Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to
found in the judgment appealed from, whether they are fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit approbation,
made the subject of assignment of errors or not.People the accused must adduce clear and convincing evidence
of the Philippines v. Bernabe Pangilinan y that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the
Crisostomo, G.R. No. 183090, November 14, 2011. time the crime was committed, such that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene
Arrests; warrantless arrests. of the crime when it was committed. Since alibi is a weak
defense for being easily fabricated, it cannot prevail over
Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal and is worthless in the face of the positive identification
Procedure, the following are the instances when a peace by a credible witness that an accused perpetrated the
officer can effect a lawful warrantless arrest: (a) when, in crime. People of the Philippines v. Henry Arpon, G.R. No.
his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is 183563, December 14, 2011.
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense; (b) when an offense has just been committed Defense; alibi.
and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to In the instant case, the distance of [XXX] to Tacloban
be arrested has committed it; and (c) when the person to City is just a few kilometers and can be negotiated by
be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal passenger bus in less than one (1) hour, hence, it is not
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment impossible for the accused to be present in [XXX] at any
or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or time of the day after working hours while working in
has escaped while being transferred from one Tacloban. Besides, the accused has his day off every
confinement to another. In cases falling under Sunday, which according to him he spent in [XXX], Leyte.
paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested The accused was positively identified by the victim as the
without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the person who sexually molested her beginning that
nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded afternoon of 1995, and subsequently thereafter in the
against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112 of the coming years up to August 1999. She cannot be
Rules. People of the Philippines v. PO1 Froilan L. mistaken on the identity of the accused, because the first
Trestiza, G.R. No. 193833, November 16, 2011. sexual molestation happened during the daytime,
besides, she is familiar with him being her uncle, the
Evidence; crucial nature of testimony of victim in brother of her mother. People of the Philippines v. Henry
rape cases. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011.
In almost all cases of sexual abuse, the credibility of the Witnesses; credibility.
victim’s testimony is crucial in view of the intrinsic nature
of the crime where only the persons involved can testify Basic is the rule that the trial court’s factual findings,
as to its occurrence. In this case, the Supreme Court especially its assessment of the credibility of witnesses,
found no reason to disturb the findings of the Regional are generally accorded great weight and respect on
Trial Court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. People appeal. When the issue is one of credibility, the Supreme
of the Philippines v. Avelino Subesa y Moscardon, G.R. Court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial
No. 193660, November 16, 2011. court unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance and value that, if considered, might affect the
Petition for review on certiorari; when filed. outcome of the case. The reason therefore is not hard to
discern. The trial courts are in a better position to decide
Under the Rules of Court, a petition for review questions of credibility having heard the witnesses and
oncertiorari must be filed within fifteen (15) days from observed their deportment and manner of testifying
notice of the judgment or final order or resolution during the trial. People of the Philippines v. Lino L.
appealed from, or of the denial of a motion for new trial Duavis, G.R. No. 190861, December 7, 2011.
or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the
judgment. In the instant case, the petition for review Witnesses; credibility.
on certiorariwas not filed on time. The petitioners
alleged that they received a copy of the August 20, 2008 Settled is the rule that testimonial evidence to be
Decision of the Court of Appeals on February 10, 2009. believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a
Thus, the petitioners had only until February 25, 2009 to credible witness but must foremost be credible in itself.
assail the August 20, 2008 Decision of the CA via a Hence, the test to determine the value or credibility of
petition for review on certiorari. However, the petitioners the testimony of a witness is whether the same is in
were only able to file the instant petition on April 27, conformity with common knowledge and is consistent
2009. Clearly, the instant petition was filed out of with the experience of mankind. Based on the findings of
time. People of the Philippines, Felix Florece, et al v. the trial court and the CA, the testimonies of the
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 187409, November 16, 2011. witnesses for the prosecution are more credible in itself
than the self-serving defense of appellant. People of the
Philippines v. Lino L. Duavis, G.R. No. 190861, December
December 2011 7, 2011.
26
Witnesses; presentation of informant.
The presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case

is not essential for the conviction nor is it indispensable
for a successful prosecution because his testimony would
be merely corroborative and cumulative. In this case, if
Amansec felt that the prosecution did not present the
informant because he would testify against it, then
Amansec himself should have called him to the stand to
testify for the defense. The informant’s testimony is not
needed if the sale of the illegal drug has been adequately
proven by the prosecution. People of the Philippines v.
Benjamin Amansec y Dona, G.R. No. 186131, December
14, 2011.
Witnesses; presentation of informant.
In People v. Ho Chua, the Supreme Court ruled that the

presentation of an informant is not a requisite in the
prosecution of drug cases. In People v. Nicolas, the
Supreme Court also ruled that “police authorities rarely,
if ever, remove the cloak of confidentiality with which
they surround their poseur-buyers and informers since
their usefulness will be over the moment they are
presented in court.” Moreover, drug dealers do not look
kindly upon squealers and informants. It is
understandable why, as much as permitted, their
identities are kept secret. In any event, the testimony of
the informant would be merely corroborative. People of
the Philippines v. Benjamin Amansec y Dona, G.R. No.
186131, December 14, 2011.
27
Civil Procedure
September 2008
February 2008
Evidence: change of sex.
Civil Action.
The determination of a person’s sex appearing in his birth
A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the certificate is a legal issue and the court must look to the
enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or statutes. In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code
redress of a wrong. Strictly speaking, it is only in civil provides: “ART. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be
actions that one speaks of a cause of action. A cause of changed or corrected without a judicial order.” Together
action is defined as the act or omission by which a party with Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision was
violates a right of another. Thus, in the annulment of amended by Republic Act No. 9048 in so far as clerical or
foreclosure case, the cause of action of Rombe is the act typographical errors are involved. The correction or
of Asiatrust in foreclosing the mortgage on Rombeâ’s change of such matters can now be made through
properties by which the latter’s right to the properties administrative proceedings and without the need for a
was allegedly violated. Rombe Eximtrade (Phils.), Inc. judicial order. In effect, Rep. Act No. 9048 removed from
And Spouses Romeo Peralta and Marrionette Peralta, the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction
Petitioners, vs. Asiatrust Development Bank, of such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial
Respondent. G.R. No. 164479, February 13, 2008 changes and corrections in entries in the civil register.
Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a correction in the civil registry
involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or
March 2008 typographical error. It is a substantial change for which
the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court. Respondent undisputedly has CAH. This condition
An interested party. causes the early or "inappropriate" appearance of male
characteristics. A person, like respondent, with this
A petition for the issuance of letters of administration condition produces too much androgen, a male hormone.
must be filed by an interested person. An interested A newborn who has XX chromosomes coupled with CAH
party as one who would be benefited by the estate, such usually has a (1) swollen clitoris with the urethral
as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, opening at the base, an ambiguous genitalia often
such as a creditor. This interest, furthermore, must be appearing more male than female; (2) normal internal
material and direct, not merely indirect or contingent. structures of the female reproductive tract such as the
The voluntary recognition of an illegitimate child by his or ovaries, uterus and fallopian tubes; as the child grows
her parent needs no further court action and is, older, some features start to appear male, such as
therefore, not subject to the limitation that the action for deepening of the voice, facial hair, and failure to
recognition be brought during the lifetime of the putative menstruate at puberty. About 1 in 10,000 to 18,000
parent. Judicial or compulsory recognition, on the other children are born with CAH. CAH is one of many
hand, may be demanded by the illegitimate child of his conditions that involve intersex anatomy. During the
parents and must be brought during the lifetime of the twentieth century, medicine adopted the term
presumed parents. Since Graciano was claiming "intersexuality" to apply to human beings who cannot be
illegitimate filiation under the second paragraph of Article classified as either male or female. The term is now of
172 of the Family Code, i.e.,open and continuous widespread use. According to Wikipedia, intersexuality "is
possession of the status of an illegitimate child, the the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species
action was already barred by the death of the alleged whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex
father. Victoria C. Tayag characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively
vs. Felicidad A. Tayag-Gallor, G.R. No. 174680 March 24, male nor female. An organism with intersex may have
2008 biological characteristics of both male and female sexes."
We (the court) are of the view that where the person is
biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in
his gender classification would be what the individual,
April 2008 like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with
good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here
Appointing an Administrator. thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body
produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there
is preponderant biological support for considering him as
An order appointing an administrator of a deceased
being male. Sexual development in cases of intersex
person's estate is a final determination of the rights of
persons makes the gender classification at birth
the parties in connection with the administration,
inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such
management and settlement of the decedent's estate. It
persons, like respondent, is fixed. The Court will not
is a final order and, hence, appealable. Nancy H. Zayco
dictate on respondent concerning a matter so innately
and Remo Hinlo in their Capacity as Judicial Co-
private as one’s sexuality and lifestyle preferences, much
Administrators of the Estate Of Enrique Hinlo vs. Atty.
less on whether or not to undergo medical treatment to
Jesus V. Hinlo, Jr. G.R. No. 170243 April 16, 2008
reverse the male tendency due to CAH. The Court will not
consider respondent as having erred in not choosing to
28
undergo treatment in order to become or remain as a seeks to establish the status of a party or a
female. Neither will the Court force respondent to particular fact. As provided in section 1, Rule 4 of the
undergo treatment and to take medication in order to fit Interim Rules on Corporate Recovery, the status or
the mold of a female, as society commonly currently fact sought to be established is the inability of the
knows this gender of the human species. Respondent is corporate debtor to pay its debts when they fall due
the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To so that a rehabilitation plan, containing the formula
him belongs the human right to the pursuit of happiness for the successful recovery of the corporation, may
and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial be approved in the end. It does not seek a relief
choice of what courses of action to take along the path of from an injury caused by another party.”
his sexual development and maturation. In the absence
of evidence that respondent is an "incompetent" and in  Thus, a petition for rehabilitation need not state
the absence of evidence to show that classifying a cause of action and, hence, Rombeâ’s
respondent as a male will harm other members of society contention that the two cases have distinct
who are equally entitled to protection under the law, the causes of action is incorrect.
Court affirms as valid and justified the respondent’s
position and his personal judgment of being a male. The rehabilitation case is a special proceeding which is
As for respondent’s change of name under Rule 103, this summary and non-adversarial in nature. The annulment
Court has held that a change of name is not a matter of of foreclosure case is an ordinary civil action governed by
right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light the regular rules of procedure under the 1997 Rules of
of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will Civil Procedure. Rombe Eximtrade (Phils.), Inc. And
follow. The trial court’s grant of respondent’s change of Spouses Romeo Peralta and Marrionette Peralta,
name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine Petitioners, vs. Asiatrust Development Bank,
name to a masculine name. Considering the consequence Respondent. G.R. No. 164479, February 13, 2008
that respondent’s change of name merely recognizes his
preferred gender, we find merit in respondent’s change of
name. Such a change will conform with the change of the
entry in his birth certificate from female to male.
Republic of the Philippines, vs., Jennifer B. Cagandahan,
G.R. No. 166676 September 12, 2008
October 2009
Evidence: Notarized deed of sale. The notarized deed of

sale should be admitted as evidence despite the failure of
the Notary Public in submitting his notarial report to the
notarial section of the RTC Manila. It is the swearing of a
person before the Notary Public and the latter’s act of
signing and affixing his seal on the deed that is material
and not the submission of the notarial report. No rule
requires a party, who relies on a notarized deed of sale
for establishing his ownership, to present further
evidence of such deed’s genuineness lest the
presumption of its due execution be for naught. Gregorio
Destreza, vs. Atty. Ma. Gracia, G.R. No. 176863 October
30, 2009
Special Proceeding
February 2008
Rehabilitation Case. On the other hand, the rehabilitation

case is treated as a special proceeding. Initially, there
was a difference in opinion as to what is the nature of a
petition for rehabilitation. The Court, on September 4,
2001, issued a Resolution in A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC to
clarify the ambiguity, thus:
“On the other hand, a petition for rehabilitation, the

procedure for which is provided in the Interim Rules
of Procedure on Corporate Recovery, should be
considered as a special proceeding. It is one that
29
EVIDENCE including its implementing rules and regulations, does not

prohibit a married woman from using her maiden name
Principles in her passport. In fact, in recognition of this right, the
DFA allows a married woman who applies for a passport
for the first time to use her maiden name. Such an
January 2010 applicant is not required to adopt her husband's
surname. In the case of renewal of passport, a married
Evidence; admissibility of extrajudicial confession. woman may either adopt her husband’s surname or
continuously use her maiden name. If she chooses to
Nagares challenges the admissibility of his extrajudicial adopt her husband’s surname in her new passport, the
confession, claiming that it was made under duress and DFA additionally requires the submission of an
that he was not assisted by an independent counsel authenticated copy of the marriage certificate. Otherwise,
during the custodial investigation. Nagares maintains if she prefers to continue using her maiden name, she
such flaws in the investigation violated his right may still do so. The DFA will not prohibit her from
guaranteed under section 12, Article III of the continuously using her maiden name. However, once a
Constitution. However, based on the records, Nagares’ married woman opted to adopt her husband’s surname in
extrajudicial confession was voluntarily given, and thus her passport, she may not revert to the use of her
admissible. The Court of Appeals made the following maiden name, except in the cases enumerated in Section
findings: (1) there is no evidence of compulsion or duress 5(d) of RA 8239. These instances are: (1) death of
or violence on the person of Nagares; (2) Nagares did husband, (2) divorce, (3) annulment, or (4) nullity of
not complain to the officers administering the oath during marriage. Since petitioner’s marriage to her husband
the taking of his sworn statement; (3) he did not file any subsists, she may not resume her maiden name in the
criminal or administrative complaint against his alleged replacement passport. Otherwise stated, a married
malefactors for maltreatment; (4) no marks of violence woman's reversion to the use of her maiden name must
were observed on his body; and (5) he did not have be based only on the severance of the marriage. Maria
himself examined by a physician to support his claim. Virginia V. Remo vs. the Honorable Secretary of Foreign
Moreover, appellant’s confession is replete with details, Affairs, G.R. No. 169202 March 5, 2010
which makes it highly improbable that it was not
voluntarily given. Moreover, photographs taken during
the signing, thumbmarking, and swearing of the July 2010
extrajudicial confession negate Nagares’ claims as all
these pictures depicted a “cordial and pleasant Evidence: Testimony against ones parents, other
atmosphere” devoid of any sign of torture, threat, duress
direct ascendants, children or other direct
or tension on Nagares’ person. Based on the foregoing, descendants.
there is clearly no basis for Nagares’ plea that his
extrajudicial confession should have been excluded from  SECTION 25. Parental and filial privilege. - No
the evidence. People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Capitle
person may be compelled to testify against his
and Arutor Nagares, G.R. No. 175330, January 12, 2010.
parents, other direct ascendants, children or
other direct descendants.
 The above is an adaptation from a similar
February 2010 provision in Article 315 of the Civil Code that
applies only in criminal cases. But those who
Evidence: Intelligence Gathering. revised the Rules of Civil Procedure chose to
extend the prohibition to all kinds of actions,
whether civil, criminal, or administrative, filed
Intelligence gathering is not an activity conducted in
against parents and other direct ascendants or
isolation, and involves an interwoven network of
descendants.
informants existing on the basis of symbiotic
relationships with the police and the military. Gen.
But here Tiu, who invokes the filial privilege, claims that
Avelino I. Razon, Jr. vs. Mary Jean B. Tagitis G.R. No.
she is the stepmother of petitioner Emma Lee. The
182498 February 16, 2010
privilege cannot apply to them because the rule applies
only to "direct" ascendants and descendants, a family tie
connected by a common ancestry. A stepdaughter has
March 2010
no common ancestry by her stepmother. In Re: Petition
for Cancellation and Correction of Entries in the Record of
Evidence: Severance of the Marriage, the only basis
Birth, Emma K. Lee, vs. Court of Appeals, et. al, G.R.
for married woman's reversion to the use of her
No. 177861 July 13, 2010
maiden name.
In the present case, petitioner, whose marriage is still December 2010

subsisting and who opted to use her husband’s surname
in her old passport, requested to resume her maiden Evidence; alibi.
name in the replacement passport arguing that no law
prohibits her from using her maiden name. RA 8239,
30
Among the accused, Webb presented the strongest alibi. certifications of the Philippine and U.S.’ immigration
To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, services regarding his travel to the U.S. and back. The
clear, and satisfactory evidence that (a) he was present prosecution’s rebuttal evidence is the fear of the
at another place at the time of the perpetration of the unknown that it planted in the lower court’s minds.
crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to Antonio Lejano vs. People of the Philippines/People of the
be at the scene of the crime. In this case, accused Webb Philippines vs. Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, et al, G.R. No.
supported his alibi by presenting documentary and 176389/G.R. No. 176864. December 14, 2010.
testimonial evidence showing that he was in the U.S. at
the time of the perpetration of the crime, i.e., among Evidence; conspiracy.
others, his travel preparation to the U.S., details of his
U.S. sojourn, and several immigration records. The onspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
courts below held that, despite his evidence, Webb was agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
actually in Parañaque when the Vizconde killings took decide to commit it. Where all accused acted in concert
place; he was not in the U.S. from March 9, 1991 to at the time of the commission of the offense, and it was
October 27, 1992; and if he did leave on March 9, 1991, shown by such acts that they had the same purpose or
he actually returned before June 29, 1991, committed common design and were united in its execution,
the crime, erased the fact of his return to the Philippines conspiracy is sufficiently established. In this case, the
from the records of the U.S. and Philippine Immigrations, Supreme Court ruled that the records clearly prove that
smuggled himself out of the Philippines and into the U.S., there was conspiracy in the commission of the crime. The
and returned the normal way on October 27, 1992. But initial hacking by the accused followed by the multiple
this ruling practically makes the death of Webb and his stabbing by his co-accused proves that they acted in
passage into the next life the only acceptable alibi in the concert at the time of the brutal killing. The fact that
Philippines. Courts must abandon this unjust and each one of them carried a deadly bladed weapon shows
inhuman paradigm. If one is cynical about the Philippine that they acted pursuant to the singular purpose of killing
system, he could probably claim that Webb, with his the victim. It is not important who delivered the fatal
father’s connections, can arrange for the local blow. In conspiracy, it matters not who among the
immigration to put a March 9, 1991 departure stamp on accused actually killed the victim. The act of one is the
his passport and an October 27, 1992 arrival stamp on act of all. Each of the accused is equally guilty of the
the same. But this is pure speculation since there had crime committed. People of the Philippines vs. Alex
been no indication that such arrangement was made. Lingasa, et al, G.R. No. 192187, December 15, 2010.
Besides, how could Webb fix a foreign airlines’ passenger
manifest, officially filed in the Philippines and at the Evidence; corpus delicti in drug cases.
airport in the U.S. that had his name on them? How
could Webb fix with the U.S. Immigration’s record system To successfully prosecute an accused for selling and/or
those two dates in its record of his travels as well as the possession of illegal drugs, the State has to prove as well
dates when he supposedly departed in secret from the the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. It must be
U.S. to commit the crime in the Philippines and then shown that the suspected substance the police officers
return there? No one has come up with a logical and seized from the accused is the same thing presented in
plausible answer to these questions. Antonio Lejano vs. court during the trial. Thus, the chain of custody rule is
People of the Philippines/People of the Philippines vs. essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of
Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, et al, G.R. No. 176389/G.R. No. the evidence are removed through the monitoring and
176864, December 14, 2010. tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the
accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally
Evidence; alibi. to the court. The witnesses should be able to describe
these movements to ensure that there had been no
The trial court and the Court of Appeals expressed change in the condition of the item and that no one who
marked cynicism over the accuracy of travel documents did not belong in the chain had access to the same.
like the passport as well as the domestic and foreign People of the Philippines vs. Efren Ditona y Montefalcon,
records of departures and arrivals from airports. They et al, G.R. No. 189841, December 15, 2010.
claim that it would not have been impossible for Webb to
secretly return to the Philippines after he supposedly left Evidence; credibility of testimony.
it on March 9, 1991, commit the crime, go back to the
U.S., and openly return to the Philippines again on The Supreme Court ruled that Jessica Alfaro’s testimony
October 26, 1992. Travel between the U.S. and the as eyewitness, describing the crime and identifying
Philippines, said the lower courts took only about twelve accused Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada,
to fourteen hours. If the Supreme Court were to Rodriguez, and two others as the persons who committed
subscribe to this extremely skeptical view, it might as it, is not entitled to belief. There is another thing about a
well tear the rules of evidence out of the law books and lying witness: her story lacks sense or suffers from
regard suspicions, surmises, or speculations as reasons inherent inconsistencies. An understanding of the nature
for impeaching evidence. It is not that official records, of things and the common behavior of people will help
which carry the presumption of truth of what they state, expose a lie. And it has an abundant presence in this
are immune to attack. They are not. That presumption case.
can be overcome by evidence. Here, however, the
prosecution did not bother to present evidence to First, in her (Alfaro’s) desire to implicate Gatchalian,
impeach the entries in Webb’s passport and the Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, and Filart, who were
31
supposed to be Webb’s co-principals in the crime, Alfaro “Sino yan?” On hearing this, Alfaro immediately walked
made it a point to testify that Webb proposed twice to his out of the garden and went to her car. Apparently, she
friends the gang-rape of Carmela who had hurt him. And did this because she knew they came on a sly. Someone
twice, they (including, if one believes Alfaro, her own other than Carmela became conscious of the presence of
boyfriend Estrada) agreed in a chorus to his proposal. Webb and others in the house. Alfaro walked away
But when they got to Carmela’s house, only Webb, because, obviously, she did not want to get involved in a
Lejano, Ventura, and Alfaro entered the house. potential confrontation. This was supposedly her frame
Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, and Rodriguez of mind: fear of getting involved in what was not her
supposedly stayed around Alfaro’s car, which was parked business. But if that were the case, how could she testify
on the street between Carmela’s house and the next. based on personal knowledge of what went on in the
Some of these men sat on top of the car’s lid while others house? Alfaro had to change that frame of mind to one
milled on the sidewalk, visible under the street light to of boldness and reckless curiosity. So that is what she
anyone who cared to watch them, particularly to the next claimed. She went back into the house to watch as
people who were having a drinking party in a nearby Webb raped Carmela on the floor of the master’s
house. Obviously, the behavior of Webb’s companions bedroom. He had apparently stabbed to death Carmela’s
out on the street did not figure in a planned gang-rape of mom and her young sister whose bloodied bodies were
Carmela. sprawled on the bed. Now, Alfaro testified that she got
scared (another shift to fear) for she hurriedly got out of
Second, Ventura, Alfaro’s dope supplier, introduced her the house after Webb supposedly gave her a meaningful
for the first time in her life to Webb and his friends in a look. Alfaro quickly went to her car, not minding
parking lot by a mall. So why would she agree to act as Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, and Filart
Webb’s messenger, using her gas, to bring his message who sat on the car or milled on the sidewalk. She did not
to Carmela at her home. More inexplicably, what speak to them, even to Estrada, her boyfriend. She
motivated Alfaro to stick it out the whole night with Webb entered her car and turned on the engine but she
and his friends? They were practically strangers to her testified that she did not know where to go. This woman
and her boyfriend Estrada. When it came to a point that who a few minutes back led Webb, Lejano, and Ventura
Webb decided with his friends to gang-rape Carmela, into the house, knowing that they were decided to rape
clearly, there was nothing in it for Alfaro. Yet, she stuck and harm Carmela, was suddenly too shocked to know
it out with them, as a police asset would, hanging in where to go! This emotional pendulum swing indicates a
there until she had a crime to report, only she was not witness who was confused with her own lies. Antonio
yet an “asset” then. If, on the other hand, Alfaro had Lejano vs. People of the Philippines/People of the
been too soaked in drugs to think clearly and just Philippines vs. Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, et al, G.R. No.
followed along where the group took her, how could she 176389/G.R. No. 176864, December 14, 2010.
remember so much details that only a drug-free mind
can? Evidence; credibility of witness.
Third, when Alfaro went to see Carmela at her house for Truth-telling witnesses are not expected to give flawless
the second time, Carmella told her that she still had to go testimonies, considering the lapse of time and the
out and that Webb and his friends should come back treachery of human memory. The Court has stated time
around midnight. Alfaro returned to her car and waited and again that minor inconsistencies in the narration of
for Carmela to drive out in her own car. And she trailed witnesses do not detract from their essential credibility as
her up to Aguirre Avenue where she supposedly dropped long as their testimonies on the whole are coherent and
off a man whom she thought was Carmela’s boyfriend. intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest
Alfaro’s trailing Carmela to spy on her unfaithfulness to that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been
Webb did not make sense since she was on limited rehearsed. Instead, they may even serve to strengthen
errand. But, as a critical witness, Alfaro had to provide a their credibility as they negate any suspicion that their
reason for Webb to freak out and decide to come with his testimonies have been fabricated or rehearsed. People of
friends and harm Carmela. the Philippines vs. Alex Lingasa, et al, G.R. No. 192187,
December 15, 2010.
Fourth, according to Alfaro, when they returned to
Carmela’s house the third time around midnight, she led Evidence; credibility of witness.
Webb, Lejano, and Ventura through the pedestrian gate
that Carmela had left open. Now, this is weird. Webb Etched in Philippine jurisprudence is the doctrine that a
was the gangleader who decided what they were going to victim of a savage crime cannot be expected to
do. He decided and his friends agreed with him to go to mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of
Carmela’s house and gang-rape her. Why would Alfaro, every lurid detail of a frightening experience – a verity
a woman, a stranger to Webb before that night, and born out of human nature and experience. This is
obviously with no role to play in the gang-rape of especially true with a rape victim who is required to
Carmela, lead him and the others into her house? It utilize every fiber of her body and mind to repel an attack
made no sense. It would only make sense if Alfaro from a stronger aggressor. It is only human for AAA to
wanted to feign being a witness to something she did not not be able to readily narrate the exact details of her
see. experience when questioned. People of the Philippines
vs. Rene Celocelo, G.R. No. 173798, December 15, 2010.
Fifth, Alfaro went out of the house to smoke at the
garden. After about twenty minutes, a woman exclaimed, Evidence; credibility of witness.
32
specimen at some future time. Antonio Lejano vs. People

The Supreme Court has in the past observed that it of the Philippines/People of the Philippines vs. Hubert
would not really be unusual for one to recollect a good Jeffrey P. Webb, et al, G.R. No. 176389/G.R. No.
number of things about an eventful incident but what 176864, December 14, 2010.
should be strange is when one can put to mind
everything. This error cannot impair the credibility of AAA Evidence; inadmissibility.
especially since first, the imputed inconsistency or
incredible testimony was later explained and clarified by Acting on a tip from a concerned citizen that a pot
no less than the RTC itself, and second, the RTC, who session was being conducted in the house of one of the
was in the best position to determine if AAA were indeed accused, the police officers raided the house and arrested
credible, believed her to be so. The Supreme Court once the accused herein. However, the Court acquitted the
again reiterate the time-honored maxim that the trial accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to
court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is prove their guilt, one of the principal reasons being that
entitled to the highest respect. People of the Philippines the evidence against the accused were inadmissible as
vs. Rene Celocelo, G.R. No. 173798, December 15, 2010. they proceeded from an illegal warrantless arrest. The
Supreme Court ruled a warrantless arrest based solely on
Evidence; failure to present DNA evidence. an informer’s tips is insufficient to support probable
cause to effect a warrantless arrest since the instant case
Accused Webb filed a motion before the Supreme Court did not involve a buy-bust operation or drugs in transit.
asking his outright acquittal given the government’s The apprehending officers should have first conducted a
failure to produce the semen specimen that the NBI surveillance considering that the identity and address of
found on Carmela’s cadaver, thus depriving him of one of the accused were already ascertained. After
evidence that would prove his innocence. In his motion, conducting the surveillance and determining the
Webb cited the case of Brady vs. Maryland, contending existence of probable cause, then a search warrant
that he is entitled to outright acquittal on the ground of should have been secured prior to effecting arrest and
violation of his right to due process given the State’s seizure. It has been held that personal knowledge of
failure to produce on order of the Court either by facts in arrests without warrant must be based upon
negligence or willful suppression the semen specimen probable cause, which means an actual belief or
taken from Carmela. The Supreme Court ruled that Webb reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of
is not entitled to acquittal solely for the reason that the suspicion are reasonable when the suspicion, that the
State failed to produce the semen specimen at this late person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing an
stage of the proceedings. For one thing, the ruling in offense, is based on actual facts, that is, supported by
Brady vs. Maryland that he cited has long been overtaken circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create
by the decision in Arizona vs. Youngblood, where the U.S. the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.
Supreme Court held that due process does not require The arrest being illegal, the ensuing search as a result
the State to preserve the semen specimen although it thereof is likewise illegal. Evidence procured on the
might be useful to the accused unless the latter is able to occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is
show bad faith on the part of the prosecution or the deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a
police. Here, the State presented a medical expert who poisonous tree and should be excluded. The subject
testified on the existence of the specimen and Webb in items seized during the illegal arrest are thus
fact sought to have the same subjected to DNA test. For, inadmissible. The drug, being the very corpus delicti of
another, when Webb raised the DNA issue, the rule the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, its
governing DNA evidence did not yet exist, the country did inadmissibility thus precludes conviction, and calls for the
not yet have the technology for conducting the test, and acquittal of the accused. People of the Philippines vs.
no Philippine precedent had as yet recognized its Arnold Martinez y Angeles, et al, G.R. No. 191366,
admissibility as evidence. Consequently, the idea of December 13, 2010.
keeping the specimen secure even after the trial court
rejected the motion for DNA testing did not come up. Evidence; inconsistency of testimony with physical
Indeed, neither Webb nor his co-accused brought up the evidence.
matter of preserving the specimen in the meantime.
Parenthetically, after the trial court denied Webb’s The Supreme Court did not give much weight to the
application for DNA testing, he allowed the proceeding to alleged inconsistency between the physical evidence and
move on when he had on at least two occasions gone up AAA’s version of the rape incident. The Supreme Court
to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to noted that Dr. Edaño was able to examine AAA only on
challenge alleged arbitrary actions taken against him and December 10, 2001, two days after the rape. During
the other accused. They raised the DNA issue before the cross-examination, Dr. Edaño explained that the two old
Court of Appeals but merely as an error committed by lacerations she found on AAA’s vagina could have
the trial court in rendering its decision in the case. None happened several weeks or days before the examination.
of the accused filed a motion with the appeals court to Hence, the old lacerations could still have been caused by
have the DNA test done pending adjudication of their and is not irreconcilably inconsistent with the rape of AAA
appeal. This, even when the Supreme Court had in the two days earlier. As the Court of Appeals observed, the
meantime passed the rules allowing such test. improbabilities or inconsistencies cited by accused-
Considering the accused’s lack of interest in having such appellant refer to minor details that do not directly
test done, the State cannot be deemed put on reasonable pertain to the elements of the crime of rape or to the
notice that it would be required to produce the semen identification of accused-appellant as the rapist; and do
33
not detract from the proven fact that accused-appellant direct evidence. Conspiracy may be deduced from the
had sexual intercourse with AAA through force, mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.
intimidation, and grave abuse of authority. People of the In this case, the Supreme Court held that a conspiracy by
Philippines vs. Andres Fontillas alias Anding, G.R. No. and among accused-appellants was present as it may be
184177, December 15, 2010. inferred from the acts of the accused-appellants. As
shown, the three accused left Iloilo together, stayed in
Manila for a while, left for Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga and
Evidence; use of evidence obtained through a
returned to Manila thereafter. They were together when
search warrant in another.
the apprehending police officers pounced on them near
the pier premises on their way back to Iloilo, each of
The Rules of Court provides that “a search warrant shall
them carrying a travelling bag which contained
not issue except upon probable cause in connection with
marijuana. People of the Philippines vs. Nelida Dequina,
one specific offense to be determined personally by the
Joselito Jundoc and Nora Jingabo, G.R. No. 177570,
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
January 19, 2011.
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and
things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Evidence; credibility of witnesses.
Philippines.” Thus, a search warrant may be issued only if
there is probable cause in connection with only one The Supreme Court in this case gave due weight and
specific offense alleged in an application on the basis of respect to the ruling of the lower courts in giving
the applicant’s personal knowledge and his or her credence to the positive testimonies of witnesses in
witnesses. Accordingly, petitioner cannot, therefore, pointing to the appellant as one of the kidnappers. The
utilize the evidence seized by virtue of the search witnesses testified in a clear and categorical manner,
warrants issued in connection with the case of Robbery in unfazed by efforts of the defense to discredit them. As a
a separate case of Qualified Theft, even if both cases rule, the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and
emanated from the same incident. Romer Sy Tan vs. Sy their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial
Tiongs, et al, G.R. No. 174570, December 15, 2010. court, which had a unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct
and attitude. While it is true that the trial judge who
January 2011 conducted the hearing would be in a better position to
ascertain the truth or falsity of the testimonies of the
Evidence; alibi. witnesses, it does not necessarily follow that a judge who
was not present during the trial, as in this case, cannot
Appellant’s denial and alibi are not worthy of belief. It is render a valid and just decision, since the latter can very
an oft-quoted doctrine that positive identification prevails well rely on the transcribed stenographic notes taken
over denial and alibi. Alibi cannot prevail over the during the trial as the basis of his decision. People of the
positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of Philippines vs. Ernesto Uyboco y Ramos, G.R. No.
the crime. Furthermore, for the defense of alibi to 178039, January 19, 2011.
prosper, appellant must establish that (a) he was in
another place at the time of the commission of the Evidence; denial.
offense; and (b) he was so far away that he could not
have been physically present at the place of the crime, or The Supreme Court has consistently held that “denials
its immediate vicinity, at the time of its commission.
unsubstantiated by convincing evidence are not enough
Morales testified that at the time of the killing, he was in to engender reasonable doubt particularly where the
his house, not far from the house of the victim, around
prosecution presents sufficiently telling proof of guilt,” as
20 arm’s-lengths, as per his reckoning. There is, thus, in the instant case. The sachet containing the dangerous
the possibility of him being physically present at the
drug was positively identified by PO3 Villamor during trial
place of the crime; indeed, as per his testimony, he was as the very sachet containing the white crystalline
in the immediate vicinity. He presented no corroborating
substance sold and delivered to him by Quiamanlon.
evidence to show that he was elsewhere at the time of Thus, appellant’s denial is self-serving and has little
the killing, nor did he present any witnesses to his
weight in law. People of the Philippines vs. Nene
whereabouts. There is only his word that he was not Quiamanlon y Malog, G.R. No. 191198, January 26,
there, against Santiago’s credible testimony. His
2011.
defense, thus, cannot prosper. People of the Philippines
vs. Hemiano De Jesus and Rodelo Morales, G.R. No.
186528, January 26, 2011. Evidence; mere denial cannot overcome
presumption of regularity.
Evidence; conspiracy.
A bare denial is an inherently weak defense and has been
invariably viewed by the Supreme Court with disfavor, for
Conspiracy can be inferred from and proven by acts of
it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a
the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint common standard line of defense in most prosecutions
purpose and design, concerted action, and community of
arising from violations of RA 9165. In the absence of any
interests. Although the same degree of proof required intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely
for establishing the crime is required to support a finding
impute such crime against the accused, the presumption
of the presence of conspiracy, it need not be proven by of regularity in the performance of duty stands. The
34
Supreme Court upheld the presumption of regularity in appellant’s arrest illegal or the items seized or
the performance of official duty and found that the confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost
prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the guilt importance is the preservation of the integrity and
of appellant beyond reasonable doubt. People of the evidentiary value of the seized items, as it would be
Philippines vs. Nene Quiamanlon y Malog, G.R. No. utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
191198, January 26, 2011. the accused. The prosecution has adequately shown the
continuous and unbroken possession and subsequent
transfers of the three plastic sachets of marijuana from
Evidence; mere denial cannot overcome
the time appellant handed to PO3 Lowaton the one
presumption of regularity.
plastic sachet of marijuana to consummate the sale
thereof, then the subsequent recovery by PO3 Lowaton of
The sachet containing the dangerous drug was positively
two more plastic sachets of marijuana from appellant
identified by MADAC operative Bilason during the trial as
followed by the markings made by PO3 Lowaton of his
the very sachet with white crystalline substance sold and
initials on the said three plastic sachets of marijuana at
delivered to him by accused-appellants. Thus, accused-
the place where appellant was arrested and in his
appellants’ denial is self-serving and has little weight in
presence until they were sent to the PNP Crime
law. A bare denial is an inherently weak defense, and has
Laboratory for examination that yielded positive result for
been invariably viewed with disfavor, for it can be easily
the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drug, as
concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common
evidenced by a Physical Science Report No. D-659-06S,
standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising
from violations of RA 9165. Denials unsubstantiated by and up to the time that the marked three plastic sachets
of marijuana were offered in court. Such fact
convincing evidence are not enough to engender
persuasively proves that the three plastic sachets of
reasonable doubt particularly where the prosecution
marijuana presented in court were the same items seized
presents sufficiently telling proof of guilt. In the absence
from appellant during the buy-bust operation. The
of any intent on the part of the police authorities to
integrity and evidentiary value thereof was duly
falsely impute such crime against the accused-appellants,
preserved. People of the Philippines vs. Mark Lester Dela
the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty
Rosa y Suello, G.R. No. 185166, January 26, 2011.
stands, especially here, where an astute analysis of
MADAC operative Bilason’s testimony does not indicate
any inconsistency, contradiction, or fabrication. People of Evidence; proof beyond reasonable doubt.
the Philippines vs. Carlo Magno Aure y Arnaldo and
Melchor Austriaco y Aguila, G.R. No. 185163, January 17, Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering
2011. exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti
— the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated
illicit drug. Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the
Evidence; seized items not photographed.
crime must be established. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function in buy-bust
As a last ditch effort of the appellant exculpate himself,
operations as it ensures that doubts concerning the
he claimed that his arrest was tainted with irregularity as
identity of the evidence are removed. People of the
the seized items were not photographed in accordance
Philippines vs. Erlinda Capuno y Tison, G.R. No. 185715,
with the provisions of Section 21, Article II of Republic
January 19, 2011.
Act No. 9165, thus, an evident violation thereof. The
Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s argument and
ruled that the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Republic Act No. 9165 allows flexibility in complying with May 2011
the express requirements under Section 21 of the said
law. Indeed, the evident purpose of the procedure is the Evidence; circumstantial evidence.
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items, as the same would be utilized in the While there was no direct evidence to establish
determination of the guilt of or innocence of the accused. appellant’s participation in the commission of the crime,
Thus, the proviso stating that non-compliance with the direct evidence is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial
stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on
said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt.
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a
apprehending officers. People of the Philippines vs. Mark fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may
Lester Dela Rosa y Suello, G.R. No. 185166, January 26, be established by inference. At times, resort to
2011. circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on
direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting
felons free and deny proper protection to the
Evidence; seized items not photographed.
community. People of the Philippines v. Ricky Ladiana y
Davao and Antonio Manuel Uy, G.R. No. 174660, May 30,
Even granting arguendo that the prosecution failed to
2011.
show that the police officers conducted the required
physical inventory and photograph of the evidence
confiscated pursuant to the aforesaid guidelines, the Evidence; circumstantial evidence.
same is not fatal and does not automatically render
35
Thus, Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court

on circumstantial evidence requires the concurrence of Evidence; positive identification.
the following: (1) there must be more than one
circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are An eyewitness account established that the petitioner’s
derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all
vehicle actually hit Rochelle Lanete. Eyewitness
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond identification is vital evidence, and, in most cases,
reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. A judgment
decisive of the success or failure of the prosecution. One
of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be of the prosecution witnesses, Victor Soriano,
sustained when the circumstances proved form an
unfortunately for the petitioner’s cause, saw the incident
unbroken chain that results to a fair and reasonable in its entirety; Victor thus provided direct evidence as
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all
eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the
others, as the guilty person. People of the Philippines v. crime. Victor positively identified the petitioner as the
Ricky Ladiana y Davao and Antonio Manuel Uy, G.R. No.
person who drove the car that ramped on an island
174660, May 30, 2011. divider along Governor Forbes corner G. Tuazon Street,
and hit Rochelle. The positive identification in this case,
coupled with the failure of the defense to impute any ill-
June 2011 motive on the eyewitness works to dispel reasonable
doubt on the fact that the petitioner’s car had in fact hit
Evidence; reasonable doubt. Rochelle. The eyewitness account provides the necessary
link between the petitioner’s failure to exercise
The evidence presented by the prosecution showed that precaution in operating his vehicle and Rochelle Lanete’s
appellant is guilty of only one count of rape, and not four death. Edwin Tabao y Perez vs. People of the Philippines,
counts. The Informations charged appellant with having G.R. No. 187246, July 20, 2011.
raped “AAA” on the first week, second week, and third
week, of March 2001, and on March 23, 2001. However,
as argued by the defense, the testimony of “AAA” with
regard to the first three incidents particularly on the August 2011
dates when and the places where the offenses were
supposedly committed contains disturbing discrepancies. Evidence; conspiracy; quantum of proof.
“AAA” testified that she was raped inside their tent in
“BBB”. However, in her re-direct examination, “AAA” As a rule, conspiracy must be established with the same
testified that she was raped elsewhere.The quantum of proof as the crime itself and must be shown
inconsistencies in the testimony of “AAA” regarding the as clearly as the commission of the crime. People of the
first three rape incidents are not inconsequential. These Philippines v. Michael Bokingo and Reynante Col, G.R.
inconsistencies create a reasonable doubt as to whether No. 187536, August 10, 2011.
appellant did in fact rape “AAA” during those occasions.
Consequently, appellant must be acquitted of the charges Evidence; credibility of witnesses.
of rape allegedly committed during the first week, second
week, and third week, of March 2001 based on The trial court and the Court of Appeals found the
reasonable doubt. People of the Philippines v. Rosauro testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding
Asetre y Duran, G.R. No. 175834, June 8, 2011. petitioner’s illegal sale and possession of shabu to be
credible since they are consistent with the documentary
and object evidence submitted by the prosecution. When
it comes to the credibility, the trial court’s assessment
July 2011 deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and
binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of
Evidence; credibility of rape victim’s testimony. some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The
trial court is in the best position to evaluate testimonial
Due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime bereft evidence properly because it has the full opportunity to
of witnesses, and, more often than not, the victim is left
observe directly the witnesses’ deportment and manner
to testify for herself. Thus, in the resolution of rape of testifying. This rule finds an even more stringent
cases, the victim’s credibility becomes the primordial
application where said findings are affirmed by the
consideration. It is settled that when the victim’s appellate court. Radito Aurelio Reyes v. People of the
testimony is straightforward, convincing, and consistent
Philippines, G.R. No. 174980, August 31, 2011.
with human nature and the normal course of things,
unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it
passes the test of credibility, and the accused may be Evidence; credibility of witnesses.
convicted solely on the basis thereof. Inconsistencies in
the victim’s testimony do not impair her credibility, It must be emphasized that when the credibility of a
especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court,
that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its
rape. The trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its
credibility is given great weight and is even conclusive conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high
and binding. People of the Philippines vs. Noel Dion, G.R. respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such
No. 181035, July 4, 2011. findings were affirmed by the appellate court, since it is
36
settled that when the trial court’s findings have been must not rely on the weakness of the defense. And if the
affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are prosecution fails to meet the required amount of
generally binding upon Supreme Court. People of the evidence, the defense may logically not even present
Philippines v. Rodel Lanuza y Bagaoisan, G.R. No. evidence on its own behalf. In which case, the
188562, August 17, 2011. presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily
be acquitted. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the two accused.
The rule that high respect must be accorded the lower
courts in their findings of facts cannot be misused to
Evidence; credibility of witnesses; inconsistencies
diminish the required evidence to overcome the
in testimonies.
presumption of innocence of the accused as guaranteed
by the Constitution. People of the Philippines v. Edgardo
The inconsistencies in private complainant’s testimony
Fermin y Gregorio and Job Madayag Jr. y Balderas,G.R.
are not as serious or damaging. The Supreme Court
No. 179344, August 3, 2011.
agrees with the Court of Appeals that the purported
inconsistencies in private complainant’s testimony pertain
Evidence; presumption of regularity of official
to details which are inconsequential to the credibility of
duties vis-à-vis presumption of innocence.
his overall testimony. While there may be some
inconsistencies in private complainant’s testimony, these
In convicting the appellant of the crime charged, both the
incompatible declarations do not pertain to the essential
elements of the crime of which the accused-appellant Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals relied on
the evidentiary presumption that official duties have been
was convicted. They refer only to minor matters and are
regularly performed. However, this presumption is not
inconsequential as they do not impair the credibility of
conclusive and cannot, by itself, overcome the
the prosecution witness. People of the Philippines v.
constitutional presumption of innocence. The
Rodel Lanuza y Bagaoisan, G.R. No. 188562, August 17,
presumption of regularity, it must be emphasized,
2011.
obtains only when there is no deviation from the regular
performance of duty. Where the official act in question is
Evidence; credibility of witnesses; inconsistencies irregular on its face, no presumption of regularity can
in testimonies. arise. In the present case, the procedural lapses by the
apprehending team in the handling of the seized items –
In fact, inaccuracies may suggest that the witness is from their failure to mark it immediately upon
telling the truth and has not been rehearsed. This is confiscation, to their failure to inventory and photograph
because a witness is not expected to remember every it in the presence of the accused, or his representative or
single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall. counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ,
Questions on whether or not private complainant had and any elected public official, without offering any
actually seen accused-appellant load the shotgun with a justifiable ground – effectively negated the presumption
bullet, or whether or not private complainant was already of regularity. People of the Philippines v. Jhon-Jhon
on board his motorcycle when he was shot by accused- Alejandro y Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 176350, August 10,
appellant, would have no bearing on the fact that private 2011.
complainant was shot by accused-appellant with the
service shotgun turned-over by the former to the latter.
Evidence; proof of age in statutory rape; guidelines.
The Supreme Court stressed that accused-appellant
himself admitted the fact of shooting, and only disputed
In People v. Pruna, the Court set out the following
any intent to kill private complainant. The conclusion of
guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of
the Regional Trial Court, as affirmed by the Court of
the crime or as a qualifying circumstance: (a) the best
Appeals and the Supreme Court that the accused-
evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an
appellant intended to kill private complainant was not
original or certified true copy of the certificate of live
based entirely on accused-appellant deliberately loading
birth of such party; (b) in the absence of a certificate of
the shotgun, but also on the existence of motive on
live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal
accused-appellant’s part, the location and severity of
certificate and school records which show the date of
private complainant’s injury, and accused-appellant’s
birth of the victim would suffice to prove age; (c) if the
behavior immediately after the shooting. People of the
certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to
Philippines v. Rodel Lanuza y Bagaoisan, G.R. No.
have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the
188562, August 17, 2011.
testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or
a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity
Evidence; presumption of innocence. who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree
such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended
In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on
the law’s own starting perspective on the status of the Evidence shall be sufficient under the following
accused – in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed circumstances: [i] if the victim is alleged to be below 3
innocent of the charged laid unless the contrary is proven years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she
beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the is less than 7 years old; [ii] if the victim is alleged to be
prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
by presenting the quantum of evidence required. To that she is less than 12 years old; [iii] if the victim is
repeat, the prosecution must rest on its own merits and
37
alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to evidence other than by such act or declaration. Since
be proved is that she is less than 18 years old; (d) in the there was no sufficient evidence to establish the
absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, existence of conspiracy, the extrajudicial confession has
or the testimony of the victim’s mother or relatives no probative value and is inadmissible in evidence
concerning the victim’s age, the complainant’s testimony against Col. People of the Philippines v. Michael Bokingo
will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly and Reynante Col, G.R. No. 187536, August 10, 2011.
admitted by the accused; (e) it is the prosecution that
has the burden of proving the age of the offended party Evidence; statutory rape; elements.
and the failure of the accused to object to the testimonial
evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him; In People v. Orillosa, the Supreme Court held that in
(f) the trial court should always make a categorical
incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation
finding as to the age of the victim. In the present case, need not be employed where the overpowering moral
the prosecution failed to present any certificate of live
influence of the father would suffice. Thus, in order for
birth or any similar authentic document to prove the age the accused to be found guilty of the crime of statutory
of AAA when she was sexually violated. Neither did the
rape in this jurisdiction, only two (2) elements must
appellant expressly admit AAA’s age. In this case, the concur: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the
accused-appellant was found guilty of simple rape.
victim; and (2) that the victim is below twelve (12) years
People of the Philippines v. Terecio Funesto y Llospardas, old. In the present case, it is undisputed that the victim,
G.R. No. 182237, August 3, 2011.
AAA, was below twelve (12) years old when the crime
was committed. A copy of AAA’s birth certificate to prove
Evidence; rape. her age was duly presented in evidence by the
prosecution, indicating that she was indeed born on
In reviewing the evidence in rape cases, the following October 14, 1994. Concomitantly, AAA was only seven
considerations should be made: (1) an accusation for (7) years old when the crime of rape was first committed
rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but against her in 2001, and was only nine (9) years old
more difficult for the person, though innocent, to when the accused once again succeeded in committing
disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime the same crime in 2003. Also, it is undisputed that
of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the accused-appellant is the father of AAA, as stipulated by
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with the parties during the pre-trial conference and as also
extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the indicated in AAA’s birth certificate. Thus, what only
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and remains to be proved is the fact of carnal knowledge by
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the accused of the victim.
the evidence for the defense. Nonetheless, it also bears When AAA was called to the witness stand, she gave a
stressing that rape is essentially committed in relative detailed narration of how she was sexually molested by
isolation or secrecy; thus, it is most often only the victim her father, which narration is difficult, if not improbable,
who can testify with regard to the fact of forced coitus. for a 10-year-old girl to concoct. Verily, the prosecution
The prosecution’s evidence here established the guilt of has sufficiently established the foregoing element, thus
accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. People of proving that accused-appellant is guilty beyond
the Philippines v. Juanito Appattad, G.R. No. reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape. People of
193188. August 10, 2011. the Philippines v. Juanito Appattad, G.R. No.
193188, August 10, 2011.
Evidence; res inter alios acta rule.
Inasmuch as Bokingco’s extrajudicial confession is

September 2011
inadmissible against him, it is likewise inadmissible
against Col, specifically where he implicated the latter as
Evidence; affidavits of desistance.
a cohort. Under Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court, the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
Courts look with disfavor on affidavits of desistance
act, declaration or omission of another. Res inter alios and/or retraction. In People v. Bation, it was ruled that:
acta alteri nocere non debet. Consequently, an
“[A]n affidavit of desistance is merely an additional
extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant; ground to buttress the accused’s defenses, not the sole
it is not admissible against his or her co-accused, and is
consideration that can result in acquittal. There must be
considered as hearsay against them. People of the other circumstances which, when coupled with the
Philippines v. Michael Bokingo and Reynante Col, G.R.
retraction or desistance, create doubts as to the truth of
No. 187536, August 10, 2011. the testimony given by the witnesses at the trial and
accepted by the judge.” Accused-appellant cannot
Evidence; res inter alios acta rule; exception. plausibly bank on AAA’s affidavit of desistance,
complemented by her testimony for the defense, as an
An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an exonerating vehicle for his dastardly act. Other than the
admission made by a conspirator. Section 30, Rule 130
retraction or desistance affidavit, nothing in the records
of the Rules of Court provides that the act or declaration would show any other circumstance of substance
of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during
accepted by the trial court that would becloud the
its existence may be given in evidence against the co- veracity of AAA’s earlier inculpating testimony. Thus, as
conspirator provided that the conspiracy is shown by
long as the complaining witness musters the test of
38
credibility and consistency, her testimony deserves full as great respect, if not conclusive effect. Such
faith and confidence and cannot be discarded. And if such determination made by the trial court proceeds from its
testimony is clear and credible to establish the crime first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction of rape based on witnesses, their conduct and attitude under grilling
it may lie even if she subsequently retracted her earlier examination, thereby placing the trial court in the unique
testimony. So it must be here. People of the Philippines position to assess the witnesses’ credibility and to
v. Joselito Orje y Borce, G.R. No. 189579, September 12, appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor. In this
2011. case, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals gave full
faith and credence to the testimony of prosecution
witness Mendeja. The Court of Appeals rejected
Villacorta’s attempts to impugn Mendeja’s testimony.
People of the Philippines v. Orlito Villacorta, G.R. No.
186412, September 7, 2011.
Evidence; defense of denial and alibi.
In the face of witness’ positive identification of the

accused as the victim’s stabber, the accused merely November 2011
interposed an uncorroborated denial as his defense.
Denial, like alibi, as an exonerating justification, is Evidence; trial court’s evaluation of witnesses
inherently weak and if uncorroborated, regresses to highly respected on appeal.
blatant impotence. Like alibi, it also constitutes self-
serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded Time and again, it has been emphasized that the manner
greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of of assigning values to declarations of witnesses at the
credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. witness stand is best and most competently performed
People of the Philippines v. Orlito Villacorta, G.R. No. by the trial judge who has the unique and unmatched
186412, September 7, 2011. opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and
assess their credibility. In essence, when the question
Evidence; credibility of testimonial evidence. arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the
prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the
Testimonial evidence to be believed must not only come assessment of the trial court is generally given the
from credible lips but must be credible in substance. A highest degree of respect, if not finality. The assessment
story that defies reason and logic and above all runs made by the trial court is even more enhanced when the
against the grain of common experience cannot Court of Appeals affirms the same, as in this case. The
persuade. Here, the prosecution’s account failed to pass prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt
these tests. In her Affidavit, MJ said that Rodel sought to the charges of rape and acts of lasciviousness against
walk her home because he wanted to talk to her about Subesa. All his four children positively identified him as
fixing their relationship. In her testimony, however, MJ their molester. People of the Philippines v. Avelino
insisted that she had no conversation with Rodel prior to Subesa y Moscardon, G.R. No. 193660, November 16,
his showing up at her house near midnight of December 2011.
23, 2003. And when Rodel left, MJ did not see him off at
the door to lock it as he went out. Her excuse in not
locking the door was that her mother was still out. But
notably, when Rodel supposedly came and knocked at
the door after she got home at 11:30 p.m., she had to let
him in because it was already locked. MJ also said that
she was no longer naked when she woke up and heard
her brother screaming by the bedroom window, with
Rodel in a tight grip. If this were true, somebody must
have slipped her clothes back on while she was out cold.
This contradicts LK’s testimony that her son had to wrap
MJ in a blanket before taking her out of the room. The
sequence of events that the prosecution tried to establish
did not also make sense. With so many inconsistencies
and incompatibilities with common experience, the
unfiltered truth was not seen. Hence, the evidence failed
to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence
of the accused. People of the Philippines v. Rodel
Singson, G.R. No. 194719, September 21, 2011.
Evidence; trial court’s determination of credibility

of witnesses respected on appeal.
It is fundamental that the determination by the trial court

of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the
appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well
39
to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused,

and not someone else, was responsible for the killing.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction as long
as there is (1) more than one circumstance; (2) the facts
from which the inferences are derived are proved; and
(3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. People
of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Badriago, G.R. No.
183566, May 8, 2009.
EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS.
As a rule, the findings of the trial court relative to the

credibility of the rape victim are normally respected and
not disturbed on appeal. More so, if they are affirmed by
the appellate court. It is only in exceptional
circumstances that this rule is brushed aside, such as
when the court’s evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or
when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied certain facts or circumstances of weight and
substance which could affect the result of the case. The
People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Layco, Sr., G.R. No.
SELECTED SUPREME COURT DECISIONS 182191, May 8, 2009.
IN REMEDIAL LAW
MAY 2009-APRIL 2010 EVIDENCE; DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT.
The failure of the prosecution to offer the testimony of

key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of
custody of a specimen of shabu, and the irregularity
which characterized the handling of the evidence before
the same was finally offered in court, fatally conflict with
every proposition relative to the culpability of the
MAY 2009 CASES
accused. It is this same reason that now moves us to
reverse the judgment of conviction in the present case.
CERTIORARI; JUDICIAL DISCRETION. Guido Catuiran y Necudemus vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 175467, May 8, 2009.
A wide breadth of discretion is granted a court of justice
in certiorari proceedings. The Supreme Court has not too EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE; NOTICE.
infrequently given due course to a petition for certiorari,
even when the proper remedy would have been an
The Court of Appeals invalidated the extrajudicial
appeal, where valid and compelling considerations would
foreclosure of the mortgage on the ground that petitioner
warrant such a recourse. Moreover, the Supreme Court
had failed to furnish respondent personal notice of the
allowed a Rule 65 petition, despite the availability of
sale contrary to the stipulation in the real estate
plain, speedy or adequate remedy, in view of the
mortgage. Petitioner, on the other hand, claims that
importance of the issues raised therein. The rules were
under paragraph 12 of the real estate mortgage, personal
also relaxed by the Supreme Court after considering the
notice of the foreclosure sale is not a requirement to the
public interest involved in the case; when public welfare
validity of the foreclosure sale. A perusal of the records
and the advancement of public policy dictates; when the
of the case shows that a notice of sheriff’s sale was sent
broader interest of justice so requires; when the writs
by registered mail to respondent and received in due
issued are null and void; or when the questioned order
course. Yet, respondent claimed that it did not receive
amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
the notice but only learned about it from petitioner.
People’s Broadcasting vs. The Secretary of the
Paragraph 12 of the real estate mortgage requires
Department of Labor and Employment, et al., G.R. No.
petitioner merely to furnish respondent with the notice
179652, May 8, 2009.
and does not oblige petitioner to ensure that respondent
actually receives the notice. On this score, the Supreme
Court helds that petitioner has performed its obligation
under paragraph 12 of the real estate
EVIDENCE; CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. mortgage. Producers Bank of the Philippines vs. Excelsa
Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 152071, May 8, 2009.
The circumstantial evidence available was enough to
convict accused-appellant. Circumstantial evidence may EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE; WRIT OF
be competent to establish guilt as long as it is sufficient POSSESSION.
40
It is ministerial upon the court to issue a writ of literally preclude petitioners from intervening in the
possession after the foreclosure sale and during the intestate proceedings, case law has consistently held that
period of redemption. The governing law, Act No. 3135, the legal interest required of an intervenor “must be
as amended, in Section 7 thereof, explicitly authorizes actual and material, direct and immediate, and not
the purchaser in a foreclosure sale to apply for a writ of simply contingent and expectant.”
possession during the redemption period by filing an ex
parte motion under oath for that purpose in the
Nonetheless, it is not immediately evident that
corresponding registration or cadastral proceeding in the
intervention under the Rules of Civil Procedure
case of property with Torrens title. Upon the filing of such
necessarily comes into operation in special proceedings.
motion and the approval of the corresponding bond, the
The settlement of estates of deceased persons fall within
law also in express terms directs the court to issue the
the rules of special proceedings under the Rules of Court,
order for a writ of possession. The writ of possession
not the Rules on Civil Procedure. Section 2, Rule 72
issues as a matter of course even without the filing and
further provides that “[i]n the absence of special
approval of a bond after consolidation of ownership and
provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall
the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in the
be, as far as practicable, applicable to special
name of the purchaser
proceedings.”
But the rule is not without exception. Under Section 35,

The Supreme Court concluded that notwithstanding
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which is made suppletory
Section 2 of Rule 72, intervention as set forth under Rule
to the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages
19 does not extend to creditors of a decedent whose
by Section 6 of Act 3135, as amended, the possession of
credit is based on a contingent claim. The definition of
the mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser
“intervention” under Rule 19 simply does not
in the extrajudicial foreclosure unless a third party is
accommodate contingent claims. Alfredo Hilado, Lopez
actually holding the property adversely to the judgment
Sugar Corporation, First Farmers Holding Corporation vs.
debtor. Thus, in the cited case of Philippine National Bank
The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 164108,
v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that the
May 8, 2009.
obligation of a court to issue an ex parte writ of
possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial
foreclosure sale ceases to be ministerial once it appears JUDGMENT; MOTION TO HELD IN ABEYANCE
that there is a third party in possession of the property EXECUTION.
who is claiming a right adverse to that of the
debtor/mortgagor. This is substantiated by the Civil Code Petitioner cannot perpetually file any petition or pleading
which protects the actual possessor of a property. to forestall the execution of a final judgment. Execution
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Prime of a final judgment is the fruit and end of the suit. While
Neighborhood Association, G.R. No. 175728 & G.R. No. a litigant’s right to initiate an action in court is fully
178914, May 8, 2009, respected, once his case has been adjudicated by a
competent court in a valid final judgment, he should not
FORUM SHOPPING. be permitted to initiate similar suits in the hope of
securing a favorable ruling. The 28 March 2001
Sandiganbayan Decision has attained finality. Such
The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple
definitive judgment is no longer subject to change,
suits involving the same parties for the same cause of
revision, amendment or reversal. Upon finality of the
action, either simultaneously or successively, for the
judgment, the Court loses its jurisdiction to amend,
purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. The elements
modify or alter the same. Except for correction of clerical
of forum shopping are: (a) identity of parties, or at least
errors or the making of nunc pro tunc entries which
such parties as represent the same interests in both
cause no prejudice to any party, or where the judgment
action; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed
is void, the judgment can neither be amended nor altered
for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (c)
after it has become final and executory. This is the
the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars
principle of immutability of final judgment. Panfilo D.
in the two cases is such that any judgment rendered in
Bongcac vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 156687-88,
the pending cases, regardless of which party is
May 21, 2009.
successful, amount to res judicata in the other case. GD
Express Worldwide N.V., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et
al., G.R. No. 136978, May 8, 2009. JUDICIAL NOTICE.
INTERVENTION; INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS. The labor arbiter took judicial notice of the alleged
prevailing business practices in the coconut industry that
copra making activities are done quarterly; that the
Section 1 of Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
workers can contract with other farms; and that the
requires that an intervenor “has a legal interest in the
workers are independent from the land owner on all work
matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the
aspects. Petitioner wants this Court to take judicial notice
parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to
of the current business practice in the coconut industry
be adversely affected by a distribution or other
which allegedly treats copraceros as independent
disposition of property in the custody of the court x x x”
contractors. An invocation that the Supreme Court take
While the language of Section 1, Rule 19 does not
41
judicial notice of certain facts should satisfy the requisites Heirs of Laudiza who filed an action for reconveyance
set forth by case law. A mere prayer for its application against respondent Casal, which is still pending before
shall not suffice. Thus, in this case the Supreme Court the RTC. However, nothing prevents the HLURB from
cannot take judicial notice of the alleged business adjudicating on the issue of whether the alleged
practices in the copra industry since none of the material subsequent sale of the subdivision lots to respondents
requisites of matters of judicial notice is present in the Ang and Cuason constituted a double sale because the
instant petition. The record is bereft of any indication that issue is intimately related to petitioners’ complaint to
the matter is of common knowledge to the public and compel respondents CRS Realty, Casal and Salvador to
that it has the characteristic of notoriety, except perform their obligation under the contracts to sell.
petitioners’ self-serving claim. South Davao Development Considering that the alleged subsequent sale to
Company, Inc., et al. vs. Sergio L. Gamo, et al., G.R. No. respondents Ang and Cuason apparently would constitute
171814, May 8, 2009. a breach of respondents’ obligation to issue the certificate
of title to petitioners, if not an unsound business practice
punishable under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1344,[50] the
JURISDICTION; CIAC.
HLURB cannot shirk from its mandate to enforce the laws
for the protection of subdivision buyers. The HLURB
An examination of the allegations in Fong’s complaint may determine if the alleged subsequent sale to
reveals that his cause of action springs not from a respondents Ang and Cuason of those lots initially sold to
violation of the provisions of the Trade Contract, but from petitioners constituted a double sale and was tainted with
the assignment of Maxco’s retention money to him and fraud as opposed to the respondents’ claim that only the
failure of petitioner to turn over the retention money. The unsold portions of the subdivision property were sold to
allegations in Fong’s Complaint are clear and simple: (1) them. Vicenta Cantemprate vs. CRS Realty Development
That Maxco had an outstanding obligation to respondent; Corp., G.R. No. 171399, May 8, 2009.
(2) Maxco assigned to Fong its retention from petitioner
in payment of the said obligation; (3) Petitioner as early
JURISDICTION; INTRA-CORPORATE
as April 18, 2005 was notified of the assignment; (4)
CONTROVERSY.
Despite due notice of such assignment, petitioner still
refused to deliver the amount assigned to respondent,
giving preference, instead, to the 2 other creditors of There is no question that the prayers for the appointment
Maxco; (5) At the time petitioner was notified of the of a management receiver, the nullification and
assignment, there were only one other notice of amendment of certain provisions of PEAC’s articles of
garnishment and there were sufficient residual amounts incorporation and by-laws, the recognition of the election
to satisfy Fong’s claim; and (6) uncertain over which one of respondent Filchart’s directors, as well as the
between Maxco and petitioner he may resort to for inspection of the corporate books, are intra-corporate in
payment, respondent named them both as defendants in nature as they pertain to the regulation of corporate
Civil Case No. 06-0200-CFM. affairs.
Although the jurisdiction of the CIAC is not limited to the Even the issue of respondent Filchart’s status as
instances enumerated in Section 4 of E. O. No. 1008, stockholder in PEAC and, concomitantly, its capacity to
Fong’s claim is not even construction-related at all. This file SEC Case No. 08-97-5746 must be threshed out in
court has held that: “Construction is defined as referring the intra-corporate proceedings. Petitioner GD Express’
to all on-site works on buildings or altering structures, allegation that respondent Filchart has not fully paid its
from land clearance through completion including subscription to the shares in PEAC and, thus, cannot
excavation, erection and assembly and installation of claim to be a stockholder in PEAC does not oust the SCC
components and equipment.” Thus, petitioner’s insistence of its jurisdiction over the case. For the purpose of
on the application of the arbitration clause of the Trade determining whether SEC Case No. 08-97-5746 should
Contract to Fong is clearly anchored on an erroneous be heard as an intra-corporate proceeding, the allegation
premise that the latter is seeking to enforce a right under in respondent Filchart’s petition that it is a stockholder in
the trade contract. This premise cannot stand since the PEAC is deemed hypothetically admitted. It is only after a
right to the retention money of Maxco under the Trade full-blown hearing that the SCC may determine whether
Contract is not being impugned herein. It bears respondent Filchart’s may be considered a bona fide
mentioning that petitioner readily conceded the existence stockholder of PEAC and is entitled to the reliefs prayed
of the retention money. Fong’s demand that the portion for in its petition.
of retention money should have been paid to him before
the other creditors of Maxco clearly, does not require the
However, in view of the transfer of jurisdiction over intra-
CIAC’s expertise and technical knowledge of
corporate disputes from the SEC to the SCCs, which are
construction. Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation vs.
the same RTCs exercising general jurisdiction, the
Hon. Edwin D. Sorongon, et al., G.R. No. 176709, May 8,
question of jurisdiction is no longer decisive to the
2009.
resolution of the instant case. GD Express Worldwide
N.V., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 136978,
JURISDICTION; HLURB. May 8, 2009.
The HLURB has no jurisdiction to declare petitioners as JURISDICTION; PANEL OF ARBITRATORS.

absolute owners of the subdivision lots as against the
42
The regular courts, not the panel of arbitrators, has the respondents have the better right to possess the
jurisdiction over disputes between aprties to an operating subject property.
agreement. Olympic Mines and Development Corp., vs.
Platinum Group of Metals Corp./Citinickel Mines and
Well-established is the rule that if possession is by
Development Corp. vs. Hon. Judge Beienvenido C.
tolerance as has been alleged in the complaint such
Blancaflor, et al./Platinum Group of Metals vs. Citinickel
possession becomes illegal upon demand to vacate, with
Mines and Development Corp. etc./Platinum Group of
the possessor refusing to comply with such demand.
Metals Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Polly C.
Samuel Malabanan vs. Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc., G.R.
Dy, G.R. No. 178188, G.R. No. 180674, G.R. No. 181141
No. 163495, May 8, 2009.
and G.R. No. 183527, May 8, 2009.
RECONVEYANCE.
An action for reconveyance respects the decree of

JURISDICTION OVER DISPUTES BETWEEN PARTIES
registration as incontrovertible but seeks the transfer of
TO AN OPERATING AGREEMENT
property, which has been wrongfully or erroneously
registered in other persons’ names, to its rightful and
legal owners, or to those who claim to have a better In the mining industry, it is not unusual for the mining
right. Angel M. Pagaduan vs. Spouses Estanislao & Fe contractor (which holds the mining permit granted by the
Posadas Ocuma, G.R. No. 176308, May 8, 2009. government) to enter into an operating agreement with a
third party, which will undertake actual mining operations
in the area covered by the mining permit.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER.
This arrangement is undertaken for many reasons,

In unlawful detainer, one unlawfully withholds possession
including the following:
thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to
hold possession under any contract, express or implied.
In such case, the possession was originally lawful but (a) the mining contractor may not wish to actively
became unlawful by the expiration or termination of the engage in mining operations and may prefer to
right to possess; hence, the issue of rightful possession is receive royalties from the operation of the mine;
decisive for, in such action, the defendant is in actual (b) the mining contractor may not have sufficient
possession and the plaintiff’s cause of action is the funds to conduct mining operations (which may
termination of the defendant’s right to continue in require a huge amount of capital investment);
possession. (c) the mining contractor may not have the technical
expertise to conduct mining operations or it may
wish to have a more experienced entity conduct
It can readily be inferred that petitioner is primarily
mining operations.
asserting his ownership over the subject property. It
should be reiterated, at the point of being repetitive, that
in an unlawful detainer case, the only issue to be With the proliferation of operating agreements, the issue
resolved is who between the parties is entitled to the that arose is which body has jurisdiction to resolve
physical or material possession of the property in disputes between parties to an operating agreement.
dispute. The trial court and the appellate court were one
in saying that respondent had overwhelmingly In Olympic Mines and Development Corp. vs. Platinum
established its right of possession by virtue of the dacion Group of Metals Corp./Citinickel Mines and Development
en pago and the torrens title. Corp. vs. Hon. Judge Beienvenido C. Blancaflor, et
al./Platinum Group of Metals vs. Citinickel Mines and
At this juncture, it may not be amiss to note that in a Development Corp. etc./Platinum Group of Metals
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Polly C. Dy, G.R.
only questions of law may be raised for the simple reason No. 178188, G.R. No. 180674, G.R. No. 181141 and G.R.
that the Court is not a trier of facts. It is not duty-bound No. 183527, May 8, 2009, one party claimed that
to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in jurisdiction over the dispute is with the regular courts
the proceedings below. The factual findings of the trial while the other party claimed that jurisdiction is with the
court, especially when adopted and affirmed by the Court panel of arbitrators constituted under the Mining Act.
of Appeals as in the present case, are final and conclusive
and may not be reviewed on appeal. Who is correct?
In the case at bar, both the trial court and the appellate The Supreme Court held that the regular courts have
court lent more credence to the validity of the dacion en jurisdiction to resolve disputes between parties to an
pago and respondent’s title. This determination, however, operating agreement. The Supreme Court noted that the
is regarded merely as provisional. It is a settled doctrine jurisdiction of the panel of arbitrations is granted by
that courts in ejectment cases may determine questions Section 77 of the Mining Act, which provides:
of ownership whenever necessary to decide the question
of possession. In any case, we sustain the finding that
43
Sec. 77. Panel of Arbitrators. – xxx. Within thirty (30) definition of “mineral agreement” beyond the clear terms
working days, after the submission of the case by the of the law.
parties for decision, the panel shall have exclusive and
original jurisdiction to hear and decide on the following:
Section 77(c) does not also apply:
a. Disputes involving rights to mining areas;
b. Disputes involving mineral agreements or permits;
c. Disputes involving surface owners, occupants and Even an invocation of Section 77(c) of Mining Act
claimholders/concessionaires; and (referring to “disputes involving surface owners,
d. Disputes pending before the Bureau and the occupants and claim-holders/concessionaires”) would not
Department at the date of the effectivity of this Act. suffice to confer jurisdiction over the dispute to the POA.
Surface-owners, occupants, and concessionaires refer to
owners or occupants of the real property affected by the
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 77(a) does not
mining activities conducted by the claim-
apply:
holders/concessionaires (entities which are holding
mining rights granted by the government). Neither
To properly fall within the POA’s jurisdiction under Citinickel nor Platinum falls under this classification.
Section 77 (a) of the Mining Law, the dispute must:
1. refer to an adverse claim, protest, or opposition to
Finally, Section 77(d) does not also apply as the dispute
an application for a mineral agreement; and
arose only after the effectivity of the Mining Act. Given
2. be filed prior to the approval by the DENR Secretary
the foregoing, the Supreme Court concluded that the
of the mineral agreement.
regional trial court has jurisdiction over the dispute.
Under these terms, Section 77 (a) established a cut-off

period (i.e., before the approval of the mineral
agreement) when the POA’s jurisdiction may be properly
invoked, and this period had long lapsed insofar as the JUNE 2009 CASES
dispute between Citinickel and Platinum is concerned, as
Olympic’s mining lease contract and its Operating ACTIONS; QUASI IN REM.
Agreement with Platinum had already been approved by
the Government. Accordingly, invocation of the POA’s
jurisdiction under Section 77(a) finds no application in The petition for cancellation of entries annotated at the
this case. back of OCT No. 40287 ought to have been directed
against specific persons: namely, the heirs of Juan
Soriano as appearing in Entry No. 20102 and,
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 77(b) does not indubitably, against their successors-in-interest who have
also apply: acquired different portions of the property over the years
because it is in the nature of an action quasi in rem.
Neither will POA be vested with jurisdiction through Accordingly, the Salazars should have impleaded as party
Section 77(b), as the nature of the agreement between defendants the heirs of Juan Soriano and/or Vicenta
Olympic and Platinum is not the “mineral agreement” Macaraeg as well as those claiming ownership over the
contemplated under the law. The term “mineral property under their names because they are
agreement” has a specific definition under the Mining Act. indispensable parties. This was not done in this
. . Quite obviously, the Operating Agreement is not “a case. Since no indispensable party was ever impleaded
contract between the government and a contractor”; by the Salazars in their petition for cancellation of entry
instead, it is a purely civil contract between two private filed before Branch 63 of the RTC of Tarlac, herein
entities – one of whom happens to be a party to a petitioners are not bound by the dispositions of the said
mineral agreement with the government. While the court. Consequently, the judgment or order of the said
enforcement of the terms of an operating agreement court never even acquired finality. Zenaida Acosta, et al.
would necessarily relate to an existing and approved vs. Trinidad Salazar, et al., G.R. No. 161034. June 30,
mineral agreement (as may be inferred from Section 4 of 2009
DENR Memorandum Order No. 2003-08), this however
does not make the two concepts the same, nor does it ANSWER; COUNTERCLAIM.
make an operating agreement a specie of the mineral
agreements contemplated under the Mining Act. Section
26 of the Mining Act states that a mineral agreement There is no merit in petitioners’ contention that the
may be in the form of a mineral production sharing Counter-Petition for Partition in their Answer was in the
agreement, a co-production agreement or a joint-venture nature of a compulsory counterclaim which does not
agreement, and does not include an operating agreement require the payment of docket fees.
in the enumeration. Apart from this, the Mining Act and
the various administrative issuances treat these two A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may
separately by providing for different requirements, rules, have against an opposing party. It may either be
and procedures governing their application, approval, and permissive or compulsory. It is permissive if it does not
cancellation. Thus, to contend that a dispute involving arise out of or is not necessarily connected with the
operating agreements can be classified as a “dispute subject matter of the opposing party’s claim. A
involving mineral agreements or permits” stretches the
44
permissive counterclaim is essentially an independent Admittedly, Uy received the CIAC decision on June 7,
claim that may be filed separately in another case. 2000; that instead of filing a verified petition for review
with the CA, Uy filed a motion for correction of
computation on June 16, 2000, pursuant to Section 9,
A counterclaim is compulsory when its object arises out
Article XV of the Rules of Procedure Governing
of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or
Construction Arbitration. With the filing of the motion for
occurrence constituting the subject matter of the
correction, the running of the period to appeal was
opposing party’s claim and does not require for its
effectively interrupted.
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Unlike permissive
counterclaims, compulsory counterclaims should be set CIAC was supposed to resolve the motion for correction
up in the same action; otherwise, they would be barred of computation within 30 days from the time the
forever. comment or opposition thereto was submitted. In Uy’s
case, no resolution was issued despite the lapse of the
30-day period, and Uy considered it as a denial of his
Respondents’ action was for the annulment of the Deed
motion. Accordingly, he elevated his case to the CA on
of Extrajudicial Settlement, title and partition of the
July 24, 2000. But not long thereafter, or on August 1,
property subject of the Deed. On the other hand, in the
2000, the CIAC issued an Order denying the motion for
Counter-Petition filed by petitioners in their Answer to
correction of computation. Obviously, when Uy filed his
respondents’ complaint, they were asking for the
petition for review with the CA, the period to appeal had
partition and accounting of the other 12 parcels of land of
not yet lapsed; it was interrupted by the pendency of his
the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina, which are
motion for computation. There is no basis, therefore, to
entirely different from the subject matter of the
conclude that the petition was belatedly filed. Elpidio S.
respondents’ action. Petitioners’ claim does not
Uy, etc. vs. Public Estates Authority and the Honorable
arise out of or is necessarily connected with the action for
Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 147925-26, June 8, 2009.
the Annulment of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of
the property covered by TCT No. 458396.
Thus, payment of docket fees is necessary before the APPEAL; DEFECT IN NOTARIAL DOCUMENT.
RTC could acquire jurisdiction over petitioners’ petition
for partition. Cristina F. Reillo, et al. vs. Galicano E. San
The Supreme Court had, on numerous occasions, veered
Jose etc., et al., G.R. No. 166393, June 18, 2009.
away from the general rule and relaxed the application of
technical rules when, in its assessment, the appeal on its
APPEAL; BSP. face appeared absolutely meritorious. The Supreme
Court had, in a number of instances, relaxed procedural
rules in order to serve and achieve substantial justice.
Having established that the BSP Monetary Board is
indeed a quasi-judicial body exercising quasi-judicial
functions; then as such, it is one of those quasi-judicial However, in this case, the circumstances in this case do
agencies, though not specifically mentioned in Section not warrant the relaxation of the rules. The Certification
9(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, and issued by the notary public will not save the day for
Section 1, Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil petitioner. The same is merely a belated attempt to
Procedure, are deemed included therein. Therefore, the comply with the requirements under the NLRC Rules of
Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over final Procedure and the Notarial Rules. Petitioner failed to
judgments, orders, resolutions or awards of the BSP explain how, if indeed the Unilab representatives and
Monetary Board on administrative complaints against their legal counsel appeared before the Notary Public
banks and quasi-banks, which the former acquires together with the bonding company representative, they
through the filing by the aggrieved party of a Petition for failed to indicate their CTC numbers on the document
Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil knowing fully well – the legal counsel most especially –
Procedure. United Coconut Planters Bank, et al. vs. E. that the same is required by law. To allow such
Ganzon, Inc./E. Ganzon, Inc. vs. United Coconut Planters certification to “cure” the procedural lapse made by
Bank, et al., G.R. No. 168859/G.R. No. 168897, June 30, petitioner would undermine the integrity of notarized
2009. documents. Pedriatica, Inc. vs. Joselito T. Rafaeles, G.R.
No. 180755, June 19, 2009.
APPEAL; CIAC.
APPEAL; EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL.
Appeals from judgment of the CIAC shall be taken to the
Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review within Discretionary execution of judgments pending appeal
fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice of award, under Sec. 2(a) of Rule 39 does not apply to eminent
judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of domain proceedings. Spouses Ernesto F. Curata, et al.
its last publication if publication is required by law for its vs. Philippine Ports Authority, Philippine Ports Authority
effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new vs. Remedios Rosales-Bondoc, et al., Philippine Ports
trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the Authority vs. Hon. Paterno Tac-an, et al., Rosalina
governing law of the court or agency a quo. Buenafe, et al. vs. Philippine Ports Authority, Philippine
Ports Authority vs. Caroline B. Acosta, et al., Philippine
Ports Authority vs. Remedios Rosales-Bondoc, et al. G.R.
45
Nos. 154211-12, G.R. No. 158252, G.R. No. 166200, when an appeal or any other remedy at law is available.
G.R. No. 168272, G.R. No. 170683, G.R. No. 173392. While jurisprudence has recognized exceptions to this
June 22, 2009 rule, the exceptions – like any other exception – must be
strictly, rather than liberally, applied. In other words, a
petitioner wrongly filing a Rule 65 petition must show a
APPEAL; FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF.
clear entitlement to the jurisprudentially-recognized
exceptions. These exceptions are: when public welfare
The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, and the advancement of public policy dictates; when the
even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural interests of substantial justice so require; and when the
technique. There are exceptions to this rule, such as questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of
when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel judicial authority. Philippine Basketball Association Vs.
deprives the client of due process of law, or when the Honorable Manuel B. Gaite, in his capacity as Deputy
application of the general rule results in the outright Secretary for Legal Affairs of the Office of the President,
deprivation of one’s property through a technicality. et al.,G.R. No. 170312, June 26, 2009.
However, in this case, we find no reason to exempt
petitioner from the general rule. Nena A. Cariño vs.
APPEAL; NON-PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES.
Estrella M. Espinosa, represented by her atty-in-fact
Manuel P. Mejia, Jr., G.R. No. 166036, June 19, 2009.
Among the grounds that pertinent jurisprudence has
recognized as justifying the loosening up of the stringent
APPEAL; FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF.
requirement on payment of docket fees are: (1) to
relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate
Petitioners insist that they relied on the supposed with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure;
professionalism of their counsel. According to them, (2) good faith of the defaulting party by paying within a
having received the notice from the Court of Appeals to reasonable time from the time of the default; (3) the
file a brief, their counsel was supposed to know his duty, merits of the case; (4) a cause not entirely attributable
not only as their counsel but also as an officer of the to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
court; and they conclude that they should not be blamed suspension of the rules; (5) a lack of any showing that
and penalized if the conduct of their counsel fell way the review sought is frivolous and dilatory; (6) no unjust
short of what was expected of him. This reasoning of prejudice to the other party; and (7) importance of the
petitioners merits no consideration. issues involved. Concomitant to a liberal interpretation
of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part
It is a well-settled rule that the client is bound by the of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his
counsel’s conduct, negligence, and mistakes in handling failure to abide by the rules. Spouses Ernesto F. Curata,
the case; and the client cannot be heard to complain that et al. vs. Philippine Ports Authority, Philippine Ports
the result might have been different had his lawyer Authority vs. Remedios Rosales-Bondoc, et al., Philippine
proceeded differently. Glen Pascual Y Malumbay, et Ports Authority vs. Hon. Paterno Tac-an, et al., Rosalina
al. Vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 162286, June Buenafe, et al. vs. Philippine Ports Authority, Philippine
5, 2009. Ports Authority vs. Caroline B. Acosta, et al., Philippine
Ports Authority vs. Remedios Rosales-Bondoc, et al. G.R.
Nos. 154211-12, G.R. No. 158252, G.R. No. 166200,
APPEAL; FAILURE TO FILE MEMORANDUM ON G.R. No. 168272, G.R. No. 170683, G.R. No. 173392.
APPEAL. June 22, 2009.
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of APPEAL; NON-PAYMENT OF FEES.
due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may
be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with
the provisions of law. An appeal being a purely statutory The appeal to the COMELEC of the trial court’s decision in
right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the election contests involving municipal and barangay
requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. In other officials is perfected upon the filing of the notice of
words, he who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must appeal and the payment of theP1,000.00 appeal fee to
play by the rules. This, the petitioner failed to do when the court that rendered the decision within the five-day
he did not submit his memorandum on appeal. Bonifacio reglementary period. The non-payment or the insufficient
M. Mejillano vs. Enrique Lucillo, et al., G.R. No. 154717, payment of the additional appeal fee of P3,200.00 to the
June 19, 2009. COMELEC Cash Division, in accordance with Rule 40,
Section 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as
amended, does not affect the perfection of the appeal
APPEAL; GAMES AND AMUSEMENT BOARD. and does not result in outright or ipso facto dismissal of
the appeal. Following, Rule 22, Section 9(a) of the
The PBA should have appealed the ruling of respondent COMELEC Rules, the appeal may be dismissed. Pursuant
Gaite of the Office of the President to the Court of to Rule 40, Section 18 of the same rules, if the fees are
Appeals within 15 days from notice, and its failure to not paid, the COMELEC may refuse to take action thereon
comply with the prescribed process is a ground for the until they are paid and may dismiss the action or the
dismissal of the petition. Rule 65 – the legal basis for the proceeding. In such a situation, the COMELEC is merely
present petition – itself bars its use as a mode of review given the discretion to dismiss the appeal or not.
46
Accordingly, in the instant case, the COMELEC First The contention must fall. The appellate court, in its
Division, may dismiss petitioner’s appeal, as it in fact did, assailed resolution, amply explained the reason for the
for petitioner’s failure to pay the P3,200.00 appeal affirmance of the RTC’s decision. Filomena Soneja
fee. Jerry B. Aguilar vs. The Commission on Elections and vs. Honorable Court of Appeals and Ramon Saura, Jr.,
Romulo R. Insoy, G.R. No. 185140, June 30, 2009. G.R. No. 161533, June 5, 2009.
APPEAL; RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. CERTIORARI; ABUSE OF PROCESS.
While the reglementary periods fixed under the rules for The petitioner’s unusual approaches and use of Rule 65
relief from judgment are mandatory in character, of the Rules of Court do not appear to us to be the result
procedural rules of the most mandatory character in of any error in reading Rule 65, given the way the
terms of compliance may, in the interest of substantial petition was crafted. Rather, it was a backdoor approach
justice, be relaxed. Since rules of procedure are mere to achieve what the petitioner could not directly do in his
tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, they individual capacity under Rule 65. It was, at the very
are not to be applied with severity and rigidity when such least, an attempted bypass of other available, albeit
application would clearly defeat the very rationale for lengthier, modes of review that the Rules of Court
their existence. In line with this postulate, the Court can provide. While we stop short of concluding that the
and will relax or altogether suspend the application of the petitioner’s approaches constitute an abuse of process
rules, or except a particular case from the rules’ through a manipulative reading and application of the
operation when their rigid application tends to frustrate Rules of Court, we nevertheless resolve that the petition
rather than promote the ends of justice. The peculiarities should be dismissed for its blatant violation of the Rules.
of the instant case impel us to do so now. Foremost of The transgressions alleged in a petition, however weighty
these is the fact that the Republic had properly made out they may sound, cannot be justifications for blatantly
a prima facie case of double titling over the subject lot, disregarding the rules of procedure, particularly when
meriting a ventilation of the factual and legal issues remedial measures were available under these same
relative to that case. Heirs of the late Jose Luzuriaga, rules to achieve the petitioner’s objectives. For our part,
etc., vs. Republic of the Philippines thru the Office of the we cannot and should not – in the name of liberality and
Solicitor General/Heirs of the late Jose Luzuriaga, etc., the “transcendental importance” doctrine – entertain
vs. Republic of the Philippines thru the Office of the these types of petitions. As we held in the very recent
Solicitor General G.R. No. 168848/G.R. No. 169019, June case of Lozano, et al. vs. Nograles, albeit from a different
30, 2009 perspective, our liberal approach has its limits and should
not be abused. Jose Concepcion, Jr. vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 178624, June 30, 2009.
CERTIORARI; ACQUITTAL.
]CERTIORARI; ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
Although the Supreme Court does not absolutely preclude

Settled is the rule that a petition for certiorari is proper to
the availment of the remedy of certiorari to correct an
correct only errors of jurisdiction committed by
erroneous acquittal, the petitioner must clearly and
respondent court, tribunal or administrative agency.
convincingly demonstrate that the lower court blatantly
Public respondent acts without jurisdiction if it does not
abused its authority to a point so grave and so severe as
have the legal power to determine the case, or in excess
to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.
of jurisdiction if it oversteps its authority as determined
by law. Grave abuse of discretion is committed when
respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or A judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be
despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. In a petition for Rules of Court, but only upon a clear showing by the
certiorari, the jurisdiction of the court is narrow in scope petitioner that the lower court, in acquitting the accused,
as it is limited to resolving only cases of jurisdiction. committed not merely reversible errors of judgment but
also grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, or to a denial of due process, thus
rendering the assailed judgment void. In which event,
Here, petitioner argues that the CA gravely abused its
the accused cannot be considered at risk of double
discretion in affirming the denial of petitioner’s motion to
jeopardy — the revered constitutional safeguard against
lift or revoke levy without even passing upon the
exposing the accused to the risk of answering twice for
substantive issue on the propriety of levying her family
the same offense. People of the Philippines vs. Joven De
home. She insists that the levied property in
Grano, et al., G.R. No. 167710, June 5, 2009 .
Catanduanes should have been exempt from execution
pursuant to Article 155 of the Family Code in relation to
Articles 152 to 154 thereof, which she maintains she CERTIORARI; EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE.
could have proven had she been accorded the
opportunity to present evidence to this effect.
The sole function of a writ of certiorari is to address
issues of want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
and it does not include a review of the tribunal’s
47
evaluation of the evidence. The findings of fact made by conjectures; (2) when a lower court’s inference from its
the COMELEC, or by any other administrative agency factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
exercising expertise in its particular field of competence, impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in
are binding on the Court. The Court is not a trier of facts; the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the
it is not equipped to receive evidence and determine the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail
truth of factual allegations. The Court’s function, as to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly
mandated by Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, is considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) when
merely to check whether or not the governmental branch there is a misapprehension of facts; (6) when the
or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the
jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a different view. In specific evidence on which they are based, are premised
the absence of a showing of grave abuse of discretion on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, this Court will have no evidence on record. None of these exceptions
occasion to exercise its corrective power. It has no necessitating a reversal of the assailed decision obtains in
authority to inquire into what it thinks is apparent error. this instance. Siain Enterprises, Inc. vs. Cupertino Realty
Corp. and Edwin R. Catacutan, G.R. No. 170782, June
22, 2009.
Thus, in this case, the Court cannot grant the prayer of
petitioner for registration as a sectoral party, because to
do so will entail an evaluation of the evidence to EVIDENCE; NOTARIAL DOCUMENT.
determine whether indeed petitioner qualifies as a party-
list organization and whether it has made untruthful
It is a settled rule that a notarial document is evidence
statements in its application for registration. V C.
of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner therein
Cadangen, et al. vs. The Commission on Elections, G.R.
expressed; and has in its favor the presumption of
No. 177179, June 5, 2009 .
regularity. Notarization converts a private document into
a public document, thus making that document
admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to
full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative
EVIDENCE; ADMISSION.
agencies, and the public at large must be able to rely
upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public
Bascugin’s confession was freely, intelligently, and and appended to a private instrument. Indeed, a
deliberately given. Judicial confession constitutes notarized deed of absolute sale, being a public document,
evidence of a high order. The presumption is that no has in its favor the presumption of regularity, which may
sane person would deliberately confess to the only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong, and
commission of a crime unless prompted to do so by truth convincing as to exclude all controversy as to the falsity
and conscience. Admission of guilt constitutes evidence of the certificate. Thus, the burden of proof to overcome
against the accused pursuant to the following provisions the presumption of due execution of a notarized
of the Rules of Court. People of the Philippines vs. document lies on the party contesting such execution.
Leodegario Bascuguin y Agquiz, G.R. No. 184704, June
30, 2009.
In this case, it is the petitioner who has the onus of
overcoming the presumed regularity of the Deed of
EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF. Absolute Sale, dated March 11, 1975, in favor of
respondent Arsenio. Francisco G. Calma vs. Arsenio
Petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proof. No Santos, et al., G.R. No. 161027, June 22, 2009.
satisfactory evidence was presented to prove by
preponderance of evidence that respondents committed EXECUTION; PENDING APPEAL.
the acts imputed against them. As such, there is no
more need to discuss whether the assailed statements
Execution pending appeal does not bar the continuance
are defamatory. Francisco N. Villanueva vs. Virgilio P.
of the appeal on the merits and respondents are not left
Balaquer, et al., G.R. No. 180197, June 23, 2009.
without relief in the event of reversal of the judgment
against it. Section 5, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
specifically provides that where the executed judgment is
reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or
EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT. otherwise, the trial court may, on motion, issue such
orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity
and justice may warrant under the circumstances.
Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that factual Archinet International, Inc., et al. vs. Becco Philippines,
findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Inc., et al., G.R. No. 183753, June 19, 2009.
appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of
respect and are considered conclusive between the
parties. A review of such findings by this Court is not EXECUTION; PRESCRIPTION.
warranted except upon a showing of highly meritorious
circumstances, such as: (1) when the findings of a trial It is settled that an original action for certiorari is an
court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or independent action and is neither a continuation nor a
48
part of the trial resulting in the judgment complained of. to build their houses on the property. Respondent’s
It does not interrupt the course of the original action if counsels also explained that they were not able to secure
there was no writ of injunction, even if in connection with the affidavits of the occupants of the property and the
a pending case in a lower court. neighbors because they feared for their lives.
Clearly, the petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 36500) Respondent’s evidence fails to make out a prima facie
assailing the February 22, 1994 resolution did not toll the case of forcible entry as it does not satisfactorily establish
running of the prescriptive period. The petition for review that respondent has been in physical possession of the
on certiorari (G.R. No. L-125418) had the same effect subject property prior to petitioner’s occupation thereof.
because it was merely a continuation of CA-G.R. SP No. Joven De Grano, etc., vs. Gregorio Lacaba, G.R. No.
36500. Even if these actions sought a reversal of the 158877, June 16, 2009.
February 22, 1994 resolution, they did not suspend the
running of the prescriptive period for execution in favor
FORCIBLE ENTRY.
of respondent. The very nature of a certiorari proceeding
militates against considering it in favor of respondent.
Besides, no writ of injunction was issued in favor of In ejectment cases, the only issue for resolution is who is
respondent which could have validly suspended the entitled to the physical or material possession of the
running of the prescriptive period. property involved, independent of any claim of ownership
set forth by any of the party-litigants. The one who can
prove prior possession de facto may recover such
However, the same rule cannot be applied to G.R. No.
possession even from the owner himself. Possession de
138993. Despite being an original certiorari proceeding,
facto is the physical possession of real property.
G.R. No. 138993 tolled the running of the prescriptive
Possession de facto and not possession de jure is the
period. An analysis of its peculiar nature justifies taking it
only issue in a forcible entry case. This rule holds true
out of the ambit of the rule that certiorari proceedings do
regardless of the character of a party’s possession,
not toll the running of the prescriptive period. Philippines
provided, that he has in his favor priority of time which
Veterans Bank vs. Solid Homes, Inc. Philippine Veterans
entitles him to stay on the property until he is lawfully
Bank, G.R. No. 170126. June 9, 2009
ejected by a person having a better right by either accion
publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. Precy Bunyi and Mila
EXECUTION; REAL PROPERTY. Bunyi vs. Fe S. Factor, G.R. No. 172547, June 30, 2009.
In implementing the involuntary transfer of title of real FORECLOSURE; REDEMPTION.

property levied and sold on execution, it is not enough
for the executing party to file a motion with the court
The debtor may redeem his property sold at an auction
which rendered judgment. The proper course of action is
sale in an extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage within
to file a petition in court, rather than merely move, for
one year from the date of registration of the certificate of
the issuance of new titles. Archinet International, Inc.,
sale. Under Article 13 of the Civil Code, a year consists of
et al. vs. Becco Philippines, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 183753,
365 days. Since the certificate of sale was annotated on
June 19, 2009.
the certificate of title (TCT No. 11637) only on 7 February
2001, petitioner could exercise her right to redeem the
FORCIBLE ENTRY. property until 7 February 2002.
For a forcible entry suit to prosper, the complainant must Although petitioner filed a complaint for judicial
allege and prove that he was in prior physical possession redemption on 6 February 2002, the records are bereft of
of the property and that he was deprived of such any indication that petitioner ever paid or consigned with
possession by means of force, intimidation, threat, the trial court the redemption price. Furthermore, in all
strategy, or stealth. A party who can prove prior her pleadings, petitioner never indicated that she has
possession can recover such possession even against the already paid or consigned with the trial court the
owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his redemption price.
possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time,
he has the security that entitles him to remain in the
Considering the lack of consignation of the redemption
property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects
price since the petitioner’s filing of the action for judicial
him.
redemption on 6 February 2002, it would be unfair to
deny respondent the possession of the property which it
A party having the burden of proof must establish his bought for P3,958,539.92 in a public auction on 24
case by a preponderance of evidence. In doing so, he September 1999. Between petitioner who has not paid or
must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the consigned with the trial court the redemption price, and
weakness of the defendant’s. To prove prior possession, respondent who bought the property as the highest
respondent presented his tax declarations, tax receipt bidder in the auction sale, the latter is more entitled to
and a certification from the municipal assessor attesting have possession of the property. Petitioner cannot be
that he has paid real property tax from previous years. granted possession of the property by the mere
He, likewise, testified that he appointed the spouses expediency of filing an action for judicial redemption
Mojica as his caretakers, and allowed three other spouses without ever paying or consigning the redemption price
49
with the trial court. Marylou B. Tolentino, M.D. vs. convenient, provided that these are not contrary to law,
Shenton Realty Corp., G.R. No. 162103, June 19, 2009. morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. A
compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties
make reciprocal concessions in order to resolve their
INFORMATION; AMENDED.
differences, thereby putting an end to litigation. Such
means of dispute settlement is an accepted, even
The public prosecutors, in filing the Amended desirable and encouraged, practice in courts of law and
Informations, did not exceed the authority delegated by administrative tribunals. Spouses Eduardo Tankiang and
the COMELEC. Resolution No. 7457, which effectively Mayda Tankiang vs. Metropolitan and Trust Company,
revoked the deputation of the Office of the City Inc., G.R. No. 181675, June 22, 2009.
Prosecutor of Parañaque, was issued on 4 April 2005,
after the Amended Informations were filed on 28 October
JUDGMENT; COMPROMISE AGREEMENT.
2004. The letter dated 11 October 2004, written by
Director Alioden D. Dalaig of the COMELEC Law
Department, did not revoke the continuing authority Article 1306 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides
granted to the City Prosecutor of Parañaque. Bienvenido that contracting parties may establish such stipulations,
Diño, et al. vs. Pablo Olivarez, G.R. No. 170447, June 23, clauses, terms, and conditions, as they may deem
2009. convenient, provided that they are not contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. A
compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties
INHIBITION.
make reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation, or put an
end to one already commenced. It is an accepted, even
The inhibition must be for just and valid causes, and in desirable and encouraged, practice in courts of law and
this regard, we have noted that the mere imputation of administrative tribunals.
bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition,
especially when the charge is without basis. This Court
A compromise agreement intended to resolve a matter
has to be shown acts or conduct clearly indicative of
already under litigation is a judicial compromise. Having
arbitrariness or prejudice before it can brand them with
judicial mandate and entered as its determination of the
the stigma of bias or partiality. Moreover, extrinsic
controversy, it has the force and effect of a judgment. It
evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or
transcends its identity as a mere contract between the
corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may
parties as it becomes a judgment that is subject to
be inferred from the decision or order itself. The only
execution in accordance with the Rules of Court. Thus, a
exception to the rule is when the error is so gross and
compromise agreement that has been made and duly
patent as to produce an ineluctable inference of bad faith
approved by the court attains the effect and authority of
or malice. Philippine Commercial International Bank Vs.
res judicata, although no execution may be issued unless
Sps. Wilson Dy Hong Pi and Lolita Dy and Sps Primo
the agreement receives the approval of the court where
Chuyaco, Jr. and Chuyaco, G.R. No. 171137, June 5,
the litigation is pending and compliance with the terms of
2009.
the agreement is decreed. California Manufacturing
Company, Inc. vs. The City of Las Piñas, et al., G.R. No.
JUDGMENT; AMENDED. 178461, June 22, 2009.
There is a difference between an amended judgment and JUDGMENT; FINALITY.

a supplemental judgment. In an amended and clarified
judgment, the lower court makes a thorough study of the
The CA erred in taking cognizance of the petition for
original judgment and renders the amended and clarified
review that was filed way beyond the reglementary
judgment only after considering all the factual and legal
period. Rules of procedure may be relaxed in the interest
issues. The amended and clarified decision is an entirely
of substantial justice and in order to give a litigant the
new decision which supersedes the original decision.
fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his
Following the Court’s differentiation of a supplemental
complaint. However, concomitant to a liberal application
pleading from an amending pleading, it can be said that a
of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part
supplemental decision does not take the place or
of the party invoking liberality to explain its failure to
extinguish the existence of the original. As its very name
comply with the rules and prove the existence of
denotes, it only serves to bolster or adds something to
exceptionally meritorious circumstances warranting such
the primary decision. A supplement exists side by side
liberality.
with the original. It does not replace that which it
supplements. Eric L. Lee vs. Hon. Henry J. Trocino, et
al., G.R. No. 164648, June 19, 2009. Respondent proffered no explanation for the delay as, in
fact, he did not acknowledge that he filed his petition for
review with the CA beyond the prescriptive period. In his
JUDGMENT; COMPROMISE AGREEMENT.
motion for extension of time to file the petition for review
with the CA, respondent alleged that it was the October
Under Article 1306 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, 28, 2001 RTC Order that denied his motion for
contracting parties may establish such stipulations, reconsideration. As a stratagem or out of plain ignorance,
clauses, terms, and conditions, as they may deem he counted the reglementary period from the date of his
50
receipt of the said order. But, as the CA was well aware, allegations in the complaint or admits said material
the reglementary period should have been counted from allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by confessing
the receipt of the March 28, 2001 Order. the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with
them at all.
Respondent might have been confused with the rule that,
when a judgment is amended, the date of the In this case, respondents’ principal action was for the
amendment should be considered the date of the decision annulment of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of
in the computation of the period for perfecting the Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights executed by
appeal. For all intents and purposes, the lower court petitioners and annulment of title on the ground that
rendered a new judgment from which the time to appeal petitioners stated in the said Deed that they are the
must be reckoned. However, this rule presupposes that legitimate descendants and sole heirs of the spouses
the amendment consists of a material alteration of such Quiterio and Antonina. Although petitioners denied in
substance and proportion that would, in effect, give rise their Answer that the Deed was falsified, they, however,
to an entirely new judgment. But when the amendment admitted respondents’ allegation that spouses Quiterio
merely consists of the correction of a clerical error, no and Antonina had 5 children, thus, supporting
new judgment arises. In such case, the period for filing respondents’ claim that petitioners are not the sole heirs
the appeal should, still be counted from the receipt of the of the deceased spouses. Petitioners’ denial/admission in
original judgment. Joven De Grano, etc., vs. Gregorio his Answer to the complaint should be considered in its
Lacaba, G.R. No. 158877. June 16, 2009. entirety and not truncated parts. Considering that
petitioners already admitted that respondents Galicano,
Victoria, Catalina and Maribeth are the children and
JUDGMENT; FINALITY.
grandchild, respectively, of the spouses Quiterio and
Antonina, who were the original registered owners of the
As a general rule, the statutory requirement that when subject property, and thus excluding respondents from
no motion for reconsideration is filed within the the deed of settlement of the subject property, there is
reglementary period, the decision attains finality and no more genuine issue between the parties generated by
becomes executory in due course must be strictly the pleadings, thus, the RTC committed no reversible
enforced as they are considered indispensable error in rendering the judgment on the pleadings.
interdictions against needless delays and for orderly Cristina F. Reillo, et al. vs. Galicano E. San Jose etc., et
discharge of judicial business. The purposes for such al., G.R. No. 166393, June 18, 2009.
statutory requirement are twofold: first, to avoid delay in
the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to
JURISDICTION; ACQUISITION.
make orderly the discharge of judicial business,
and, second, to put an end to judicial controversies, at
the risk of occasional errors, which are precisely why Jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is acquired
courts exist. Controversies cannot drag on either by the coercive power of legal processes exerted
indefinitely. The rights and obligations of every litigant over his person, or his voluntary appearance in court. As
must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief
time. is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
court. It is by reason of this rule that we have had
occasion to declare that the filing of motions to admit
However, in exceptional cases, substantial justice and
answer, for additional time to file answer, for
equity considerations warrant the giving of due course to
reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of
an appeal by suspending the enforcement of statutory
default with motion for reconsideration, is considered
and mandatory rules of procedure. Certain elements are
voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction. This,
considered for the appeal to be given due course, such
however, is tempered by the concept of conditional
as: (1) the existence of special or compelling
appearance, such that a party who makes a special
circumstances, (2) the merits of the case, (3) a cause not
appearance to challenge, among others, the court’s
entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the
jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have
party favored by the suspension of the rules, (4) lack of
submitted to its authority. Philippine Commercial
any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous
International Bank Vs. Sps. Wilson Dy Hong Pi and Lolita
and dilatory, and (5) the other party will not be unduly
Dy and Sps Primo Chuyaco, Jr. and Chuyaco, G.R. No.
prejudiced thereby. Mercedita T. Guasch vs. Arnaldo
171137, June 5, 2009.
Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 176015, June 16, 2009.
JURISDICTION; AFTER JUDGMENT.

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.
It is well-settled that the jurisdiction of the court to

Where a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed,
execute its judgment continues even after the judgment
the essential question is whether there are issues
had become final for the purpose of enforcement of
generated by the pleadings. In a proper case for
judgment. The present case is no exception. Therefore,
judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at
notwithstanding the final resolution on the validity of the
all because of the failure of the defending party’s answer
expropriation made by this Court on June 19, 2003 in
to raise an issue. The answer would fail to tender an
G.R. No. 154411, the RTC, Branch 19 can still rule on the
issue, of course, if it does not deny the material
motions for the issuance of an alias writ of execution and
51
payment of interest. As the CA correctly stated: “…the After recognizing the CIAC’s jurisdiction, petitioner
duty of the court does not end with the tender of the cannot be permitted to now question that same authority
decision. Equal is the duty of the court to enforce said it earlier accepted, only because it failed to obtain a
decision to the fullest of its intent, tenor and mandate. To favorable decision. This is especially true in the instant
sustain a contrary view would not only trivialize the case since petitioner is challenging the tribunal’s
decision, but would also render it meaningless; the jurisdiction for the first time before this Court.
justice sought by the aggrieved party and supposedly Stronghold Insurance, Company, Inc. vs. Tokyu
conferred by the court turned inutile.” National Housing Construction Company, Ltd., G.R. No. 158820-21, June
Authority vs. Heirs of Isidro Guivelorido, et al., G.R. No. 5, 2009.
166518, June 16, 2009.
JURISDICTION; CTA.
JURISDICTION; CADASTRAL COURT.
To be very precise, Shell’s petition before the CTA
We hardly can subscribe to the Republic’s argument that principally questioned the validity of the cancellation of
the publication of the amendment in petitioners’ the TCCs – a decision that was made not by the
application is a condition sine qua non for the RTC, acting respondent, but by the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax
as cadastral court, to acquire jurisdiction. Sec. 7 of Act Credit and Duty Drawback Center. As the CTA has no
No. 2259, otherwise known as the Cadastral Act, and jurisdiction over decisions of the Center, Shell’s remedy
Sec. 35 of PD 1529, otherwise known as the Land against the cancellation should have been a certiorari
Registration Decree, provide for the publication of the petition before the regular courts, not a tax protest case
application for registration and the schedule of the initial before the CTA. Records do not show that Shell ever
hearing. This is so since judicial cadastral proceedings, availed of this remedy. Alternatively, as we held in Shell
like ordinary administrative registration, are in rem, and v. Republic of the Philippines, the appropriate forum for
are governed by the usual rules of practice, procedure, Shell under the circumstances of this case should be at
and evidence. Due publication is required to give notice the collection cases before the RTC where Shell can put
to all interested parties of the claim and identity of the up the fact of its payment as a defense. Pilipinas Shell
property that will be surveyed. And any additional Petroleum Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs,
territory or change in the area of the claim cannot be G.R. No. 176380, June 18, 2009.
included by amendment of the plan or application without
new publication, otherwise the cadastral court does not
JURISDICTION; DARAB.
acquire jurisdiction over the additional or amended
claim. But where the identity and area of the claimed
property are not the subjects of amendment but other For the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there
collateral matters, a new publication is not needed. must be a tenancy relationship between the parties. It
is, therefore, essential to establish all the indispensable
elements of a tenancy relationship, to wit: (1) that the
In the case at bar, there is no dispute that due
parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
publication was made for Lot No. 1524, its identity and
lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the relationship is
area. The amendment in petitioners’ application in the
an agricultural land; (3) that there is consent between
relief portion neither altered the area and identity of the
the parties to the relationship; (4) that the purpose of
subject lot nor added any territory. Thus, no new
the relationship is to bring about agricultural production;
publication is required. Besides, the Republic, through
(5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the
Prosecutor Bayona, has been duly notified of such
tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) that the harvest is
amendment. Consequently, the Republic could not
shared between the landowner and the tenant or
plausibly argue that it was deprived of its day in court.
agricultural lessee.
Heirs of the late Jose Luzuriaga, etc., vs. Republic of the
Philippines thru the Office of the Solicitor General/Heirs
of the late Jose Luzuriaga, etc., vs. Republic of the Basic is the rule that jurisdiction is determined by
Philippines thru the Office of the Solicitor General, G.R. the allegations in the complaint. Respondents’ complaint
No. 168848/G.R. No. 169019, June 30, 2009. did not contain any allegation that would, even in the
slightest, imply that there was a tenancy relation
between them and the petitioners. Sps. Constante
JURISDICTION; CIAC.
Agbulos and Zanaida Padilla Agbulos vs. Nicasio
Gutierrez, Josefa Gutierrez and Elena G. Garcia, G.R. No.
E.O. 1008 expressly vests in the CIAC original and 176530, June 16, 2009.
exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from or
connected with construction contracts entered into by
JURISDICTION; DARAB.
parties that have agreed to submit their dispute to
voluntary arbitration. In this case, the CIAC validly
acquired jurisdiction over the dispute. Petitioner Petitioners’ argument that the case involves an agrarian
submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal matter divesting the regular courts of jurisdiction
when it signed the TOR. therefore has no merit. They are not farmer-
beneficiaries but mere usurpers of the land. Zosimo
Octavio and Jesus Albona (substituted by his wife, Violeta
52
Albona) vs. Enrico R. Perovano, G.R. No. 172400, June allows the Monetary Board to take action “summarily and
23, 2009. without need for prior hearing.”
JURISDICTION; DOLE. And, as a clincher, the law explicitly provides that

“actions of the Monetary Board taken under this section
or under Section 29 of this Act shall be final and
This petition clearly involves a labor standards case, and
executory, and may not be restrained or set aside by the
it is in keeping with the law that “the worker need not
court except on a petition for certiorari on the ground
litigate to get what legally belongs to him, for the whole
that the action taken was in excess of jurisdiction or with
enforcement machinery of the DOLE exists to insure its
such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack or
expeditious delivery to him free of charge.” We,
excess of jurisdiction.”
therefore, sustain the jurisdiction of the DOLE Regional
Director in this case. Nestor J. Balladares, etal., vs. Peak
Ventures Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 161794, June 16, From the foregoing disquisition, there is no doubt that
2009. the RTC has no jurisdiction to hear and decide a suit that
seeks to place Banco Filipino under receivership.
Teodoro O. Arcenas, Jr., et al. vs. Hon. Sixto Marella, Jr.,
JURISDICTION; HLURB.
Presiding Judge Branch 138, RTC, Makati City and Ana
Maria Korug, G.R. No. 168332/G.R. No. 169053. June
It is apparent that although the complaint was 19, 2009
denominated as one for declaratory relief/annulment of
contracts, the allegations therein reveal otherwise. It
MANDAMUS.
should be stressed that respondents neither asked for the
interpretation of the questioned by-laws nor did they
allege that the same is doubtful or ambiguous and The remedy of mandamus is available only to compel the
require judicial construction. performance of a ministerial duty. The distinction
between a ministerial and discretionary act is well
delineated. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which
In the instant case, the HLURB has the expertise to
an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in
resolve the basic technical issue of whether the house
a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a
built by the respondents violated the Deed of Restriction,
legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his
specifically the prohibition against multi-dwelling. Maria
own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the
Luisa Park Association, Inc., Vs. Samantha Marie T.
act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer
Almendras and Pia Angela T. Almendras, G.R. No.
and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty
171763. June 5, 2009.
shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not
ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the
JURISDICTION; HLURB. discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of
official discretion or judgment.
Tri-Corp’s chief quest is the cancellation of Entry No.
31976 from TCTs Nos. 205827 and 205828, and the While it is true that it is the ministerial duty of the
cancellation of the CCT of the unit sold to it, and it government to pay for the appointees’ salaries while the
alludes to Greystone’s use of different descriptions of the latter’s appeal of the disapproval of their appointments
condominium project in order to circumvent existing by CSC-FO and/or CSC-RO is still pending before the CSC
laws, rules and regulations on registration of real estate Proper, however, this applies only when the said
projects in its petition. Under these circumstances, Tri- appointments have been disapproved on grounds which
Corp is alluding to steps allegedly taken by Greystone in do not constitute a violation of civil service law. Such is
consummating an alleged unsound real estate business clearly not the case in the instant Petition. The factual
practice. The HLURB has the technical expertise to circumstances which would have made it the ministerial
resolve this technical issue. Jurisdiction therefore duty of the City Government of Dumaguete to pay
properly pertains to the HLURB. Tri-Corp Land & petitioners’ salaries have not yet been established. Until
Development, Inc. represented by Solita S. Jimenez- this Court resolves the Petition in G.R. No. 181559,
Paulino vs. Court of Appeals and Greystone Corporation, reversing the disapproval of petitioners’ appointments or,
G.R. No. 165742, June 30, 2009. at the very least, declaring that the disapproval of the
same was not on grounds which constitute violation of
JURISDICTION; MONETARY BOARD. civil service law, this Court cannot rule in the instant
Petition that it is the ministerial duty of the City
Government of Dumaguete to pay petitioners’ salaries
Crystal clear in Section 30 of the New Central Bank Act during the pendency, before the CSC-RO, then the CSC
is the provision that says the “appointment of a receiver Proper, of petitioners’ appeal of the disapproval of their
under this section shall be vested exclusively with the appointments by CSC-FO Director Abucejo. Thus, there
Monetary Board.” The term “exclusively” connotes that is yet no ministerial duty compellable by a writ
only the Monetary Board can resolve the issue of whether of mandamus. Leah M. Nazareno, et al. vs. City of
a bank is to be placed under receivership and, upon an Dumaguete, represented by City Mayor Agustin Percides,
affirmative finding, it also has authority to appoint a et al., G.R. No. 177795, June 19, 2009.
receiver. This is further affirmed by the fact that the law
53
MOTIONS; MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. MOTIONS; MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
The general rule is that no motion for extension of time One of the grounds for the granting of a new trial under
to file a motion for reconsideration is allowed. This rule is Section 1 of Rule 37 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
consistent with the rule in the 2002 Internal Rules of the Procedure is excusable negligence. It is settled that the
Court of Appeals that unless an appeal or a motion for negligence of counsel binds the client. This is based on
reconsideration or new trial is filed within the 15-day the rule that any act performed by a counsel within the
reglementary period, the CA’s decision becomes final. scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as
Thus, a motion for extension of time to file a motion for an act of his client. Consequently, the mistake or
reconsideration does not stop the running of the 15-day negligence of counsel may result in the rendition of an
period for the computation of a decision’s finality. At the unfavorable judgment against the client. We have,
end of the period, a CA judgment becomes final, however, carved out exceptions to this rule; as where the
immutable and beyond our power to review. reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the
client of due process of law; or where the application of
the rule will result in outright deprivation of the client’s
This rule, however, is not absolute and admits of
liberty or property; or where the interests of justice so
exceptions based on a liberal reading of the rule. In
requires and relief ought to be accorded to the client who
Barnes v. Padilla, (a case very similar to the present case
suffered by reason of the lawyer’s gross or palpable
and where the CA found the petitioner guilty of forum
mistake or negligence. In order to apply the exceptions
shopping), the Court opted for the exception. The
rather than the rule, the circumstances obtaining in each
petitioner in Barnes, instead of filing a motion for
case must be looked into. In cases where one of the
reconsideration of the CA’s decision, filed a motion for
exceptions is present, the courts must step in and accord
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. The
relief to a client who suffered thereby.
CA denied the motion because of the rule disallowing an
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.
This Court, however, looked into the merits of the forum Gross negligence has been defined as the want or
shopping charge and opted to suspend the prohibition absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence,
against a motion for extension of time to file a motion for or the entire absence of care. It examines a thoughtless
reconsideration, after it found the petitioner not liable for disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to
forum shopping. In opting for the liberal application of avoid them.
the rules in the interest of equity and justice, the Court
held that we “cannot look with favor on a course of action
In the case before us, we find the negligence of
which would place the administration of justice in a
petitioner’s former counsel to be so gross that it was
straight jacket for then the result would be a poor kind of
deprived of its day in court, thus denying it due process.
justice if there would be justice at all.” Alberto Imperial
Multi-Trans Agency Phils., Inc. vs. Oriental Assurance
vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and the Republic of the
Corporation, G.R. No. 180817, June 23, 2009.
Philippines, G.R. No. 158093, June 5, 2009.
MOTIONS; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

MOTIONS; MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT.
A motion for reconsideration, as a general rule, must

We take note of the fact that all motions for
have first been filed before the tribunal, board, or officer
postponement by petitioner were made on the scheduled
against whom the writ of certiorari is sought. This is
hearing dates themselves. On the August 20, 2003
intended to afford the latter an opportunity to correct any
hearing, despite previous warning that no further
actual or fancied error attributed to it. However, there
postponement would be allowed, petitioner still failed to
are several exceptions where the special civil action for
appear. We agree with the Court of Appeals when it
certiorari will lie even without the filing of a motion for
pointed out that petitioner obviously knew in advance
reconsideration, namely:
that she could not make it to the August 20, 2003
hearing. As of the last scheduled hearing of July 25,
2003, she was still out of the country. The least that (1) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the
petitioner could have done was to instruct her counsel to court a quo has no jurisdiction;
make a timely representation with the trial court by filing
an early motion-manifestation for the resetting of the (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari
hearing. Between July 25, 2003 and August 20, 2003 proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by
she had sufficient time to file one. Obviously, the the lower court, or are the same as those raised and
warning by the court of the consequence of another non- passed upon in the lower court;
appearance in the hearing fell on deaf ears. After having
been granted numerous motions for postponement,
petitioner cannot now claim that she was denied due (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the
process. Ma. Lourdes C. De Castro vs. Crispino De resolution of the question and any further delay would
Castro, Jr., Office of the City Prosecutor for Manila, and prejudice the interests of the government or the
the Office of the Solicitor General, G.R. No. 172198, June petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is
16, 2009. perishable;
54
(4) where, under the circumstances, a motion for We are without jurisdiction to modify, much less reverse,
reconsideration would be useless; a final and executory judgment. Enriquita Angat and the
Legal Heirs of Federico Angat vs. Republic of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 175788. June 30, 2009
(5) where petitioner was deprived of due process and
there is extreme urgency for relief;
MOTIONS; MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE.
(6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of
arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial The rule allowing consolidation is designed to avoid
court is improbable; multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression or
abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, and
to simplify the work of the trial court; in short, the
(7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a
attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation
nullity for lack of due process;
to the parties- litigants. But in the instant case, the
consolidation of PNB’s petition for a writ of possession
(8) where the proceedings were ex parte or in which with GOTESCO’s complaint for annulment of foreclosure
the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and proceeding serves none of the purposes cited above. On
the contrary, it defeated the very rationale of
(9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or consolidation. Philippine National Bank Vs. Gotesco Tyan
where public interest is involved. Ming Development, Inc., G.R. No. 183211, June 5, 2009
Otherwise stated, a motion for reconsideration may be Motions; motion to dismiss. A cause of action is the act
dispensed with only if there are concrete, compelling, and or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
valid reasons for doing so. Philippine Commercial A complaint states a cause of action when it contains the
International Bank Vs. Sps. Wilson Dy Hong Pi and Lolita three (3) elements of a cause of action—(1) the legal
Dy and Sps Primo Chuyaco, Jr. and Chuyaco, G.R. No. right of the plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the
171137. June 5, 2009 defendant; and (3) the act or omission of the defendant
in violation of the legal right. If any of these elements is
absent, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to
MOTIONS; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of
action.
The 15-day reglementary period for filing a motion for
reconsideration is non-extendible. Provisions of the Rules When a motion to dismiss is premised on this ground, the
of Court prescribing the time within which certain acts ruling thereon should be based only on the facts alleged
must be done or certain proceedings taken are in the complaint. The court must resolve the issue on the
considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of strength of such allegations, assuming them to be true.
needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge The test of sufficiency of a cause of action rests on
of judicial businesses. Strict compliance with such rules whether, hypothetically admitting the facts alleged in the
is mandatory and imperative. complaint to be true, the court can render a valid
judgment upon the same, in accordance with the prayer
Without a motion for reconsideration of the 5 September in the complaint. This is the general rule.
2005 Decision having been timely filed with the Court of
Appeals, Enriquita and Federico, who was later on However, this rule is subject to well-recognized
substituted by his heirs, had also lost their right to appeal exceptions, such that there is no hypothetical admission
the said Decision to us. For purposes of determining its of the veracity of the allegations if:
timeliness, a motion for reconsideration may properly be
treated as an appeal. As a step to allow an inferior court
to correct itself before review by a higher court, a motion (1) the falsity of the allegations is subject to judicial
for reconsideration must necessarily be filed within the notice;
period to appeal. When filed beyond such period, the
motion for reconsideration ipso facto forecloses the right (2) such allegations are legally impossible;
to appeal.
(3) the allegations refer to facts which are
Thus, the Motion for Reconsideration, being filed beyond inadmissible in evidence;
the reglementary period, did not toll the Decision dated 5
December 2005 of the Court of Appeals from becoming
(4) by the record or document in the pleading, the
final and executory. As such, the Decision is past
allegations appear unfounded; or
appellate review and constitutes res judicata as to every
matter offered and received in the proceedings below as
well as to any other matter admissible therein and which (5) there is evidence which has been presented to the
might have been offered for that purpose. court by stipulation of the parties or in the course of the
hearings related to the case.
55
In this case, it is clear from the petition filed before the PARTITION.
trial court that, although petitioners are the legitimate
heirs of Loreto, they were not named as beneficiaries in
There are two stages in every action for partition under
the insurance policies issued by Insular and Grepalife.
Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. The first stage is the
Heirs of Loreto C. Maramag, etc. vs. Eva Verna De
determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact
Guzman Maramag, et al., G.R. No. 181132, June 5, 2009.
exists and a partition is proper (i.e., not otherwise legally
proscribed) and may be made by voluntary agreement of
MOTIONS; MOTION TO QUASH. all the parties interested in the property. The second
stage commences when it appears that “the parties are
unable to agree upon the partition” directed by the court.
Petitioners assail the validity of the informations against
In that event, partition shall be done for the parties by
them on the ground that more than one (1) offense is
the court with the assistance of not more than three (3)
charged. They point that Soriano was charged with
commissioners.
violation of DOSRI Rules and with estafa thru falsification
of commercial document for allegedly obtaining loans
from RBSM. Thus, they claim that the informations were There are, thus, two ways in which a partition can take
duplicitous; hence, they should be quashed. place under Rule 69: by agreement under Section 2, and
through commissioners when such agreement cannot be
reached under Sections 3 to 6. Felicidad Dadizon, et al.
Indisputably, duplicity of offenses in a single
Vs. Socorro Bernadas, et al., G.R. No. 172367. June 5,
information is a ground to quash the Information under
2009
Section 3(e), Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure. The Rules prohibit the filing of a duplicitous
information to avoid confusing the accused in preparing PETITION FOR REVIEW; QUESTIONS OF LAW.
his defense.
A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
By duplicity of charges is meant a single complaint or should cover only questions of law. Questions of fact are
information that charges more than one offense. not reviewable. A question of law exists when the doubt
centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts. A
question of fact exists when the doubt centers on the
Otherwise stated, there is duplicity (or multiplicity) of
truth or falsity of the alleged facts.
charges when a single Information charges more than
one offense.
There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of
being resolved without need of reviewing the probative
In this case, however, Soriano was faced not with one
value of the evidence. The issue to be resolved must be
information charging more than one offense, but with
limited to determining what the law is on a certain set of
more than one information, each charging a different
facts. Once the issue invites a review of the evidence, the
offense – violation of DOSRI rules in one, and estafa
question posed is one of fact. Romualdo Pagsibigan Vs.
thru falsification of commercial documents in the others.
People of the Philippines and Eleazar Cabasal, G.R. No.
Ilagan, on the other hand, was charged with estafa thru
163868, June 4, 2009.
falsification of commercial documents in separate
informations. Thus, petitioners erroneously invoke
duplicity of charges as a ground to quash the PREJUDICIAL QUESTION.
Informations. Hilario P. Soriano and Rosalinda Ilagan vs.
People of the Philippines, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,
A prejudicial question generally exists in a situation
and Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation G.R. No.
where a civil action and a criminal action are both
159517-18, June 30, 2009
pending, and there exists in the former an issue that
must be preemptively resolved before the latter may
PARTIES; INDISPENSABLE PARTIES. proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil
action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure
of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal
Well-settled is the rule that joinder of indispensable
case. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial
parties is mandatory. It is a condition sine qua non to
question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. It has two
the exercise of judicial power. The absence of an
essential elements: (i) the civil action involves an issue
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
court null and void for want of authority to act, not only
criminal action; and (ii) the resolution of such issue
as to the absent parties but even as to those
determines whether or not the criminal action may
present. Without the presence of indispensable parties to
proceed.
the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain
finality. One who is not a party to a case is not bound by
any decision of the court; otherwise, he will be deprived If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues, or the
of his right to due process. That is why the case is issue in one is intimately related to the issues raised in
generally remanded to the court of origin for further the other, then a prejudicial question would likely exist,
proceedings. Dionisia Monis Lagunilla, et al., vs. Andrea provided the other element or characteristic is satisfied.
Monis Velasco, et al., G.R. No. 169276, June 16, 2009. It must appear not only that the civil case involves the
56
same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be discretion to determine whether probable cause exists
based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in and to charge those whom he believes to have
the civil action would be necessarily determinative of the committed the crime as defined by law and thus should
guilt or innocence of the accused. If the resolution of the be held for trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the
issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a
responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based criminal case must be filed in court. Whether or not that
on the same facts, or if there is no necessity that the civil function has been correctly discharged by the public
case be determined first before taking up the criminal prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct
case, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a
question. Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not and
and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed may not be compelled to pass upon.
independently of each other.
The judicial determination of probable cause, on the
The issue in the criminal cases is whether the petitioner other hand, is one made by the judge to ascertain
is guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22, while in the civil case, it whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the
is whether the private respondents are entitled to collect accused. The judge must satisfy himself that based on
from the petitioner the sum or the value of the checks the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the
that they have rediscounted from Evelyn. accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends
of justice. If the judge finds no probable cause, the
judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant.
The resolution of the issue raised in the civil action is not
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in
the criminal cases against him, and there is no necessity Corollary to the principle that a judge cannot be
that the civil case be determined first before taking up compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or she deems
the criminal cases. that there is no probable cause for doing so, the judge in
turn should not override the public prosecutor’s
determination of probable cause to hold an accused for
In the aforementioned civil actions, even if petitioner is
trial on the ground that the evidence presented to
declared not liable for the payment of the value of the
substantiate the issuance of an arrest warrant was
checks and damages, he cannot be adjudged free from
insufficient. It must be stressed that in our criminal
criminal liability for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The mere
justice system, the public prosecutor exercises a wide
issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of the
latitude of discretion in determining whether a criminal
insufficiency of funds to support the checks is in itself an
case should be filed in court, and that courts must
offense. Jesse Y Yap Vs. Hon. Monico G. Cabales, et al.,
respect the exercise of such discretion when the
G.R. No. 159186. June 5, 2009
information filed against the person charged is valid on
its face, and that no manifest error or grave abuse of
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION. discretion can be imputed to the public prosecutor.
Verily, even if the trial court in the civil case declares that Thus, absent a finding that an information is invalid on its
the construction agreement between the parties is void face or that the prosecutor committed manifest error or
for lack of consideration, this would not affect the grave abuse of discretion, a judge’s determination of
prosecution of private respondent in the criminal case. probable cause is limited only to the judicial kind or for
The fact of the matter is that private respondent indeed the purpose of deciding whether the arrest warrants
issued checks which were subsequently dishonored for should be issued against the accused. People of the
insufficient funds. It is this fact that is subject of Philippines vs. Jessie B. Castillo and Felicito R. Mejia,
prosecution under BP 22. G.R. No. 171188, June 19, 2009.
Therefore, it is clear that the second element required for REPLEVIN.

the existence of a prejudicial question, that the resolution
of the issue in the civil action would determine whether
The process regarding the execution of the writ of
the criminal action may proceed, is absent in the instant
replevin in Section 4 of Rule 60 is unambiguous: the
case. Thus, no prejudicial question exists and the rules
sheriff, upon receipt of the writ of replevin and prior to
on it are inapplicable to the case before us. Dreamwork
the taking of the property, must serve a copy thereof to
Construction, Inc. vs. Cleofe S. Janiola and Hon. Arthur
the adverse party (petitioner, in this case) together with
A. Famini, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009.
the application, the affidavit of merit, and the replevin
bond. The reasons are simple, i.e., to provide proper
PROBABLE CAUSE. notice to the adverse party that his property is being
seized in accordance with the court’s order upon
There are two kinds of determination of probable application by the other party, and ultimately to allow the
cause: executive and judicial. The executive adverse party to take the proper remedy consequent
determination of probable cause is one made during thereto.
preliminary investigation. It is a function that properly
pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad
57
Service of the writ upon the adverse party is mandatory WARRANT OF ARREST.
in line with the constitutional guaranty on procedural due
process and as safeguard against unreasonable searches
The function of the judge to issue a warrant of arrest
and seizures. If the writ was not served upon the adverse
upon the determination of probable cause is exclusive;
party but was instead merely handed to a person who is
thus, the consequent implementation of a warrant of
neither an agent of the adverse party nor a person
arrest cannot be deferred pending the resolution of a
authorized to receive court processes on his behalf, the
petition for review by the Secretary of Justice as to the
service thereof is erroneous and is, therefore, invalid,
finding of probable cause, a function that is executive in
running afoul of the statutory and constitutional
nature. To defer the implementation of the warrant of
requirements. The service is likewise invalid if the writ of
arrest would be an encroachment on the exclusive
replevin was served without the required documents.
prerogative of the judge. It must be emphasized that
Under these circumstances, no right to seize and to
petitioner filed with the trial court a motion to suspend
detain the property shall pass, the act of the sheriff being
proceedings and to suspend the implementation of the
both unlawful and unconstitutional. Terlyngrace Rivera
warrant of arrest in pursuance of a DOJ circular, and not
Vs. Florencio L. Vargas, G.R. No. 165895, June 5, 2009.
a motion to quash the warrant of arrest questioning the
issuance thereof. Thus, there is no contest as to the
RULE 64. validity or regularity of the issuance of the warrant of
arrest.
Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution provides that
unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, Petitioner merely wanted the trial court to defer the
any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be implementation of the warrant of arrest pending the
brought to the Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party resolution by the Secretary of Justice of the petition for
within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. For this review that he filed citing the following directive
reason, the Rules of Court provide for a separate rule contained in Section 9 of DOJ Department Circular: “The
(Rule 64) specifically applicable only to decisions of the appellant and the trial prosecutor shall see to it that,
COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. This Rule pending resolution of the appeal, the proceedings in court
expressly refers to the application of Rule 65 in the filing are held in abeyance.
of a petition for certiorari, subject to the exception clause
– “except as hereinafter provided.”
The above provision of the Department Circular is
directed specifically at the appellant and the trial
Even a superficial reading of the motion for prosecutor, giving them latitude in choosing a remedy to
reconsideration shows that the petitioner has not ensure that the proceedings in court are held in
challenged our conclusion that his petition was filed abeyance. However, nowhere in the said provision does it
outside the period required by Section 3, Rule 64; he state that the court must hold the proceedings in
merely insists that the fresh period rule applicable to a abeyance. Therefore, the discretion of the court whether
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should likewise apply or not to suspend the proceedings or the implementation
to petitions for certiorari of COMELEC rulings filed under of the warrant of arrest, upon the motion of the appellant
Rule 64. or the trial prosecutor, remains unhindered. This is in
consonance with the earlier ruling of this Court that once
a complaint or information is filed in court, any
Rule 64, however, cannot simply be equated to Rule 65
disposition of the case as to its dismissal, or the
even if it expressly refers to the latter rule. They exist as
conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound
separate rules for substantive reasons as discussed
discretion of the said court, as it is the best and sole
below. Procedurally, the most patent difference between
judge of what to do with the case before it. In the instant
the two – i.e., the exception that Section 2, Rule 64
case, the judge of the trial court merely exercised his
refers to – is Section 3 which provides for a special
judicial discretion when he denied petitioner’s motion to
period for the filing of petitions for certiorari from
suspend the implementation of the warrant of arrest.
decisions or rulings of the COMELEC en banc. The period
Consequently, the CA was correct when it found no
is 30 days from notice of the decision or ruling (instead of
whimsicality or oppressiveness in the exercise of the trial
the 60 days that Rule 65 provides), with the intervening
judge’s discretion in issuing the challenged orders.
period used for the filing of any motion for
Bonifacio M. Mejillano vs. Enrique Lucillo, et al., G.R. No.
reconsideration deductible from the originally-granted 30
154717, June 19, 2009.
days (instead of the fresh period of 60 days that Rule 65
provides). Nilo T. Pates vs. Commission on Elections and
Emelita B. Almirante, G.R. No. 184915. June 30, 2009 WRIT OF EXECUTION.
VENUE; DERIVATIVE SUITS. The rule is that a writ of execution must conform
substantially to every essential particular of the judgment
promulgated. An execution which is not in harmony with
The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of
the judgment is bereft of validity; it must conform
discretion when it found that respondents correctly filed
particularly to that ordained in the dispositive portion of
the derivative suit before the Makati RTC where HTSI had
the decision. In the case at bar, the sheriff himself
its principal office. Hi-Yield Realty, Incorporated vs. Hon.
discovered a deficiency in the execution of the judgment
Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 168863, June 23, 2009.
in the amount of P70,300.00. Therefore, upon report of
58
the same by the sheriff, an alias writ of execution ACTION; CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
covering said deficiency is only proper to preserve the SHOPPING.
tenor of the judgment and to ensure the faithful
execution thereof. National Housing Authority vs. Heirs
Under Section 3, par. 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, a
of Isidro Guivelorido, et al., G.R. No. 166518, June 16,
petition for certiorari must be verified and accompanied
2009.
by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. A
pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has
WRIT OF POSSESSION; AUTHORIZATION. read the pleading and that the allegations therein are
true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on
authentic records. On the other hand, a certification of
The corporate powers of a corporation, including the
non-forum shopping is a certification under oath by the
power to sue and be sued in its corporate name, are
plaintiff or principal party in the complaint or other
exercised by the board of directors. The physical acts of
initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief or in a
the corporation, like the signing of documents such as
sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously
verification and certification of non-forum shopping, can
filed therewith, (1) that he has not commenced any
only be performed by natural persons duly authorized for
action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any
the purpose by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of
court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and no such other
the board of directors.
action or claim is pending therein; (2) if there is such
other pending action or claim, a complete statement of
In this case, although Virgilio Sintos, Jr. initially failed to the present status thereof; and (3) if he should
show that he was authorized to sign the verification for thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim
the Ex-Parte Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession, has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact
respondent submitted a Secretary’s Certificate to the within five days therefrom to the court wherein his
Court confirming that Virgilio Sintos, Jr. was indeed aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
authorized by the board of directors. In the interest of
justice, the Court may allow the relaxation of procedural
The reason the certification of non-forum shopping is
rules where there is subsequent substantial compliance.
required to be accomplished by the plaintiff or principal
Marylou B. Tolentino, M.D. vs. Shenton Realty Corp.,
party himself is because he has actual knowledge of
G.R. No. 162103, June 19, 2009.
whether he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in
different courts or agencies. In case the plaintiff or
WARRANT OF ARREST. principal party is a juridical entity, such as petitioner, the
certification may be signed by an authorized person who
No abuse of discretion can be attributed to Judge has personal knowledge of the facts required to be
Madrona when he issued the Orders, dated 9 March 2005 established by the documents.
and 31 March 2005, for the arrest of the respondent due
to his failure to be present for his arraignment and for Although petitioner submitted a verification/certification
the confiscation of his cash bond. These Orders are of non-forum shopping, affiant Edgar L. Chavez had no
consistent with criminal procedure. authority to sign the verification/certification of non-
forum shopping attached to the petition filed in the Court
The filing of an information in the trial court initiates a of Appeals. The records disclose that the authority of
criminal action. The trial court thereby acquires Chavez was to represent petitioner only before the NLRC.
jurisdiction over the case. After the filing of the Moreover, the board resolution showing such authority
complaint or the information, a warrant for the arrest of was neither certified nor authenticated by the Corporate
the accused is issued by the trial court. When the Secretary. The Corporate Secretary should have attested
accused voluntarily submits himself to the court or is duly to the fact that, indeed, petitioner’s Board of Directors
arrested, the court then acquires jurisdiction over the had approved a Resolution on August 11, 2005,
person of the accused. In this case, the trial court authorizing Chavez, to file the petition and to sign the
acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the accused verification/certification of non-forum shopping. Davao
Carmelo Jaro, Remedios Malibaran, and the respondent, Contractors Development Cooperative (DACODECO),
who posted bail bonds after the trial court issued a represented by Chairman of the Board Engr. L. Chavez
Warrant of Arrest on 4 October 2004. While it is true vs. Marilyn A. Pasawa, G.R. No. 172174, July 9, 2009.
that the fiscal has the quasi-judicial discretion to
determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed ACTION; CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
in court, once the case has been brought to court, SHOPPING.
whatever disposition the fiscal may feel is proper in the
case should be addressed to the consideration of the trial
At the outset, the Court notes that the petition
court. Bienvenido Diño, et al. vs. Pablo Olivarez, G.R.
supposedly filed by petitioners Jocson and Tuising was
No. 170447, June 23, 2009.
not signed by Jocson’s counsel. It was Tuising’s counsel
who signed in behalf
of Jocson’s counsel. Tuising’s counsel had no authority to
sign the petition in behalf of Jocson. The records are
JULY 2009 CASES bereft of any proof that Jocson ever
authorized Tuising’s counsel to be her counsel or to act in
59
her behalf. Under Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil issuance on the ground of actual fraud via a petition for
Procedure, every pleading must be signed by the party or review in the Regional Trial Court, provided that no
counsel representing him, otherwise the pleading innocent purchaser for value has acquired the property or
produces no legal effect. any interest thereon. However, an aggrieved party may
still file an action for reconveyance based on implied or
constructive trust, but the right of action prescribes in 10
Furthermore, only Tuising signed the Verification and
years counted from the date of the issuance of the
Certification for Non-Forum Shopping. Jocson did not sign
certificate of title over the property, provided that it has
the Verification and Certification. Section 1, Rule 45 of
not been acquired by an innocent purchaser for value.
the Rules of Civil Procedure requires the petition for
This 10-year prescriptive period applies only when the
review on certiorari to be verified. A pleading required to
person enforcing the trust is not in possession of the
be verified which lacks proper verification shall be treated
property. If the person claiming to be its owner is in
as an unsigned pleading. Although Tuising belatedly filed
actual possession thereof, the right to
on 24 September 2004 a “Special Power of Attorney”
seek reconveyance, which in effect is an action to quiet
allegedly signed by Jocson and authorizing Tuising to file
title thereto, does not prescribe.
the petition for review and to verify and to certify the
petition, no explanation was given by Tuising why the
Special Power of Attorney was belatedly filed four months In the instant case, petitioner’s action to recover the
after the petition for review was filed on 12 May 2004. property and to annul the patent and title issued to the
The lack of a certification against forum shopping or a respondents was filed beyond the prescriptive period.
defective certification is generally not curable by its Thus, it ought to be dismissed. Modesta Luna vs. Juliana
subsequent submission or correction, unless there is a P. Luna, et al., G.R. No. 177624. July 13, 2009.
need to relax the rule under special circumstances or for
compelling reasons. Cerefina Argallon-Jocson and
ACTION; PRESCRIPTION.
Rodolfo Tuising vs. Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation
and/or Marcelo Steel Corporation,G.R. No. 162836, July
30, 2009; see also Eagle Star Security Services, Inc. vs. An action for reconveyance of property respects the
Bonifacio L. Mirando, G.R. No. 179512, July 30, 2009. decree of registration as incontrovertible and merely
seeks the transfer of the property wrongfully or
erroneously registered in another’s name to its rightful
ACTION; CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
owner or to one who claims to have a better right.
SHOPPING.
An action for reconveyance of property based on an

The submission of a false certification of non-forum
implied or constructive trust is the proper remedy of an
shopping or non-compliance with any of the undertakings
aggrieved party whose property had been erroneously
therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court,
registered in another’s name. The prescriptive period for
without prejudice to the corresponding administrative
the reconveyance of registered property is ten years,
and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his
reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate
counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
of title. However, the ten-year prescriptive period for an
shopping, the same shall be a ground for summary
action for reconveyance is not applicable where the
dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
complainant is in possession of the land to
contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
be reconveyed and the registered owner was never in
possession of the disputed property. In such a case, the
The test for determining the existence of forum shopping action for reconveyance filed by the complainant who is
is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or in possession of the disputed property would be in the
whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res nature of an action to quiet title which
judicata in another. Thus, there is forum shopping when is imprescriptible. Heirs of Toribio Waga, represented
the following elements are present: (a) identity of by Merba A. Waga vs. Isabelo Sacabin, G.R. No.
parties, or at least such parties as represent the same 159131, July 27, 2009.
interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted
and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the
APPEAL; CONVICTION.
same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding
particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other
action will, regardless of which party is successful, Upon Balaba’s conviction by the trial court, his remedy
amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. should have been an appeal to the Sandiganbayan. There
Said requisites are also constitutive of the requisites is nothing which can conceivably justify the filing
for auter action pendant or lis pendens. Gloria S. Dy vs. of Balaba’s appeal before the Court of Appeals instead of
Mandy Commodities Co., Inc., G.R. No. 171842, July 22, the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, the Court of Appeals is
2009. bereft of any jurisdiction to review the
judgment Balaba seeks to appeal. In this
case, Balaba sought the correction of the error in filing
ACTION; PRESCRIPTION.
the appeal only after the expiration of the period to
appeal. The trial court promulgated its Decision on 9
The order or decision granting an application for a free December 2002. Balaba filed his notice of appeal on 14
patent can be reviewed only within one year from its January 2003. The Court of Appeals issued the Decision
60
declaring its lack of jurisdiction on 15 December Well-settled is the rule that issues or grounds not raised
2004. Balaba tried to correct the error only on 27 below cannot be resolved on review by the Supreme
January 2005, clearly beyond the 15-day period to Court, for to allow the parties to raise new issues is
appeal from the decision of the trial court. Therefore, the antithetical to the sporting idea of fair play, justice and
Court of Appeals did not commit any error when it due process. Issues not raised during the trial cannot be
dismissed Balaba’s appeal because of lack of raised for the first time on appeal and more especially on
jurisdiction. Irenorio B. Balaba vs. People of the motion for reconsideration. Litigation must end at some
Philippines, G.R. No. 169519, July 17, 2009. point; once the case is finally adjudged, the parties must
learn to accept victory or defeat. Jesus Cuenco vs.
Talisay Tourist Sprots Complex, Incorporated and Matias
APPEAL; IMPROPER REMEDY.
B. Aznar III, G.R. No. 174154, July 30, 2009. see also
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Family Foods
The settled rule is that appeals from judgments or final Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Spouses Juliano and Catalina
orders or resolutions of the CA should be by a verified Centeno, G.R. No. 180458, July 30, 2009.
petition for review on certiorari, as provided for under
Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Tthe CA,
APPEAL; NONPAYMENT OF FEES.
therefore, acted properly when it dismissed the petition
for certiorari outright, on the ground that petitioners
should have resorted to the remedy of appeal instead In the instant case, petitioner failed to perfect his appeal
of certiorari. Verily, the present Petition with the Office of the President, despite having been
for Certiorari should not have been given due course at given reasonable opportunity to do so. Records would
all. show that petitioner was granted an extension of fifteen
(15) days from October 18, 2003 or until November 2,
2003 to file his appeal memorandum and to pay the
Moreover, since the period for petitioners to file a petition
appeal fee. Instead of complying, petitioner, on
for review on certiorari had lapsed by the time the instant
November 10, 2003, when the extension granted had
petition was filed, the assailed CA Resolutions have
already expired, requested for another extension of five
attained finality. Ana De Guia San Pedro, et al. vs. Hon.
(5) days. It is specifically provided under Section 4 of
Fatima G. Asdala (etc.), et al., G.R. No. 164560,. July
Administrative Order No. 18 that extension of time for
22, 2009.
the payment of appeal fee and the filing of pleadings
shall not be allowed, except for good and sufficient cause
APPEAL; INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. and only if the motion for extension is filed before the
expiration of the time sought to be extended.
An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory.
Under Section 1(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an In exceptional cases, we had allowed a liberal application
interlocutory order is not appealable. As a remedy for the of the rule. The recent case of Villena v. Rupisan,
denial, a party has to file an answer and interpose as a extensively discussed and enumerated the various
defense the objections raised in the motion, and then to instances recognized as exceptions to the stringent
proceed to trial; or, a party may immediately avail of the application of the rule in the matter of paying the docket
remedy available to the aggrieved party by filing an fees, such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons;
appropriate special civil action for certiorari under Rule (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not
65 of the Revised Rules of Court. Let it be stressed commensurate with his failure to comply with the
though that a petition for certiorari is appropriate only prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting
when an order has been issued without or in excess of party by immediately paying within a reasonable time
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special
to lack or excess of jurisdiction. or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case;
(6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
Based on the foregoing, the Order of the RTC denying negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the
petitioner’s Omnibus Motion to Dismiss is rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is
not appealable even on pure questions of law. It is worth merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not
mentioning that the proper procedure in this case is to be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident,
cite such interlocutory order as an error in the appeal of mistake or excusable negligence without appellant’s
the case — in the event that the RTC rules in favor of fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances
respondent — and not to appeal such interlocutory order. attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial
On the other hand, if the petition is to be treated as a justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues
petition for review under Rule 45, it would likewise fail involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the
because the proper subject would only be judgments or judge guided by all the attendant circumstances.[25]
final orders that completely dispose of the case. Atty.
Rogelio E. Sarsaba vs. Fe vda De Te, represented by her Considering that petitioner has not proffered an
Attorney-in-Fact Faustino Castañeda, G.R. No. 175910, acceptable explanation for the delay in the payment of
July 30, 2009. the appeal fee, his reason not being one of the
recognized exceptions, we agree with the Court of
APPEAL; ISSUES RAISED FIRST TIME. Appeals that there is no compelling reason to reverse the
orders of the Office of the President dismissing the
61
appeal filed by petitioner. Noli Lim vs. of Emiliano San Pedro, etc. vs. Pablito Garcia and Jose
Angelito Delos Santos, etc., Denia R. Adoyo, et al., Calderon, G.R. No. 166988, July 3, 2009.
(Intervenors) Gloria Murillo, et al., (Protestants), G.R.
No. 172574, July 31, 2009.
Appeal; period to appeal. In addition to the non-
perfection of the appeal on time, records show that the
APPEAL; PERIOD TO APPEAL. notice of appeal failed to indicate the date when the
petitioner received the Order denying its motion for
reconsideration. The rules require that the notice of
The failure of the petitioner to perfect an appeal within
appeal shall state the material dates showing the
the period fixed by law renders final the decision sought
timeliness of the appeal. The indication of date is
to be appealed. As a result, no court could exercise
important in order for the trial court to determine the
appellate jurisdiction to review the decision. It is settled
timeliness of the petitioner’s appeal.
that a decision that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable and may no longer be
modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant Likewise, petitioner did not pay the appellate court’s
to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and docket and other lawful fees on time. Respondents
whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or pointed out that the payment of the fees, as reflected by
by the highest court of the land. Otherwise, there will be the official receipts, was made only after five months
no end to litigation and this will set to naught the main from the filing of the notice of appeal. National Power
role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of Corporation vs. Sps. Lorenzo L. Laohoo, et al., G.R. No.
the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order 151973, July 23, 2009.
by settling justiciable controversies with finality.
APPEAL; TIMELINESS OF APPEAL.
Once a judgment becomes final and executory, all the
issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid
Timeliness of an appeal is a factual issue that requires a
to rest. All that remains is the execution of the decision
review of the evidence presented on when the appeal
which is a matter of right. The prevailing party is entitled
was actually filed.
to a writ of execution, the issuance of which is the trial
court’s ministerial duty. Noli Lim vs.
Angelito Delos Santos, etc., Denia R. Adoyo, et al., In a petition for review on certiorari, this Court is limited
(Intervenors) Gloria Murillo, et al., (Protestants), G.R. to the review of errors of law; we do not pass upon
No. 172574, July 31, 2009. findings of facts under this mode of review unless the
lower tribunal’s decision is shown to be attended by
grave abuse of discretion, as when they are shown to
APPEAL; PERIOD TO APPEAL.
have been made arbitrarily or in disregard of the
evidence on record. This rule applies with great force in
Even if the Rules of Court may not apply in the labor cases where the ruling tribunal – the NLRC –
proceedings before the DARAB, the CA was correct in exercises specialized jurisdiction and has acknowledged
pointing out that the Revised Rules of the DARAB itself expertise on labor matters; we generally accord
impose a fifteen-day reglementary period to appeal. the NLRC’s findings not only respect but even finality,
Since the perfection of an appeal within the statutory unless the exceptions mentioned above exist, or when a
or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also review of the findings of facts is rendered necessary and
jurisdictional, the failure of petitioners to so perfect their appropriate because the factual findings and conclusions
appeal rendered the questioned decision final of the labor arbiter, the NLRC and the CA (as the court
and executory. This rule is founded upon the principle essentially tasked with factual review) are in conflict with
that the right to appeal is not part of due process of law, one another. Eureka Personnel and Management Corp.,
but is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in and Nari K. Gidwani vs. The Hon. National Labor
the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 159358, July 15,
law. 2009.
This, of course, does not mean to say that this Court has CERTIORARI; EXTENSION OF TIME.
not in the past allowed a liberal application of the rules of
appeal. However, the same applies only in exceptionally
While the proper courts previously had discretion to
meritorious cases.
extend the period for filing a petition for certiorari beyond
the 60-day period, the amendments to Rule 65 under
In the case at bar, there is no showing of a factual A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC disallowed extensions of time to file
setting which warrants a liberal application of the rules a petition for certiorari with the deletion of the paragraph
on the period of appeal. To stress, petitioners filed their that previously permitted such extension.
Notice of Appeal only after one year and five months Laguna Metts Corporation Vs. Court of Appeals, Aries
from the time the Provincial Adjudicator rendered its C. Caalam and Geraldine Esguerra, G.R. No. 185220,
Decision. Such a delay is unacceptable. Moreover, what July 27, 2009.
makes matters worse is that petitioners offered no
explanation or excuse for this Court to consider as to why
CERTIORARI; HIERARCHY OF COURTS.
it took them so long to file their appeal. Heirs
62
True, we had, on certain occasions, entertained direct this case be decided on its merits rather than on the
recourse to this Court as an exception to the rule on basis of the desistance of respondent. Guillermo
hierarchy of courts. In those exceptional cases, however, M. Telmo vs. Luciano M. Bustamante, G.R. No. 182567,
we recognized an exception because it was dictated by July 13, 2009.
public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or
demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the
DECISION; MOOT AND ACADEMIC.
orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or
the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate
remedy. When respondent was then allowed to avail herself of
optional retirement under the law after having served the
government for more than 40 years, within the 15-day
In the instant case, however, the questions raised are
period to appeal under Rule 43, petitioner’s July 30, 2003
issues evidently within the normal precincts of an appeal
Resolution had become moot and academic.
which cannot be peremptorily addressed by an
extraordinary writ. In fact, the Court of Appeals (CA) has
jurisdiction to review the resolution issued by the Courts have generally refrained from even expressing an
Secretary of the DOJ through a petition opinion on cases where the issues have become moot
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court albeit and academic, there being no
solely on the ground that the Secretary of Justice more justiciable controversy to speak of, so that a
committed grave abuse of his discretion amounting to determination thereof would be of no practical use or
excess or lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners could have value. In the present case, when her appointment was
easily availed themselves of such recourse instead of disapproved by petitioner, respondent would still have
directly assailing the same before this Court. Cong. been able to retire under the applicable law, R.A. 8291,
Glenn A. Chong, Mr. Charles Chong, and Mr. as said law only requires that the employee concerned
Romeo Arribe vs. Hon. Philip L. Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. must have rendered at least 15 years of service and must
No. 184948, July 21, 2009. not have been receiving disability benefits at the time of
retirement. Petitioner, having retired on August 31,
2003, the position of IPRS I is presumed to have been
CERTIORARI; MATERIAL DATES.
already filled up and to be now occupied by one bearing
the requisite qualifications. Hence, passing on the
On the matter of material dates, the petition disapproval of respondent’s appointment no longer has
for certiorari failed to indicate the material dates that any practical value. Civil Service Commission vs. Nelia
would show the timeliness of the filing thereof with the O. Tahanlangit, G.R. No. 180528, July 27, 2009.
Court of Appeals. It is settled that the following material
dates must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought
DECISION; UNPROMULGATED.
under Rule 65: first, the date when notice of the
judgment or final order or resolution was received;
second, the date when a motion for new trial or for An unpromulgated decision is no decision at all. At the
reconsideration was filed; and third, the date when notice very least, they are part of the confidential internal
of the denial thereof was received. In the case before us, deliberations of the Court which must not be released to
petitioner failed to indicate the first and second dates, the public. A decision becomes binding only after it is
particularly the date of receipt of the NLRC resolution and validly promulgated. Until such operative act occurs,
the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration. As there is really no decision to speak of, even if some or all
explicitly stated in Rule 65, failure to comply with any of of the Justices have already affixed their signatures
the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the thereto. During the intervening period from the time of
dismissal of the petition. Davao Contractors signing until the promulgation of the decision, any one
Development Cooperative (DACODECO), represented by who took part in the deliberation and had signed the
Chairman of the Board Engr. L. Chavez vs. Marilyn decision may, for a reason, validly withdraw one’s vote,
A. Pasawa, G.R. No. 172174, July 9, 2009. thereby preserving one’s freedom of action.
Limkaichong vs. Comelec/Biraogo vs.
Nograles, et al./Paras vs. Nograles, et al./Villando vs.
COMPLAINT; AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE.
Comelec, et al., G.R. Nos. 178831-32/G.R. No.
179120/G.R. Nos. 179132-33/G.R. Nos. 179240-41, July
The desistance of the complainant does not necessarily 30, 2009.
result in the dismissal of the administrative complaint
because the Court attaches no persuasive value to
EVIDENCE; ALIBI.
a desistance, especially when executed as an
afterthought. It should be remembered that the issue in
an administrative case is not whether the complaint It is well settled that positive identification, where
states a cause of action against the respondent, but categorical and consistent and not attended by any
whether the public officials have breached the norms and showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses
standards of the public service. Considering that testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial
petitioner admitted in his pleadings that he summarily which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing
removed the concrete posts erected by respondent, evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence
allegedly within the parameters of his authority as undeserving weight in law. For this reason, the defense
Municipal Engineer of Naic, Cavite, it is only proper that of alibi and denial cannot prosper in the light of the
63
positive identification by complainant Guiritan that it was Appeals, RTC, Quezon City, Branch 97, Sps. Federico
petitioner who stabbed him. Arthur Zarate vs. Regional and Rosamyrna Carandang and Sheriff Carol Bulacan,
Trial Court, Br. Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental, G.R. No. G.R. No. 162738, July 8, 2009.
152263, July 3, 2009.
EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF.
EVIDENCE; ALIBI.
It bears stressing that in administrative proceedings, the

Alibi is generally viewed with suspicion because of its
complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial
inherent weakness and unreliability. For this defense to
evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Substantial
prosper, jurisprudence demands the physical
evidence does not necessarily import preponderance of
impossibility of the presence of the accused at the
evidence as is required in an ordinary civil case; rather, it
locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the
is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
incident. Where the least chance exists for the accused to
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Republic
be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi fails.
of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the
People of the Philippines vs. Jojo Musa y
Ombudsman, Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, in her
Santos, et al., G.R. No. 170472, July 3, 2009.
capacity as the Ombudsman vs. Rufino V. Maijares,
Roberto G. Ferrera, Alfredo M. Ruba and
EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF. Romeo Querubin. G.R. Nos. 170615-16. July 9, 2009
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF.
establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. When
a plaintiff’s case depends upon the establishment of a
Burden of proof, under Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules
negative fact, and the means of proving the fact are
on Evidence, refers to the duty of a party to present
equally within the control of each party, then the burden
evidence on the facts in issue in order to establish his or
of proof is upon the party averring the negative fact.
her claim or defense. In a criminal case, the burden of
proof to establish the guilt of the accused falls upon the
In the instant case, respondents assert the negative fact, prosecution which has the duty to prove all the essential
i.e., that no copy of the October 16, 1989 Order was sent ingredients of the crime. The prosecution completes its
to petitioners. In short, they have the burden of proof to case as soon as it has presented the evidence it believes
show that petitioners were not furnished with a copy of is sufficient to prove the required elements. At this point,
the October 16, 1989 Order. Sps. Henry O the burden of evidence shifts to the defense to disprove
and Pacita Cheng vs. Sps. Jose Javier and what the prosecution has shown by evidence, or to prove
Claudia Dailisan, G.R. No. 182485, July 3, 2009. by evidence the circumstances showing that the accused
did not commit the crime charged or cannot otherwise be
held liable therefor. In the present case, the prosecution
EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF.
completed its evidence and had done everything that the
law requires it to do. The burden of evidence has now
In civil cases, he who alleges a fact has the burden of shifted to the defense which now claims, by an
proving it. Having made such allegation that the proceeds affirmative defense, that the accused, even if guilty,
of the sale were grossly inadequate, the burden of proof should be exempt from criminal liability because of his
was upon them. Mere allegation is not evidence and is age when he committed the crime. The defense,
not equivalent to proof. While this Court is not unaware therefore, not the prosecution, has the burden of showing
of petitioner Ernesto Tagle’s reputation as a known artist by evidence that the petitioner was 15 years old or less
and painter, mere claim of his renown in artistic circles is when he committed the rape charged.
not proof of the purported high value of his artwork and
pieces that were auctioned or of the inadequacy of the
This conclusion can also be reached by considering that
price when such works were sold during the questioned
minority and age are not elements of the crime of rape;
auction sales. We note that the Tagles presented several
the prosecution therefore has no duty to prove these
receipts to show the prices at which some of petitioner
circumstances. To impose the burden of proof on the
Ernesto Tagle’s artworks had allegedly been sold.
prosecution would make minority and age integral
However, there was no evidence that the artworks
elements of the crime when clearly they are not. If the
auctioned on execution were of the same kind or worth
prosecution has a burden related to age, this burden
as those sold to the buyers indicated in the said receipts.
relates to proof of the age of the victim as a circumstance
Ergo, there were no bases for comparison for the value of
that qualifies the crime of rape. Roberto Sierra
the works mentioned in the said receipts and the value of
y Caneda vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 182941,
those sold at the execution sales questioned herein. What
July 3, 2009.
was incumbent upon petitioners was to produce
independent, competent and credible valuations or
appraisals of the artwork sold during the assailed public EVIDENCE; CONSPIRACY.
auctions in order to substantiate their claim that the
prices at which said paintings and artwork were sold were
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
indeed grossly inadequate. Sps. Elizabeth
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
S. Tagle Ernesto R. Tagle vs. Hon. Court of
decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be inferred from the
64
acts of the accused before, during, and after the People v. Tabio upheld the credibility of the mentally
commission of the crime which indubitably point to, and retarded complaining witness after noting that the
are indicative of, a joint purpose, concert of action, and witness spoke unequivocally on the details of the crime.
community of interest. Conspiracy does not require proof The Court in that case observed that the witness would
of an appreciable period of time for the perpetrators to not have spoken so tenaciously about her experience had
come to an agreement, or for proof of an agreement it not really happened to her. In People v. Macapal, Jr.,
prior to the criminal deed; conspiracy exists if evidence the court stressed that testimonial discrepancies caused
indicates that at the time of the commission of the by a witness’ natural fickleness of memory does not
offense, the malefactors had the same purpose and were destroy the substance of the testimony of said witness.
united in its execution. People of the Philippines vs. Likewise, People v. Martin appreciated the natural and
Jojo Musa y Santos, et al., G.R. No. 170472, July 3, straightforward narration of the mentally deficient victim
2009. and dismissed her inaccurate and unresponsive answers.
The Court in Martin reasoned that even children of
normal intelligence can not be expected to give a precise
EVIDENCE; IDENTIFICATION.
account of events considering their naiveté and still
undeveloped vocabulary and command of
The fact that Permejo was not able to identify accused- language. People of the Philippines vs. Warlito Martinez,
appellants as the perpetrators of the crime impinges G.R. No. 182687, July 23, 2009.
heavily on the credibility of prosecution’s evidence. For if,
indeed, the accused-appellants were the malefactors of
EVIDENCE; RAPE.
the crime who did not hide their faces during the
robbery, the eyewitness, who had such close, traumatic
encounter with them, should automatically have recalled To ascertain the guilt or innocence of the accused in
their faces upon seeing them. It behooves this Court to cases of rape, the courts have been traditionally guided
declare that she was not able to do so positively. by three settled principles, namely: (a) an accusation for
rape is easy to make, difficult to prove and even more
difficult to disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of
Having ignored the abovementioned important
the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be
circumstance, the trial court misconstrued and misapplied
scrutinized with utmost caution; and (c) the evidence of
facts and circumstances of the case, warranting the
the prosecution must stand on its own merits and cannot
modification or reversal of the outcome of the case. The
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
trial court grievously erred when it ruled that the lone
defense.
prosecution eyewitness categorically and positively
identified accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the
crime. People of the Philippines vs. Charmen Olivo y Since the crime of rape is essentially one committed in
Along, Nelson Danda y Sambuto and Joey Zafra y relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually only the
Reyes, G.R. No. 177768, July 27, 2009. victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the
forced coitus. In its prosecution, therefore, the credibility
of the victim is almost always the single and most
EVIDENCE; OUT OF COURT IDENTIFICATION.
important issue to deal with. If her testimony meets the
test of credibility, the accused can justifiably be convicted
Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in on the basis thereof; otherwise, he should be acquitted of
various ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect the crime. People of the Philippines vs. Benjie
alone is brought face to face with the witness for Resurrection, G.R. No. 185389, July 7, 2009.
identification. It is done thru mug shots where
photographs are shown to the witness to identify the
EVIDENCE; RAPE.
suspect. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness
identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up
for the purpose x x x In resolving the admissibility of and The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses in rape
relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts cases is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
have adopted the totality of circumstances test where judge whose conclusion deserves much weight and
they consider the following factors, viz: (1) the witness’ respect because he/she has the direct opportunity to
opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are
(2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the telling the truth or not. People of the Philippines vs.
accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; Willy Mardo Ganoy y Mamayabay, G.R. No. 174370,
(4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at July 23, 2009.
the identification; (5) the length of time between the
crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness
EVIDENCE; RAPE.
of the identification procedure. People of the Philippines
vs. Jojo Musa y Santos, et al., G.R. No. 170472, July 3,
2009. It cannot be over-emphasized that the credibility of a
rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by
minor inconsistencies in her testimony. Such
EVIDENCE; MENTALLY RETARDED.
inconsistencies are inconsequential when they refer to
minor details that have nothing to do with the essential
fact of the commission of the crime––carnal knowledge
65
through force and intimidation. The alleged Federico and Rosamyrna Carandang and Sheriff

inconsistencies refer to minor details and are evidently Carol Bulacan, G.R. No. 162738, July 8, 2009.
beyond the essential fact of the commission of rape
because they do not pertain to the actual sexual assault
INFORMATION; CONSPIRACY.
itself––that very moment when Wasit was forcing himself
on AAA. A weeping AAA had pointed to Wasit as the very
person who defiled her. People of the Philippines Vs. It is settled that conspiracy must be alleged, not merely
Felix Wasit, G.R .No. 182454, July 23, 2009. inferred, in the information. A look at the information
readily shows that the words “conspiracy,” “conspired” or
“in conspiracy with” does not appear in the information.
EVIDENCE; RES GESTAE.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that the
absence of these words would signify that conspiracy was
A declaration made spontaneously after a startling not alleged in the information. After carefully reading the
occurrence is deemed as part of the res gestae when (1) information, we find that conspiracy was properly alleged
the principal act, the res gestae is a startling occurrence; in the information. The accusatory portion reads in part:
(2) the statements were made before the declarant had “all the above-named accused, with evident intent to
time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements defraud the government of legitimate taxes accruing to it
concern the occurrence in question and its immediately from imported articles, did then and there, willfully,
attending circumstances. unlawfully and knowingly participate in and facilitate the
transportation, concealment, and possession of dutiable
electronic equipment and accessories with a domestic
In this case, Guiritan lost consciousness when he was
market value of P20,000,000.00 contained in container
brought to the hospital and regained consciousness the
van no. TTNU9201241, but which were declared in
following morning after the operation. The hospital
Formal Entry and Revenue Declaration No. 118302 as
records showed that the operation started at 5:00 a.m.
assorted men’s and ladies’ accessories x x x.” We find the
and ended at 7:30 a.m. of April 2,
phrase “participate in and facilitate” to be a clear and
1994. SPO1 Alecha testified that it was also in the
definite allegation of conspiracy sufficient for those being
morning of April 2, 1994 that he took the statement
accused to competently enter a plea and to make a
of Guiritan, who stated that it was petitioner who stabbed
proper defense. Rene M. Francisco vs. People of the
him.
Philippines/Oscar A. Ojeda vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 177430/G.R. No. 178935, July 14,
SPO1 Alecha testified that he had to put his ear 2009.
near Guiritan’s mouth so that he could
hear Guiritan’s answers as he was catching his breath.
INFORMATION; PROBABLE CAUSE.
The foregoing circumstances reveal that the statement
was taken a few hours after the operation when he
regained consciousness. His statements were still the The general rule is that the courts do not interfere with
reflex product of immediate sensual impressions so that the discretion of the public prosecutor in determining the
it was the shocking event speaking through him, and he specificity and adequacy of the averments in a criminal
did not have the opportunity to concoct or contrive the complaint. The determination of probable cause for the
story. Thus, his statement is admissible as part of the purpose of filing an information in court is an executive
res gestae. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the function which pertains at the first instance to the public
statement was signed by Guiritan and its date was prosecutor and then to the Secretary of Justice. The duty
established by SPO1 Alecha. Arthur Zarate vs. Regional of the Court in appropriate cases is merely to determine
Trial Court, Br. Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental, G.R. No. whether the executive determination was done without or
152263, July 3, 2009. in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to
review unless made with grave abuse. Melba Rose
FORECLOSURE; NOTICE.
R. Sasot vs. Amado Yuson, et al., G.R. No. 141888, July
13, 2009.
Verily, following Section 6, Rule 13, the written notice of
sale to the judgment obligor need not be personally
served on the judgment obligor himself. It may be served
on his counsel, or by leaving the notice in his office with
his clerk or a person having charge thereof. If there is no The general rule has been that the courts will not
one found at the judgment obligor’s or his counsel’s interfere with the discretion of the prosecutor or the
office or if such office is not known/inexistent, it may be Ombudsman, in the exercise of his investigative power,
served at the residence of the judgment obligor or his to determine the specificity and adequacy of
counsel and may be received by any person of sufficient the averments of the offense charged. The Ombudsman
age and discretion residing therein. Thus, petitioners’ has the full discretion to determine whether or not a
theory (that only written notice of sale served on criminal case should be filed. Nonetheless, this Court is
petitioners’ themselves would be valid) is utterly bereft of not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman’s action
merit. Sps. Elizabeth S. Tagle Ernesto R. Tagle vs. Hon. when there is a charge of grave abuse of discretion.
Court of Appeals, RTC, Quezon City, Branch 97, Sps. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of
66
jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s exercise of power must order or resolution that has long attained finality. This
have been done in an arbitrary or despotic manner which certainly is based on sound public policy
must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion for litigations and, despite occasional risks of error, must
of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty be brought to a definite end and the issues that go with
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. An them must one way or other be laid to rest. In turn, lack
examination of the records would show that the Office of of jurisdiction — the ground relied upon by petitioner —
the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of is confined only to either lack of jurisdiction over the
discretion, amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, person of the defending party or over the subject matter
in dismissing the complaint against Balasbas. Hilario of the claim. A valid invocation of this ground rests
P. Soriano vs. Ombudsman Simeon V. exclusively on absolute lack of jurisdiction as opposed to
Marcelo, et al., G.R. No. 160772, July 13, 2009. a mere abuse of jurisdictional discretion or mere errors in
judgment committed in the exercise of jurisdiction
inasmuch as jurisdiction is distinct from the exercise
thereof. Hence, where the facts demonstrate that the
court has validly acquired jurisdiction over the
It is hornbook principle that the term “grave abuse of respondent and over the subject matter of the case, its
discretion” means such capricious and whimsical exercise decision or order cannot be validly voided via a petition
of judgment as is equivalent to lack ofjurisdiction. The for annulment on the ground of absence or lack of
abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is jurisdiction. Mandy Commodities Co., Inc. vs. The
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of International Commercial Bank of China, G.R. No.
passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and 166734, July 3, 2009.
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act
JUDGMENT; EXECUTION.
at all in contemplation of law.
The CA correctly held that the RTC did not commit grave

The DOJ, in reversing the City Prosecutor’s finding of
abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of a writ of
probable cause and ordering the discharge of Esperanza,
execution with the correct address of the subject
noted that although the evidence on record fully
property. Such act was well within a court’s inherent
supported the finding of probable cause
power “to amend and control its process and orders so as
against Sagum based on his admission that he forged
to make them conformable to law and justice.”
herein respondent’s signature on the Deed of Real Estate
Mortgage without the participation of Esperanza, there
was no basis to hold that Esperanza conspired with him At the time the motion for execution pending appeal was
to effect the forgery. The DOJ, citing Dans, Jr. v. People, filed, the RTC had already assumed jurisdiction over the
ruled that conspiracy, like the crime itself, must be case. Hence, the MeTC was no longer in a position to
proven by competent proof, independently and beyond correct the error contained in the dispositive portion. The
reasonable doubt. duty devolved upon the RTC, before which the appeal
was pending, to rectify the error contained in
the dispositive portion of the judgment sought to be
A reading of the Resolution of the Office of the City
executed. Clerical error or ambiguity in
Prosecutor does not at all indicate why conspiracy was
the dispositive portion of a judgment may be rectified or
present between Esperanza and her uncle. There was
clarified by reference primarily to the body of the decision
thus no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
itself and, suppletorily, to the pleadings previously
the DOJ in issuing its Resolutions. Sps. Artemio and
filed. Lydia Montebon a.k.a. Jingle Montebon Vs. The
Esperanza Aduan vs. Levi Chong, G.R. No. 172796, July
Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 180568, July
13, 2009.
13, 2009.
JUDGMENT; ANNULMENT.
JUDGMENT; FINALITY.
The remedy of petition for annulment of judgment, final

The trial court’s Order of July 15, 2004 was not a final
order or resolution under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is
judgment; consequently, its entry in the Book of Entries
an extraordinary one inasmuch as it is available only
of Judgment on August 10, 2004 was premature and,
where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition
therefore, void. In the case at bar, the July 15, 2004
for relief or other remedies can no longer be availed of
Order did not dispose of all the issues in the case, as the
through no fault of the petitioner. The relief it affords is
issues of LVV’s unearned earnings and attorney’s fees
equitable in character as it strikes at the core of finality
remained unresolved. It was only on November 23, 2004
of such judgments and orders.
when the trial court
noted LVV’s voluntary desistance from presenting
The grounds for a petition for annulment are in evidence on these issues that they were disposed of.
themselves specific in the same way that the relief itself Republic of the Philippines represented by the Manila
is. The Rules restrict the grounds only to lack of International Airport Authority (MIAA) vs. Hon. Francisco
jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud to prevent the remedy G. Mendioal, etc., G.R. No. 175551, July 14, 2009.
from being used by a losing party in making a complete
farce of a duly promulgated decision or a duly issued
67
JUDGMENT; FINALITY. The filing of the above-mentioned Motion to Dismiss,

without invoking the lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the respondents, is deemed a voluntary appearance on
As matters now stand, the CA judgment affirming the
the part of the respondents under
accused-appellant’s conviction for two counts of rape is
the aforequoted provision of the Rules. The same
already final and executory. In light of this development,
conclusion can be drawn from the filing of the
we can no longer disturb the assailed CA decision and
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and Reply to the
resolution presently before us following the principle of
Comment on the Motion to Dismiss dated November 13,
immutability of judgments: once a judgment becomes
2000 which alleged, as an additional ground for the
final and executory, it becomes unalterable and can no
dismissal of petitioners’ complaint, the failure of plaintiffs
longer be modified nor reversed even to correct what is
to pay the required filing fee again but failed to raise the
perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law.
alleged lack of jurisdiction of the court over the person of
We are compelled therefore to dismiss the present
the respondents. Sps. German Anunciacion, et al. vs.
appeal. This conclusion is doubly strengthened by our
Perpetua M. Bocanegra, et al., G.R. No. 152496, July
finding that no compelling reason exists to disturb the
30, 2009.
assailed rulings. People of the Philippines vs.
Jesus Obero, G.R. No. 169878, July 7, 2009.
JUDGMENT; FINALITY.
We cannot countenance petitioner’s argument that the
complaint against the other defendants should have been
To emphasize, what is being questioned by respondent
dismissed, considering that the RTC never acquired
was not really the January 4, 2000 Decision of
jurisdiction over the person of Sereno. The court’s failure
the RTC declaring their marriage void ab initio on the
to acquire jurisdiction over one’s person is a defense
ground of mutual psychological incapacity, but the Orders
which is personal to the person claiming it. Obviously, it
of the trial court dividing their common properties in
is now impossible for Sereno to invoke the same in view
accordance with the proposed project of partition without
of his death. Neither can petitioner invoke such ground,
the benefit of a hearing. The issue on the validity of their
on behalf of Sereno, so as to reap the benefit of having
marriage has long been settled in the main decision and
the case dismissed against all of the defendants. Failure
may no longer be the subject of review. Marywin Albano-
to serve summons on Sereno’s person will not be a cause
Sales vs. Mayor Reynolan T. Sales and Court of
for the dismissal of the complaint against the other
Appeals, G.R. No. 174803, July 13, 2009.
defendants, considering that they have been served with
copies of the summons and complaints and have long
JURISDICTION; ACQUISITION. submitted their respective responsive pleadings. In fact,
the other defendants in the complaint were given the
The Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over her person chance to raise all possible defenses and objections
regardless of the fact that there was allegedly no valid personal to them in their respective motions to dismiss
service of summons. It bears noting that, in quasi-judicial and their subsequent answers. Atty. Rogelio
proceedings, procedural rules governing service of E. Sarsaba vs. Fe vda De Te, represented by her
summons are not strictly construed. Substantial Attorney-in-Fact Faustino Castañeda, G.R. No. 175910,
compliance therewith is sufficient. In the cases at bar, July 30, 2009.
petitioner, her husband and three other relatives, were
all individually impleaded in the complaint. The Labor JURISDICTION; ACQUISITION.
Arbiter furnished her with notices of the scheduled
hearings and other processes. It is undisputed that
There was already a valid service of summons in the
HELIOS, of which she and her therein co-respondents in
persons of respondent spouses Mogol. To recapitulate,
the subject cases were the stockholders and managers,
the process server presented the summons and the copy
was in fact heard, proof of which is the attendance of her
of the complaint to respondent spouses at the courtroom
husband, President-General Manager of HELIOS, together
of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24. The latter immediately
with counsel in one such scheduled hearing and the Labor
referred the matter to their counsel, who was present
Arbiter’s consideration of their position paper in arriving
with them in the aforesaid courtroom. At the express
at the Decision, albeit the same position paper was
direction of his clients, the counsel took the summons
belatedly filed.
and the copy of the complaint, read the same, and
thereby informed himself of the contents of the said
Clearly, petitioner was adequately represented in the documents. Ineluctably, at that point, the act of the
proceedings conducted by the Labor Arbiter by the lawyer counsel of respondent spouses Mogol of receiving the
retained by HELIOS. Carmen B. Dy-Dumalasa vs. summons and the copy of the complaint already
Domingo Sabado S. Fernandez, et al., G.R. No. 178760, constituted receipt on the part of his clients, for the same
July 23, 2009. was done with the latter’s behest and consent. Already
accomplished was the operative act of “handing” a copy
JURISDICTION; ACQUISITION. of the summons to respondent spouses in person. Thus,
jurisdiction over the persons of the respondent
spouses Mogol was already acquired by the MeTC of
Manila, Branch 25. That being said, the subsequent act of
68
the counsel of respondent spouses of returning the proceedings. The RTC therefore committed gross error
summons and the copy of the complaint to the process when it had perfunctorily assumed jurisdiction despite
server was no longer material. the fact that the initiatory pleading filed before it did not
call for the exercise of its jurisdiction. The RTC should
have, at the outset, dismissed the case for lack of
Furthermore, the instruction of the counsel for
jurisdiction. Be it noted that the dismissal on the said
respondent spouses not to obtain a copy of the summons
ground may be ordered motu proprio by the courts.
and the copy of the complaint, under the lame excuse
Further, the CA, on appeal, should have dismissed the
that the same must be served only in the address stated
case on the same ground. Settled is the doctrine that the
therein, was a gross mistake. Section 6, Rule 14 of the
issue of jurisdiction may be raised by any of the parties
Rules of Court does not require that the service of
or may be reckoned by the court, at any stage of the
summons on the defendant in person must be effected
proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or
only at the latter’s residence as stated in the summons.
by estoppel.
On the contrary, said provision is crystal clear that,
whenever practicable, summons shall be served by
handing a copy thereof to the defendant; or if he refuses Despite the pendency of this case for around 18 years,
to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. Nothing the exception laid down in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy and
more is required. As correctly held by the RTC of Manila, clarified recently in Figueroa v. People cannot be applied.
Branch 50, the service of the copy of the summons and First, because, as a general rule, the principle
the complaint inside the courtroom of the MeTC of of estoppel by laches cannot lie against the government.
Manila, Branch 24 was the most practicable act under the No injustice to the parties or to any third person will be
circumstances, and the process server need not wait for wrought by the ruling that the trial court has no
respondent spouses Mogol to reach their given address, jurisdiction over the instituted probate proceedings.
i.e., at 1218 Daisy St., Employee Village, Lucena City,
before he could serve on the latter the summons and the
Second and most important, because in Tijam, the
copy of the complaint. Due to the distance of the said
delayed invocation of lack of jurisdiction has been made
address, service therein would have been more costly
during the execution stage of a final and executory ruling
and would have entailed a longer delay on the part of the
of a court. In Figueroa, the Court has emphasized
process server in effecting the service of the summons.
that estoppel by laches only supervenes in exceptional
Sansio Philippines, Inc. vs. Sps. Alicia Leodegario Mogol,
cases similar to the factual milieu in Tijam. In the Matter
Jr., G.R. No. 177007, July 14, 2009
of the Allowance of the Will of Apolonia
Banayad Frianela Vs. Servillano Banayad, Jr., G.R. No.
JURISDICTION; PANEL OF ARBITRATORS. 169700, July 30, 2009.
It is clear from the ruling of the Court in Olympic Mines MOTIONS; MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION.
and Celestial Nickel Mining that the Panel of Arbitrators
only has jurisdiction over adverse claims, conflicts, and
This Court finds merit in the respondents’ motion for
oppositions relating to applications for the grant of
partial reconsideration, since the words “inclusive of
mineral rights, but not over cancellation of mineral rights
allowance and x x x other benefits or the monetary
already granted and existing.
equivalent thereof” are merely descriptive of
“full backwages,” which this Court had already
As the authority to issue an Exploration Permit is vested categorically awarded to respondents after a thorough
in the MGB, then the same necessarily includes the discussion of the merits of the case. They do not
corollary power to revoke, withdraw or cancel the same. constitute a new or additional award to respondents. The
Indisputably, the authority to deny, revoke, or inclusion of these words in the dispositive part of the
cancel EP No. 05-001 of private respondent is already Decision serves only to clarify the same so that in the
lodged with the MGB, and not with the Panel of implementation thereof, none of the rights legally due to
Arbitrators. Pyro Coppermining Corporation vs. Mines the respondents shall be overlooked. Coca-Cola
Adjudication Board-Department of Environment and Bottlers Phils, Inc. vs. Alan
Natural Resources, et al., G.R. No. 179674, July 28, M. Agito, Regolo S. Oca III, et al., G.R. No. 179546,
2009. July 23, 2009.
JURISDICTION; PROBATE PROCEEDINGS. MOTIONS; MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
The applicable law, therefore, confers jurisdiction on Petitioner argues that the CA should have granted her
the RTC or the MTCs over probate proceedings depending motion for reconsideration of the May 15, 2003
on the gross value of the estate, which value must be resolution. She asserts that under Rule 37, Section 1 (a)
alleged in the complaint or petition to be filed. of the Rules of Court, the abandonment of her case by
her former counsel amounted to extrinsic fraud which
was a meritorious ground.
Nowhere in the petition is there a statement of the gross
value of Moises’s estate. Thus, from a reading of the
original petition filed, it cannot be determined which Petitioner is incorrect. Extrinsic fraud is a valid ground in
court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the a motion for new trial, not a motion for reconsideration.
69
Nely T. Co vs. People of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. representative or heir, that the court nullifies the trial
160265, July 13, 2009. proceedings and the resulting judgment therein.
MOTIONS; MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT. In the case before Us, it appears that respondent’s
counsel did not make any manifestation before
the RTC as to her death. In fact, he had actively
Upon being declared in default, respondent Tansipek filed
participated in the proceedings. Neither had he shown
a Motion for Reconsideration of the Default Order. Upon
any proof that he had been retained by respondent’s
denial thereof, Tansipek filed a Petition for Certiorari with
legal representative or any one who succeeded her.
the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed for failure to
attach the assailed Orders. Respondent Tansipek’s Motion
for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals was denied However, such failure of counsel would not lead Us to
for having been filed out of time. invalidate the proceedings that have long taken place
Respondent Tansipek did not appeal said denial to this before the RTC. The Court has repeatedly declared that
Court. failure of the counsel to comply with his duty to inform
the court of the death of his client, such that no
substitution is effected, will not invalidate the
Respondent Tansipek’s remedy against the Order of
proceedings and the judgment rendered thereon if the
Default was erroneous from the very beginning.
action survives the death of such party. The trial court’s
Respondent Tansipek should have filed a Motion to Lift
jurisdiction over the case subsists despite the death of
Order of Default, and not a Motion for Reconsideration,
the party.
pursuant to Section 3(b), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.
The purpose behind this rule is the protection of the right

A Motion to Lift Order of Default is different from an
to due process of every party to the litigation who may
ordinary motion in that the Motion should be verified;
be affected by the intervening death. The deceased
and must show fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
litigants are themselves protected as they continue to be
neglect, and meritorious defenses. The allegations of (1)
properly represented in the suit through the duly
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect, and (2) of
appointed legal representative of their estate. Atty.
meritorious defenses must concur. Banco De Oro-EPCI,
Rogelio E. Sarsaba vs. Fe vda De Te, represented by her
Inc. vs. John Tansipek, G.R. No. 181235, July 22, 2009.
Attorney-in-Fact Faustino Castañeda, G.R. No. 175910,
July 30, 2009.
PARTY; DEATH OF PARTY.
PARTIES; INDISPENSABLE PARTIES.
When a party to a pending action dies and the claim is
not extinguished, the Rules of Court require a
Rule 3, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, defines
substitution of the deceased. Section 1, Rule 87 of the
indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom
Rules of Court enumerates the actions that survived and
there can be no final determination of an action. As such,
may be filed against the decedent’s representatives as
they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants.
follows: (1) actions to recover real or personal property
The general rule with reference to the making of parties
or an interest thereon, (2) actions to enforce liens
in a civil action requires, of course, the joinder of all
thereon, and (3) actions to recover damages for an injury
necessary parties where possible, and the joinder of all
to a person or a property. In such cases, a counsel is
indispensable parties under any and all conditions, their
obliged to inform the court of the death of his client and
presence being a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial
give the name and address of the latter’s legal
power. It is precisely “when an indispensable party is not
representative.
before the court [that] the action should be dismissed.”
The absence of an indispensable party renders all
The rule on substitution of parties is governed by Section subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of
16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but
amended. even as to those present. Erna Casals, et al.
Vs. Tayud Golf and Country Club, et al., G.R. No.
Strictly speaking, the rule on substitution by heirs is not 183105, July 22, 2009.
a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due
process. The rule on substitution was crafted to protect PARTIES; REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST.
every party’s right to due process. It was designed to
ensure that the deceased party would continue to be
Petitioners are not real parties in interest and therefore
properly represented in the suit through his heirs or the
have no cause of action in bringing the present case. A
duly appointed legal representative of his estate.
real party in interest is the party who stands to be
Moreover, non-compliance with the Rules results in the
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the
denial of the right to due process for the heirs who,
party entitled to the avails of the suit. A cause of action is
though not duly notified of the proceedings, would be
the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
substantially affected by the decision rendered therein.
another. In the present case, there is no dispute that
Thus, it is only when there is a denial of due process, as
Juan Santiago owned half of the subject lot while the
when the deceased is not represented by any legal
other half belonged to his brother Jose. Juan Santiago
70
merely exercised his right when he sold a portion of his thereof. Spouses Azucena B. Corpuz and Renato
undivided half to Mark Vincent L. Ong. Petitioners S. Corpuz vs. Citibank, N.A. et al. / Citibank, N.A. vs.
question Juan’s transaction even though petitioners are Spouses Azucena B. Corpuz and Renato S. Corpuz, G.R.
neither parties to the contract nor heirs or assigns of No. 175677G.R. No. 177133, July 31, 2009.
Juan Santiago. Juan Santiago left a probated will leaving
all his properties to his wife Aurea, to the exclusion of
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT.
petitioners. As heirs of Jose Santiago, co-owner of the
subject property, petitioners may only question the sale if
their right of preemption under the Civil Code of the Attachment is an ancillary remedy applied for not for its
Philippines was disregarded, and they wish to exercise own sake but to enable the attaching party to realize
such right. However, petitioners do not seek to exercise upon relief sought and expected to be granted in the
the right of preemption. Thus, they are not real parties in main or principal action; it is a measure auxiliary or
interest in the present case. Heirs of Jose G. Santiago, incidental to the main action. As such, it is available
namely: Julia G. Santiago, et al. vs.. Aurea G. during the pendency of the action which may be resorted
Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 161238, July 13, 2009. to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and
interests therein pending rendition, and for purposes of
the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case. As a
PARTIES; REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.
corollary proposition, an order granting an application for
a writ of preliminary attachment cannot, owing to the
Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil incidental or auxiliary nature of such order, be the
Procedure, “every action must be prosecuted or defended subject of an appeal independently of the main action.
in the name of the real party in interest.” To qualify a
person to be a real party in interest in whose name an
For a writ of attachment to issue, the applicant must
action must be prosecuted, he must appear to be the
sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the alleged
present real owner of the right sought to be enforced. A
fraud.
real party in interest is the party who stands to be
party entitled to remedies under the suit. Fraud may be defined as the voluntary execution of a
wrongful act, or a willful omission, knowing and intending
the effects which naturally and necessarily arise from
Interest within the meaning of the Rules refers to
such act or omission. In its general sense, fraud is
material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by
deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive,
the decree or judgment of the case. One having no
including all acts and omissions and concealment
material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction
involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or
of the court as the plaintiff (or petitioner) in an action.
confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to
another, or by which an undue
Indisputably, being the administrative agency which and unconscientious advantage is taken of another.
resolved the conflicting claims of De Guzman Fraud is also described as embracing all multifarious
and Magat over the subject property, the NHA does not means which human ingenuity can device, and which are
stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in this resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over
case. It does not have any material interest over the another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth
subject property to protect or defend. In other words, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and
the NHA does not have a cause of action any unfair way by which another is cheated. Fraudulent,
against Magat precisely because the real parties in on the other hand, connotes intentionally wrongful,
interest in the present case are De Guzman and Magat, dishonest, or unfair.
who are both claiming the subject property. National
Housing Authority vs. Reynaldo Magat, G.R. No. 164244,
In the case at bar, the Republic has, to us, sufficiently
July 30, 2009.
discharged the burden of demonstrating the commission
of fraud committed by respondents Lims as a condition
Pre-trial; non-appearance. Section 5 of Rule 18 provides sine qua non for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
that the dismissal of an action due to the plaintiff’s failure attachment. The main supporting proving document is
to appear at the pre-trial shall be with prejudice, unless the Republic’s Exhibit “B” which
otherwise ordered by the court. In this case, the trial the Sandiganbayan unqualifiedly admitted in evidence.
court deemed the plaintiffs-herein spouses as non-suited And the fraud or fraudulent scheme principally came in
and ordered the dismissal of their Complaint. As the the form of Lim, Sr. holding and/or operating logging
dismissal was a final order, the proper remedy was to file concessions which far exceeded the allowable area
an ordinary appeal and not a petition for certiorari. The prescribed under the 1973 Constitution. Republic of the
spouses’ petition for certiorari was thus properly Philippines vs. Estate of Alfonso Lim, Sr., et al., G.R. No.
dismissed by the appellate court. 164800, July 22, 2009.
Procedural infirmities aside, this Court took a considered RES JUDICATA.

look at the spouses’ excuse to justify their non-
appearance at the pre-trial but found nothing exceptional
Res judicata is based on the ground that the party to be
to warrant a reversal of the lower courts’ disposition
affected, or some other with whom he is in privity, has
71
litigated the same matter in the former action in a court practice before it or before any of its offices” to attain
of competent jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to justice and the noble purpose of determining the true will
litigate it again. This principle frees the parties from of the electorate. Jonas Taguiam vs. Commission on
undergoing all over again the rigors of unnecessary suits Election, et al., G.R. No. 184801, July 30, 2009.
and repetitious trials. At the same time, it prevents the
clogging of court dockets. Equally important, res judicata
RULES OF PROCEDURE; STRICT APPLICATION.
stabilizes rights and promotes the rule of law.
The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts,

The requisites of res judicata are: (1) there must be a
even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural
former final judgment rendered on the merits; (2) the
technique. The exception to this rule is when the
court must have had jurisdiction over the subject matter
negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and
and the parties; and (3) there must be identity of parties,
inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.
subject matters and causes of action between the first
The failure of a party’s counsel to notify him on time of
and second actions. Edgardo A. Quilo Vs. Rogelio
the adverse judgment to enable him to appeal therefrom
G. Jundarino, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trail Court, Branch
is negligence, which is not excusable. Notice sent to
19, Manila, A.M. No. P-09-2644, July 30, 2009.
counsel of record is binding upon the client, and the
neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse
RULES OF PROCEDURE; RELAXATION. judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not
a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular
on its face.
It is true that clients are bound by the mistakes,
negligence and omission of their counsel. But this rule
admits of exceptions – (1) where the counsel’s mistake is To sustain petitioner’s self-serving argument that it
so great and serious that the client is prejudiced and cannot be bound by its counsel’s negligence would set a
denied his day in court, or (2) where the counsel is guilty dangerous precedent, as it would enable every party-
of gross negligence resulting in the client’s deprivation of litigant to render inoperative any adverse order or
liberty or property without due process of law. Tested decision of the courts, through the simple expedient of
against these guidelines, we hold that petitioner’s lot falls alleging gross negligence on the part of its counsel.
within the exceptions. National Power Corporation vs. Sps. Lorenzo
L. Laohoo, et al., G.R. No. 151973, July 23, 2009.
It is an oft-repeated exhortation to counsels to be well-
informed of existing laws and rules and to keep abreast SUPREME COURT; TRIER OF FACTS.
with legal developments, recent enactments and
jurisprudence. Unless they faithfully comply with such
Well-settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a
duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and
trier of facts. When supported by substantial evidence,
diligently their obligations as members of the Bar.
the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive
Further, lawyers in the government service are expected
and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this
to be more conscientious in the performance of their
Court, unless the case falls under any of the following
duties as they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not
recognized exceptions:
only members of the Bar but are also public servants who
owe utmost fidelity to public service. Apparently, the
public prosecutor neglected to equip himself with the (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
knowledge of the proper procedure for BP Blg. 22 cases speculation, surmises and conjectures;
under the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure such that he (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
failed to appeal the civil action impliedly instituted with absurd or impossible;
the BP Blg. 22 cases, the only remaining remedy (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
available to petitioner to be able to recover the money (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
she loaned to respondents, upon the dismissal of the facts;
criminal cases on demurrer. By this failure, petitioner was (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;
denied her day in court to prosecute the respondents for (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings,
their obligation to pay their loan. Anita Cheng vs. went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
Souses William and Tessie Sy, G.R. No. 174238, July 7, contrary to the admissions of both appellant
2009. and appellee;
(7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial
court;
RULES OF PROCEDURE; RELAXATION.
(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
While the petition was indeed filed beyond the 5- (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in
day reglementary period, the COMELEC however has the the petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not
discretion to suspend its rules of procedure or any disputed by the respondents; and
portion thereof. Certainly, such rule of suspension is in (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
accordance with the spirit of Section 6, Article IX-A of the premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
Constitution which bestows upon the COMELEC the power contradicted by the evidence on
to “promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and record. Isabelita Vda. De Dayao and Heirs of
72
Vicente Dayao vs. Heirs of Gavino Robles, possession is the purchaser’s ownership of the property.

namely: Placida vda. De Robles, et al., G.R. No. In like manner, the mere filing of an ex parte motion for
174830, July 31, 2009. the issuance of the writ of possession would suffice and a
bond is no longer necessary. This is because possession
has become the absolute right of the purchaser as the
confirmed owner. Gloria R. Motos and Martin Motos vs.
Real Bank (A Thrift Bank), Inc., G.R. No. 171386, July
WRIT OF INJUNCTION. 17, 2009.
In order that an injunctive relief may be issued, the WRIT OF POSSESSION.

applicant must show that: “(1) the right of the
complainant is clear and unmistakable; (2) the invasion
Under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, a writ of possession may
of the right sought to be protected is material and
be issued either (1) within the one-year redemption
substantial; and (3) there is an urgent and paramount
period, upon the filing of a bond; or (2) after the lapse of
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
the redemption period, without need of a bond.
Compania General de Tabacos De Filipinas and La Flor
De La Isabela, Inc. vs. Hon. Virgilio
A. Sevandal, et al., G.R. No. 161051, July 23, 2009. Within the one-year redemption period, a purchaser in a
foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession by
filing a petition in the form of an ex parte motion under
WRIT OF POSSESSION.
oath for that purpose. Upon the filing of such motion with
the RTC having jurisdiction over the subject property and
A writ of possession is an order by which the sheriff is the approval of the corresponding bond, the law, also in
commanded to place a person in possession of a real or express terms, directs the court to issue the order for a
personal property. It may be issued under any of the writ of possession.
following instances: (1) land registration proceedings
under Section 17 of Act No. 496; (2) judicial foreclosure,
On the other hand, after the lapse of the redemption
provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged
period, a writ of possession may be issued in favor of the
realty and no third person, not a party to the foreclosure
purchaser in a foreclosure sale as the mortgagor is now
suit, had intervened; and (3) extrajudicial foreclosure of
considered to have lost interest over the foreclosed
a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135
property. Consequently, the purchaser, who has a right
as amended by Act No. 4118. The third instance obtains
to possession after the expiration of the redemption
in the instant case.
period, becomes the absolute owner of the property
The procedure for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate
when no redemption is made. In this regard, the bond is
mortgage is governed by Act No. 3135, as amended by
no longer needed. The purchaser can demand possession
Act No. 4118. The purchaser at the public auction sale of
at any time following the consolidation of ownership in
an extrajudicially foreclosed real property may seek
his name and the issuance to him of a new TCT. After
possession thereof in accordance with Section 7 of Act
consolidation of title in the purchaser’s name for failure of
No. 3135.
the mortgagor to redeem the property, the purchaser’s
right to possession ripens into the absolute right of a
A petition for the issuance of a writ of possession under confirmed owner. At that point, the issuance of a writ of
Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is not an possession, upon proper application and proof of title, to
ordinary civil action by which one party sues another for a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes
the enforcement or protection of a right, or the merely a ministerial function.
prevention or redress of a wrong. It is in the nature of an
ex parte motion, taken or granted at the instance and for
It is settled that the proceeding in a petition for a writ of
the benefit of one party, without need of notice to or
possession is ex parte and summary in nature. It is a
consent by any party who might be adversely affected.
judicial proceeding brought for the benefit of one party
Moreover, during the period of redemption, it is
only, and without notice to, or consent by any person
ministerial upon the court to issue a writ of possession in
adversely interested. It is a proceeding wherein relief is
favor of the purchaser of the mortgaged realty. The law
granted without an opportunity for the person against
requires only that the proper motion be filed, the bond
whom the relief is sought to be heard. No notice is
approved, and no third person is involved. No discretion
needed to be served upon persons interested in the
is left to the court. Any question regarding the regularity
subject property. Hence, there is no necessity of giving
and validity of the sale (and consequent cancellation of
notice to the petitioner since he had already lost all his
the writ) is left to be determined in a subsequent
interests in the property when he failed to redeem the
proceeding as outlined in Section 8. Indeed, such
same. Accordingly, the RTC may grant the petition in the
question should not be raised as a justification for
absence of the mortgagor, in this case, the petitioner.
opposing the issuance of the writ of possession, since,
under the Act, the proceeding for this is ex parte.
Neither was there a need for the court to suspend the
proceedings merely and solely because of
Upon the expiration of the redemption period, the right of
the pendency of the complaint for the nullification of the
the purchaser to the possession of the foreclosed
real estate mortgage and the foreclosure
property becomes absolute. The basis of this right to
73
proceedings. Martin T. Sagarbarria vs. Philippine have a definite value, which was declared by plaintiffs
Business Bank, G.R. No. 178330, July 23, 2009. themselves in their complaint. Accordingly, the docket
fees should have been computed based on this amount.
This is clear from the version of Rule 141, Section 7 in
WRIT OF POSSESSION.
effect at the time the complaint was filed. David Lu Vs.
Paterno Lu Ym, Sr., et al./Paterno Lu Ym, Sr., et al. Vs.
Under the law, the mortgagor may file a petition to set David Lu/ John Lu Ym and Ludo & Luym Development
aside the sale and writ of possession before the RTC. In Corporation Vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals of Cebu City
case the lower court denies the petition, the mortgagor (former twentieth division), et al., G.R. No. 153690/G.R.
may appeal in accordance with Section 14 of Act No. 496, No. 157381/G.R. No. 170889, August 4, 2009.
also known as The Land Registration Act. Even then, the
order of possession shall continue in effect during
the pendency of the appeal. Here, petitioners moved to
quash the writ of possession issued by the RTC. Gloria
R. Motos and Martin Motos vs. Real Bank (A Thrift ACTION; FILING FEES.
Bank), Inc., G.R. No. 171386, July 17, 2009.
From the foregoing, it is clear that a notice of lis
pendens is availed of mainly in real actions. Hence, when
AUGUST 2009 CASES David, et al., sought the annotation of notices of lis
pendens on the titles of LLDC, they acknowledged that
the complaint they had filed affected a title to or a right
ACTION; ACCION PUBLICIANA.
to possession of real properties. At the very least, they
must have been fully aware that the docket fees would
Accion publiciana, also known as accion plenaria de be based on the value of the realties involved. Their
posesion, is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the silence or inaction to point this out to the Clerk of Court
better right of possession of realty independently of title. who computed their docket fees, therefore, becomes
It refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of highly suspect, and thus, sufficient for this Court to
one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from conclude that they have crossed beyond the threshold of
the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. good faith and into the area of fraud. Clearly, there was
an effort to defraud the government in avoiding to pay
The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to the correct docket fees. Consequently, the trial court did
recover possession only, not ownership. However, where not acquire jurisdiction over the case. David Lu Vs.
the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts may Paterno Lu Ym, Sr., et al./Paterno Lu Ym, Sr., et al. Vs.
pass upon the issue to determine who between or among David Lu/ John Lu Ym and Ludo & Luym Development
the parties has the right to possess the property. This Corporation Vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals of Cebu City
adjudication, however, is not a final and binding (former twentieth division), et al., G.R. No. 153690/G.R.
determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the No. 157381/G.R. No. 170889, August 4, 2009.
purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the
issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of
possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership,
being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the
ACTION; FILING FEES.
same parties involving title to the property. The
adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue of
ownership. Francisco Madrid and Edgardo Bernardo vs. The Constitution guarantees the rights of the poor to free
Spouses Bonifacio Mapoy and Felicidad Martinez, G.R. access to the courts and to adequate legal assistance.
No. 150887, August 14, 2009. The legal aid service rendered by the NCLA and legal aid
offices of IBP chapters nationwide addresses only the
right to adequate legal assistance. Recipients of the
service of the NCLA and legal aid offices of IBP chapters
may enjoy free access to courts by exempting them from
ACTION; FILING FEES. the payment of fees assessed in connection with the filing
of a complaint or action in court. With these twin
Upon deeper reflection, we find that the movants’ claim initiatives, the guarantee of Section 11, Article III of
has merit. The 600,000 shares of stock were, indeed, Constitution is advanced and access to justice is
properties in litigation. They were the subject matter of increased by bridging a significant gap and removing a
the complaint, and the relief prayed for entailed the major roadblock. Re: Request of National Committee on
nullification of the transfer thereof and their return to Legal Aid to exempt legal aid clients from paying filing,
LLDC. David, et al., are minority shareholders of the docket and other fees, A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC, August 28,
corporation who claim to have been prejudiced by the 2009.
sale of the shares of stock to the Lu Ym father and sons.
Thus, to the extent of the damage or injury they ACTION; LIS PENDENS.
allegedly have suffered from this sale of the shares of
stock, the action they filed can be characterized as one
capable of pecuniary estimation. The shares of stock
74
A notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole procedure, but an essential requirement, without which
world that a particular real property is in litigation, the decision or final order appealed from becomes final
serving as a warning that one who acquires interest over and executory, as if no appeal was filed. Ricardo C. Duco
said property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles vs. The Hon. Commission on Elections, First Division, and
on the result of the litigation over the said property. The Narciso B. Avelino, G.R. No. 183366, August 19, 2009.
filing of a notice of lis pendens charges all strangers with
notice of the particular litigation referred to therein and,
APPEAL; FEES.
therefore, any right they may thereafter acquire over the
property is subject to the eventuality of the suit. Such
announcement is founded upon public policy and When petitioner’s appeal was perfected on January 10,
necessity, the purpose of which is to keep the properties 2008, within five (5) days from promulgation, his non-
in litigation within the power of the court until the payment or insufficient payment of the appeal fee to the
litigation is terminated and to prevent the defeat of the Comelec Cash Division should not have resulted in the
judgment or decree by subsequent alienation. outright dismissal of his appeal. The Comelec Rules
provide in Section 9 (a), Rule 22, that for failure to pay
the correct appeal fee, the appeal may be dismissed
As a general rule, the only instances in which a notice of
upon motion of either party or at the instance of the
lis pendens may be availed of are as follows: (a) an
Comelec. Likewise, Section 18, Rule 40 thereof also
action to recover possession of real estate; (b) an action
prescribes that if the fees are not paid, the Comelec may
for partition; and (c) any other court proceedings that
refuse to take action on the appeal until the said fees are
directly affect the title to the land or the building thereon
paid and may dismiss the action or the proceeding.
or the use or the occupation thereof. Additionally, this
Court has held that resorting to lis pendens is not
necessarily confined to cases that involve title to or Here, petitioner paid P1,200.00 to the Comelec on
possession of real property. This annotation also applies February 14, 2008. Unfortunately, the Comelec First
to suits seeking to establish a right to, or an equitable Division dismissed the appeal on March 17, 2008 due to
estate or interest in, a specific real property; or to petitioner’s failure to pay the correct appeal fee within
enforce a lien, a charge or an encumbrance against it. the five-day reglementary period. In denying petitioner’s
David Lu Vs. Paterno Lu Ym, Sr., et al./Paterno Lu Ym, motion for reconsideration, the Comelec En Banc, in the
Sr., et al. Vs. David Lu/ John Lu Ym and Ludo & Luym Resolution dated January 21, 2009, declared that the
Development Corporation Vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals Comelec did not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal
of Cebu City (former twentieth division), et al., G.R. No. because of the non-payment of the appeal fee on time.
153690/G.R. No. 157381/G.R. No. 170889, August 4,
2009. However, during the pendency of petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration dated March 27, 2008, the Comelec
ACTION; RECONSTITUTION. promulgated Resolution No. 8486 to clarify the
implementation of the Comelec Rules regarding the
payment of filing fees. Thus, applying the mandated
The sufficiency of the Register of Deeds’ report is not an
liberal construction of election laws, the Comelec should
indispensable requirement in reconstitution cases. The
have initially directed the petitioner to pay the correct
report may even be disregarded. Republic of the
appeal fee with the Comelec Cash Division, and should
Philippines vs. Agripina Dela Raga, G.R. No. 161042,
not have dismissed outright petitioner’s appeal. This
August 24, 2009.
would have been more in consonance with the intent of
the said resolution which sought to clarify the rules on
APPEAL; BOND. compliance with the required appeal fees. Constancio D.
Pacanan, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections and Francisco
M. Langi, Sr., G.R. No. 186224, August 25, 2009.
The filing of a supersedeas bond for the perfection of an
appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. The requirement
that employers post a cash or surety bond to perfect APPEAL; NON-FORUM SHOPPING.
their appeal is apparently intended to assure workers
that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the
The perfection of an appeal necessarily includes the filing
money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the
of a complete (not a defective) memorandum of appeal
former’s appeal. It was intended to discourage employers
within the ten (10) day reglementary period. Petitioner
from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their
conveniently disregards that the NLRC Rules of Procedure
obligations to satisfy their employees’ just and lawful
requires the appeal to be accompanied by a Certificate of
claims. Cesario L. Del Rosario vs. Philippine Journalists,
Non-Forum Shopping. Thus, petitioner’s filing of a
Inc., G.R. No. 181516, August 19, 2009.
memorandum of appeal without the requisite certificate
did not stop the running of the period to perfect an
APPEAL; FEES. appeal. In short, the Order of Execution of the Labor
Arbiter became final and executory. Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company vs. Rizalina Raut, et al.,
Time and again, we have ruled that the payment of the
G.R. No. 174209, August 25, 2009.
full amount of docket fee within the period to appeal is a
sine qua non requirement for the perfection of an appeal.
Such payment is not a mere technicality of law or APPEAL; OMBUDSMAN.
75
The threshold issue in this petition is the procedural waived. Foundation Specialist, Inc. vs. Betonval Ready
question of whether a complainant in an administrative Concrete, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 170674, August 24, 2009.
case before the Office of the Ombudsman has the right to
appeal a judgment exonerating the respondent from
ARBITRATION.
liability.
The law speaks of two modes of arbitration: (a) an

By statute and regulation, a decision of the Ombudsman
agreement to submit to arbitration some future dispute,
absolving the respondent of the administrative charge is
usually stipulated upon in a civil contract between the
final and unappealable. Prudencio M. Reyes, Jr. vs.
parties, and known as an agreement to submit to
Simplicio C. Belisario and Emmanuel S. Malicdem, G.R.
arbitration, and (b) an agreement submitting an existing
No. 154652, August 15, 2009.
matter of difference to arbitrators, termed the submission
agreement. Article XX of the milling contract is an
APPEAL; PERIOD. agreement to submit to arbitration because it was made
in anticipation of a dispute that might arise between the
parties after the contract’s execution.
As early as 2005, the Court categorically declared
in Neypes v. Court of Appeals that by virtue of the power
of the Supreme Court to amend, repeal and create new Except where a compulsory arbitration is provided by
procedural rules in all courts, the Court is allowing a fresh statute, the first step toward the settlement of a
period of 15 days within which to file a notice of appeal in difference by arbitration is the entry by the parties into a
the RTC, counted from receipt of the order dismissing or valid agreement to arbitrate. An agreement to arbitrate is
denying a motion for new trial or motion for a contract, the relation of the parties is contractual, and
reconsideration. This would standardize the appeal the rights and liabilities of the parties are controlled by
periods provided in the Rules and do away with the the law of contracts. In an agreement for arbitration, the
confusion as to when the 15-day appeal period should be ordinary elements of a valid contract must appear,
counted. Rodrigo Sumiran vs. Spouses Generoso Damaso including an agreement to arbitrate some specific thing,
and Eva Damaso, G.R. No. 162518, August 19, 2009. and an agreement to abide by the award, either in
express language or by implication.
APPEAL; PERIOD.
The requirements that an arbitration agreement must be
written and subscribed by the parties thereto were
There is no dispute that Guinmapang received a copy of
enunciated by the Court in B.F. Corporation v. CA.
the Labor Arbiter’s Decision on 23 June 2003. Thus,
Simply put, petitioners do not have any agreement to
pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 1,
arbitrate with respondents. Ormoc Sugarcane Planters’
Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of the NLRC,
Association, Inc. (OSPA), Occidental Leyte Farmer’s
Guinmapang had only until 3 July 2003, the 10th
Multi-Purpose Cooperative Inc., et al. vs. The Court of
calendar day from 23 June 2003, within which to file an
Appeals (Special Former Sixth Division), et al., G.R. No.
appeal. However, due to the asthma attack suffered by
156660, August 24, 2009.
Guinmapang’s counsel, Guinmapang’s appeal was filed on
4 July 2003, a day late.
ARREST; WARRANTLESS.
The general rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the
manner and within the period prescribed by law is, not For the warrantless arrest under this Rule to be valid, two
only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure to conform requisites must concur: (1) the offender has just
to the rules will render the judgment sought to be committed an offense; and (2) the arresting peace officer
reviewed final and unappealable. By way of exception, or private person has personal knowledge of facts
unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give due indicating that the person to be arrested has committed
course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period it.
on the basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as
serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave
Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable
miscarriage thereof. The purpose behind the limitation of
cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable
the period of appeal is to avoid an unreasonable delay in
grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are
the administration of justice and to put an end to
reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the
controversies. Republic Cement Corporation vs. Peter
arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be
Guinmapang, G.R. No. 168910, August 24, 2009.
arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is
based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances
APPEAL; SCOPE. sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable
cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable
suspicion, therefore, must be founded on probable cause,
It is well-settled that issues not raised in the trial court
coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers
may not be raised for the first time on appeal.
making the arrest.
Furthermore, defenses and objections not pleaded either
in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
76
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal violation of the rule against forum shopping is a ground
Procedure does not require the arresting officers to for summary dismissal of the case, and may also
personally witness the commission of the offense with constitute direct contempt.
their own eyes. In this case, P/Supt. Doria received a
report about the alleged shooting incident. SPO3 Ramirez
In this case, there is clearly no forum shopping
investigated the report and learned from witnesses that
committed by ASBT. The July 5, 2001 motion it filed
petitioner was involved in the incident. They were able to
praying for reconsideration of the June 19, 2001
track down petitioner, but when invited to the police
Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the
headquarters to shed light on the incident, petitioner
petition on the technical ground of lack of proof of the
initially agreed then sped up his vehicle, prompting the
authority of ASBT President Mildred R. Santos to bind the
police authorities to give chase. Petitioner’s act of trying
corporation in its appeal, is simply what it is, a motion for
to get away, coupled with the incident report which they
reconsideration. Sameer cannot insist that it be treated
investigated, is enough to raise a reasonable suspicion on
as a new petition just to make it fit the definition of
the part of the police authorities as to the existence of
forum shopping in an attempt to evade liability to pay the
probable cause. Judge Felimon Abelita, III vs. P/Supt.
amounts awarded to Santos, et al. Nor was Sameer
German Doria and SPO3 Cesar Ramirez, G.R. No.
correct when it asseverated that the Seventh Division,
170672, August 14, 2009.
that initially dismissed then reinstated ASBT’s petition,
and the Former Fourth Division, that rendered the
ARREST; WARRANTLESS. questioned Decision and Resolution in favor of ASBT, can
be considered as different fora within the ambit of the
prohibition. They are mere divisions of one and the same
Appellant questions his arrest without warrant, not any of
Court of Appeals. And as explained by the appellate
the instances when a warrantless arrest – the person to
court, what actually happened was that after the Seventh
be arrested must have committed, is actually committing,
Division issued its June 19, 2001 Resolution dismissing
or is attempting to commit an offense –having been
the case for failure of ASBT to show that Mildred R.
allegedly present when he was arrested.
Santos was authorized to sign and bind the corporation in
the proceedings, ASBT complied and submitted the
The records do not show that appellant raised any requisite proof of authority. The Seventh Division then
question on the legality of his arrest before he was issued a Resolution on August 14, 2001 reinstating the
arraigned or in his petition for bail. By submitting himself petition. After an internal reorganization, it was the
to the jurisdiction of the court and presenting evidence in Fourth Division which promulgated a decision on
his defense, appellant voluntarily waived his December 10, 2001. ASBT never filed a second petition.
constitutional protection against illegal arrest. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs. Mildred R.
Santos, etc. et al., G.R. No. 152579, August 4, 2009.
In any event, appellant forgets that from the evidence for
the prosecution, he was arrested while committing a DISMISSAL; FORUM SHOPPING.
crime – peddling of illegal drugs, a circumstance where
warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113, Section
Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1)
5(a) of the Rules. People of the Philippines vs. Willie
filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action
Rivera, G.R. No. 177741, August 27, 2009.
and with the same prayer, the previous case not having
been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis
DISMISSAL; FORUM SHOPPING. pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same
cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case
Forum shopping is defined as an act of a party, against having been finally resolved (where the ground for
whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases
in one forum, of seeking and possibly getting a favorable based on the same cause of action, but with different
opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground
civil action for certiorari. It may also be the institution of for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).
two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the
same cause on the supposition that one or the other In the present case, there is no dispute that petitioners
court would make a favorable disposition. There is forum failed to state in the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping,
shopping where the elements of litis pendentia are attached to their Verified Complaint in Civil Case No. CV-
present, namely: (a) there is identity of parties, or at 05-0402 before RTC-Branch 195, the existence of Civil
least such parties as represent the same interest in both Case No. CV-01-0207 pending before RTC-Branch 258.
actions; (b) there is identity of rights asserted and relief Nevertheless, petitioners insist that they are not guilty of
prayed for, the relief being founded on the same set of forum shopping, since (1) the two cases do not have the
facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding same ultimate objective – Civil Case No. CV-01-0207
particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the seeks the annulment of the 8 November 2001 public
pending case, regardless of which party is successful, auction and certificate of sale issued therein, while Civil
would amount to res judicata in the other. It is expressly Case No. CV-05-0402 prays for the award of actual and
prohibited by this Court because it trifles with and abuses compensatory damages for respondents’ tortuous act of
court processes, degrades the administration of justice, making it appear that an auction sale actually took place
and congests court dockets. A willful and deliberate on 8 November 2001; and (2) the judgment in Civil Case
77
No. CV-01-0207, on the annulment of the foreclosure DISMISSAL; RES JUDICATA.

sale, would not affect the outcome of Civil Case No. CV-
05-0402, on the entitlement of petitioners to damages.
The principle of res judicata denotes that a final
The Court, however, finds these arguments refuted by
judgment or decree on the merits by a court of
the allegations made by petitioners themselves in their
competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the
Complaints in both cases.
parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and
matters determined in their former suit. It obtains where
Petitioners committed forum shopping by filing multiple a court of competent jurisdiction has rendered a final
cases based on the same cause of action, although with judgment or order on the merits of the case, which
different prayers. Fidel O. Chua and Filiden Realty and operates as an absolute bar against a subsequent action
Development Corporation vs. Metropolitan Bank and for the same cause. A substantial identity is necessary to
Trust Company, et al, G.R. No. 182311, August 19, warrant the application of the rule, and the addition or
2009. elimination of some parties or the difference in form and
nature of the two actions would not alter the situation. In
other words, when material facts or questions in issue in
DISMISSAL; LACHES.
a former action were conclusively settled by a judgment
rendered therein, such facts or questions constitute res
Laches, or what is known as the doctrine of stale claim or judicata and may not be again litigated in a subsequent
demand, is the neglect or omission to assert a right, action between the same parties or their privies
taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other regardless of the form of the latter. Antonio Navarro vs.
circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company/Clarita P. Navarro
will operate as a bar in equity. It is a delay in the vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No.
assertion of a right which works disadvantage to another 165697/G.R. No. 166481, August 4, 2009.
because of the inequity founded on some change in the
condition of the property involved or in the relations of
DISMISSAL; RES JUDICATA.
the parties. It is based on public policy which, for the
peace of society, ordains that relief will be denied to a
stale demand which otherwise could be a valid claim. While the present case and the administrative case are
based on the same essential facts and circumstances, the
doctrine of res judicata will not apply. An administrative
As a ground for the dismissal of a complaint, the doctrine
case deals with the administrative liability which may be
of laches is embraced in the broad provision in Section 1
incurred by the respondent for the commission of the
of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, which enumerates the
acts complained of. The case before us deals with the
various grounds on which a motion to dismiss may be
civil liability for damages of the police authorities. There
based. Paragraph (h) thereof states that the fact that the
is no identity of causes of action in the cases. While
claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff’s pleading has
identity of causes of action is not required in the
been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise
application of res judicata in the concept of
extinguished, may be raised in a motion to dismiss. The
conclusiveness of judgment, it is required that there
language of the rule, particularly on the relation of the
must always be identity of parties in the first and second
words “abandoned” and “otherwise extinguished” to the
cases.
phrase “claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff’s
pleading” is broad enough to include within its ambit the
defense of bar by laches. Antonio Navarro vs. There is no identity of parties between the present case
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company/Clarita P. Navarro and the administrative case. The administrative case was
vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. filed by Benjamin Sia Lao (Sia Lao) against petitioner. Sia
165697/G.R. No. 166481, August 4, 2009. Lao is not a party to this case. Respondents in the
present case were not parties to the administrative case
between Sia Lao and petitioner. In the present case,
DISMISSAL; PRESCRIPTION.
petitioner is the complainant against respondents. Hence,
while res judicata is not a defense to petitioner’s
Initially, we confront the issue of whether the action has complaint for damages, respondents nevertheless cannot
prescribed, considering that several years have already be held liable for damages as discussed above. Judge
passed since TCT No. N-19781 was issued, and Felimon Abelita, III vs. P/Supt. German Doria and SPO3
petitioner’s title has already become indefeasible and Cesar Ramirez, G.R. No. 170672, August 14, 2009.
incontrovertible. The contention apparently lacks merit.
The records reveal that the respondents have been in
possession of the subject property since 1938.
Jurisprudence abounds in holding that, if a person
claiming to be the owner is in actual possession of the EVIDENCE; CIRCUMSTANTIAL.
property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect
seeks to quiet title to the property, does not
To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence,
prescribe. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation vs.
it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented
Heirs of Vicente Coronado, et, G.R. No. 180357, August
must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a
4, 2009.
fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to
the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person.
78
Circumstantial evidence on record will be sufficient to At the heart of almost all rape cases is the issue of
convict the accused if it shows a series of circumstances credibility of the witnesses, to be resolved primarily by
duly proved and consistent with each other. Each and the trial court, which is in a better position to decide the
every circumstance must be consistent with the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their
accused’s guilt and inconsistent with the accused’s deportment and manner of testifying. The manner of
innocence. The circumstances must be proved, and not assigning values to declarations of witnesses on the
themselves presumed. People of the Philippines vs. Lito witness stand is best and most competently performed
Macabare y Lopez, G.R. No. 179941, August 25, 2009. by the trial judge, who has the unique and unmatched
opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their
credibility. In essence, when the question arises as to
EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and
the defense is worthy of belief, the assessment of the
In sustaining the prosecution’s case, the lower courts trial court is generally given the highest degree of
inevitably relied on the evidentiary presumption that respect, if not finality. Accordingly, its findings are
official duties have been regularly performed. This entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be
presumption, it must be emphasized, is not conclusive. disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that
Not only is it rebutted by contrary proof, as here, but it is the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied
also inferior to the constitutional presumption of some facts or circumstances of weight or substance
innocence. All told, we find merit in appellant’s claim that which would otherwise affect the result of the case. The
the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving assessment made by the trial court is even more
her guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to substantial enhanced when the Court of Appeals affirms the same, as
gaps in the chain of custody, raising reasonable doubt on in this case. People of the Philippines vs. Dante Gragasin
the authenticity of the corpus delicti. People of the Y Par, G.R. No. 186496, August 25, 2009.
Philippines vs. Marian Coroche y Caber, G.R. No.
182528, August 14, 2009.
EVIDENCE; RAPE.
EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY.

In resolving rape cases, this Court is guided by the
following principles: (a) an accusation for rape can be
Macabare claims also that the rebuttable presumption made with facility; it is difficult to prove but even more
that official duty has been regularly performed cannot by difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove;
itself prevail over the presumption of innocence that an (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only
accused enjoys. This claim is valid to a point. Indeed, the two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the
constitutional presumption of innocence assumes primacy complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution;
over the presumption of regularity. We cannot, however, (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on
apply this principle to the instant case. The circumstantial its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength
evidence imputing animus posidendi to Macabare over from the weakness of the evidence for the defense; and
the prohibited substance found in his kubol coupled with (d) the evaluation of the trial court judges regarding the
the presumption of regularity in the performance of credibility of witnesses deserves utmost respect on the
official functions constitutes proof of guilt of Macabare ground that they are in the best position to observe the
beyond a reasonable doubt. More so, the defense failed demeanor, act, conduct, and attitude of the witnesses in
to present clear and convincing evidence that the police court while testifying. People of the Philippines vs. Edwin
officers did not properly perform their duty or that they Mejia, G.R .No. 185723, August 4, 2009. see People of
were inspired by an improper motive in falsely imputing a the Philippines vs. Jesus Paragas Cruz; G.R. No. 186129,
serious crime to Macabare. People of the Philippines vs. August 4, 2009. see People of the Philippines vs. Lilio U.
Lito Macabare y Lopez, G.R. No. 179941, August 25, Achas, G.R. No. 185712, August 4, 2009. see People of
2009. the Philippines vs. Armando Ferasol, G.R. No. 185004,
August 25, 2009.
EVIDENCE; PRO REO PRINCIPLE.
EXPROPRIATION; CLASSIFICATION OF LAND.
We apply the pro reo principle and the equipoise rule in
this case. Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in This Court recognizes the power of a local government
question or there is doubt on which side the evidence to reclassify and convert lands through local ordinance,
weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the especially if said ordinance is approved by the HLURB. In
accused. If inculpatory facts and circumstances are Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. Court
capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with Appeals, we acknowledged the power of local
the innocence of the accused and the other consistent government units to adopt zoning ordinances. Discretion
with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of is vested in the appropriate government agencies to
moral certainty and will not justify a conviction. Julius determine the suitability of a land for residential,
Amanquiton vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. commercial, industrial or other purposes. It is also a
186080, August 14, 2009. settled rule that an ordinance enjoys the presumption of
validity. Having the power to classify lands, the local
EVIDENCE; RAPE. government unit may consider factors that are just,
reasonable and legal, for it is within the local government
79
unit’s power to determine these. However, if they abuse procedure under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended;
their authority in the performance of this duty, the this time, without any more need for the purchaser to
courts, if prompted, can step in. Republic of the furnish a bond.
Philippines, represented by the Department of Public
Works and Highways vs.. Far East Enterprises, Inc., et
Possession of the foreclosed real property, purchased at
al., G.R. No. 176487, August 25, 2009.
a public auction sale, becomes the absolute right of the
purchaser upon the consolidation of his title when no
EXPROPRIATION; WRIT OF POSSESSION. timely redemption of the said property had been made.
Hence, the general rule is that upon proper application
and proof of title, the issuance of the writ of possession
Under Republic Act No. 8974, the requirements for
to the purchaser of the foreclosed property at a public
authorizing immediate entry in expropriation proceedings
auction sale becomes a ministerial duty of the court.
involving real property are: (1) the filing of a complaint
for expropriation sufficient in form and substance; (2)
due notice to the defendant; (3) payment of an amount However, as in all general rules, there is an exception. In
equivalent to 100% of the value of the property based on an extrajudicial foreclosure of real property, when the
the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR including foreclosed property is in the possession of a third party
payment of the value of the improvements and/or holding the same adversely to the defaulting
structures if any, or if no such valuation is available and debtor/mortgagor, the issuance by the RTC of a writ of
in cases of utmost urgency, the payment of the proffered possession in favor of the purchaser of the said real
value of the property to be seized; and (4) presentation property ceases to be ministerial and may no longer be
to the court of a certificate of availability of funds from done ex parte. But, for the exception to apply, the
the proper officials. property must be possessed by a third party; and such
possession must be adverse to the
debtor/mortgagor. Top Art Shirt Manufacturing Inc.,
Upon compliance with the requirements, a complainant in
Maximo Arejola and Tan Shu Keng vs. Metropolitan Bank
an expropriation case is entitled to a writ of possession
and Trust Inc. and the Court of the Appeals, G.R. No.
as a matter of right, and it becomes the ministerial duty
184005, August 4, 2009.
of the trial court to forthwith issue the writ of possession.
No hearing is required, and the court exercises neither its
discretion nor its judgment in determining the amount of Foreclosure; writ of possession. The issuance of a writ of
the provisional value of the properties to be expropriated, possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure
as the legislature has fixed the amount under Section 4 is summary and ministerial in nature as such proceeding
of Republic Act No. 8974. Republic of the Philippines, is merely an incident in the transfer of title. The trial
represented by the Department of Public Works and court does not exercise discretion in the issuance thereof.
Highways vs. Far East Enterprises, Inc., et al., G.R. No. For this reason, an order for the issuance of a writ of
176487, August 25, 2009. possession is not the judgment on the merits
contemplated by Section 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution. Hence, the CA correctly upheld the
FORECLOSURE; WRIT OF POSSESSION.
December 10, 2005 order of the Bulacan RTC.
Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, refers to a situation

Furthermore, the mortgagor loses all legal interest over
wherein the purchaser seeks possession of the foreclosed
the foreclosed property after the expiration of the
property during the 12-month period for redemption.
redemption period. Under Section 47 of the General
Upon the purchaser’s filing of the ex parte petition and
Banking Law, if the mortgagor is a juridical person, it can
posting of the appropriate bond, the RTC shall, as a
exercise the right to redeem the foreclosed property
matter of course, order the issuance of the writ of
until, but not after, the registration of the certificate of
possession in the purchaser’s favor.
foreclosure sale within three months after foreclosure,
whichever is earlier. Thereafter, such mortgagor loses its
But equally well settled is the rule that a writ of right of redemption. GC Dalton Industries, Inc. vs.
possession will issue as a matter of course, even without Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 171169. August 24, 2009.
the filing and approval of a bond, after consolidation of
ownership and the issuance of a new TCT in the name of
the purchaser. In IFC Service Leasing and Acceptance
Corporation v. Nera, We reasoned that if under Sec. 7 of
Act No. 3135, as amended, the RTC has the power during GUARDIANSHIP.
the period of redemption to issue a writ of possession on
the ex parte application of the purchaser, there is no
Under Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court, persons
reason why it should not also have the same power after
who, though of sound mind but by reason of age,
the expiration of the redemption period, especially where
disease, weak mind or other similar causes are incapable
a new title had already been issued in the name of the
of taking care of themselves and their property without
purchaser. Put simply, a purchaser seeking possession of
outside aid, are considered as incompetents who may
the foreclosed property he bought at the public auction
properly be placed under guardianship. The RTC and the
sale, after the redemption period expired without
CA both found that Lulu was incapable of taking care of
redemption having been made, may still avail itself of the
herself and her properties without outside aid due to her
80
ailments and weak mind. Thus, since determining corrected the dispositive portion of its decision to make it
whether or not Lulu is in fact an incompetent would conform to the body of the decision, and to rectify the
require a reexamination of the evidence presented in the clerical errors which interchanged the mortgagors and
courts a quo, it undoubtedly involves questions of fact. the mortgagee. Judelio Cobarrubias vs. People of the
Cecilio C. Hernandez, Ma, Victoria C. Hernandez-Sagun, Philippines, G.R. No. 160610, August 14, 2009.
Teresa C. Hernandez-Villa Abrille and Natividad Cruz-
Hernandez vs. Jovita San Juan-Santos/Cecilio C.
JUDGMENT; FINALITY.
Hernandez, Ma. Victoria C. Hernandez-Sagun and Teresa
C. Hernandez-Villa Abrille vs. Jovita San Juan-
Santos, G.R. No. 166470/G.R. No. 169217, August 7, A perusal of the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. SP
2009. No. 55780, which ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No.
99-177, tells that the complaint therein was dismissed
not on the ground of non-joinder of Belen as an
HABEAS CORPUS; WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
indispensable party, but rather on the ground of laches.
Indeed, what is clear from the said decision is that the
A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal dismissal of the case was due to Clarita’s unjustifiable
confinement or detention or by which the rightful custody neglect to timely initiate the prosecution of her claim in
of person is withheld from the one entitled thereto. court — a conduct that warranted the presumption that
Respondent, as the judicial guardian of Lulu, was duty- she, although entitled to assert a right, had resolved to
bound to care for and protect her ward. For her to abandon or declined to assert the same.
perform her obligation, respondent must have custody of
Lulu. Thus, she was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus
While the Court agrees that an action to declare the
after she was unduly deprived of the custody of her ward.
nullity of contracts is not barred by the statute of
Cecilio C. Hernandez, Ma, Victoria C. Hernandez-Sagun,
limitations, the fact that Clarita was barred by laches
Teresa C. Hernandez-Villa Abrille and Natividad Cruz-
from bringing such action at the first instance has already
Hernandez vs. Jovita San Juan-Santos/Cecilio C.
been settled by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
Hernandez, Ma. Victoria C. Hernandez-Sagun and Teresa
55780. At this point in the proceedings, the Court can no
C. Hernandez-Villa Abrille vs. Jovita San Juan-
longer rule on the applicability of the principle of laches
Santos, G.R. NO. 166470/G.R. NO. 169217, AUGUST
vis-à-vis the imprescriptibility of Clarita’s cause of action
7, 2009.
because the said decision is not the one on appeal before
us. But more importantly, the Court takes notice that the
JUDGMENT; ANNULMENT. decision rendered in that case had already become final
without any motion for reconsideration being filed or an
appeal being taken therefrom. Thus, we are left with no
An action to annul a final judgment is an extraordinary
other recourse than to uphold the immutability of the
remedy, which is not to be granted indiscriminately by
said decision.
the Court. It is a recourse equitable in character allowed
only in exceptional cases. The reason for the restriction is
to prevent this extraordinary action from being used by a No other procedural law principle is indeed more settled
losing party to make a complete farce of a duly than that once a judgment becomes final, it is no longer
promulgated decision that has long become final and subject to change, revision, amendment or reversal,
executory. Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil except only for correction of clerical errors, or the making
Procedure, the only grounds for annulment of judgment of nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any
are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Lack of party, or where the judgment itself is void.[26] The
jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers underlying reason for the rule is two-fold: (1) to avoid
to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the delay in the administration of justice and thus make
defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. orderly the discharge of judicial business, and (2) to put
Andrew B. Nudo vs. Hon. Amado S. Caguioa, et al., G.R. judicial controversies to an end, at the risk of occasional
No. 176906, August 4, 2009. errors, inasmuch as controversies cannot be allowed to
drag on indefinitely and the rights and obligations of
every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite
JUDGMENT; CONFLICT.
period of time. Antonio Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank &
Trust Company/Clarita P. Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank
The general rule is that where there is a conflict between & Trust Company, G.R. No. 165697/G.R. No. 166481,
the fallo, or the dispositive part, and the body of the August 4, 2009.
decision or order, the fallo prevails on the theory that the
fallo is the final order and becomes the subject of
JUDGMENT; FINALITY.
execution, while the body of the decision merely contains
the reasons or conclusions of the court ordering nothing.
However, where one can clearly and unquestionably The trial court’s order of dismissal of petitioners’
conclude from the body of the decision that there was a complaint attained finality on September 2, 2005
mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the following their failure to appeal it, which is a final, not an
decision will prevail. Thus, in Spouses Rebuldea v. interlocutory order, within 15 days from August 18, 2005
Intermediate Appellate Court, the Court held that the when their counsel received a copy thereof.
trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion when it
81
Even if procedural rules were to be relaxed by allowing and the appellate court ordered the dismissal of the
petitioners’ availment before the appellate court of complaint below.
Certiorari, instead of appeal, to assail the dismissal of
their complaint, not only was the petition for Certiorari
Next, the Lu Ym father and sons filed a motion for the
filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. It glaringly
lifting of the receivership order, which the trial court had
failed to allege how the trial court committed grave
issued in the interim. David, et al., brought the matter up
abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint. It merely
to the CA even before the trial court could resolve the
posited that in dismissing the complaint, petitioners were
motion. Thereafter, David, et al., filed their Motion to
deprived of the opportunity to present evidence to “prove
Admit Complaint to Conform to the Interim Rules
the causes of action.” Such position does not lie,
Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies. It was at this
however, for petitioners’ complaint was dismissed
point that the Lu Ym father and sons raised the question
precisely because after considering respondents’ Motion
of the amount of filing fees paid. They raised this point
to Dismiss and petitioners’ 14-page “VEHEMENT
again in the CA when they appealed the trial court’s
OPPOSITION to the Motion to Dismiss” in which they
decision in the case below.
proffered and exhaustively discussed the grounds for the
denial of the Motion to Dismiss, the trial court dismissed
the complaint on the ground of prescription. The Heirs of We find that, in the circumstances, the Lu Ym father and
the Late Fernando S. Falcasantos, etc., et al. vs. Spouses sons are not estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of
Fidel Yeo Tan and Sy Soc Tiu, et al., G.R. No. 172680, the trial court. They raised the insufficiency of the docket
August 28, 2009. fees before the trial court rendered judgment and
continuously maintained their position even on appeal to
the CA. Although the manner of challenge was erroneous
– they should have addressed this issue directly to the
trial court instead of to the OCA – they should not be
The Court enumerated the requisites of a valid deemed to have waived their right to assail the
substituted service: (1) service of summons within a jurisdiction of the trial court.
reasonable time is impossible; (2) the person serving the
summons exerted efforts to locate the defendant; (3) the
The matter of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court is one
person to whom the summons is served is of sufficient
that may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. More
age and discretion; (4) the person to whom the
importantly, this Court may pass upon this issue motu
summons is served resides at the defendant’s place of
proprio. David Lu Vs. Paterno Lu Ym, Sr., et al./Paterno
residence; and (5) pertinent facts showing the
Lu Ym, Sr., et al. Vs. David Lu/ John Lu Ym and Ludo &
enumerated circumstances are stated in the return of
Luym Development Corporation Vs. The Hon. Court of
service. In Sandoval, the Court held that “statutory
Appeals of Cebu City (former twentieth division), et al.,
restrictions for substituted service must be strictly,
G.R. No. 153690/G.R. No. 157381/G.R. No. 170889,
faithfully and fully observed.”
August 4, 2009.
In the present case, there is no showing that personal

service of summons within a reasonable time was
impossible. On 17 September 2000, Sildo went to 230
Apo Street, Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, to serve the In the cases that reached us, we have consistently ruled
summons. There, Dominador Galura told him that the that the HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints
Spouses Galura were presently residing at Tierra Pura arising from contracts between the subdivision developer
Subdivision, Tandang Sora, Quezon City. Despite being and the lot buyer or those aimed at compelling the
told of the Spouses Galura’s correct address, Sildo still subdivision developer to comply with its contractual and
went to G.L. Calayan Agro System, Inc. in Barrio statutory obligations to make the subdivision a better
Kalayaan, Gerona, Tarlac to serve the summons, only to place to live in. The expansive grant of jurisdiction to the
find out that the property had already been foreclosed HLURB does not mean, however, that all cases involving
and that the Spouses Galura no longer resided there. On subdivision lots automatically fall under its jurisdiction.
26 September 2000, Sildo went to Tierra Pura
Subdivision, Tandang Sora, Quezon City, and, without Pursuant to Roxas, we held in Pilar Development
any explanation, served the summons on Lapuz. Spouses Corporation v. Villar and Suntay v. Gocolay that the
Dante and Ma. Teresa Galura vs. Math-Agro HLURB has no jurisdiction over cases filed bysubdivision
Corporation, G.R. No. 167230, August 14, 2009. or condominium owners or developers against subdivision
lot or condominium unit buyers or owners. The rationale
JURISDICTION; ESTOPPEL. behind this can be found in the wordings of Sec. 1, PD
No. 1344, which expressly qualifies that the cases
cognizable by the HLURB are those instituted by
The records show that the very first pleading filed by the
subdivision or condomium buyers or owners against the
Lu Ym father and sons before the court a quo was a
project developer or owner. This is also in keeping with
motion to dismiss, albeit anchored on the ground of
the policy of the law, which is to curb unscrupulous
insufficiency of the certificate of non-forum shopping and
practices in the real estate trade and business.
failure of the plaintiffs to exert efforts towards a
compromise. When the trial court denied this, they went
up to the CA on certiorari, where they were sustained
82
Thus, in the cases of Fajardo Jr. v. Freedom to Build, JURISDICTION; PANEL OF ARBITRATORS.
Inc., and Cadimas v. Carrion, we upheld the RTC’s
jurisdiction even if the subject matter was a subdivision
Nothing in Gonzales leads to the conclusion that in
lot since it was the subdivision developer who filed the
mining cases, ordinary courts can only resolve questions
action against the buyer for violation of the contract to
of validity of mining contracts or agreements; rather,
sell.
Gonzales simply established that these questions are
more properly resolved by courts of law, as these are
The only instance that HLURB may take cognizance of a essentially judicial questions requiring the application of
case filed by the developer is when said case is instituted laws. Nothing more was said beyond this; Gonzales
as a compulsory counterclaim to a pending case filed certainly did not limit the courts’ authority to questions of
against it by the buyer or owner of a subdivision lot or validity of mining contracts or agreements. Olympic
condominium unit. This was what happened in Francel Mines and Development Corp., vs. Platinum Group Metals
Realty Corporation v. Sycip, where the HLURB took Corporation/Citinickel Mines and Development
cognizance of the developer’s claim against the buyer in Corporation vs. Hon. Judge Bienvenido C. Blancaflor, in
order to forestall splitting of causes of action. Christian his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Assembly, Inc. vs. Sps. Avelino C. Ignacio and Priscilla R. Court of Palawan, Br. 95, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan,
Ignacio, G.R. No. 164789, August 27, 2009. and Platinum Group Metals Corporation/Platinum Group
Metals Corporation vs. Citinickel Mines and Development
Corporation, acting for its own interest and on behalf of
JURISDICTION; OMBUDSMAN.
Olympic Mines and Development Corporation/Platinum
Group Metals Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Polly
We fully support the finding of the CA that grave abuse of C. Dy, G.R. No. 178188/G.R. No. 180674/G.R. No.
discretion attended the Ombudsman’s decision. As 181141/G.R. No. 183527, August 15, 2009.
discussed above, grave abuse of discretion is a
circumstance beyond the legal error committed by a
JURISDICTION; SECRETARY OF LABOR.
decision-making agency or entity in the exercise of its
jurisdiction; this circumstance affects even the authority
to render judgment. Grave abuse of discretion shares this The Secretary of Labor correctly assumed jurisdiction
effect with such grounds as the lack of substantial over the case as it does not come under the exception
supporting evidence, and the failure to act in clause in Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code. While petitioner
contemplation of law, among others. Jethro appealed the inspection results and there is a need
to examine evidentiary matters to resolve the issues
raised, the payrolls presented by it were considered in
In the absence of any authority to take cognizance of a
the ordinary course of inspection. While the employment
case and to render a decision, any resulting decision is
records of the employees could not be expected to be
necessarily null and void. In turn, a null decision, by its
found in Yakult’s premises in Calamba, as Jethro’s offices
very nature, cannot become final and can be impugned
are in Quezon City, the records show that Jethro was
at any time. In the context of the Ombudsman
given ample opportunity to present its payrolls and other
operations, a void decision cannot trigger the application
pertinent documents during the hearings and to rectify
of Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules.
the violations noted during the ocular inspection. It,
however, failed to do so, more particularly to submit
We note that the Office of the Ombudsman duly noted in competent proof that it was giving its security guards the
its decision that the CSC has primary jurisdiction over the wages and benefits mandated by law. Jethro Intelligence
issue of the reassignments’ validity, declaring that it “can & Security Corporation and Yakult, Inc. vs. The Hon.
hardly arrogate unto itself the task of resolving the said Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al., G.R. No.
issue.” This is a correct reading of the law as the CSC is 172537, August 14, 2009.
the central personnel agency of the government whose
powers extend to all branches, subdivisions,
JURISDICTION; SANDIGANBAYAN.
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations
with original charters. Constitutionally, the CSC has the A member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod under Salary
power and authority to administer and enforce the Grade 26 who was charged with violation of The Auditing
constitutional and statutory provisions on the merit Code of the Philippines falls within the jurisdiction of the
system; promulgate policies, standards, and guidelines Sandiganbayan. People of the Philippines vs.
for the civil service; subject to certain exceptions, Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and Victoria
approve all appointments, whether original or Amante, G.R. No. 167304, August 25, 2009.
promotional, to positions in the civil service; hear and
decide administrative disciplinary cases instituted directly
MOTION; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
with it; and perform such other functions that properly
belong to a central personnel agency. Pursuant to these
powers, the CSC has the authority to determine the Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion
validity of the appointments and movements of civil for reconsideration of the judgment of conviction may be
service personnel. Prudencio M. Reyes, Jr. vs. Simplicio filed within 15 days from the promulgation of the
C. Belisario and Emmanuel S. Malicdem, G.R. No. judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from.
154652, August 15, 2009. Failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the
83
reglementary period renders the subject decision final PARTIES; NON-SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS.
and executory.
Non-substitution of the heirs of a deceased party is not
Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable jurisdictional. The rule on substitution by heirs is not a
and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process.
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what It was designed to ensure that the deceased party would
is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, continue to be properly represented in the suit through
and regardless of whether the modification is attempted his heirs or the duly appointed legal representative of his
to be made by the court rendering it or by this Court. estate. It is only when there is a denial of due process, as
Decisions that have long become final and executory when the deceased is not represented by any legal
cannot be annulled by courts, and the appellate court is representative or heir, that the court nullifies the trial
deprived of jurisdiction to alter the trial court’s final proceedings and the resulting judgment therein. Andrew
judgment. This doctrine is founded on considerations of B. Nudo vs. Hon. Amado S. Caguioa, et al., G.R. No.
public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of 176906, August 4, 2009.
occasional errors, judgments must become final at some
point in time. Erlinda Mapagay vs. People of the
PLEADING; AMENDMENT.
The courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to

PARTIES; CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.
pleadings to avoid a multiplicity of suits and in order that
the real controversies between the parties are presented,
Only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions in their rights determined, and the case decided on the
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the merits without unnecessary delay. This liberality is
People or State in criminal proceedings before the greatest in the early stages of a lawsuit, especially in this
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. However, case where the amendment was made before the trial of
jurisprudence lays down two exceptions where a private the case, thereby giving the petitioners all the time
complainant or offended party in a criminal case may file allowed by law to answer and to prepare for trial.
a petition directly with this Court. The two exceptions
are: (1) when there is denial of due process of law to the
Furthermore, amendments to pleadings are generally
prosecution and the State or its agents refuse to act on
favored and should be liberally allowed in furtherance of
the case to the prejudice of the State and the private
justice in order that every case, may so far as possible,
offended party, and (2) when the private offended party
be determined on its real facts and in order to speed up
questions the civil aspect of a decision of a lower court.
the trial of the case or prevent the circuity of action and
Heirs of Federico C. Delgado and Annalisa Pesico vs.
unnecessary expense. That is, unless there are
Luisito Q. Gonzales and Antonio T. Buenaflor, G.R. No.
circumstances such as inexcusable delay or the taking of
184337, August 7, 2009.
the adverse party by surprise or the like, which might
justify a refusal of permission to amend.
In the present case, there was no fraudulent intent on
Records show that Pedro Quilatan died intestate in 1960 the part of PBCOM in submitting the altered surety
and was survived by his three children, namely, Ciriaco, agreement. In fact, the bank admitted that it was a
Francisco and Lorenzo, all of whom are now deceased. mistake on their part to have submitted it in the first
Ciriaco was survived by his children, namely Purita place instead of the original agreement. It also admitted
Santos, Rosita Reyes, Renato Quilatan, Danilo Quilatan, that, through inadvertence, the copy that was attached
and Carlito Quilatan; Francisco was survived by herein to the complaint was the copy wherein the words “IN HIS
petitioners and their two other siblings, Solita Trapsi and PERSONAL CAPACITY” were inserted to conform to the
Rolando Quilatan; while Lorenzo was survived by his bank’s standard practice. This alteration was made
children, herein respondents. without the knowledge of the notary public. PBCOM’s
counsel had no idea that what it submitted was the
altered document, thereby necessitating the substitution
In the complaint filed by petitioners before the trial court,
of the surety agreement with the original thereof, in
they failed to implead their two siblings, Solita and
order that the case would be judiciously resolved. Henry
Rolando, and all the heirs of Ciriaco, as co-plaintiffs or as
Ching Tiu, et al. vs. Philippine Bank of
defendants. It is clear that the central thrust of the
Communications, G.R. No. 151932. August 19, 2009
complaint filed in Civil Case No. 67367 was to revert the
subject properties back to the estate of Pedro Quilatan,
thereby making all his heirs pro indiviso co-owners PLEADINGS; SIGNATURE.
thereof, and to partition them equally among
themselves; and that all the co-heirs and persons having
Obviously, the rule allows the pleadings to be signed by
an interest in the subject properties are indispensable
either the party to the case or the counsel representing
parties to an action for partition, which will not lie
that party. In this case, ASBT, as petitioner, opted to
without the joinder of said parties. Ely Quilatan &
sign its petition and its motion for reconsideration in its
Rosvida Quilatan-Elias vs. Heirs of Lorenzo Quilatan, et
own behalf, through its corporate president, Mildred R.
al., G.R. No. 183059, August 28, 2009.
Santos, who was duly authorized by ASBT’s Board of
84
Directors to represent the company in prosecuting this of Latter Day Saints, Inc., G.R. No. 130223, August 19,
case. Therefore, the said pleadings cannot be considered 2009.
unsigned and without any legal effect. Sameer Overseas
Placement Agency, Inc. vs. Mildred R. Santos, etc. et
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; REQUISITES.
al., G.R. No. 152579, August 4, 2009.
Before an injunctive writ is issued, it is essential that the

PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT; PREFERENCE.
following requisites are present: (1) the existence of a
right to be protected and (2) the acts against which the
Our decisions in Ruiz v. Court of Appeals and Valdevieso injunction is directed are violative of the right. The onus
v. Damalerio oblige us to rule that the duly registered probandi is on the movant to show that the invasion of
levy on attachment by petitioner Rural Bank takes the right sought to be protected is material and
preference over the prior but then unregistered sale of substantial, that the right of the movant is clear and
respondent Manila Mission. There was likewise no unmistakable, and that there is an urgent and paramount
evidence of knowledge on the part of petitioner Rural necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
Bank of any third-party interest in the subject property at
the time of the attachment. We are, therefore,
San Miguel claims that the requisites for the valid
constrained to grant the instant Petition for Review and
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction were clearly
nullify the Orders of the RTC discharging the subject
established. The clear and unmistakable right to the
property from attachment. Rural Bank of Sta. Barbara
exclusive use of the mark “Ginebra” was proven through
(Pangasinan), Inc. vs. The Manila Mission of the Church
the continuous use of “Ginebra” in the manufacture,
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Inc., G.R. No.
distribution, marketing and sale of gin products
130223, August 19, 2009.
throughout the Philippines since 1834. To the gin-
drinking public, the word “Ginebra” does not simply
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT; GROUNDS. indicate a kind of beverage; it is now synonymous with
San Miguel’s gin products.
Mere failure to pay its debt is, of and by itself, not
enough to justify an attachment of the debtor’s We hold that the CA committed a reversible error. The
properties. A fraudulent intention not to pay (or not to issue in the main case is San Miguel’s right to the
comply with the obligation) must be present. Foundation exclusive use of the mark “Ginebra.” The two trademarks
Specialist, Inc. vs. Betonval Ready Concrete, Inc., et “Ginebra San Miguel” and “Ginebra Kapitan” apparently
al., G.R. No. 170674, August 24, 2009. differ when taken as a whole, but according to San
Miguel, Tanduay appropriates the word “Ginebra” which
is a dominant feature of San Miguel’s mark. We find that
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT; REMEDY.
San Miguel’s right to injunctive relief has not been clearly
and unmistakably demonstrated. The right to the
Petitioner argues that, pursuant to the aforequoted exclusive use of the word “Ginebra” has yet to be
section, the remedy of a third person claiming to be the determined in the main case. The trial court’s grant of
owner of an attached property are limited to the the writ of preliminary injunction in favor of San Miguel,
following: (1) filing with the Sheriff a third-party claim, in despite the lack of a clear and unmistakable right on its
the form of an affidavit, per the first paragraph of Section part, constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to
14; (2) intervening in the main action, with prior leave of lack of jurisdiction. Tanduay Distillers, Inc. vs. Ginebra
court, per the second paragraph of Section 14, which San Miguel, Inc., G.R. No. 164324, August 14, 2009.
allows a third person to vindicate his/her claim to the
attached property in the “same x x x action”; and (3)
RULE 42; CTA.
filing a separate and independent action, per the second
paragraph of Section 14, which allows a third person to
vindicate his/her claim to the attached property in a The taxpayer must file a Petition for Review with the CTA
“separate action.” within 30 days from receipt of said adverse decision or
ruling of the RTC.
Respondent explains that it tried to pursue the first
remedy, i.e., filing a third-party claim with the Sheriff. It is also true that the same provisions are silent as to
Respondent did file an Affidavit of Title and Ownership whether such 30-day period can be extended or not.
with the Sheriff, but said officer advised respondent to However, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9282 does state
file a motion directly with the RTC in the main case. that the Petition for Review shall be filed with the CTA
Respondent heeded the Sheriff’s advice by filing with the following the procedure analogous to Rule 42 of the
RTC, in Civil Case No. D-10583, a Motion to Release Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 1, Rule 42[16]
Property from Attachment. The Court of Appeals of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the
recognized and allowed said Motion, construing the same Petition for Review of an adverse judgment or final order
as an invocation by respondent of the power of control of the RTC must be filed with the Court of Appeals within:
and supervision of the RTC over its officers, which (1) the original 15-day period from receipt of the
includes the Sheriff. We agree with the Court of Appeals judgment or final order to be appealed; (2) an extended
on this score. Rural Bank of Sta. Barbara (Pangasinan), period of 15 days from the lapse of the original period;
Inc. vs. The Manila Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ and (3) only for the most compelling reasons, another
85
extended period not to exceed 15 days from the lapse of must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an
the first extended period. arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as
to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual
Following by analogy Section 1, Rule 42 of the Revised
refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in
Rules of Civil Procedure, the 30-day original period for
contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted
filing a Petition for Review with the CTA under Section 11
without jurisdiction. Julie’s Franchise Corporation, et al.
of Republic Act No. 9282, as implemented by Section
vs. Hon. Chandler O. Ruiz, in his capacity as Presiding
3(a), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the CTA, may be
Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Dipolog
extended for a period of 15 days. No further extension
City, et al., G.R. No. 180988, August 28, 2009.
shall be allowed thereafter, except only for the most
compelling reasons, in which case the extended period
shall not exceed 15 days. The City of Manila, Liberty M. RULE 65; FUNCTION.
Toledo in her capacity as the Treasurer of Manila, et al.
vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 181845,
The sole office of a writ of certiorari is the correction of
August 4, 2009.
errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It
RULE 45; QUESTIONS OF LAW. does not include the correction of a tribunal’s evaluation
of the evidence and factual findings thereon, especially
since factual findings of administrative agencies are
As a general rule, a petition for review on certiorari under
generally held to be binding and final so long as they are
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to questions of
supported by substantial evidence in the record of the
law. However, this rule admits of exceptions, such as in
case. Jethro Intelligence & Security Corporation and
this case where the findings of the Labor Arbiter vary
Yakult, Inc. vs. The Hon. Secretary of Labor and
from the findings of the NLRC and the Court of
Employment, et al., G.R. No. 172537, August 14, 2009.
Appeals. Lowe, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals and Irma
Mutuc, G.R. Nos. 164813 & G.R. No. 174590, August 14,
2009. RULE 65; REQUISITES.
RULE 45; QUESTIONS OF LAW. For a petition for certiorari to prosper, the essential
requisites that have to concur are: (1) the writ is directed
against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising
We review in this Rule 45 petition the decision of the CA
judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal,
on a Rule 65 petition filed by Montoya with that court. In
board or officer has acted without or in excess of
a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for
to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no
jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65.
appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions
ordinary course of law.
of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling
for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in
the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled The phrase without jurisdiction means that the court
upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA acted with absolute lack of authority or want of legal
decision from the prism of whether it correctly power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause
determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of or causes, considered either in general or with reference
discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise
of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case authority. Excess of jurisdiction occurs when the court
was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware transcends its power or acts without any statutory
that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on authority; or results when an act, though within the
appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. Rufino general power of a tribunal, board or officer (to do) is not
C. Montoya vs. Transmed Manila Corporation/Mr. authorized, and is invalid with respect to the particular
Edilberto Ellena and Great Lake Navigation Co., proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize
Ltd., G.R. No. 183329, August 27, 2009 the exercise of the general power in respect of it are
wanting. Grave abuse of discretion implies such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be
RULE 65; FUNCTION.
equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; simply put,
power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
The special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and
intended to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to
The writ of certiorari is directed against a tribunal, board perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions contemplation of law.
that acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion
The present case failed to comply with the above-stated
means such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment
requisites. In the instant case, the soundness of the
which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. To justify the
RTC’s Order allowing the substitution of the document
issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse of discretion
86
involves a matter of judgment and discretion, which procedural rules. Rules of Procedure are tools designed to
cannot be the proper subject of a petition for certiorari promote efficiency and orderliness, as well as to facilitate
under Rule 65. This rule is only intended to correct the attainment of justice, such that strict adherence
defects of jurisdiction and not to correct errors of thereto is required. Procedural rules are not to be
procedure or matters in the trial court’s findings or belittled or dismissed, simply because their non-
conclusions. Henry Ching Tiu, et al. vs. Philippine Bank observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s
of Communications, G.R. No. 151932, August 19, 2009. substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be
followed except only for the most persuasive reasons,
when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an
RULE 65; SUBSTITUTE FOR APPEAL.
injustice not commensurate with the degree of his
thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure
A special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for a prescribed. Rules of Procedure, especially those
lost or lapsed remedy of appeal. We have often enough prescribing the time within which certain acts must be
reminded members of the bench and bar that a special done, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure lies only when there is of justice. We have held that the rules may be relaxed
no appeal or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the only in “exceptionally meritorious cases.”
ordinary course of law. Certiorari is not allowed when a
party to a case fails to appeal a judgment or final order
In the instant case, we find no persuasive or
despite the availability of that remedy. The remedies of
exceptionally meritorious reasons to justify the relaxation
appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not
of the rules. The circumstances obtaining in the instant
alternative or successive. In this case, petitioner utterly
case show that petitioner was accorded opportunity to
failed to provide any justification for her resort to a
settle her liability to private complainant and to present
special civil action for certiorari, when the remedy of
her case during the proceedings. As earlier recounted,
appeal by petition for review was clearly
the MTC, upon motion of petitioner, provisionally
available. Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad vs.. Civil Service
dismissed the case on the basis of an amicable
Commission, G.R. No. 182267, August 28, 2009.
settlement between her and private complainant.
However, the case was revived, because petitioner failed
RULES OF PROCEDURE; RELAXATION OF RULES. to comply with the settlement. Petitioner was given
several opportunities during the trial to present evidence
The Court ruled on several occasions that the right to in her defense. Nonetheless, despite being duly notified
appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due and subpoenaed, she did not appear during the trial
process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be proper and promulgation of judgment. Erlinda Mapagay
exercised only in the manner and strictly in accordance vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 178984, August
with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to 19, 2009.
appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules.
Failure to do so results in the loss of that right. The RULES OF PROCEDURE; RELAXATION.
perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the
period permitted by law is not only mandatory, but also
Rules of procedure are tools designed to promote
jurisdictional.
efficiency and orderliness as well as to facilitate
attainment of justice, such that strict adherence thereto
Nonetheless, it bears stressing that the rules of is required. However, technical rules of procedure are not
procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the designed to frustrate the ends of justice. The Court is
attainment of justice. They were conceived and fully aware that procedural rules are not to be belittled or
promulgated to effectively aid the court in the simply disregarded, for these prescribed procedures
dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a
rendering justice, courts have always been, as they game of technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant to
ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on courts the prerogative to relax compliance with
the balance, technicalities take a backseat against procedural rules of even the most mandatory character,
substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an
if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate end to litigation speedily and the parties’ right to an
rather than promote justice, it is always within the power opportunity to be heard.
of the Court to suspend the rules, or except a particular
case from its operation. Spouses Obdulia H. Espejo and
This is not to say that adherence to the Rules could be
Hildelberto T. Espejo vs. Geraldine Coloma Ito, G.R. No.
dispensed with. However, exigencies and situations might
176511, August 4, 2009.
occasionally demand flexibility in their application. In not
a few instances, the Court relaxed the rigid application of
RULES OF PROCEDURE; RELAXATION OF RULES. the rules of procedure to afford the parties the
opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merit.
We have invariably pronounced that the bare invocation This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases
of “the interest of substantial justice” is not a magic should be decided only after giving all parties the chance
wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and
87
procedural imperfection should, thus, not serve as basis to be impressed with merit. The constitutional mandate
of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would be to accord full protection to labor and to safeguard the
better served. For, indeed, the general objective of employee’s means of livelihood should be given proper
procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the attention and sanction. A greater injustice may occur if
rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind said appeal is not given due course than if the
that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the reglementary period to appeal were strictly followed. In
administration of justice. this case, we are inclined to excuse the one day delay in
order to fully settle the merits of the case. This is in line
with our policy to encourage full adjudication of the
In Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, the Court restated the
merits of an appeal. Republic Cement Corporation vs.
reasons that may provide justification for a court to
Peter Guinmapang, G.R. No. 168910, August 24, 2009.
suspend a strict adherence to procedural rules, such as:
(a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the
existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE; LETTERS
merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to TESTAMENTARY.
the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that
A reading of Supreme Court Circular 2-90, in relation to
the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and
Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, clearly shows
(f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
that the subject matter of therein petition, that is, the
thereby. Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad vs. Civil Service
propriety of granting letters testamentary to
Commission, G.R. No. 182267, August 28, 2009.
respondents, do not fall within any ground which can be
the subject of a direct appeal to this Court. The CA was
RULES OF PROCEDURE; RELAXATION OF RULES. thus correct in declaring that the “issues raised by
petitioner do not fall within the purview of Section 17 of
the Judiciary Act of 1948 such that the Supreme Court
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failure of
should take cognizance of the instant case. Petitioner
petitioner to comply with the resolution directing him to
cannot deny that the determination of whether or not
implead the People of the Philippines as respondent . The
respondents should be disqualified to act as executors is
Court of Appeals held that the petition was prosecuted
a question of fact. Hence, the proper remedy was to
manifestly for delay, which is a ground for dismissal
appeal to the CA, not to this Court. Republic of the
under Section 8, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Philippines vs. Ferdinand R. Marcos II and Imelda R.
Marcos, G.R. No. 130371/G.R. No. 130855, August 4,
However, Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court also 2009.
provides that rules shall be liberally construed in order to
promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
SEARCH; PLAIN VIEW.
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
Thus, in several cases, the Court has ruled against the
dismissal of petitions or appeals based solely on Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain
technicalities especially when there was subsequent view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to
substantial compliance with the formal requirements. have that view are subject to seizure and may be
presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine applies
when the following requisites concur: (1) the law
In this case, the Court finds the petitioner’s failure to
enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
implead the People of the Philippines as respondent not
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which
so grave as to warrant dismissal of the petition. After all,
he can view a particular area; (2) the discovery of the
petitioner rectified his error by moving for
evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (3) it is
reconsideration and filing an Amended Petition,
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
impleading the People of the Philippines as
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
respondent. Judelio Cobarrubias vs. People of the
otherwise subject to seizure.
In this case, the police authorities were in the area

RULES PF PROCEDURE; RELAXATION OF RULES.
because that was where they caught up with petitioner
after the chase. They saw the firearms inside the vehicle
A one-day delay in the perfection of the appeal was when petitioner opened the door. Since a shooting
excused in Gana v. NLRC, Surigao del Norte Electric incident just took place and it was reported that
Cooperative v. NLRC, City Fair Corporation v. NLRC, petitioner was involved in the incident, it was apparent to
Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corp. v. NLRC, and Insular the police officers that the firearms may be evidence of a
Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. NLRC. crime. Hence, they were justified in seizing the firearms.
Judge Felimon Abelita, III vs. P/Supt. German Doria and
We agree with the Court of Appeals that since no intent SPO3 Cesar Ramirez, G.R. No. 170672, August 14, 2009.
to delay the administration of justice could be attributed
to Guinmapang, a one day delay does not justify the Summary judgment; propriety.
appeal’s denial. More importantly, the Court of Appeals
declared that Guinmapang’s appeal, on its face, appears
88
Summary or accelerated judgment is proper only when, ACTION; RECONVEYANCE.

based on the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on
file, and after hearing, it is shown that save as to the
An action for reconveyance or accion reivindicatoria has
amount of damages, there is no veritable issue regarding
no effect and can exist at the same time as ejectment
any material fact in the action and the movant is entitled
cases involving the same property. This is because the
to judgment as a matter of law. Conversely, where the
only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is
pleadings tender an issue, that is, an issue of fact the
physical or material possession of the property involved,
resolution of which calls for a presentation of evidence,
independent of any claim of ownership by any of the
as distinguished from an issue which is sham or
parties involved. Ejectment cases are designed to
contrived, summary judgment is not proper. D.M.
summarily restore physical possession to one who has
Consunji, Inc. vs. Duvaz Corporation, G.R. No. 155174,
been illegally deprived of such possession, without
August 4, 2009.
prejudice to the settlement of the parties’ opposing
claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings.
The question of ownership may only be provisionally
ruled upon for the sole purpose of determining who is
entitled to possession de facto. Iglesia Evangelisca
SEPTEMBER 2009 CASES
Metodista En Las Islas Filipinas (IEMELIF), Inc. vs.
Nataniel B. Juane/Nataniel B. Juane Vs. Iglesia
ACTION; FORCIBLE ENTRY. Evangelisca Metodista En Las Islas Filipinas (IEMELIF),
Inc, G.R. No. 172447, September 18, 2009.
There is forcible entry or desahucio when one is deprived
of physical possession of land or building by means of APPEAL; COMELEC APPEAL FEE.
force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. The basic
inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto.
iI is undisputed that Batalla had already perfected his
The plaintiff must prove that he was in prior possession
appeal by paying the required appeal fees. He paid the
and that he was deprived thereof.
PhP 1,000 appeal fee to the trial court on February 22,
2008 within the five-day period from receipt of the
In the instant case, respondents’ house was constructed decision and the additional PhP 3,200 appeal fee to the
in 1983 and they had prior physical possession until they Comelec Cash Division on March 5, 2008 or within 15
were deprived thereof by petitioners. To substantiate days from the filing of his notice of appeal. It is, thus,
their claims, respondents submitted the affidavit, dated clear that Batalla had perfected his appeal by complying
September 20, 2002, of Carlos C. Menil and Lolito S. with the appeal requirements. Ernesto Batalla vs.
Bito, who witnessed the demolition of respondents’ house Commission on Elections and Teodoro Bataller, G.R. No.
during the latter’s absence. Mr. Menil and Mr. Bito 184268, September 15, 2009.
attested that they saw petitioner Rogelio personally
supervising the demolition of respondents’ house, and
APPEAL; COSLAP.
that he erected a concrete fence enclosing the area
where the house formerly stood. Petitioners failed to
refute the foregoing allegations except with bare denials. all appeals from orders, resolutions or decisions of the
COSLAP should be taken to the Court of Appeals under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. If a petition for certiorari
While petitioners hold title to the subject property where
under Rule 65 is the prescribed remedy due to grave
the house was located, the sole issue in forcible entry
abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction, the same
cases is who had prior possession de facto of the
should also be brought to the Court of Appeals, as the
disputed property. In Dy, the Court held that these are
said court cannot be bypassed without running afoul of
summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious
the doctrine of judicial hierarchy. In this case,
means of protecting actual possession or right of
respondents did not timely appeal the COSLAP decision to
possession of property. Title is not involved; that is why
the Court of Appeals via Rule 43, and instead filed a
it is a special civil action with a special procedure.
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, although with the
Spouses Rogelio F. Lopez and Teotima G. Lopez vs.
Regional Trial Court, a body that is co-equal with the
Samuel R. Espinosa and Angelita S. Espinosa, G.R. No.
COSLAP. Only later did they file a petition for certiorari
184225, September 4, 2009
with the appellate court assailing the trial court’s
dismissal of their petition.
ACTION; NATURE.
We find that the Court of Appeals correctly held that
Basic is the legal principle that the nature of an action is respondents’ remedy from the decision of the COSLAP
determined by the material averments in the complaint was to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as they
and the character of the relief sought. Undeniably, assailed the lack of jurisdiction of said body over the
Gregorio’s civil complaint, read in its entirety, is a dispute. However, the petition should have been filed
complaint based on quasi-delict under Article 2176, in before the Court of Appeals and not the trial court. In
relation to Article 26 of the Civil Code, rather than on other words, while respondents availed of the correct
malicious prosecution. Zenaida R. Gregorio vs. Court of remedy, they sought the same from the wrong court.
Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 179799, September 11, 2009. This mistake would have rendered the assailed COSLAP
89
decision final and executory, were it not for its patent post the cash or surety bond securing the full amount
nullity and invalidity. Joaquin Ga, Jr., et al. vs. Spouses within the said 10-day period. If the NLRC does
Antonio Tabungan, et al., G.R. No. 182185, September eventually grant the motion for reduction after the
18, 2009. reglementary period has elapsed, the correct relief would
be to reduce the cash or surety bond already posted by
the employer within the 10-day period. Andrew Jame
APPEAL; EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
Mcburne vs. Eulalio Ganzon, et al., G.R. Nos. 178034 &
REMEDIES.
178117/G.R. Nos. 186984-85/G.R. No. 179319,
September 18, 2009.
Prior exhaustion of administrative remedies may be
dispensed with and judicial action may be validly resorted
APPEAL; PARAB.
to immediately: (a) when there is a violation of due
process; (b) when the issue involved is purely a legal
question; (c) when the administrative action is patently Given the above perspective, the CA acted correctly and
illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; (d) certainly within its sound discretion when it denied, in its
when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative amended decision, petitioner’s petition for certiorari to
agency concerned; (e) when there is irreparable injury; nullify the PARAD’s decision. Under the grievance
(f) when the respondent is a department secretary whose procedure set forth in the DARAB Rules of Procedure,
acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied and PARAD Alegario’s decision was appealable to the DARAB
assumed approval of the latter; (g) when to require Proper. The CA’s appellate task comes later––to review
exhaustion of administrative remedies would be the case disposition of the DARAB Proper when properly
unreasonable; (h) when it would amount to a nullification challenged. Rosita A. Montanez vs. Provincial Agrarian
of a claim; (i) when the subject matter is a private land Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), et al., G.R. No. 183142,
in land case proceedings; (j) when the rule does not September 17, 2009.
provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy; or (k)
when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of
APPEAL; RIGHT.
judicial intervention. Sps. Leonardo and Milagros Chua
vs. Hon. Jacinto G. Ang, et al., G.R. No. 156164,
September 4, 2009. Time and again, it has been held that the right to appeal
is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory
privilege. Hence, parties who seek to avail themselves of
APPEAL; IMPROPER.
it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. To
reiterate, perfection of an appeal in the manner and
The implication of such improper appeal is that the notice within the period permitted by law is mandatory and
of appeal did not toll the reglementary period for the jurisdictional. The requirements for perfecting an appeal
filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the proper must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such requirements
remedy in the instant case. This means that private are considered indispensable interdictions against
respondent has now lost her remedy of appeal from the needless delays and are necessary for the orderly
May 31, 2005 Order of the RTC. Recardo S. Silverio, Jr. discharge of the judicial business. Failure to perfect the
vs. Court of Appeals and Nelia S. Silverio-Dee, G.R. No. appeal renders the judgment of the court final and
178933. September 16, 2009 executory. Just as a losing party has the privilege to file
an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the
winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality
APPEAL; NLRC APPEAL BOND.
of the decision. Thus, the propriety of the monetary
awards of the Labor Arbiter is already binding upon this
It behooves the Court to give utmost regard to the Court, much more with the Court of Appeals. Andrew
legislative and administrative intent to strictly require the Jame Mcburne vs. Eulalio Ganzon, et al., G.R. Nos.
employer to post a cash or surety bond securing the full 178034 & 178117/G.R. Nos. 186984-85/G.R. No.
amount of the monetary award within the 10 day 179319, September 18, 2009.
reglementary period. Nothing in the Labor Code or the
NLRC Rules of Procedure authorizes the posting of a bond
ARREST; LEGALITY.
that is less than the monetary award in the judgment, or
would deem such insufficient posting as sufficient to
perfect the appeal. To be sure, the legality of an arrest affects only the
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused,
hence, any defect therein may be deemed cured when,
While the bond may be reduced upon motion by the
as here, the accused voluntarily submitted to the
employer, this is subject to the conditions that (1) the
jurisdiction of the trial court. An illegal arrest is thus not
motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious
a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment
grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free
monetary award is posted by the appellant, otherwise the
from error. Elmer Diamante y Sioson, et al. vs. People of
filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the
the Philippines, G.R. No. 180992, September 4, 2009.
running of the period to perfect an appeal. The
Bonifacio Dolera y Tejada vs. People of the
qualification effectively requires that unless the NLRC
Philippines, G.R. No. 180693, September 4, 2009.
grants the reduction of the cash bond within the 10 day
reglementary period, the employer is still expected to
90
ARREST; WARRANTLESS. whose interests are adverse; (2) the party seeking the
relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and (3) the
issue is ripe for judicial determination.
We stress at the outset that the petitioner failed to
question the legality of his warrantless arrest. The
established rule is that an accused may be estopped from The Court rules that the City of Naga properly resorted to
assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the filing of an action for declaratory relief.
the quashing of the Information against him before his
arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the
In the instant case, the controversy concerns the
procedure in the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over
construction of the provisions of Republic Act No. 305 or
the person of an accused must be made before he enters
the Charter of the City of Naga. Specifically, the City of
his plea; otherwise the objection is deemed waived.
Naga seeks an interpretation of Section 2, Article I of its
Charter, as well as a declaration of the rights of the
In any event, we carefully examined the records and now parties to this case thereunder.
hold that the warrantless arrest conducted on the
petitioner was valid. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on
To recall, Section 2, Article I of Republic Act No. 305
Criminal Procedure lists the situations when a person
defines the territory of the City of Naga, providing that
may be arrested without a warrant. Paragraph (a) of
the City shall comprise the present territorial jurisdiction
Section 5, Rule 113 is commonly known as an in
of the Municipality of Naga. By virtue of this provision,
flagrante delicto arrest. For a warrantless arrest of an
the City of Naga prays that it be granted the right to
accused caught in flagrante delicto to be valid, two
administratively control and supervise Plaza Rizal, which
requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested
is undisputedly within the territorial jurisdiction of the
must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
City. Province of Camarines Sur, represented by
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
Governor Luis Raymund F. Villafuerte, Jr. vs. Hon. Court
commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
of Appeals and City of Naga, represented by Mayor Jesse
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
M. Robredo, G.R. No. 175064, September 18, 2009.
After carefully evaluating the evidence in its totality, we

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE.
hold that the prosecution successfully established that
the petitioner was arrested in flagrante delicto. Gilbert
Zalameda vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183656, Demurrer to evidence authorizes a judgment on the
September 4, 2009. merits of the case without the defendant having to
submit evidence on his part, as he would ordinarily have
to do, if plaintiff’s evidence shows that he is not entitled
DECLARATORY RELIEF.
to the relief sought. Demurrer, therefore, is an aid or
instrument for the expeditious termination of an action,
Since petitioners averred in the Complaint that they had similar to a motion to dismiss, which the court or tribunal
already been deprived of the possession of their may either grant or deny.
property, the proper remedy for them is the filing of
anaccion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not a
The Court has recently established some guidelines on
case for declaratory relief. An accion publiciana is a suit
when a demurrer to evidence should be granted, thus:
for the recovery of possession, filed one year after the
occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful
withholding of possession of the realty. An accion A demurrer to evidence may be issued when, upon the
reivindicatoria is a suit that has for its object one’s facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown no right to
recovery of possession over the real property as owner. relief. Where the plaintiff’s evidence together with such
Carmen Danao Malana, et al. vs. Benigno Tappa, et inferences and conclusions as may reasonably be drawn
al., G.R. No. 181303. September 17, 2009 therefrom does not warrant recovery against the
defendant, a demurrer to evidence should be sustained.
A demurrer to evidence is likewise sustainable when,
DECLATORY RELIEF.
admitting every proven fact favorable to the plaintiff and
indulging in his favor all conclusions fairly and reasonably
Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person inferable therefrom, the plaintiff has failed to make out
interested in a deed, will, contract or other written one or more of the material elements of his case, or
instrument, executive order or resolution, to determine when there is no evidence to support an allegation
any question of construction or validity arising from the necessary to his claim. It should be sustained where the
instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute; and plaintiff’s evidence is prima facie insufficient for a
for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. The recovery. Joanie Surposa Uy vs. Jose Ngo Chua, G.R.
only issue that may be raised in such a petition is the No. 183965, September 18, 2009.
question of construction or validity of provisions in an
instrument or statute.
EVIDENCE; ALIBI.
The requisites of an action for declaratory relief are: (1)

Regarding appellants’ defense of alibi, the same cannot
there must be a justiciable controversy between persons
prevail over the positive identification of appellants as
91
perpetrators of the crime charged. For alibi to prosper, it care and caution is required in weighing the conflicting
is not enough for the appellants to prove that they were testimonies of the complainant and the accused. People
somewhere else when the crime was committed. They of the Philippines Vs. Roldan Arcosiba alias “Entoy”, G.R.
must further demonstrate that it was physically No. 181081. September 4, 2009
impossible for them to have been at the scene of the
crime at the time of its commission. People of the
EVIDENCE; DENIAL.
Philippines vs. Antonio Ortiz, et al., G.R. No. 179944,
September 4, 2009.
Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor
due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to
EVIDENCE; ALIBI.
suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative
and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more
While alibi is considered weak and unavailing, it acquires credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
significance where no proper identification of the who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence
assailant has been made. People of the Philippines vs. on the various aspects of the crime committed. Gilbert
Aristo Villanueva, G.R. No. 178543, September 4, Zalameda vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183656,
2009. September 4, 2009.
EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS. EVIDENCE; NON-PRESENTATION OF INFORMANT.
It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of The settled rule is that the presentation of an informant
witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best in an illegal drugs case is not essential for conviction nor
undertaken by the trial court because of its unique is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because
opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to his testimony would be merely corroborative and
note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling cumulative. Moreover, informants are usually not
examination. These are important in determining the presented in court because of the need to hide their
truthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, identities and preserve their invaluable service to the
especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. For, police. Gilbert Zalameda vs. People of the Philippines,
indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice G.R. No. 183656, September 4, 2009.
are potent aids in ascertaining the witness’ credibility,
and the trial court has the opportunity and can take
EVIDENCE; RAPE.
advantage of these aids. These cannot be incorporated in
the record so that all that the appellate court can see are
the cold words of the witness contained in transcript of By the peculiar nature of rape cases, conviction thereon
testimonies with the risk that some of what the witness most often rests solely on the basis of the offended
actually said may have been lost in the process of party’s testimony, if credible, natural, convincing, and
transcribing. As correctly stated by an American court, consistent with human nature and the normal course of
“There is an inherent impossibility of determining with things. Accordingly, the Court has consistently adhered to
any degree of accuracy what credit is justly due to a the following guiding principles in the review of similar
witness from merely reading the words spoken by him, cases, to wit: (1) an accusation for rape can be made
even if there were no doubt as to the identity of the with facility; while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is
words. However artful a corrupt witness may be, there is even more difficult for the accused, albeit innocent, to
generally, under the pressure of a skillful cross- disprove; (2) considering that, in the nature of things,
examination, something in his manner or bearing on the only two persons are usually involved in the crime of
stand that betrays him, and thereby destroys the force of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be
his testimony. Many of the real tests of truth by which scrutinized with extreme care; and (3) the evidence for
the artful witness is exposed in the very nature of things the prosecution must succeed or fall on its own merits,
cannot be transcribed upon the record, and hence they and cannot be allowed to derive strength from the
can never be considered by the appellate court. People weakness of the evidence for the defense.
of the Philippines vs. Mariano Sapigao, Jr., G.R. No.
178485, September 4, 2009. Corollary to the foregoing principles is the rule that the
credibility of the victim is always the single most
EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS. important issue in prosecution for rape. Withal, in
passing upon the credibility of witnesses, the highest
degree of respect must be accorded to the findings of the
Rape is generally unwitnessed and oftentimes, the victim
trial court. People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Araojo,
is left to testify for herself. Thus, in resolving rape cases,
G.R. No. 185203, September 17, 2009.
the victim’s credibility becomes the primordial
consideration. If a victim’s testimony is straightforward,
convincing and consistent with human nature and the EVIDENCE; RAPE.
normal course of things, unflawed by any material or
significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by three
and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis principles, to wit: (1) an accusation of rape can be made
thereof. To ensure that justice is meted out, extreme with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for
92
the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in would single out a person to the attention of the witness
view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where making the identification. However, as held in
only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of Teehankee, Jr., the burden to prove that the out-of-court
the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme identification was unduly suggestive rests on the
caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must accused. Edgar Mercado vs. People of the Philippines,
stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength G.R. No. 161902, September 11, 2009.
from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
JUDGMENT; FINALITY.
As a result of these guiding principles, the credibility of
the complainant becomes the single most important
Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable
issue. If the testimony of the victim is credible,
and unalterable. A final and executory judgment may no
convincing and consistent with human nature and the
longer be modified in any respect, even if the
normal course of things, the accused may be convicted
modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be
solely on the basis thereof. Allan Dizon vs. People of the
an erroneous conclusion of fact or law and regardless of
Philippines, G.R. No. 170342, September 18, 2009.
whether the modification is attempted to be made by the
court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. This
EVIDENCE; RAPE. is the doctrine of finality of judgment. It is grounded on
fundamental considerations of public policy and sound
practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, the
In an attempt to discredit the victim’s testimony,
judgments or orders of courts must become final at some
appellant points out certain discrepancies in her
definite time fixed by law. Otherwise, there will be no end
testimony, such as the exact time they went to the farm
to litigations, thus negating the main role of courts of
of Naty Astor. Such discrepancy is trifling. The gravamen
justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and
of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
the maintenance of peace and order by settling
circumstances provided by law. Thus, the precise time
justiciable controversies with finality. Vicente Dacanay, in
when the rape took place has no substantial bearing on
his capacity as administrator of the Testate Estate of
its commission. As such, the date or time need not be
Tereso D. Fernandez vs. Hon. Raphael Prastora Sr., etc.,
stated with absolute accuracy.
et al., G.R. No. 150664, September 3, 2009.
The victim cannot be expected to store methodically in

JUDGMENT; FINALITY.
her memory the sordid details of a rape incident and,
when called to testify in court, give a completely detailed
and accurate account of the harrowing experience she The petition cannot be granted. It seeks a review of a
suffered. Thus, minor inconsistencies in the narration are matter that has been settled with finality by the trial
generally given liberal appreciation by the trial court. Settled is the rule that once a decision acquires
court. People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Oliva y finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. Thus,
Rosela, G.R. No. 187043. September 18, 2009 despite containing erroneous conclusions of fact or law, it
can no longer be modified. Joaquin P. Obieta vs. Edward
Cheok, G.R. No. 170072. September 3, 2009.
EVIDENCE; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
JUDGMENT; FINALITY.
The Court, in a long line of cases, has reiterated the
totality of circumstance test set forth in People v.
Teehankee, Jr., which dictates that the following factors Petitioner’s mere filing of the Motion for Reduction of
be considered in determining the reliability of the out-of- Bond did not suffice to perfect his appeal. As correctly
court identification made by a witness, i.e., (1) the found by the appellate court, petitioner filed a Motion for
witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of Reduction of Bond dated June 24, 1999 (which was
the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at the received by the appellate court on June 28, 1999)
time of the crime; (3) the accuracy of any prior alleging financial constraints without showing “substantial
description given by the witness; (4) the level of compliance with the Rules” or demonstrating a
certainty demonstrated by the witness at the willingness to abide by the [R]ules by posting a partial
identification; (5) the length of time between the crime bond.” That petitioner questioned the computation of the
and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the monetary award ─ basis of the computation of the
identification procedure. amount of appeal bond did not excuse it from posting a
bond in a reasonable amount or what it believed to be
the correct amount.Since no exceptional circumstances
To prevent any undue suggestiveness in the identification
obtain in the present case warranting the relaxation of
process, it was held that the correct way is to: first,
the Rules, the Labor Arbiter’s Decision had become final
present a series of photographs to the witness, not solely
and executory. The Heritage Hotel of Manila vs. National
the photograph of the suspect; and second, when
Labor Relations Commission, Rufino C. Rañon II, and
showing a group of pictures to the witness, the
Ismael C. Villa, G.R. No. 180478-79, September 3, 2009.
arrangement and display of said photographs should give
no suggestion whatsoever which one of the pictures
belongs to the suspect. The photographic identification JUDGMENT; VOID.
must be free from any impermissible suggestions that
93
A judgment void for want of jurisdiction is no judgment JURISDICTION; ACQUISITION.

at all. It cannot be the source of any right or the creator
of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all
Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of
claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it
the action brought against him or her. In a civil action,
can never become final, and any writ of execution based
jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a
on it is void. It may be said to be a lawless thing that can
valid service of summons or the defendant’s voluntary
be treated as an outlaw and slain on sight, or ignored
appearance in court. When the defendant does not
wherever and whenever it exhibits its head. Joanie
voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction or when
Surposa Uy vs. Jose Ngo Chua, G.R. No. 183965,
there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of
September 18, 2009.
the court, which has no jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant, is null and void.
Where the action is in personam, i.e., one that seeks to
Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the impose some responsibility or liability directly upon the
filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction person of the defendant through the judgment of a court,
over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either and the defendant is in the Philippines, the service of
through the service of summons upon them or through summons may be made through personal or substituted
their voluntary appearance in court and their submission service in the manner described in Sections 6 and 7, Rule
to its authority. The service of summons is a vital and 14 of the Revised Rules of Court.
indispensable ingredient of due process. As a rule, if
defendants have not been validly summoned, the court
It is well-established that a summons upon a respondent
acquires no jurisdiction over their person, and a
or a defendant must be served by handing a copy thereof
judgment rendered against them is null and void.
to him in person or, if he refuses to receive it, by
tendering it to him. Personal service of summons most
As a rule, summons should be personally served on the effectively ensures that the notice desired under the
defendant. In case of a domestic private juridical entity, constitutional requirement of due process is
the service of summons must be made upon an officer accomplished. The essence of personal service is the
who is named in the statute (i.e., the president, handing or tendering of a copy of the summons to the
managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, defendant himself.
treasurer, or in-house counsel), otherwise, the service is
insufficient. The purpose is to render it reasonably certain
Under our procedural rules, service of summons in
that the corporation will receive prompt and proper
person of defendants is generally preferred over
notice in an action against it or to insure that the
substituted service. Substituted service derogates the
summons be served on a representative so integrated
regular method of personal service. It is an extraordinary
with the corporation that such person will know what to
method since it seeks to bind the respondent or the
do with the legal papers served on him. However, if the
defendant to the consequences of a suit even though
summons cannot be served on the defendant personally
notice of such action is served not upon him but upon
within a reasonable period of time, then substituted
another to whom the law could only presume would
service may be resorted to.
notify him of the pending proceedings.
Nonetheless, the impossibility of prompt personal service

The Court requires that the Sheriff’s Return clearly and
must be shown by stating that efforts have been made to
convincingly show the impracticability or hopelessness of
find the defendant personally and that such efforts have
personal service. Proof of service of summons must (a)
failed. This is necessary because substituted service is in
indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a
derogation of the usual method of service. It is a method
reasonable time; (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate
extraordinary in character and hence may be used only
the defendant; and (c) state that the summons was
as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by
served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who
statute. The statutory requirements of substituted service
is residing in the address, or who is in charge of the
must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any
office or regular place of business, of the defendant. It is
substituted service other than that authorized by statute
likewise required that the pertinent facts proving these
is considered ineffective.
circumstances be stated in the proof of service or in the
officer’s return. The failure to comply faithfully, strictly
In Orion Security Corporation v. Kalfam Enterprises, Inc., and fully with all the foregoing requirements of
this Court held that in case of substituted service, there substituted service renders the service of summons
should be a report indicating that the person who ineffective. Alexander Tam Wong vs. Catherine Factor-
received the summons in the defendant’s behalf was one Koyoma, G.R. No. 183802, September 17, 2009.
with whom the defendant had a relation of confidence
ensuring that the latter would actually receive the
summons. B.D. Long Span Builders, Inc. vs. R.S.
Ampeloquio Realty Development Inc., G.R. No. 169919,
September 11, 2009. The provisions of P.D No. 957 were intended to
encompass all questions regarding subdivisions and
condominiums. The intention was to provide for an
94
appropriate government agency, the HLURB, to which all judicata. However, if other parties or another subject
parties – buyers and sellers of subdivision and matter (even with the same parties and issues) is
condominium units – may seek remedial recourse. The involved, the minute resolution is not binding precedent.
law recognized, too, that subdivision and condominium Thus, in CIR v. Baier-Nickel, the Court noted that a
development involves public interest and welfare and previous case, CIR v. Baier-Nickel involving the same
should be brought to a body, like the HLURB, that has parties and the same issues, was previously disposed of
technical expertise. In the exercise of its powers, the by the Court thru a minute resolution dated February 17,
HLURB, on the other hand, is empowered to interpret and 2003 sustaining the ruling of the CA. Nonetheless, the
apply contracts, and determine the rights of private Court ruled that the previous case “ha(d) no bearing” on
parties under these contracts. This ancillary power, the latter case because the two cases involved different
generally judicial, is now no longer with the regular subject matters as they were concerned with the taxable
courts to the extent that the pertinent HLURB laws income of different taxable years.
provide.
Besides, there are substantial, not simply formal,
Viewed from this perspective, the HLURB’s jurisdiction distinctions between a minute resolution and a decision.
over contractual rights and obligations of parties under The constitutional requirement under the first paragraph
subdivision and condominium contracts comes out very of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution that the
clearly. But hand in hand with this definition and grant of facts and the law on which the judgment is based must
authority is the provision on criminal penalties for be expressed clearly and distinctly applies only to
violations of the Decree, provided under the Decree’s decisions, not to minute resolutions. A minute resolution
Section 39, heretofore quoted. Significantly, nothing in is signed only by the clerk of court by authority of the
P.D. No. 957 vests the HLURB with jurisdiction to impose justices, unlike a decision. It does not require the
the Section 39 criminal penalties. What the Decree certification of the Chief Justice. Moreover, unlike
provides is the authority of the HLURB to impose decisions, minute resolutions are not published in the
administrative fines under Section 38, as implemented by Philippine Reports. Finally, the proviso of Section 4(3) of
the Rules Implementing the Subdivision and Article VIII speaks of a decision. Indeed, as a rule, this
Condominium Buyer’s Protective Decree. Court lays down doctrines or principles of law which
constitute binding precedent in a decision duly signed by
the members of the Court and certified by the Chief
The Implementing Rules, for their part, clarify that “The
Justice.
implementation and payment of administrative fines shall
not preclude criminal prosecution of the offender under
Section 39 of the Decree.” Thus, the implementing rules Accordingly, since petitioner was not a party in G.R. No.
themselves expressly acknowledge that two separate 148680 and since petitioner’s liability for DST on its
remedies with differing consequences may be sought health care agreement was not the subject matter of
under the Decree, specifically, the administrative remedy G.R. No. 148680, petitioner cannot successfully invoke
and criminal prosecution. the minute resolution in that case (which is not even
binding precedent) in its favor. Philippine Health
Providers, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal
Unless the contrary appears under other provisions of law
Revenue, G.R. No. 167330, September 18, 2009.
(and in this case no such provision applies), the
determination of the criminal liability lies within the realm
of criminal procedure as embodied in the Rules of Court. MOTION; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
Section 2, Rule 112 of these Rules provide that the
prerogative to determine the existence or non-existence
A prior motion for reconsideration is unnecessary: (a)
of probable cause lies with the persons duly authorized
where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a
by law; as provided in this Rule, they are (a) Provincial or
quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in
City Prosecutors and their assistants; (b) Judges of the
the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those
(c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and (d)
raised and passed upon in the lower court; (c)where
other officers as may be authorized by law. Sps.
there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
Leonardo and Milagros Chua vs. Hon. Jacinto G. Ang, et
question and any further delay would prejudice the
al., G.R. No. 156164, September 4, 2009.
interests of the Government or of the petitioner; (d)
where, under the circumstances, a motion for
MINUTE RESOLUTIONS. reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner
was deprived of due process and there is an extreme
urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief
When a minute resolution denies or dismisses a petition
from an order of arrest is urgent and the grant of such
for failure to comply with formal and substantive
relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the
requirements, the challenged decision, together with its
proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due
findings of fact and legal conclusions, are deemed
process; (h) where the proceedings were ex parte or in
sustained. But what is its effect on other cases?
which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; or (i)
where the issue raised is one purely of law or where
With respect to the same subject matter and the same public interest is involved. Sps. Leonardo and Milagros
issues concerning the same parties, it constitutes res
95
Chua vs. Hon. Jacinto G. Ang, et al., G.R. No. 156164, that mode is failure of the complaint to state a cause of
September 4, 2009. action. Sec. 1(g) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court
provides that a motion may be made on the ground “that
the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of
MOTION; MOTION TO INHIBIT.
action.”
While the rule allows judges, in the exercise of sound

The rule is that in a motion to dismiss, a defendant
discretion, to voluntarily inhibit themselves from hearing
hypothetically admits the truth of the material allegations
a case, it provides that the inhibition must be based on
of the ultimate facts contained in the plaintiff’s complaint.
just or valid reasons. In prior cases interpreting this rule,
When a motion to dismiss is grounded on the failure to
the most recent of which is Philippine Commercial
state a cause of action, a ruling thereon should, as rule,
International Bank v. Spouses Wilson Dy Hong Pi, etc., et
be based only on the facts alleged in the complaint.
al., the Court noted that the mere imputation of bias or
However, this principle of hypothetical admission admits
partiality is not enough ground for inhibition, especially
of exceptions. Among others, there is no hypothetical
when the charge is without basis. Acts or conduct clearly
admission of conclusions or interpretations of law which
indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice has to be shown.
are false; legally impossible facts; facts inadmissible in
Extrinsic evidence must further be presented to establish
evidence; facts which appear by record or document
bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to
included in the pleadings to be unfounded; allegations
palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or
which the court will take judicial notice are not true; and
order itself. Stated differently, the bare allegations of the
where the motion to dismiss was heard with submission
judge’s partiality will not suffice in the absence of clear
of evidence which discloses facts sufficient to defeat the
and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption
claim. Alice Vitangcol and Norberto Vitangcol vs. New
that the judge will undertake his noble role of dispensing
Vista Properties, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 176014,
justice in accordance with law and evidence, and without
September 17, 2009.
fear or favor. Verily, for bias and prejudice to be
considered valid reasons for the involuntary inhibition of
judges, mere suspicion is not enough. Jimmy L. Barnes MOTION; MOTIVE TO INTERVENE.
a.k.a. James Barnes vs. Teresita C. Reyes, et al., G.R.
No. 179583, September 3, 2009.
The purpose of intervention is to enable a stranger to an
action to become a party to protect his interest, and the
MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS. court, incidentally, to settle all conflicting claims. The
spouses Vaca are not strangers to the action. Their legal
interest in the litigation springs from the sale of the
In a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of
subject property by petitioner in their favor during the
action, the focus is on the sufficiency, not the veracity, of
pendency of this case. As transferee pendente lite, the
the material allegations. The test of sufficiency of facts
spouses Vaca are the successors-in-interest of the
alleged in the complaint constituting a cause of action lies
transferor, the petitioner, who is already a party to the
on whether or not the court, admitting the facts alleged,
action. Thus, the applicable provision is Section 19, Rule
could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer
3 of the Rules of Court, governing transfers of interest
of the complaint. And to sustain a motion to dismiss for
pendente lite. Associated Bank (now United Overseas
lack of cause of action, it must be shown that the claim
Bank [Phils.]) vs. Spouses Rafael and Monaliza
for relief in the complaint does not exist, rather than that
Pronstroller/Spouses Eduardo and Ma. Pilar Vaca
a claim has been defectively stated, or is ambiguous,
(Intervenors), G.R. No. 148444, September 3, 2009.
indefinite, or uncertain. Alice Vitangcol and Norberto
Vitangcol vs. New Vista Properties, Inc., et al., G.R. No.
176014, September 17, 2009. MOTION; SECOND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.
MOTION TO DISMISS; LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION.
The Letter-Appeal is actually in the nature of a second
motion for reconsideration. While a second motion for
The Rules of Court defines “cause of action” as the act or
reconsideration is, as a general rule, a prohibited
omission by which a party violates a right of another. It
pleading, it is within the sound discretion of the Court to
contains three elements: (1) a right existing in favor of
admit the same, provided it is filed with prior leave
the plaintiff; (2) a correlative duty on the part of the
whenever substantive justice may be better served
defendant to respect that right; and (3) a breach of the
thereby.
defendant’s duty. It is, thus, only upon the occurrence of
the last element that a cause of action arises, giving the
plaintiff a right to file an action in court for recovery of This is not the first time that this Court is suspending its
damages or other relief. own rules or excepting a particular case from the
operation of the rules. In De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan,
despite the denial of De Guzman’s motion for
Lack of cause of action is, however, not a ground for a
reconsideration, we still entertained his Omnibus Motion,
dismissal of the complaint through a motion to dismiss
which was actually a second motion for reconsideration.
under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, for the
Eventually, we reconsidered our earlier decision and
determination of a lack of cause of action can only be
remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan for reception
made during and/or after trial. What is dismissible via
96
and appreciation of petitioner’s evidence. In that case, The AREM was executed by Antonio, with the marital
we said that if we would not compassionately bend consent of Matilde. Since the mortgaged property is
backwards and flex technicalities, petitioner would surely presumed conjugal, she is obliged principally under the
experience the disgrace and misery of incarceration for a AREM. It is thus she, following Art. 1397 of the Civil Code
crime which he might not have committed after all. Also vis a vis Sec. 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, who is the
in Astorga v. People, on a second motion for real party in interest, hence, the action must be
reconsideration, we set aside our earlier decision, re- prosecuted in her name as she stands to be benefited or
examined the records of the case, then finally acquitted injured in the action.
Benito Astorga of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on the
ground of reasonable doubt. And in Sta. Rosa Realty
Assuming that Matilde is indeed incapacitated, it is her
Development Corporation v. Amante,[by virtue of the
legal guardian who should file the action on her behalf.
January 13, 2004 En Banc Resolution, the Court
Not only is there no allegation in the complaint, however,
authorized the Special First Division to suspend the
that respondents have been legally designated as
Rules, so as to allow it to consider and resolve
guardians to file the action on her behalf. The name of
respondent’s second motion for reconsideration after the
Matilde, who is deemed the real party in interest, has not
motion was heard on oral arguments. After a re-
been included in the title of the case, in violation of Sec.
examination of the merits of the case, we granted the
3 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Equitable PCI Bank,
second motion for reconsideration and set aside our
Inc (now known as Banco De Oro-EPCI, Inc.) vs. Heirs of
earlier decision. Sr. Inspector Jerry Valeroso vs. Court of
Antonio C. Tiu, et al., G.R. No. 178529, September 4,
Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164815,
2009.
September 3, 2009
PARTIES; SUBSTITUTION.
According to Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of

The petitioner did not join the People of the Philippines as
Court, a counsel, within 30 days from his client’s death,
a party in his action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals.
is duty-bound to inform the court of such fact, and to
He thereby ignored that the People of the Philippines
submit the name/s and address/es of the deceased
were indispensable parties due to his objective being to
client’s legal representative/s. Thereafter, the court shall
set aside the trial court’s order dated May 23, 2001 that
order, forthwith, the appearance of and substitution by
concerned the public aspect of Criminal Case No. 95-
the deceased party’s legal representative/s within
145703. The omission was fatal and already enough
another period of 30 days from notice.
cause for the summary rejection of his petition for
certiorari.
We emphasize that the purpose behind Section 16, Rule
3 of the Revised Rules of Procedure is the protection of
The petitioner did not also obtain the consent of the
the right to due process of every party to a litigation who
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to his petition for
may be affected by the intervening death. The deceased
certiorari. At the very least, he should have furnished a
litigant is himself or herself protected, as he/she
copy of the petition for certiorari to the OSG prior to the
continues to be properly represented in the suit through
filing thereof, but even that he did not do. Thereby, he
the duly appointed legal representative of his estate. The
violated Section 35(l), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of
spirit behind the general rule requiring a formal
Executive Order No. 292 (The Administrative Code of
substitution of heirs is “not really because substitution of
1987), which mandates the OSG to represent “the
heirs is a jurisdictional requirement, but because non-
Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of
compliance therewith results in the undeniable violation
Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the
of the right to due process of those who, though not duly
Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the
notified of the proceedings, are substantially affected by
Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all
the decision rendered therein.” Edwino A. Torres
civil actions and special proceedings in which the
(deceased), represented and substitute by Alfonso P.
Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity
Torres III, et al., G.R. No. 177836, September 4, 2009.
is a party.”
PROVISIONAL RELIEF.
Although the petition for certiorari bore the conformity of
the public prosecutor (i.e., Assistant City Prosecutor
Danilo Formoso of Manila), that conformity alone did not The order to deposit the lease rentals with the trial court
suffice. The authority of the City Prosecutor or his is in the nature of a provisional relief designed to protect
assistant to appear for and represent the People of the and preserve the rights of the parties while the main
Philippines was confined only to the proceedings in the action is being litigated. Contrary to the findings of the
trial court. Jowett K. Golango vs. Jone B. Fung, G.R. No. Court of Appeals, such an order may be issued even prior
157952, September 8, 2009. to the determination of the issue of co-ownership
because it is precisely meant to preserve the rights of the
parties until such time that the court finally determines
PARTIES; REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.
who is lawfully entitled thereto. It does not follow,
however, that the subject order in this case should be
sustained. Like all other interlocutory orders issued by a
97
trial court, the subject order must not suffer from the upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the
vice of grave abuse of discretion. As will be discussed common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity,
hereunder, special and compelling circumstances which makes it in the interest of the State that there
constrain the Court to hold that the subject order was should be an end to litigation, interest reipublicae ut sit
tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Wilson A. Go vs. finis litium, and (2) the hardship of the individual that he
Harry A. Go, G.R. No. 183546, September 18, 2009. should be vexed twice for the same cause, nemo debet
bis vexari pro eadem causa.
RES JUDICATA.
For res judicata, to serve as an absolute bar to a
subsequent action, the following requisites must concur:
The decision of a land registration court in a petition for
(1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the
consolidation of ownership and registration precludes
court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject
another action for annulment of auction sale.[11] Hence,
matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment or
the September 8, 1986 decision of the RTC Branch 93 in
order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the
LRC Case No. Q-3458(86) barred the institution of Civil
two cases, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes
Case No. Q-50553. The RTC Branch 104 should have
of action. Joanie Surposa Uy vs. Jose Ngo Chua, G.R.
dismissed the latter on the ground of res judicata.
No. 183965, September 18, 2009.
Spouses Hu Chuan Hai and Leonica Lim Hu vs. Spouses
Renato Unico and Maria Aurora J. Unico, G.R. No.
146534, September 18, 2009. RULE 45.
RES JUDICATA. Clearly, a party may directly appeal to this Court from a
decision or final order or resolution of the trial court on
pure questions of law. A question of law lies, on one
Res judicata exists when the following elements are
hand, when the doubt or difference arises as to what the
present: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) the
law is on a certain set of facts; a question of fact exists,
court that rendered it had jurisdiction over the parties
on the other hand, when the doubt or difference arises as
and the subject matter; (c) it must be a judgment on the
to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. Here, the
merits; and (d) there must be — between the first and
facts are not disputed; the controversy merely relates to
the second actions — identity of parties, subject matter,
the correct application of the law or jurisprudence to the
and cause of action.
undisputed facts. Joanie Surposa Uy vs. Jose Ngo Chua,
G.R. No. 183965, September 18, 2009.
Emphasis must be given to the fact that CA-G.R. No.
92474 was dismissed based on pure technicalities and
RULE 45.
not on the merits, to wit: (1) therein petitioners’ (now
private respondent’s) counsels failed to indicate their
respective Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Official The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of
Receipt numbers, in violation of Bar Matter No. 1132; (2) the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule
the Petition did not contain an affidavit of service, as 45, which is not identical to a petition for certiorari under
required by Section 13, Rule 13 and Section 5, Rule 43, Rule 65. Rule 45 provides that decisions, final orders or
of the Rules of Procedure, as proof that copy of the said resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e.,
Petition had been served on the adverse party; (3) the regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings
Petition does not contain any explanation of why a involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition for
personal service upon therein private respondent (now review, which would be but a continuation of the
petitioner) was not resorted to pursuant to Section 11, appellate process over the original case. Thus, petitioner
Rule 13; and therein petitioners failed to furnish the should have filed a petition for review under Rule 45
Ombudsman and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) instead of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule
with a copy of their Petition. 65.
Clearly from the foregoing, the dismissal of CA-G.R. SP Petitioner’s argument that a petition for certiorari is the
No. 92474 was based on sheer technicality. Since no proper remedy since the CA had no jurisdiction to
judgment on the merits was rendered after consideration entertain the petition for certiorari filed before it as the
of the evidence or stipulation submitted by the parties at petition was filed beyond the 60-day period for filing the
the trial of the case, it falls short of one of the essential same deserves scant consideration. There is no reason
requisites of res judicata, that the judgment should be why such issue could not have been raised on appeal.
one on the merits. Edgardo H. Catindig vs. People of the Emcor, Incorporated vs. Ma. Lourdes D. Sienes, G.R. No.
Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 183141, September 18, 152101, September 8, 2009.
2009.
Rule 45. Well-settled is the rule that the Supreme Court
RES JUDICATA. is not a trier of facts. When supported by substantial
evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
conclusive and binding on the parties and are not
The doctrine of res judicata is a rule that pervades every
reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any
well- regulated system of jurisprudence and is founded
of the following recognized exceptions:
98
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on For a writ of certiorari to issue, a petitioner must not only
speculation, surmises and conjectures; prove that the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial
or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess
of jurisdiction but must also show that he has no plain,
(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
absurd or impossible;
law. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost
appeal. Though there are instances when certiorari was
(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; granted despite the availability of appeal, none of these
recognized exceptions was shown to be present in the
(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of case at bar.Tacloban Far East Marketing Corporation, et
facts; al. vs. The Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 182320,
September 11, 2009.
(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;

RULE 47.
(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings,

went beyond the issues of the case and the same is Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and Court is a recourse equitable in character and allowed
appellee; only in exceptional cases where the ordinary remedies of
new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available through no fault of
(7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial petitioner. Section 2 of the said Rule provides that the
court; annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic
fraud and lack of jurisdiction, although jurisprudence
(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without recognizes denial of due process as an additional
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; ground. City Government of Tagaytay vs. Hon. Eleuterio
F. Guerrero, etc. et al./Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, et
al. vs. Hon. Eleuterio F. Guerrero, etc., et al., G.R. Nos.
(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in 140743 & G.R. No. 140745/G.R. No. 141451-52,
the petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not disputed by September 17, 2009.
the respondents; and
RULE 47.
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record. In this case, the Melencios allege extrinsic fraud on the
part of petitioner City of Tagaytay for its failure to
implead them in Civil Case No. TG-1196. They allege that
As a rule, only questions of law are entertained by this they are indispensable parties to the case, considering
Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45. that have vested rights to protect, being purchasers of
It is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again the subject parcels of land. Sadly, this contention does
the evidence presented. It is a settled doctrine that in a not persuade.
civil case, final and conclusive are the factual findings of
the trial court, but only if supported by clear and
convincing evidence on record. Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the
prevailing party in the litigation which is committed
outside of the trial of the case, whereby the unsuccessful
In this case, the findings of the Court of Appeals are party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case,
contrary to the findings of the RTC. Hence, a review by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent.
thereof is in order. Manila Electric Company vs. Aguida The fraud or deceit cannot be of the losing party’s own
Vda. De Santiago, G.R. No. 170482, September 4, 2009; doing, nor must such party contribute to it. The extrinsic
see also Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Jardine Davies fraud must be employed against it by the adverse party,
Transport Services, Inc. and Asian Terminals, Inc., G.R. who, because of some trick, artifice, or device, naturally
No. 181300, September 18, 2009. prevails in the suit. It affects not the judgment itself but
the manner in which the said judgment is obtained.
RULE 45.
Extrinsic fraud is also present where the unsuccessful
It is well-settled that the proper recourse of an aggrieved party has been prevented by his opponent from
party to assail the decision of the Court of Appeals is to exhibiting fully his case by keeping the former away from
file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the court or giving him a false promise of a compromise; or
Rules of Court. The Rules precludes recourse to the where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit,
special civil action of certiorari if appeal, by way of a having been kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff;
petition for review is available, as the remedies of appeal or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority
and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative assumed to represent a party and connived at his defeat;
or successive. or where the attorney regularly employed corruptly sold
out his client’s interest to the other side. The overriding
99
consideration is that the fraudulent scheme of the In the present case, TACC did not file a motion for
prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day reconsideration of the 4 September 2003 Order. TACC
in court. also failed to show sufficient compelling and valid reason
to dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for
reconsideration. Hence, we agree with the Court of
In the instant case, we find that the action or inaction of
Appeals that the petition for certiorari was prematurely
the City of Tagaytay does not amount to extrinsic fraud.
filed before it. The Alexandra Condominium Corporation
The City of Tagaytay is not the prevailing party in the
vs. Laguna Lake Development Authority, G.R. No.
assailed decision. Moreover, the Melencios were not
169228. September 11, 2009
totally without fault in protecting their interest. They
were aware of the pendency of Civil Case No. TG-1196,
as shown by their filing of a motion to intervene in the RULE 65; REQUISITES.
case. When their motion was denied by the trial court,
they no longer pursued their cause. City Government of
For a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Tagaytay vs. Hon. Eleuterio F. Guerrero, etc. et
Court to prosper, the following requisites must be
al./Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, et al. vs. Hon. Eleuterio
present: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a
F. Guerrero, etc., et al., G.R. Nos. 140743 & G.R. No.
board or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
140745/G.R. No. 141451-52, September 17, 2009.
functions; (2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
RULE 47. discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
(3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed
of in criminal cases.Francisco R. Llamas, et al. vs. The
Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 149588, There is grave abuse of discretion “when there is a
September 29, 2009. capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, such as where the
power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
RULE 65; GRAVE ABUSE.
reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so
patent and gross so as to amount to an evasion of
Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.”
jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power
because of passion or personal hostility. It must be as
On the other hand, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court pertains
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to
to a Petition for Review on Certiorari, whereby “a party
perform a duty enjoined by law. It is absent in this case.
desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final
Kei Marie and Bianca Angelica both surnamed Abrera,
order or resolution of the x x x the Regional Trial Court x
minors, represented by their parents Evelyn C. Abrera, et
x x, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition
al. vs. Hon. Romeo F. Barza, in his capacity as Presiding
for review on certiorari. The petition may include an
Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati City and
application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other
College Assurance Plan Philippines, Inc., G.R. No.
provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of
171681. September 11, 2009
law, which must be distinctly set forth.”
RULE 65; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

A perusal of the petition referred to the Court of Appeals
lays bare the fact that the same was undoubtedly a
For a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Court to prosper, TACC must show that (1) the LLDA Rules of Court. Not only does the title of the Petition
acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave indicate it as such, but a close reading of the issues and
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of allegations set forth therein also discloses that it involved
jurisdiction and (2) there is no appeal or a plain, speedy pure questions of law. A question of law arises when
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of
facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not
The plain and adequate remedy referred to in Section 1 involve an examination of the probative value of the
of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The
decision. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law
court or agency to rectify its mistakes without the provides on the given set of circumstances. The Court of
intervention of a higher court. To dispense with this Appeals, thus, could not fault Camarines Sur for failing to
requirement, there must be a concrete, compelling, and allege, much less prove, grave abuse of discretion
valid reason for the failure to comply with the amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
requirement. Petitioner may not arrogate to itself the the RTC when such is not required for a Petition for
determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is Review on Certiorari.
necessary or not.[29]
Likewise, the doctrine that certiorari cannot be resorted
to as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal applies
100
only when a party actually files a Petition forCertiorari Herein, BPI instituted Civil Case No. 03-281 before the
under Rule 65 in lieu of a Petition for Review under Rule RTC to recover the amount it had lent to Dando, plus
45, since the latter remedy was already lost through the interest and penalties thereon, clearly, a matter of
fault of the petitioning party. In the instant case, property. The substantive right of BPI to recover a due
Camarines Sur actually filed a Petition for Review under and demandable obligation cannot be denied or
Rule 45; the Court of Appeals only mistook the same for diminished by a rule of procedure, more so, since Dando
a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. Province of admits that he did avail himself of the credit line
Camarines Sur, represented by Governor Luis Raymund extended by FEBTC, the predecessor-in-interest of BPI,
F. Villafuerte, Jr. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and City of and disputes only the amount of his outstanding liability
Naga, represented by Mayor Jesse M. Robredo, G.R. No. to BPI. To dismiss Civil Case No. 03-281 with prejudice
175064, September 18, 2009. and, thus, bar BPI from recovering the amount it had lent
to Dando would be to unjustly enrich Dando at the
expense of BPI.
RULE 65; AVAILABILITY OF APPEAL.
The counsel of BPI invokes “heavy pressures of work” to

Considering that an appeal was still available as a
explain his failure to file the Pre-Trial Brief with the RTC
remedy for the assailed Orders of the RTC, and that the
and to serve a copy thereof to Dando at least three days
case did not fall within the exceptions, the filing of the
prior to the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference. True, in
petition for certiorari was an attempted substitute for an
Olave v. Mistas, we did not find “heavy pressures of
appeal, after respondent failed to avail itself of the latter
work” as sufficient justification for the failure of therein
remedy. Necessarily, it must be noted that the petition
respondents’ counsel to timely move for pre-trial.
for certiorari was filed on August 28, 2007 when the
However, unlike the respondents in Olave, the failure of
questioned RTC Orders had already attained finality. The
BPI to file its Pre-Trial Brief with the RTC and provide
Order became final when respondent Financiera received
Dando with a copy thereof within the prescribed period
the RTC Order of June 18, 2007 denying the former’s
under Section 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, was the
motion for reconsideration on June 29, 2007. Instead of
first and, so far, only procedural lapse committed by the
filing a notice of appeal within the reglementary period
bank in Civil Case No. 03-281. BPI did not manifest an
lasting until July 14, 2007, respondent filed a petition for
evident pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the
certiorari, way beyond the reglementary period. Hence,
case or a wanton failure to observe a mandatory
the CA had no jurisdiction to decide the said petition for
requirement of the Rules. In fact, BPI, for the most part,
certiorari. Simeon M. Valdez vs. Financiera Manila
exhibited diligence and reasonable dispatch in
Inc., G.R. No. 183387, September 29, 2009.
prosecuting its claim against Dando by immediately
moving to set Civil Case No. 03-281 for Pre-Trial
RULES OF PROCEDURE; DEPORTATION. Conference after its receipt of Dando’s Answer to the
Complaint; and in instantaneously filing a Motion for
Deportation proceedings are administrative in character, Reconsideration of the 10 October 2003 Order of the RTC
summary in nature, and need not be conducted strictly in dismissing Civil Case No. 03-281.
accordance with the rules of ordinary court proceedings.
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to Accordingly, the ends of justice and fairness would be
be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an best served if the parties to Civil Case No. 03-281 are
opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to given the full opportunity to thresh out the real issues
seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained and litigate their claims in a full-blown trial. Besides,
of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be Dando would not be prejudiced should the RTC proceed
heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due with the hearing of Civil Case No. 03-281, as he is not
process are sufficiently met. Carlos T. Go., Sr. vs. Luis stripped of any affirmative defenses nor deprived of due
T. Ramos/Jimmy T. Go vs. Luis T. Ramos/Hon. Alipio F. process of law. Bank of the Philippine Islands vs.
Fernandez, etc., et al. vs. Jimmy T. Go a.k.a. Jaime T. Domingo R. Dando, G.R. No. 177456, September 4,
Gaisano, G.R. No. 167569/G.R. No. 167570/G.R. No. 2009.
171946, September 4, 2009.
RULE OF PROCEDURE; RELAXATION.
While it is true that the Court may treat a Petition for
In Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, the Court restated the Certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45 in the
reasons that may provide justification for a court to interest of substantial justice, the present petition could
suspend a strict adherence to procedural rules, such as: not be given the same leniency because it was filed
(a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the beyond the 15-day reglementary period within which to
existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the file a petition for review on certiorari. The records of the
merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to case show that petitioners received a copy of the January
the fault or negligence of the party favored by the 24, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying the
suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that motion for reconsideration on February 5, 2008. Instead
the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and of filing a petition for review on certiorari within 15 days
(f) the fact that the other party will not be unjustly from receipt thereof, petitioners waited for two months
prejudiced thereby. before filing the instant petition. Accordingly, the decision
101
of the Court of Appeals had already become final and settled rule that in order to justify such an action, the
executory and beyond the purview of this Court to act owner’s permission or tolerance must be present at the
upon. The inescapable conclusion is that the present beginning of the possession. Such jurisdictional facts are
petition was filed belatedly to make up for a lost appeal. present here. Spouses Lydia Flores-Cruz, et al. vs.
Spouses Leonardo and Iluminada Goli-Cruz, et al., G.R.
No. 172217, September 18, 2009.
SEARCH; WARRANTLESS.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER.
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting
officer to search the person arrested in order to remove
any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist In the instant case, respondent’s allegations in the
arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety complaint clearly make a case for an unlawful detainer,
might well be endangered, and the arrest itself essential to confer jurisdiction on the MTC over the
frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the subject matter. Respondent alleged that she was the
arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on owner of the land as shown by Original Certificate of Title
the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment No. 111999 issued by the Register of Deeds of
or destruction. Pampanga; that the land had been declared for taxation
purposes and she had been paying the taxes thereon;
that petitioners’ entry and construction of their houses
Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and
were tolerated as they are relatives; and that she sent on
the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a
January 12, 2004 a letter demanding that petitioners
warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect,
vacate the property but they failed and refused to do so.
but also in the permissible area within the latter’s reach.
The complaint for unlawful detainer was filed on June 9,
Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of
2004, or within one year from the time the last demand
evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of
to vacate was made.
the one arrested or within the area of his immediate
control. The phrase “within the area of his immediate
control” means the area from within which he might gain It is settled that as long as these allegations demonstrate
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. A gun a cause of action for unlawful detainer, the court acquires
on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested jurisdiction over the subject matter. This principle holds,
can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one even if the facts proved during the trial do not support
concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. Sr. the cause of action thus alleged, in which instance the
Inspector Jerry Valeroso vs. Court of Appeals and People court – after acquiring jurisdiction – may resolve to
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164815. September 3, 2009 dismiss the action for insufficiency of evidence. Rodolfo
“Rudy” Canlas, et al. vs. Iluminada Tubil, G.R. No.
184285, September 25, 2009.
SEARCH; PLAIN VIEW.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

The “plain view doctrine” may not be used to launch
unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures or to
extend a general exploratory search made solely to find A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is a
evidence of defendant’s guilt. The doctrine is usually special proceeding governed by Rule 102 of the Revised
applied where a police officer is not searching for Rules of Court. The objective of the writ is to determine
evidence against the accused, but nonetheless whether the confinement or detention is valid or lawful. If
inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Sr. it is, the writ cannot be issued. What is to be inquired
Inspector Jerry Valeroso vs. Court of Appeals and People into is the legality of a person’s detention as of, at the
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164815. September 3, 2009 earliest, the filing of the application for the writ of habeas
corpus, for even if the detention is at its inception illegal,
it may, by reason of some supervening events, such as
UNLAWFUL DETAINER.
the instances mentioned in Section 4 of Rule 102, be no
longer illegal at the time of the filing of the application.
The necessary allegations in a complaint for ejectment
are set forth in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
Once a person detained is duly charged in court, he may
Petitioners alleged that the former owner (Estanislao,
no longer question his detention through a petition for
their predecessor) allowed respondents to live on the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. His remedy would be
land. They also stated that they purchased the property
to quash the information and/or the warrant of arrest
on December 15, 1999 and then found respondents
duly issued. The writ of habeas corpus should not be
occupying the property. Yet they demanded that
allowed after the party sought to be released had been
respondents vacate only on March 2, 2001. It can be
charged before any court. The term “court” in this
gleaned from their allegations that they had in fact
context includes quasi-judicial bodies of governmental
permitted or tolerated respondents’ occupancy.
agencies authorized to order the person’s confinement,
like the Deportation Board of the Bureau of Immigration.
Based on the allegations in petitioners’ complaint, it is Likewise, the cancellation of his bail cannot be assailed
apparent that such is a complaint for unlawful detainer via a petition for habeas corpus. When an alien is
based on possession by tolerance of the owner.[19]It is a detained by the Bureau of Immigration for deportation
102
pursuant to an order of deportation by the Deportation the case with respect to the ejectment suit vis-à-vis the
Board, the Regional Trial Courts have no power to release action for damages. Manuel Luis S. Sanchez vs. Republic
such alien on bail even in habeas corpus proceedings of the Philippines, Represented by the Department of
because there is no law authorizing it. Education, Culture and Sports, G.R. No. 172885,
October 9, 2009.
Given that Jimmy has been duly charged before the
Board, and in fact ordered arrested pending his ACTION; LIS PENDENS.
deportation, coupled by this Court’s pronouncement that
the Board was not ousted of its jurisdiction to continue
The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a two-fold effect:
with the deportation proceedings, the petition for habeas
(1) to keep the subject matter of the litigation within the
corpus is rendered moot and academic. This being so, we
power of the court until the entry of the final judgment in
find it unnecessary to touch on the other arguments
order to prevent the final judgment from being defeated
advanced by respondents regarding the same
by successive alienations; and (2) to bind a purchaser,
subject. Carlos T. Go., Sr. vs. Luis T. Ramos/Jimmy T. Go
bona fide or not, of the land subject of the litigation to
vs. Luis T. Ramos/Hon. Alipio F. Fernandez, etc., et al.
the judgment or decree that the court will promulgate
vs. Jimmy T. Go a.k.a. Jaime T. Gaisano, G.R. No.
subsequently.
167569/G.R. No. 167570/G.R. No. 171946
While the trial court has an inherent power to cancel a

notice of lis pendens, such power is to be exercised
within the express confines of the law. As provided in
OCTOBER 2009 CASES Section 14, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled on two grounds:
(1) when the annotation was for the purpose of molesting
ACTION; FORUM SHOPPING.
the title of the adverse party, or (2) when the annotation
is not necessary to protect the title of the party who
The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple caused it to be recorded. Heirs of Jose Sy Bang, Heirs of
suits involving the same parties for the same cause of Julian Sy and Oscar Sy vs. Rolando Sy, et al./Iluminada
action, either simultaneously or successively, for the Tan, et al. vs. Bartolome Sy, et al, G.R. No. 114217G.R.
purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. Forum- No. 150979. October 13, 2009
shopping has been defined as the act of a party against
whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one
ACTION; PRELIMINARY HEARING.
forum, seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion
in another forum, other than by appeal or the special civil
action of certiorari, or the institution of two or more It is inconsequential that petitioner had already filed an
actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on answer to the complaint prior to its filing of a motion to
the supposition that one or the other court would make a dismiss. The option of whether to set the case for
favorable disposition. preliminary hearing after the filing of an answer which
raises affirmative defenses, or to file a motion to dismiss
raising any of the grounds set forth in Section 1, Rule 16
Although the factual antecedents of the cases brought
of the Rules are procedural options which are not
before this Court are the same, they involve different
mutually exclusive of each other. Associated Bank vs.
issues. The petition for Mandamus with Injunction and
Spouses Justiniano S. Montano, Sr. and Ligaya Montano,
Damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 13013, and raised
et al., G.R. No. 166383, October 16, 2009.
before this Court as G.R. No. 177795, challenged
respondents’ refusal to recognize petitioners’
appointments and to pay petitioners’ salaries, salary APPEAL; COMELEC.
adjustments, and other emoluments. The petition only
entailed the applications for the issuance of a writ of
The appeal to the COMELEC was perfected when
mandamus and for the award of damages. The present
petitioner filed her Notice of Appeal and paid the appeal
case docketed as G.R. No. 181559, on the other hand,
fee of P1,000.00 on May 13, 2008, which was two
involves the merits of petitioners’ appeal from
months before the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8486,
theinvalidation and revocation of their appointments by
clarifying the rule on the payment of appeal fees. As
the CSC-Field Office, which was affirmed by the CSC-
stated in Aguilar, fairness and prudence dictate that the
Regional Office, CSC en banc, and the Court of Appeals.
First Division of the COMELEC should have first directed
Leah M. Nazareno, et al. vs. City of Dumaguete, et al.,
petitioner to pay the additional appeal fee of P3,200.00 in
G.R. No. 181559, October 2, 2009.
accordance with the clarificatory resolution; and if
petitioner refused to comply, only then should the appeal
ACTION; FORUM SHOPPING. be dismissed. The First Division of the COMELEC should
have been more cautious in dismissing petitioner’s appeal
on the mere technicality of non-payment of the additional
The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple
appeal fee of P3,200.00 given the public interest involved
suits involving the same parties for the same cause of
in election cases.
action, either simultaneously or successively, for the
purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. This is not
103
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the First The exercise by the trial court of its discretionary power
Division of the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in to grant bail to an accused charged with a capital offense
issuing the Order dated November 25, 2008, dismissing thus depends on whether the evidence of guilt is strong.
petitioner’s appeal. The case is remanded to the First
Division of the COMELEC for disposition of the appeal in
Since Judge Tan concurred with the assessment by Judge
accordance with this decision, subject to the presentation
Buyser of the prosecution evidence when he denied the
by petitioner of the receipt evidencing payment of the
Demurrer and the latter’s statement that the evidence
appeal fee of P1,000.00 as required under Section 9,
was sufficient to convict respondent of Homicide, holding
Rule 14 of A. M. No. 07-4-15-SC.
a summary hearing merely to determine whether
respondent was entitled to bail would have been
It must be stated, however, that for notices of appeal unnecessary as the evidence in chief was already
filed after the promulgation on July 27, 2009 of presented by the prosecution.
Divinagracia v. Commission on Elections, errors in the
matter of non-payment or incomplete payment of the two
The People’s recourse to Section 5, Rule 114 of the
appeal fees in election cases are no longer
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to support its
excusable. Carmelinda C. Barror vs. The Commission on
contention that respondent should be denied bail is
Elections, et al., G.R. No. 186201, October 9, 2009.
unavailing, for said Section clearly speaks of an
application for bail filed by the accused after a judgment
ARBITRATION; DOCTRINE OF SEPARABILITY. of conviction has already been handed down by the trial
court. The People of the Philippines vs. Luis Plaza y
Bucalon, G.R. No. 176933, October 2, 2009.
Petitioner argues that it tendered an issue in its Answer
as it disputed the legality of the pre-termination fee
clause of the PSPA. Even assuming arguendo that the COMPLAINT; CAUSE OF ACTION.
clause is illegal, it would not affect the agreement
between petitioner and respondent to resolve their
The issue before us calls for a discussion of a court’s
dispute by arbitration.
basic appreciation of allegations in a complaint. The
fundamental rule is that reliefs granted a litigant are
The doctrine of separability, or severability as other limited to those specifically prayed for in the complaint;
writers call it, enunciates that an arbitration agreement is other reliefs prayed for may be granted only when
independent of the main contract. The arbitration related to the specific prayer(s) in the pleadings and
agreement is to be treated as a separate agreement and supported by the evidence on record. Necessarily, any
the arbitration agreement does not automatically such relief may be granted only where a cause of action
terminate when the contract of which it is a part comes therefor exists, based on the complaint, the pleadings,
to an end. and the evidence on record. Philippine Charter Insurance
Corporation vs. Philippine National Construction
Corporation, G.R. No. 185066, October 2, 2009.
The separability of the arbitration agreement is especially
significant to the determination of whether the invalidity
of the main contract also nullifies the arbitration clause. COMPLAINT; WITHDRAWAL.
Indeed, the doctrine denotes that the invalidity of the
main contract, also referred to as the “container”
Without going into the raison d’ etre why the plaintiff,
contract, does not affect the validity of the arbitration
respondent company herein, withdrew its complaint with
agreement. Irrespective of the fact that the main
the court a quo, its effect, nevertheless, is the restoration
contract is invalid, the arbitration clause/agreement still
of the rights of the contending parties prior to the filing
remains valid and enforceable. Philippine Economic Zone
of the complaint. Quite simply, the withdrawal of the
Authority vs. Edison (Bataan) CoGeneration Corporation,
complaint results in placing them to their original
G.R. No. 179537, October 23, 2009
position, as if no complaint was filed at all. This should be
so, otherwise, a plaintiff can peremptorily withdraw his
BAIL; GRANT. complaint after securing an order favorable to him. Land
Center Construction and Development Corporation vs.
V.C. Ponce, Co., Inc. and Vicente C. Ponce, G.R. No.
Section 13, Article III of the Constitution provides that
160409, October 2, 2009.
“All persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt
is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by CONTEMPT OF COURT.
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as
may be provided by law.”
Contempt of court is defiance of court authority that
tends to degrade the dignity of the court and bring the
Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, as administration of the law into disrespect, or an act that
amended, thus provides that all persons in custody shall, interferes with or prejudices parties-litigants or their
before conviction by a regional trial court of an offense witnesses during litigation thereby impeding the
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life administration of justice. It is also defined as the
imprisonment, be admitted to bail as a matter of right. disobedience to the Court by acting in opposition to its
104
authority, justice, and dignity, and signifies a willful The assailed decision of the CA acquitting the respondent
disregard or disobedience of the court’s orders; it is without giving the Solicitor General the chance to file his
conduct that tends to bring the authority of the court and comment on the petition for review clearly deprived the
the administration of law into disrepute or otherwise State of its right to refute the material allegations of the
impedes the administration of justice. said petition filed before the CA. The said decision is,
therefore, a nullity. People of the Philippines vs. Arturo
F. Duca, G.R. No. 171175, October 9, 2009.
The power of contempt is a very powerful weapon, as the
court determines for itself whether its authority, dignity
and effectiveness in the administration of justice have DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE.
been prejudicially affected. Thus, the rule is to use this
power sparingly and only in the defensive and
This Court held in Enojas, Jr. v. Commission on Elections
preservative spirit. Yet, the Court will not hesitate and
that, to determine whether the pleading filed is a
has never hesitated to wield its power where the
demurer to evidence or a motion to dismiss, the Court
contumacious conduct exhibited by a person or entity is
must consider (1) the allegations in it made in good
patently and clearly derogatory to the authority of the
faith; (2) the stage of the proceeding at which it is filed;
courts in their sworn duties. It is with these thoughts that
and (3) the primary objective of the party filing it.
we decide the issue before us.
In sum, tested against the criteria laid down in Enojas,

The records clearly show that the Resolutions of March
the Court finds that petitioner Cabador filed a motion to
31, 2004 and June 23, 2004 of this Court in G.R. No.
dismiss on the ground of violation of his right to speedy
161807, affirming the CA decision granting the petitioner
trial, not a demurrer to evidence. He cannot be declared
permanent total disability benefits, have long become
to have waived his right to present evidence in his
final and executory. Entry of judgment has in fact been
defense.
made.
On a final note, a demurrer to evidence shortens the

At this point, the doctrine of immutability of judgment
proceedings in criminal cases. Caution must, however, be
became fully operational. Under this doctrine, a decision
exercised in view of its pernicious consequence on the
that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
right of the accused to present evidence in his defense,
unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any
the seriousness of the crime charged, and the gravity of
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
the penalty involved. Antonio Cabador vs. People of the
erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be
Philippines, G.R. No. 186001, October 2, 2009.
made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest
Court of the land. Any act which violates this principle
must immediately be struck down. The only exceptions to EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS; JUST
this rule are: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the COMPENSATION.
so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice
to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever It is well-settled in jurisprudence that the determination
circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision of just compensation is a judicial prerogative. City of
rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. In the Cebu vs. Spouses Ciriaco and Arminda Ortega/City of
absence of any effective invocation of these exceptions – Cebu vs. Spouses Ciriaco and Arminda Ortega, G.R. Nos.
and none has so been made in this case – the judgment 181562-63/G.R. Nos. 181583-84, October 2, 2009.
of the court must be implemented according to its terms.
Dominador C. Villa vs. Government Service Insurance
System, (GSIS), represented by Angelina A. Patino, Field EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS; JUST
Office Manager, GSIS, Dinalupihan, Bataan Branch, COMPENSATION.
and/or Winston F. Garcia, President and General
Manager, GSIS, G.R. No. 174642, October 30, 2009. The prevailing doctrine on judicial determination of just
compensation is that set forth in Forfom. Therein, the
CRIMINAL CASES; DUE PROCESS FOR STATE. Court ruled that even if there are no expropriation
proceedings instituted to determine just compensation,
the trial court is still mandated to act in accordance with
The authority to represent the State in appeals of the procedure provided for in Section 5, Rule 67 of the
criminal cases before the CA and the Supreme Court is 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the appointment
solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). of not more than three competent and disinterested
The State, like the accused, is entitled to due process in commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the
criminal cases, that is, it must be given the opportunity just compensation for the subject property. The Court
to present its evidence in support of the charge. The reiterated its ruling in National Power Corporation v. Dela
doctrine consistently adhered to by this Court is that a Cruz that “trial with the aid of commissioners is a
decision rendered without due process is void ab initio substantial right that may not be done away with
and may be attacked directly or collaterally. A decision is capriciously or for no reason at all.” It was also
void for lack of due process if, as a result, a party is emphasized therein that although ascertainment of just
deprived of the opportunity to be heard. compensation is a judicial prerogative, the
commissioners’ findings may only be disregarded or
105
substituted with the trial court’s own estimation of the After an exhaustive review of the evidence on record, the
property’s value only if the commissioners have applied Court finds that respondent was not able to satisfactorily
illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them, prove her prior physical possession, nor her being
where they have disregarded a clear preponderance of deprived thereof by petitioner through force, intimidation,
evidence, or where the amount allowed is either grossly threat, strategy, and stealth. It is noteworthy that
inadequate or excessive. Hon. Vicente P. Eusebio, et al. absence alone of prior physical possession by the plaintiff
vs. Jovito M. Luis, et al., G.R. No. 162474, October 13, in a forcible entry case already warrants the dismissal of
2009. the complaint.
EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF. In the present case, respondent, to establish her

supposed prior physical possession of the 143,417-
square meter property, which included the two parcels of
The CA, however, made a mistake with regard to the
land now being occupied by petitioner, relied on (1) the
assignment of the burden of proof. No rule requires a
DENR Region IV Resolution dated 30 October 2000 in
party, who relies on a notarized deed of sale for
DENR 4 Case No. 5723; (2) the notarized Transfer of
establishing his ownership, to present further evidence of
Rights dated 29 October 1990 executed by Danga in
such deed’s genuineness lest the presumption of its due
respondent’s favor; and (3) the Tax Declaration in
execution be for naught. Under the rules of evidence,
respondent’s name, covering the 143,417-square-meter
“Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and
property, on file with the Antipolo City Assessor’s Office,
certified as provided by law, may be presented in
together with the real property tax clearance for the year
evidence without further proof, the certificate of
2001 from the Antipolo City Treasurer’s Office. Charlie T.
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the
Lee vs. Rosita Dela Paz, G.R. No. 183606, October 27,
execution of the instrument or document involved.”
2009.
Here, Atty. Crispulo Ducusin notarized the deed of sale

INFORMATION; AMENDMENT.
that Riñoza acknowledged as his free act and deed on
June 17, 1989. By signing and affixing his notarial seal
on the deed, Atty. Ducusin converted it from a private Assuming that the facts charged in the Information do
document to a public document. As such, the deed of not constitute an offense, we find it erroneous for the
sale is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. And RTC to immediately order the dismissal of the
since Riñoza, the executor of the deed, is already dead, Information, without giving the prosecution a chance to
the notarized deed of absolute sale is the best evidence amend it.
of his consent to the sale of the Utod sugarland to the
Destreza spouses. Parenthetically, it is not disputed that
Although an Information may be defective because the
the Destrezas immediately and openly occupied the land
facts charged do not constitute an offense, the dismissal
right after the sale and continuously cultivated it from
of the case will not necessarily follow. The Rules
then on.
specifically require that the prosecution should be given a
chance to correct the defect; the court can order the
The burden of proof is the duty of a party to present such dismissal only upon the prosecution’s failure to do so.
amount of evidence on the facts in issue as the law The RTC’s failure to provide the prosecution this
deems necessary for the establishment of his claim. opportunity twice constitutes an arbitrary exercise of
Here, since respondents Plazo and Alaras claim, despite power that was correctly addressed by the CA through
the Destrezas’ evidence of title over the property and the certiorari petition. This defect in the RTC’s action on
open possession of it, that grave and serious doubts the case, while not central to the issue before us,
plague TCT 55396, the burden is on them to prove such strengthens our conclusion that this criminal case should
claim. Only when they are successful in doing so will the be resolved through full-blown trial on the
court be justified in nullifying the notarized deed of sale merits. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. vs. Nikko Sources
that their father Riñoza executed in favor of the International Corp. and Supermax Philippines, Inc., G.R.
Destrezas. Gregorio Destreza vs. Atty. Ma. Garcia No. 178479, October 23, 2009.
Riñoza-Plazo, et al., G.R. No. 176863, October 30, 2009.
FORCIBLE ENTRY; BURDEN OF PROOF.
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such
It is a basic rule in civil cases, including an action for facts and circumstances as would lead a person of
forcible entry, that the party having the burden of proof ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and
must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, strong suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the
which simply means “evidence which is of greater weight, crime subject of the investigation. Being based merely on
or more convincing than that which is offered in opinion and reasonable belief, it does not import absolute
opposition to it.” Hence, parties who have the burden of certainty. Probable cause need not be based on clear and
proof must produce such quantum of evidence, with convincing evidence of guilt, as the investigating officer
plaintiffs having to rely on the strength of their own acts upon reasonable belief. Probable cause implies
evidence, not on the weakness of the defendant’s. probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion
but less than evidence to justify a conviction.
106
To determine the existence of probable cause, there is a must be grave abuse of discretion, as when the power is
need to conduct a preliminary investigation. A exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic judicial passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and
appraisal of the merits of a case. Its purpose is to so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or
to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act
at all in contemplation of law. The Court of Appeals did
determine whether (a) a crime has been committed; and
not gravely abuse its discretion in refusing to issue a TRO
(b) there is probable cause to believe that the accused is
and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the
guilty thereof. It is a means of discovering which person
enforcement of Lt. Gen. Yano’s Order of Arrest against
or persons may be reasonably charged with a crime.
Maj. Gen. Barbieto. Jose T. Barbieto Vs. Hon. Court of
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 184645, October 30, 2009.
The conduct of a preliminary investigation is executive in
nature. As we have said, the Court may not be compelled
INJUNCTION; PROOF.
to pass upon the correctness of the exercise of the public
prosecutor’s function, unless there is a showing of grave
abuse of discretion or manifest error in his findings. A writ of injunction will lie upon proof that the applicant
Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and is entitled to the relief. For the writ to issue here, forever
whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack or barring PDCP from collecting on the loan security,
excess of jurisdiction. The exercise of power must have petitioners must prove the nullity of the mortgage
been done in an arbitrary or a despotic manner by reason contract. As an accessory contract, the mortgage
of passion or personal hostility. It must have been so agreement derives its validity from the principal contract
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive of loan. Petitioners assail the validity of the loan
duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or agreement on the sole ground that PDCP delayed the
to act at all in contemplation of law. Nieva M. Manebo Vs. release of the loan proceeds. This argument is
SPO1 Roel D. Acosta, et al., G.R. No. 169554, October analytically weak, factually baseless, and legally
28, 2009. indefensible.
INJUNCTION; BSP MONETARY BOARD. The claim of delay in the release of the loan proceeds
concerns the implementation of the loan contract, and
not its intrinsic validity. Spouses Santiago E. Ibasco and
The issuance by the RTC of writs of preliminary injunction
Milagros D. Ibasco, et al. vs. Private Development
is an unwarranted interference with the powers of the
Corporation of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 162473,
MB. Secs. 29 and 30 of RA 7653 refer to the appointment
October 12, 2009.
of a conservator or a receiver for a bank, which is a
power of the MB for which they need the ROEs done by
the supervising or examining department. The writs of JUDGMENT; COMPROMISE.
preliminary injunction issued by the trial court hinder the
MB from fulfilling its function under the law. The actions
A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the
of the MB under Secs. 29 and 30 of RA 7653 “may not be
parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a
restrained or set aside by the court except on petition for
litigation or put an end to one already commenced. It
certiorari on the ground that the action taken was in
contemplates mutual concessions and mutual gains to
excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of
avoid the expenses of litigation; or when litigation has
discretion as to amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”
already begun, to end it because of the uncertainty of the
The writs of preliminary injunction order are precisely
result.
what cannot be done under the law by preventing the MB
from taking action under either Sec. 29 or Sec. 30 of RA
7653. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board and The validity of a compromise agreement is dependent
Chuci Fonancier vs. Hon. Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, upon its fulfillment of the requisites and principles of
etc., et al., G.R. No. 184778. October 2, 2009. contracts dictated by law; and its terms and conditions
must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public policy and public order.
INJUNCTION; JUDICIAL DISCRETION.
After a review of the terms of the Compromise

The grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction in a
Agreement between the parties herein, we find that it
pending case rests on the sound discretion of the court
has been validly executed in accordance with the
taking cognizance of the case, since the assessment and
foregoing requirements. Gov. Antonio P. Calingin vs. Civil
evaluation of evidence towards that end involves findings
Service Commission and Grace L. Anayron, G.R. No.
of facts left to the said court for its conclusive
183322, October 30, 2009.
determination. Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion
by a court in injunctive matters must not be interfered
with, except when there is grave abuse of discretion. JUDGMENT; FINALITY.
Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the above-
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of quoted Decision was denied with finality on March 3,
jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It 2009. Petitioner filed another Motion for Reconsideration,
107
which the Court treated as a Second Motion for Petitioners’ re-filing on the next working day, November
Reconsideration and, consequently, denied in a 17, 2003, of the Notice of Appeal with Appeal
Resolution dated June 2, 2009. Of late, petitioner has Memorandum, which was accompanied, this time, by the
filed a “Manifestation” that raises yet again the issues appeal bond, did not cure the fatal defect of their appeal
already resolved in the petition and which the Court has, since said bond was filed after the ten-day reglementary
accordingly, merely noted without action. Thus, our period had expired – at which time the Labor Arbiter’s
ruling therein has now attained finality. judgment had already become final and executory and,
therefore, immutable. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc.
and Scandic Shipmanagement Limited vs. Eriberto S.
Consequently, the issue of petitioner’s compliance with
Bultron, G.R. No. 185261, October 2, 2009.
the one-year residency requirement is now settled. We
are bound by this Court’s ruling in the earlierLimbona
case where the issue was squarely raised and JUDGMENT; FINALITY.
categorically resolved. We cannot now rule anew on the
merits of this case, especially since the present Petition
In the instant case, instead of appealing his conviction to
merely restates issues already passed upon by the
the Sandiganbayan, Estarija erroneously filed an appeal
Comelec and affirmed by this Court. Norlainie Mitmug
with the Court of Appeals, in utter disregard of paragraph
Limbona vs. Commssion on Elections and Malik “Bobby”
3, Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 8249. The Court of
T. Alingan, G.R. No. 186006. October 16, 2009
Appeals did not notice this conspicuous misstep, since it
entertained the appeal. This fatal flaw committed by
JUDGMENT; FINALITY. Estarija did not toll the running of the period for him to
perfect his appeal to the Sandiganbayan. Because of
Estarija’s failure to perfect his appeal to the
It is settled that when a final judgment is executory, it
Sandiganbayan within the period granted therefor, the
becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment may
Decision of the RTC convicting him of violating Section
no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
3(a) of Republic Act No. 3019 has thus become final and
modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be
executory.
an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of
court rendering it or by the highest Court of the land. The Inasmuch as the decision of the RTC has long been final
doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and and executory, it can no longer be altered or modified.
sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, Nothing is more settled in law than that when a judgment
judgments must become final at some definite point in becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and
time. unalterable. The same may no longer be modified in any
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what
is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law,
The only recognized exceptions are the correction of
and whether or not made by the highest court of the
clerical errors or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc
land. The reason is grounded on the fundamental
entries in which case there is no prejudice to any party,
considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at
and where the judgment is void. None of these has been
the risk of occasional error, the judgments or orders of
shown to be present to justify the “modification” of the
courts must be final at some definite date fixed by law.
judgment. Parenthetically, the modification was made not
Edgardo V. Estarija vs. People of the Philippines,
by the same court (CFI of Pasig) that rendered the
Represented By Solicitor General And Edwin Ranada,
judgment. Spouses Tomas F. Gomez, et al. vs. Gregorio
G.R. No. 173990, October 27, 2009.
Correa, et al. G.R. No. 153923, October 2, 2009.
JUDGMENT; FINDINGS REGARDING NON-PARTIES.

JUDGMENT; FINALITY.
With respect to the second and third assignment of

The decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter are
errors, petitioner argues that the CA erred in sustaining
final and executory unless appealed to the NLRC by any
the RTC when it passed upon the merits of petitioner’s
parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt
cause of action against PNB notwithstanding the fact that
thereof, with proof of payment of the required appeal fee
the complaint against the latter was already dismissed.
accompanied by a memorandum of appeal. And where,
Petitioner contends that a person who was not impleaded
as here, the judgment involves monetaryaward, an
in a case could not be bound by the decision rendered
appeal therefrom by the employer may be “perfected
therein. Petitioner then proceeds to conclude that the CA
only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.” A mere
erred in sustaining the trial court’s finding that PNB was a
notice of appeal without complying with the other
mortgagee, buyer and seller in good faith.
requisites mentioned does not stop the running of the
period for perfecting an appeal as in fact no motion for
extension of said period is allowed. It is true that the judgment of the trial and appellate
courts in the present case could not bind the PNB for the
latter is not a party to the case. However, this does not
The perfection of appeals in the manner and within the
mean that the trial and appellate courts are precluded
period permitted by law is not only mandatory but
from making findings which are necessary for a just,
jurisdictional and must, therefore, be strictly observed.
complete and proper resolution of the issues raised in the
108
present case. The Court finds no error in the obligations of the others. That the properties in the
determination by the trial and appellate courts of the names of petitioners were found to be part of the Sy
question of whether or not PNB was a mortgagee, buyer Bang estate did not preclude any further findings or
and, later on, seller in good faith as this would bear upon judgment on the status or nature of the properties in the
the ultimate issue of whether petitioner is entitled to names of the other heirs. Heirs of Jose Sy Bang, Heirs of
reconveyance. Eufemia vda. De Agatep vs. Roberta L. Julian Sy and Oscar Sy vs. Rolando Sy, et al./Iluminada
Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 170540, October 28, 2009. Tan, et al. vs. Bartolome Sy, et al, G.R. No. 114217G.R.
No. 150979. October 13, 2009
JUDGMENT; RES JUDICATA.
JUDICIAL NOTICE; REQUISITES.
Res judicata has two concepts: (1) bar by prior judgment
as enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47 (b) of the Rules of Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three
Civil Procedure; and (2) conclusiveness of judgment in material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of
Rule 39, Section 47 (c). common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and
authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and
(3) it must be known to be within the limits of the
There is bar by prior judgment when, as between the first
jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in
case where the judgment was rendered, and the second
determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially
case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of
known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that
parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Where
judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public
there is identity of parties and subject matter in the first
records and facts of general notoriety. Moreover, a
and second cases, but no identity of causes of action,
judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to a
there is conclusiveness of judgment. The first judgment
reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1) generally
is conclusive only as to those matters actually and
known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court;
directly controverted and determined, not as to matters
or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by
merely involved therein.
resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably
be questionable.
The Court of Appeals, in CA G.R. SP No. 31125, resolved
only the interlocutory issue of whether the trial court’s
Things of “common knowledge,” of which courts take
Order of April 12, 1993 denying petitioner’s motion to
judicial notice, may be matters coming to the knowledge
dismiss respondent’s petition for annulment was attended
of men generally in the course of the ordinary
by grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court did not
experiences of life, or they may be matters which are
rule on the merits of the petition as to establish a
generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable
controlling legal rule which has to be subsequently
of ready and unquestioned demonstration. Thus, facts
followed by the parties in the same case. It merely held
which are universally known, and which may be found in
that respondent’s petition in the trial court stated a
encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are
sufficient cause of action. Its determination of
judicially noticed, provided, they are such of universal
respondent’s entitlement to notice of the public auction
notoriety and so generally understood that they may be
sale was at best prima facie.
regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of
every person. As the common knowledge of man ranges
An order denying a motion to dismiss is merely far and wide, a wide variety of particular facts have been
interlocutory and cannot give rise to res judicata, hence, judicially noticed as being matters of common
it is subject to amendments until the rendition of the final knowledge. But a court cannot take judicial notice of any
judgment. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. fact which, in part, is dependent on the existence or non-
Royal Cargo Corporation, G.R. No. 179756, October 2, existence of a fact of which the court has no constructive
2009. knowledge. Spouses Omar and Moshiera Latip vs. Rosalie
Palaña Chua, G.R. No. 177809, October 16, 2009.
JUDGMENT; SEVERAL JUDGMENT.
JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECISION.
A several judgment is proper when the liability of each
party is clearly separable and distinct from that of his co- Judicial notice must be taken by this Court of its Decision
parties, such that the claims against each of them could in Maricalum Mining Corporation v. Hon. Arturo D. Brion
have been the subject of separate suits, and judgment and NAMAWU, in which we upheld the right of herein
for or against one of them will not necessarily affect the private respondent, NAMAWU, to its labor claims. Upon
other. the same principle of judicial notice, we acknowledge our
Decision in Republic of the Philippines, through its
Petitioners, although sued collectively, each held a trustee, the Asset Privatization Trust v. “G” Holdings,
separate and separable interest in the properties of the Inc., in which GHI was recognized as the rightful
Sy Bang estate. purchaser of the shares of stocks of MMC, and thus,
entitled to the delivery of the company notes
accompanying the said purchase.
The pronouncement as to the obligation of one or some
petitioners did not affect the determination of the
109
In Juaban v. Espina, we held that “in some instances, is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of
courts have also taken judicial notice of proceedings in Justice, since it is mandated to independently evaluate or
other cases that are closely connected to the matter in assess the merits of the case. Reliance on the resolution
controversy. These cases may be so closely interwoven, of the Secretary of Justice alone would be an abdication
or so clearly interdependent, as to invoke a rule of of its duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie
judicial notice.” The two cases that we have taken judicial case. The trial court may make an independent
notice of are of such character, and our review of the assessment of the merits of the case based on the
instant case cannot stray from the findings and affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence
conclusions therein. “G” Holdings, Inc. vs. National appended to the Information; the records of the public
Mines and Allied Workers Union Locan 103 (NAMAWU), prosecutor, which the court may order the latter to
Sheriffs Richard H. Aprosta and Alberto Munoz, all acting produce before the court; or any evidence already
sheriffs, Department of Labor and Employment, Region adduced before the court by the accused at the time the
VI, Bacolod District Office, Bacolod City, G.R. No. motion is filed by the public prosecutor. Liezl Co vs.
160236, October 16, 2009. Harold Lim y Go and Avelino uy Go, G.R. Nos. 164669-
70, October 30, 2009.
JURISDICTION; COMELEC.
JURISDICTION; EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES.
The COMELEC Second Division acted with grave abuse of
discretion in denying petitioner’s motions for
reconsideration and dismissing his appeal. There is no need for petitioners to exhaust administrative
remedies before resorting to the courts.
Indeed, the February 4 and March 9, 2009 Orders are
null and void as they were issued by a division of the It is true that the general rule is that before a party is
COMELEC, instead of the COMELEC en banc, pursuant to allowed to seek the intervention of the court, he or she
Article IX-C, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution and to should have availed himself or herself of all the means of
Rule 19, Sections 5 and 6, of the COMELEC Rules of administrative processes afforded him or her. Hence, if
Procedure. This rule should apply whether the motion fee resort to a remedy within the administrative machinery
has been paid or not. It is the COMELEC en banc, not the can still be made by giving the administrative officer
division, which has the discretion either to refuse to take concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that
action until the motion fee is paid, or to dismiss the comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy
action or proceeding. should be exhausted first before the court’s judicial
power can be sought. The premature invocation of the
intervention of the court is fatal to one’s cause of action.
Considering the urgent need to resolve election cases and
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is
since the issue was raised in this petition, we likewise
based on practical and legal reasons. The availment of
rule that the dismissal of Revilla’s appeal was improper.
administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and
His payment of the appeal fee of P1,000.00 before the
provides for a speedier disposition of controversies.
MCTC on March 31, 2008 already perfected his appeal
Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity
pursuant to A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC (Rules of Procedure in
and convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the
Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective
system of administrative redress has been completed and
Municipal and Barangay Officials). The non-payment or
complied with, so as to give the administrative agency
the insufficient payment of the additional appeal fee of
concerned every opportunity to correct its error and
P3,200.00 to the COMELEC Cash Division does not affect
dispose of the case. However, there are several
the perfection of the appeal and does not result in the
exceptions to this rule.
outright or ipso facto dismissal of the appeal. Under Rule
22, Section 9(a), of the COMELEC Rules, the appeal may
be dismissed. And under Rule 40, Section 18 of the same The rule on the exhaustion of administrative remedies is
rules, if the fees are not paid, the COMELEC may refuse intended to preclude a court from arrogating unto itself
to take action thereon until they are paid and may the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction
dismiss the action or the proceeding. Considering that over which is initially lodged with an administrative body
the payment of the appeal fee was made three and a half of special competence. Thus, a case where the issue
months before the issuance of the clarificatory COMELEC raised is a purely legal question, well within the
Resolution No. 8486 and after the perfection of the competence; and the jurisdiction of the court and not the
appeal, we find the dismissal of the appeal by the administrative agency, would clearly constitute an
COMELEC Second Division as grave abuse of its exception. Resolving questions of law, which involve the
discretion. Eugenio T. Revilla, Sr. vs. The Commission on interpretation and application of laws, constitutes
Elections and Gerardo L. Lanoy G.R. No. 187428, essentially an exercise of judicial power that is
October 16, 2009. exclusively allocated to the Supreme Court and such
lower courts the Legislature may establish.
JURISDICTION; CRIMINAL CASES.
In this case, the parties are not disputing any factual
matter on which they still need to present evidence. The
Once a case is filed with the court, any disposition of it
sole issue petitioners raised before the RTC in Civil Case
rests on the sound discretion of the court. The trial court
No. 25843 was whether Municipal Ordinance No. 98-01
110
was valid and enforceable despite the absence, prior to precedes from a different source of obligation is within
its enactment, of a public hearing held in accordance with the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular court. Here, the
Article 276 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of employer-employee relationship between the parties is
the Local Government Code. This is undoubtedly a pure merely incidental and the cause of action ultimately arose
question of law, within the competence and jurisdiction of from different sources of obligation, i.e., the Constitution
the RTC to resolve. and CEDAW.
Paragraph 2(a) of Section 5, Article VIII of the Thus, where the principal relief sought is to be resolved
Constitution, expressly establishes the appellate not by reference to the Labor Code or other labor
jurisdiction of this Court, and impliedly recognizes the relations statute or a collective bargaining agreement but
original jurisdiction of lower courts over cases involving by the general civil law, the jurisdiction over the dispute
the constitutionality or validity of an ordinance. Evelyn belongs to the regular courts of justice and not to the
Ongsuco and Antonia Salaya vs. hon. Mariano M. labor arbiter and the NLRC. In such situations, resolution
Malones, etc., G.R. No. 182065, October 27, 2009. of the dispute requires expertise, not in labor
management relations nor in wage structures and other
terms and conditions of employment, but rather in the
JURISDICTION; GUARDIANSHIP.
application of the general civil law. Clearly, such claims
fall outside the area of competence or expertise ordinarily
The court hearing the petition for guardianship had ascribed to labor arbiters and the NLRC and the rationale
limited jurisdiction. It had no jurisdiction to enforce for granting jurisdiction over such claims to these
payment of the widow’s allowance ordered by this Court. agencies disappears. Patricia Halagueña, et al. vs.
Heirs of Jose Sy Bang, Heirs of Julian Sy and Oscar Sy Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 172013, October 2,
vs. Rolando Sy, et al./Iluminada Tan, et al. vs. Bartolome 2009.
Sy, et al, G.R. No. 114217G.R. No. 150979. October 13,
2009
JURISDICTION; SUMMONS.
JURISDICTION; RTC.
We find that substituted service of summons was validly
made upon respondent through his brother.
The power of the RTC under Section 19 of Batas
Pambansa 129, as amended, to hear actions involving
We do not intend this ruling to overturn jurisprudence to
title to, or possession of, real property or any interest in
the effect that statutory requirements of substituted
it now covers only real properties with assessed value in
service must be followed strictly, faithfully, and fully, and
excess of P20,000.00. But the RTC retained the exclusive
that any substituted service other than that authorized
power to hear actions the subject matter of which is not
by the Rules is considered ineffective. However, an overly
capable of pecuniary estimation.
strict application of the Rules is not warranted in this
case, as it would clearly frustrate the spirit of the law as
Based on the pleadings, the ultimate issue is whether or well as do injustice to the parties, who have been waiting
not defendant Sevilla defrauded the Sebes of their for almost 15 years for a resolution of this case. We are
property by making them sign documents of conveyance not heedless of the widespread and flagrant practice
rather than just a deed of real mortgage to secure their whereby defendants actively attempt to frustrate the
debt to him. The action is, therefore, about ascertaining proper service of summons by refusing to give their
which of these parties is the lawful owner of the subject names, rebuffing requests to sign for or receive
lots, jurisdiction over which is determined by the documents, or eluding officers of the court. Of course it is
assessed value of such lots. to be expected that defendants try to avoid service of
summons, prompting this Court to declare that, “the
Here, the total assessed value of the two lots subject of sheriff must be resourceful, persevering, canny, and
the suit is P9,910.00. Clearly, this amount does not diligent in serving the process on the defendant.”
exceed the jurisdictional threshold value ofP20,000.00 However, sheriffs are not expected to be sleuths, and
fixed by law. The other damages that the Sebes claim are cannot be faulted where the defendants themselves
merely incidental to their main action and, therefore, are engage in deception to thwart the orderly administration
excluded in the computation of the jurisdictional of justice.
amount. Heirs of Generoso Sebe, et al. vs. Heirs of
Veronico Sevilla, et al., G.R. No. 174497, October 12, The purpose of summons is two-fold: to acquire
2009. jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and to
notify the defendant that an action has been commenced
JURISDICTION; LABOR RELATED CLAIMS. so that he may be given an opportunity to be heard on
the claim against him. Under the circumstances of this
case, we find that respondent was duly apprised of the
Not every controversy or money claim by an employee action against him and had every opportunity to answer
against the employer or vice-versa is within the exclusive the charges made by the petitioner. However, since
jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. Actions between respondent refused to disclose his true address, it was
employees and employer where the employer-employee impossible to personally serve summons upon him.
relationship is merely incidental and the cause of action Considering that respondent could not have received
111
summons because of his own pretenses, and has failed to right of redemption; one to whom the debtor has
provide an explanation of his purported “new” residence, conveyed his interest in the property for the purpose of
he must now bear the consequences. Arnel Sagana redemption; one who succeeds to the interest of the
vs.Richard A. Francisco, G.R. No. 161952, October 2, debtor by operation of law; one or more joint debtors
2009. who were joint owners of the property sold; or his spouse
or heirs.
JURISDICTION; SUPERVENING LEGISLATION.
A “redemptioner,” on the other hand, is a creditor with a
lien subsequent to the judgment which was the basis of
In Latchme Motoomull v. Dela Paz, the Court had dealt
the execution sale. If the lien of the creditor is prior to
with a situation where jurisdiction over certain cases was
the judgment under which the property was sold, he is
transferred by a supervening legislation to another
not a redemptioner and, therefore, cannot redeem
tribunal. Latchme involved a perfected appeal from the
because his interests in his lien are fully protected, since
decision of the SEC and pending with the Court of
any purchase at public auction of said property takes the
Appeals at the time P.D. No. 902-A was enacted which
same subject to such prior lien which he has to satisfy.
transferred appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the
Unlike the judgment debtor, a redemptioner must prove
SEC from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. On
his right to redeem by producing the documents called
the question of whether the tribunal with which the cases
for by Section 30, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. German
were pending had lost jurisdiction over the appeal upon
Cayton, et al. vs. Zeonnix Trading Corporation, et al.,
the effectivity of the new law, the Court ruled in the
G.R. No. 169541, October 9, 2009.
negative. Philippine National Bank Vs. Cayetano A.
Tejano, Jr., G.R. No. 173615, October 16, 2009.
MORTGAGE; VALID REDEMPTION.
MANDAMUS; NATURE.
To constitute valid redemption, the amount tendered
must comply with the following requirements: (1) it
A writ of mandamus is a command issuing from a court
should constitute the full amount paid by the purchaser;
of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state
(2) with one percent per month interest on the purchase
or sovereign, directed to an inferior court, tribunal, or
price in addition, up to the time of redemption; (3)
board, or to some corporation or person, requiring the
together with the amount of any assessments or taxes
performance of a particular duty therein specified, which
which the purchaser may have paid thereon after
duty results from the official station of the party to whom
purchase; (4) interest on the taxes paid by the purchaser
the writ is directed, or from operation of law. It is
at the rate of one percent per month, up to the time of
employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a
the redemption; and (5) if the purchaser be also a
ministerial duty which, as opposed to a discretionary one,
creditor having a prior lien to that of the redemptioner,
is that which an officer or tribunal performs in a given
other than the judgment under which such purchase was
state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to
made, the amount of such other lien, with interest.
the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the
exercise of his or its own judgment upon the propriety or
impropriety of the act done. In exercising the right of redemption, the tender of
payment must be for the full amount of the purchase
price. Otherwise, to allow payment by installments would
A favorable judgment rendered in a special civil action for
be to allow the indefinite extension of the redemption
mandamus is in the nature of a special judgment. As
period.
such, it requires the performance of any other act than
the payment of money or the sale or delivery of real or
personal property the execution of which is governed by The amount tendered by Zeonnix may be considered
Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. National Home sufficient for purposes of redemption, although it failed to
Mortgage Finance Corporation vs. Mario Abayari, et include the amount of taxes paid by the Caytons. The
al., G.R. No. 166508. October 2, 2009 payment of the full amount of the purchase price and
interest thereon should be deemed as substantial
compliance, considering that Zeonnix immediately paid
MORTGAGE; RIGHT OF REDEMPTION.
the amount of taxes when apprised of the deficiency.
German Cayton, et al. vs. Zeonnix Trading Corporation,
Right of redemption is the prerogative to reacquire a et al., G.R. No. 169541, October 9, 2009.
mortgaged property after registration of the foreclosure
sale. It exists only in the case of the extrajudicial
MOTION TO DISMISS; HYPOTHETICAL ADMISSION.
foreclosure of the mortgage. No such right is recognized
in a judicial foreclosure unless the mortgagee is a bank.
An attaching creditor acquires the right to redeem the In filing a motion to dismiss, the movant hypothetically
debtor’s attached property subsequently foreclosed admits the truth of the material and relevant facts
extra-judicially by a third party. alleged and pleaded in the complaint. The court, in
resolving the motion to dismiss, must consider such
hypothetical admission, the documentary evidence
The “successor-in-interest” of a judgment debtor includes
presented during the hearing thereof, and the relevant
one to whom the debtor has transferred his statutory
laws and jurisprudence bearing on the issues or subject
112
matter of the complaint. Aqualab Philippines, Inc. vs. party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the
Heirs of Marcelino Pagobo, et al., G.R. No. 182673, other case. Subic Telecommunications Company, Inc.
October 12, 2009. vs. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and Innove
Communications, Inc., G.R. No. 185159. October 12,
2009
MOTION TO DISMISS; LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION.
MOTION TO DISMISS; LITIS PENDENTIA.

To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action,
the complaint must show that the claim for relief does
not exist rather than that a claim has been defectively Litis pendentia is a Latin term, which literally means “a
stated or is ambiguous, indefinite, or uncertain. However, pending suit” and is variously referred to in some
a perusal of respondents’ Complaint before the RTC, in decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant. As a
light of Aqualab’s motion to dismiss which hypothetically ground for the dismissal of a civil action, it refers to the
admitted the truth of the allegations in the complaint, situation where two actions are pending between the
shows that respondents’ action before the RTC has same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of
sufficiently stated a cause of action. Hypothetically them becomes unnecessary and vexatious. It is based on
admitting fraud in the transfers of subject lots, which the policy against multiplicity of suits.
indisputably were first transferred in apparent violation of
pertinent provisions in CA 141 prohibiting alienation of
To constitute litis pendentia, not only must the parties in
homesteads within five years from the grant of the
the two actions be the same; there must as well be
homestead patent, and the continuing possession of
substantial identity in the causes of action and in the
respondents until 1991 of the subject lots, the action for
reliefs sought. Further, the identity should be such that
reconveyance and nullification filed in 1994 not only
any judgment that may be rendered in one case,
sufficiently stated a cause of action but also has not yet
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to
prescribed. Aqualab Philippines, Inc. vs. Heirs of
res judicata in the other.
Marcelino Pagobo, et al., G.R. No. 182673, October 12,
2009.
The rule on litis pendentia does not require that the case
later in time should yield to the earlier case; what is
MOTION TO DISMISS; LITIS PENDENTIA.
required merely is that there be another pending action,
not a prior pending action. Neither is it required that the
Litis pendentia, a Latin term meaning “a pending suit,” is party be served with summons before lis pendens can
also referred to as lis pendens and auter action pendant. apply; it is the filing of the action, not the receipt of
While it is normally connected with the control which the summons, which determines priority in date.
court has over a property involved in a suit during the
continuance proceedings, it is interposed more as a
Under this established jurisprudence on litis pendentia,
ground for the dismissal of a civil action pending in court.
the following considerations predominate in the
ascending order of importance in determining which
Litis pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action should prevail: (1) the date of filing, with
action contemplates a situation wherein another action is preference generally given to the first action filed to be
pending between the same parties for the same cause of retained; (2) whether the action sought to be dismissed
action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary was filed merely to preempt the later action or to
and vexatious. In fact, it is one of the grounds that anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal; and
authorizes a court to dismiss a case motu proprio. (3) whether the action is the appropriate vehicle for
litigating the issues between the parties. Dotmatrix
Trading as represented by its proprietos, namely Romy
Litis pendentia is predicated on the principle that a party
Yap Chua. Renato Rollan and Rolando D. Cadiz, G.R. No.
should not be allowed to vex another more than once
155622, October 26, 2009.
regarding the same subject matter and for the same
cause of action.[32] This principle in turn is founded on
the public policy that the same subject matter should not MOTION TO DISMISS; PRESCRIPTION.
be the subject of controversy in courts more than once,
in order that possible conflicting judgments may be
Prescription, as a ground for a motion to dismiss, is
avoided for the sake of the stability of the rights and
adequate when the complaint, on its face, shows that the
status of persons, and also to avoid the costs and
action has already prescribed. Such is not the case in this
expenses incident to numerous suits.
instance. Respondents have duly averred continuous
possession until 1991 when such was allegedly disturbed
For litis pendentia to exist, the following requisites or by Aqualab. Being in possession of the subject lots—
elements must concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least hypothetically admitted by Aqualab—respondents’ right
such parties who represent the same interests in both to reconveyance or annulment of title has not prescribed
actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed or is not time-barred.
for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c)
identity with respect to the two (2) preceding particulars
Verily, an action for annulment of title or reconveyance
in the two (2) cases is such that any judgment that may
based on fraud is imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in
be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which
113
possession of the property subject of the acts. And the court, and he was not prevented by fraud, accident,
prescriptive period for the reconveyance of fraudulently mistake or excusable negligence from filing such motion
registered real property is 10 years, reckoned from the or taking the appeal, he cannot avail himself of the relief
date of the issuance of the certificate of title, if the provided in Rule 38. The rule is that relief will not be
plaintiff is not in possession. Thus, one who is in actual granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects
possession of a piece of land on a claim of ownership of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was
thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his due to his own negligence or a mistaken mode of
title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right. procedure, otherwise the petition for relief will be
tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has
already been lost either because of inexcusable
In the instant case, as hypothetically admitted,
negligence or due to a mistake in the mode of procedure
respondents were in possession until 1991, and until such
by counsel.
possession is disturbed, the prescriptive period does not
run. Since respondents filed their complaint in 1994, or
three years after their possession was allegedly The mistake contemplated by Rule 38 of the Rules of
disturbed, it is clear that prescription has not set in, Court pertains generally to mistake of fact, not of law,
either due to fraud or constructive trust. Aqualab which relates to the case. The word “mistake” which
Philippines, Inc. vs. Heirs of Marcelino Pagobo, et grants relief from judgment, does not apply and was
al., G.R. No. 182673, October 12, 2009. never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court
might have committed in the trial. Such error may be
corrected by means of an appeal. Romeo Samonte vs.
S.F. Naguiat, Inc., G.R. No. 165544, October 2, 2009.
PRE-TRIAL; AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT.
RULE 42.
Petitioner posits that even if an amended complaint is
filed for the purpose of impleading another party as
defendant, where no additional cause of action was Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines reiterated the
alleged and the amount of prayer for damages in the settled rule that a petition for review under Rule 42 of
original complaint was the same, another pre-trial is not the Revised Rules of Court, and not an ordinary appeal
required and a second pre-trial brief need not be filed. under Rule 41, is the appropriate mode of appeal from
decisions of RTCs acting as SACs. In Gabatin, the Court
sustained the appellate court’s assumption of jurisdiction
It must be pointed out, however, that in the cases cited
over an appeal from the SAC even if its dismissal had
by petitioner to support her argument, the Court found
been sought on the ground that the issues presented
no need for a second pre-trial precisely because there are
before the appellate court were purely legal in nature.
no additional causes of action alleged and the impleaded
defendants merely adopted and repleaded all the
pleadings of the original defendants. Petitioner’s reliance Clearly, jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the
on the above-cited cases is misplaced because, in the SAC resides in the Court of Appeals via a Rule 42 petition
present case, the RTC correctly found that petitioner had for review, which may raise either questions of fact, or of
a separate cause of action against PNB. A separate cause law, or mixed questions of fact and law. Land Bank of the
of action necessarily means additional cause of action. Philippines vs. J. L. Jocson and Sons, G.R. No. 180803,
Moreover, the defenses adopted by PNB are completely October 23, 2009.
different from the defenses of Lim and Rodriguez,
necessitating a separate determination of the matters
RULE 45; QUESTION OF FACT.
enumerated under Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of
Court insofar as PNB and petitioner are concerned. On
these bases, we find no error in the ruling of the CA Questions of fact are not proper in a Petition brought
which sustained the trial court’s dismissal of the under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Time and time
amended complaint against PNB for failure of petitioner again, we have stated that the Supreme Court is not a
to file her pre-trial brief. Eufemia vda. De Agatep vs. trier of facts, and this Court will decline to sift through
Roberta L. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 170540, October the evidence submitted by the parties, particularly here,
28, 2009. where such evidence was not presented before the trial
court. It would be ludicrous indeed if we were to
determine, in the first instance, where respondent
RULE 38; RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT.
actually resides, his true income, or his current mental
state. Such issues are best threshed out before the trial
Relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court court; we have neither the inclination or interest to
is a remedy provided by law to any person against whom resolve these factual matters here. Republic of the
a decision or order is entered into through fraud, Philippines vs. Yang Chi Hao, G.R. No. 165332, October
accident, mistake or excusable negligence. The relief 2, 2009.
provided for is of equitable character, allowed only in
exceptional cases as where there is no other available or
adequate remedy. When a party has another remedy
available to him, which may either be a motion for new
trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the lower
114
It is settled that the appellate jurisdiction of the conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of
Supreme Court over decisions and final orders of the Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when
Sandiganbayan is limited only to questions of law; it does the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond
not review the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the
which, as a rule, are conclusive upon the Court. admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the
findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; (7) when the Court of
A question of law exists when there is doubt or
Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not
controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of
disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered,
facts. On the other hand, a question of fact exists when
would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the
the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on
of the alleged facts. The resolution of a question of fact
the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the
necessarily involves a calibration of the evidence, the
evidence on record. Engr. Apolinario Dueñas vs. Alice
credibility of the witnesses, the existence and the
Guce-Africa, G.R. No. 165679, October 5, 2009.
relevance of surrounding circumstances, and the
probability of specific situations.
Simple as it may seem, determining the true nature and
extent of the distinction is not always easy. In a case A petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
involving a question of law, the resolution of the issue Court should cover only questions of law. A question of
must rest solely on what the law provides for a given set law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what
of facts drawn from the evidence presented. Once it is the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact
clear that the issue invites a review of the probative exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the
value of the evidence presented, the question posed is alleged facts. We note that matters pertaining to the
one of fact. If the query requires a re-evaluation of the takeover, completion and delivery of the project are
credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of factual issues which had been exhaustively discussed and
surrounding circumstances and their relation to each ruled upon by the CIAC.
other, the issue in that query is factual.
It is settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies,
In the present case, the petitioners seek a review by this which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction
Court of the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan, which is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not
essentially involve the credibility of the witnesses and the only respect, but also finality, especially when affirmed
probative weight of their testimonies. The question by the Court of Appeals. In particular, factual findings of
regarding the credibility of witnesses is obviously one of construction arbitrators are final and conclusive and not
fact on which the Sandiganbayan had already passed reviewable by this Court on appeal.
upon in its decision and resolution dated October 15,
2002 and January 23, 2003, respectively. Arturo C.
This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions. In this
Cabaron and Brigida Cabaron vs. People of the
case, IBEX failed to show that any of these exceptions
Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 156981, October 5, 2009.
apply. Ibex International, Inc. vs.. Government Service
Insurance System, et al., G.R. No. 162095. October 12,
RULE 45; QUESTION OF FACT. 2009
Petitioner endeavors to convince us to determine, yet RULE 45; QUESTION OF FACT.

again, the weight, credence, and probative value of the
evidence presented. This cannot be done in this petition
Preliminarily, on the issue pertaining to whether or not
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
respondent was entitled to damages and attorney’s fees,
Court where only questions of law may be raised by the
the same entails a resort to the parties’ respective
parties and passed upon by us.
evidence. Thus, AF is clearly asking us to consider a
question of fact.
It has already been held that the determination of the
existence of a breach of contract is a factual matter not
Time and again, we have held that the jurisdiction of this
usually reviewable in a petition filed under Rule 45.[ We
Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
will not review, much less reverse, the factual findings of
is limited only to questions of law, save for certain
the Court of Appeals especially where, as in this case,
exceptions, none of which are present in this case.
such findings coincide with those of the trial court, since
we are not a trier of facts. The established rule is that the
factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of Both the RTC and the CA have competently ruled on the
the RTC are conclusive and binding on us. We are not issue of respondent’s entitlement to damages and
wont to review them, save under exceptional attorney’s fees as they properly laid down both the
circumstances as: (1) when the inference made is factual and legal bases for their respective decisions. We
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when see no reason to disturb their findings. Air France
there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings Philippines/KLM Air France vs. John Anthony De Camilis,
are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or G.R. No. 188961, October 13, 2009.
115
RULE 45; QUESTION OF FACT. certiorari is sought. Ordinarily, certiorari as a special civil
action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is
first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an
It is settled that questions of fact cannot be the subject
opportunity to correct its assigned errors. This rule,
of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
however, is not without exceptions.
Court. The rule finds more stringent application where
the Court of Appeals upholds the findings of fact of the
trial court. In such instance, as in this case, this Court is The CA decision being void for lack of due process, the
generally bound to adopt the facts as determined by the filing of the instant petition for certiorari without a motion
lower courts. This Court has held also that when for reconsideration is justified. People of the Philippines
supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of vs. Arturo F. Duca, G.R. No. 171175, October 9, 2009.
the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the
parties and are not reviewable by this Court. Needless to
stress, under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
RULE 65; AVAILABILITY OF OTHER REMEDY.
the petition shall raise only questions of law.[ The reason
is that this Court is not a trier of facts, and is not to
review and calibrate the evidence on record. A basic requisite of the special civil action of certiorari,
which is governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, is
that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate
Here, we find no exception to the general rule. The trial
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Where appeal is
court and the Court of Appeals are one in finding that
available, certiorari generally does not lie. Certiorari
petitioner bought paddle wheels from respondent, that
cannot be used as a substitute for a lost or lapsed
the same were delivered to petitioner through his
remedy of appeal.
representative, and that petitioner failed to fully pay the
price as he made partial payments only. This finding is
amply supported by the evidence on record. Raul Chua, In this case, an appeal was not only available, but also
respondent’s general manager, testified on petitioner’s mandated by Sections 11 and 12 of Commonwealth Act
credit purchase. Respondent also presented the delivery No. 473 (1939), or the Revised Naturalization Law, as
receipts, charge invoice, official receipts of partial amended. Notably, in Keswani v. Republic, we declared
payment, and petitioner’s reply to the demand letter. that the remedy from a decision by the trial court
Angelito Colmenares vs. Hand Tractor Parts and Agro- admitting an individual as a Filipino citizen is through an
Industrial Corp., G.R. No. 170790, October 23, 2009. appeal to the Court of Appeals. Republic of the
Philippines vs. Yang Chi Hao, G.R. No. 165332, October
2, 2009.
RULE 65; COMELEC.

Clearly, since the present case involves a final order of
dismissal issued by the CA, the proper course of action
would have been to file a petition for review oncertiorari We review the present petition on the basis of the
under Rule 45. Although there are exceptions to the combined application of Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of
general rule, petitioner utterly failed to allege and prove Court. While COMELEC jurisdiction over the Bulacan
that the extraordinary remedy of the writ ofcertiorari election contest is not disputed, the legality of
should be granted, because an appeal, although subsequent COMELEC action is assailed for having been
available, would be inadequate, insufficient and not undertaken with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
speedy enough to address the urgency of the matter. lack or excess of jurisdiction. Thus, our standard of
There is nothing in the petition to show that this case review is “grave abuse of discretion,” a term that defies
qualifies as an exception to the general rule. The exact definition, but generally refers to “capricious or
circumstances prevailing in this case reveal that whatever whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
grievance petitioner may be suffering from the dismissal jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and
of its petition with the CA could be properly addressed gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a
through a petition for review on certiorari. San Miguel virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to
Bukid Homeowners Association, Inc., etc. vs. City of act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is
Mandaluyong, etc., et al., G.R. No. 153653, October 2, exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason
2009. of passion and hostility.” Mere abuse of discretion is not
enough; the abuse must be grave to merit our positive
action.
On the basis of the standards set by Section 4 of the

On a procedural matter, the Court notes that petitioner
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, and of the Constitution
filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65
itself in the handling of election cases, we rule that the
without filing a motion for reconsideration with the CA. It
COMELEC action is a valid exercise of discretion as it is a
is settled that the writ of certiorari lies only when
suitable and reasonable process within the exercise of its
petitioner has no other plain, speedy, and adequate
jurisdiction over provincial election contests, aimed at
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, a motion for
expediting the disposition of this case, and with no
reconsideration, as a general rule, must be filed before
adverse, prejudicial or discriminatory effects on the
the tribunal, board, or officer against whom the writ of
parties to the contest that would render the rule
116
unreasonable. Joselito R. Mendoza vs. Commission on discretion. Republic of the Philippines vs. Yang Chi Hao,
Elections and Roberto M. Pagdanganan, G.R. No. G.R. No. 165332, October 2, 2009.
188308, October 15, 2009.
RULE 65; GRAVE ABUSE.
RULE 65; CORPORATE AUTHORIZATION.
Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as “such
Certiorari, as a special civil action, is an original action capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
invoking the original jurisdiction of a court to annul or tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.” The abuse of
modify the proceedings of a tribunal, board or officer discretion must be “so patent and gross as to amount to
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It is an an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
original and independent action that is not part of the perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
trial or the proceedings on the complaint filed before the contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in
trial court. The petition for certiorari before the CA is, an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or
therefore, a separate and distinct action from the action hostility.” We do not find this situation to be present in
for specific performance instituted before the RTC, as the the instant case so as to merit a reversal of the
writ of certiorari being prayed for is directed against the questioned Resolution and Order issued by respondent
judicial or quasi-judicial body, not against the private Office of the Ombudsman. Ernesto Francisco, Jr. vs.
parties in the original action for specific performance. Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, et al. G.R. No. 154117.
Such being the case, the November 7 1999 Resolution of October 2, 2009
the Board of Directors of petitioner association is not and
cannot be considered as an authorization for its
RULE 65; OMBUDSMAN DECISION.
President, Evelio Barata, to initiate, sign, file and
prosecute another case for the special civil action of
certiorari. The CA was, thus, correct in dismissing the Although we agree with private respondents Velarde that
petition for lack of authority of Evelio Barata to sign the a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is not the
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping in representation of proper remedy for parties seeking relief from final
petitioner. judgments, orders, or resolutions of quasi-judicial bodies
or agencies like the Office of the Ombudsman, as has
been repeatedly held by this Court, we find that the
The submission of a Secretary’s Certificate with the
remedy of appeal under Rule 43 posited by private
Motion for Reconsideration is also insufficient to cure the
respondents Velarde is not proper either. This Court
initial defect. Said Certificate stated that petitioner’s
subsequently held that under the ruling in Fabian, “all
Board of Trustees approved a Resolution at a meeting
appeals from decisions of the Ombudsman in
held on April 7, 2002, confirming and ratifying the
administrative disciplinary cases may be taken to the
authority of Mr. Barata to sign all necessary papers for
Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
the petition for certiorari. Note that the petition was filed
Procedure.” Said remedy, therefore, is not applicable to
on March 26, 2002, or before the date of said Resolution.
cases involving criminal or non-administrative charges
There is no certification as to when petitioner’s Board of
filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, which is the
Trustees originally granted Mr. Barata authority to show
situation in the case before us now.
that as of the date of the filing of the petition for
certiorari, Mr. Barata had been authorized to perform
such acts. San Miguel Bukid Homeowners Association, Thus, due to the nature of this case and the allegations
Inc., etc. vs. City of Mandaluyong, etc., et al., G.R. No. involving grave abuse of discretion committed by the
153653, October 2, 2009. Office of the Ombudsman, it should have been filed under
Rule 65, and not Rule 45, of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
RULE 65; GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
This case involves a significant amount of money that

By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and
was already released by the government to a private
whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an
institution, AMVEL, as purchase price for the road right-
excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion
of-way in a major infrastructure project that was
must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion
undertaken by the former and that naturally affected the
of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
general public. Therefore, even if this case was
enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law,
erroneously filed as shown above, and may be dismissed
as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
outright under the rules, the Court deems it appropriate
despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. It also
to brush aside technicalities of procedure, as this involves
bears stressing that the true function of the writ of
matters of transcendental importance to the public; and
certiorari is to keep an inferior court within the bounds of
to consider the petition as one for certiorari filed under
its jurisdiction, or to relieve parties from the arbitrary
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Ernesto Francisco, Jr. vs.
acts of courts.
Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, et al. G.R. No. 154117.
October 2, 2009
Viewed against these standards, we find the trial court’s
reversal of its decision after the filing of a Motion for
RULE 65; PROHIBITION.
Reconsideration not tainted with grave abuse of
117
In a petition for prohibition against any tribunal, procedural rules are intended to help secure, not
corporation, board, or person — whether exercising suppress, the cause of justice; and a deviation from the
judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions — who has rigid enforcement of the rules may be allowed to attain
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave that prime objective for, after all, the dispensation of
abuse of discretion, the petitioner prays that judgment be justice is the core reason for the existence of courts.
rendered, commanding the respondent to desist from
further proceeding in the action or matter specified in the
Hence, technicalities must be avoided. The law abhors
petition. On the other hand, the remedy of mandamus
technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The
lies to compel performance of a ministerial duty. The
court’s primary duty is to render or dispense justice. A
petitioner for such a writ should have a well-defined,
litigation is not a game of technicalities. Lawsuits, unlike
clear and certain legal right to the performance of the
duels, are not to be won by a rapier’s thrust.
act, and it must be the clear and imperative duty of
Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to
respondent to do the act required to be done.
justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy,
deserves scant consideration from courts. Litigations
In this case, petitioners’ primary intention is to prevent must be decided on their merits and not on technicality.
respondent from implementing Municipal Ordinance No. Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest
98-01, i.e., by collecting the goodwill fees from opportunity for the proper and just determination of his
petitioners and barring them from occupying the stalls at cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities.
the municipal public market. Obviously, the writ Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is
petitioners seek is more in the nature of prohibition frowned upon where the policy of the court is to
(commanding desistance), rather than mandamus encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the
(compelling performance). rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid,
technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help
secure, not override, substantial justice. It is a far better
For a writ of prohibition, the requisites are: (1) the
and more prudent course of action for the court to
impugned act must be that of a “tribunal, corporation,
excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review
board, officer, or person, whether exercising judicial,
of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions”; and (2) there is
than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a
no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of
course of law.”
speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more
delay, if not a miscarriage, of justice. Ophelia L. Tuatis
The exercise of judicial function consists of the power to vs. Spouses Eliseo Escol and Visminda Escol, et al., G.R.
determine what the law is and what the legal rights of No. 175399. October 27, 2009
the parties are, and then to adjudicate upon the rights of
the parties. The term quasi-judicial function applies to
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE.
the action and discretion of public administrative officers
or bodies that are required to investigate facts or
ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw An Section 4, Rule 74 annotation is placed on new
conclusions from them as a basis for their official action certificates of title issued pursuant to the distribution and
and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. In partition of a decedent’s real properties to warn third
implementing Municipal Ordinance No. 98-01, respondent persons on the possible interests of excluded heirs or
is not called upon to adjudicate the rights of contending unpaid creditors in these properties. The annotation,
parties or to exercise, in any manner, discretion of a therefore, creates a legal encumbrance or lien on the real
judicial nature. property in favor of the excluded heirs or creditors.
Where a buyer purchases the real property despite the
annotation, he must be ready for the possibility that the
A ministerial function is one that an officer or tribunal
title could be subject to the rights of excluded parties.
performs in the context of a given set of facts, in a
The cancellation of the sale would be the logical
prescribed manner and without regard for the exercise of
consequence where: (a) the annotation clearly appears
his or its own judgment, upon the propriety or
on the title, warning all would-be buyers; (b) the sale
impropriety of the act done.
unlawfully interferes with the rights of heirs; and (c) the
rightful heirs bring an action to question the transfer
The Court holds that respondent herein is performing a within the two-year period provided by law. Delfin Tan
ministerial function. Evelyn Ongsuco and Antonia Salaya vs. Erlinda C. Benolirao, Andrew C. Benolirao, Romano C.
vs. hon. Mariano M. Malones, etc., G.R. No. 182065, Benolirao, Dion C. Benolirao, Sps. Reynaldo Taningco and
October 27, 2009. Norma D. Benolirao, Evelyn T. Monreal and Ann Karina
Taningco, G.R. No. 153820. October 16, 2009
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE; PARTITION.
It must be borne in mind that the rules of procedure are
intended to promote, rather than frustrate, the ends of The Sy Bang estate cannot be partitioned or distributed
justice, and while the swift unclogging of court dockets is until the final determination of the extent of the estate
a laudable objective, it, nevertheless, must not be met at and only until it is shown that the obligations under Rule
the expense of substantial justice. Technical and 90, Section 1, have been settled.
118
In the settlement of estate proceedings, the distribution A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC provides that the guidelines on the
of the estate properties can only be made: (1) after all enforceability of search warrants provided therein shall
the debts, funeral charges, expenses of administration, continue until further orders from this Court. In fact, the
allowance to the widow, and estate tax have been paid; guidelines in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC are reiterated in A.M.
or (2) before payment of said obligations only if the No. 03-8-02-SC entitled Guidelines On The Selection And
distributees or any of them gives a bond in a sum fixed Designation Of Executive Judges And Defining Their
by the court conditioned upon the payment of said Powers, Prerogatives And Duties, which explicitly stated
obligations within such time as the court directs, or when that the guidelines in the issuance of search warrants in
provision is made to meet those obligations. Heirs of special criminal cases by the RTCs of Manila and Quezon
Jose Sy Bang, Heirs of Julian Sy and Oscar Sy vs. City shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the
Rolando Sy, et al./Iluminada Tan, et al. vs. Bartolome Rules of Court. Spouses Joel and Marietta Marimla vs.
Sy, et al, G.R. No. 114217G.R. No. 150979. October 13, People of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 158467,
2009 October 16, 2009.
VENUE; LIBEL. WRIT OF POSSESSION; THIRD PARTIES.
Settled is the rule that jurisdiction of a court over a The right of possession by a purchaser in an extrajudicial
criminal case is determined by the allegations of the foreclosure of real property is recognized only as against
complaint or information, and the offense must have the judgment debtor and his successor-in-interest, but
been committed or any one of its essential ingredients not as against persons whose right of possession is
took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. adverse to the latter. In this case, respondents are third
Considering that the Information failed to allege the parties in possession of the subject real property, holding
venue requirements for a libel case under Article 360, the the same under a title adverse to that of the
Court finds that the RTC of Iloilo City had no jurisdiction mortgagor/judgment obligor, Velasco. Respondents are
to hear this case. Thus, its decision convicting petitioners claiming title by virtue of an extrajudicial settlement of
of the crime of libel should be set aside for want of their father’s estate executed in 1964. Upon learning of
jurisdiction without prejudice to its filing with the court of the mortgage of the real property by Velasco to
competent jurisdiction. Vicente,Jr. and Danny G. Fajardo petitioner, respondents filed a case for quieting of title
vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 167764, October against Velasco. The latter later acknowledged or
9, 2009. “recognized” respondents’ ownership of the real property
in the Compromise Agreement executed by the parties in
the quieting of title case. Velasco even agreed to
WRIT OF POSSESSION.
undertake restitution of the subject property by
contracting anew with and repurchasing the foreclosed
A writ of possession is generally understood to be an property from petitioner.
order whereby the sheriff is commanded to place a
person in possession of a real or personal property. A
Moreover, respondents are not parties to the mortgage
writ of possession may be issued under the following
contract between the spouses Velasco and petitioner. As
instances: (1) land registration proceedings under
correctly ruled by the appellate court, the mere mention
Section 17 of Act 496; (2) judicial foreclosure, provided
of the mortgage of the real property in the Compromise
the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and
Agreement did not make respondents privies to the
no third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had
mortgage contract between the spouses Velasco and
intervened; and (3) extrajudicial foreclosure of a real
petitioner. Moreover, respondents’ offer to repurchase
estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act 3135, as
the foreclosed property from petitioner is not tantamount
amended by Act 4118 (Act 3135). This case involves the
to stepping into the shoes of Velasco, nor would such
third instance. Under Section 7 of Act 3135, a writ of
offer qualify respondents as Velasco’s successors-in-
possession may be issued either (1) within the one year
interest. Rather, the offer may be considered as
redemption period, upon the filing of a bond, or (2) after
respondents’ last ditch effort to avoid being deprived of
the lapse of the redemption period, without need of a
the property they claim to have possessed since time
bond or of a separate and independent action. This is
immemorial.
founded on the purchaser’s right of ownership over the
property which he bought at the auction sale and his
consequent right to be placed in possession thereof. Petitioner’s right to issuance of a writ of possession
However, this rule admits of an exception, that is, cannot be invoked against respondents. Respondents’
Section 33 (former Section 35) of Rule 39 of the Revised possession of the subject real property is legally
Rules of Court, which provides that the possession of the presumed to be pursuant to a just title which petitioner
mortgaged property shall be given to the purchaser may endeavor to overcome in a judicial proceeding for
“unless a third party is actually holding the property recovery of property. Bank of the Philippine Islands vs.
adversely to the judgment obligor.” Bank of the Teofilo Icot, et al., G.R. No. 168061, October 12, 2009.
Philippine Islands vs. Teofilo Icot, et al., G.R. No.
168061, October 12, 2009.
WARRANTS; SEARCH WARRANT.

NOVEMBER 2009 CASES
119
ACTION; FORUM SHOPPING. notice of appeal filed by its counsel, Atty. Luciano R.
Caraang (Atty. Caraang). There is also no showing that
Atty. Caraang represented both the Union and the Credit
Petitioners Espiritu, et al. point out that the certificate of
Cooperative in filing such notice of appeal. In fact, the
non-forum shopping that respondents KPE and Petron
Credit Cooperative did not deny its failure to file an
attached to the petition they filed with the Court of
appeal; however, it argued that it filed with the Court of
Appeals was inadequate, having been signed only by
Appeals an appellant’s brief in compliance with the
Petron, through Atty. Cruz.
appellate court’s directive to submit one. Suffice it to
state that the Court of Appeals’ directive for the Credit
But, while procedural requirements such as that of Cooperative to file its brief did not clothe the Credit
submittal of a certificate of non-forum shopping cannot Cooperative with locus standi on appeal. The purpose of
be totally disregarded, they may be deemed substantially the filing of the brief is merely to present, in coherent
complied with under justifiable circumstances. One of and concise form, the points and questions in
these circumstances is where the petitioners filed a controversy, and by fair argument on the facts and law of
collective action in which they share a common interest the case, to assist the court in arriving at a just and
in its subject matter or raise a common cause of action. proper conclusion. The Court of Appeals may have
In such a case, the certification by one of the petitioners ordered the Credit Cooperative to submit its brief to
may be deemed sufficient. enable it to properly dispose of the case on appeal.
However, in the Credit Cooperative’s brief, not only did it
Here, KPE and Petron shared a common cause of action ask for the reversal of the Summary Judgment but also
against petitioners Espiritu, et al., namely, the violation prayed for the return of its garnished funds. This cannot
of their proprietary rights with respect to the use of Gasul be allowed. It would be grave error to grant the relief
tanks and trademark. Furthermore, Atty. Cruz said in his prayed for without violating the well-settled rule that a
certification that he was executing it “for and on behalf of party who does not appeal from the decision may not
the Corporation, and co-petitioner Carmen J. Doloiras.” obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court
Thus, the object of the requirement – to ensure that a other than what he has obtained from the lower court, if
party takes no recourse to multiple forums – was any, whose decision is brought up on appeal.
substantially achieved. Besides, the failure of KPE to sign
the certificate of non-forum shopping does not render the The rule is clear that no modification of judgment could
petition defective with respect to Petron which signed it be granted to a party who did not appeal. Jose Feliciano
through Atty. Cruz. The Court of Appeals, therefore, Loy, et al. vs. San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-
acted correctly in giving due course to the petition before Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization
it. Manuel C. Espiritu, Jr., et al. vs. Petron Corporation, (SMCEU-PTGWO), et al., G.R. No. 164886, November 24,
et al., G.R. No. 170891, November 24, 2009. 2009.
ACTION; REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. ARBITRATION; THIRD PARTIES.
As the successor-in-interest of the late Arsenio E. We agree with the CA ruling that the BPPA arbitration
Concepcion and co-owner of the subject property, clause does not apply to the present case since third
respondent Nenita S. Concepcion is entitled to prosecute parties are involved. Any judgment or ruling to be
the ejectment case not only in a representative capacity, rendered by the panel of arbitrators will be useless if
but as a real party-in-interest. Article 487 of the Civil third parties are included in the case, since the arbitral
Code states, “Any one of the co-owners may bring an ruling will not bind them; they are not parties to the
action in ejectment.” Hence, assuming that respondent arbitration agreement. In the present case, DOLE
failed to submit the proper documents showing her included as parties the spouses Abujos and Oribanex
capacity to sue in a representative capacity for the estate since they are necessary parties, i.e., they were directly
of her deceased husband, the Court, in the interest of involved in the BPPA violation DOLE alleged, and their
speedy disposition of cases, may deem her capacitated to participation are indispensable for a complete resolution
prosecute the ejectment case as a real party-in-interest of the dispute. To require the spouses Abujos and
being a co-owner of the subject property considering that Oribanex to submit themselves to arbitration and to
the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter abide by whatever judgment or ruling the panel of
and has also acquired jurisdiction over the parties, arbitrators shall make is legally untenable; no law and no
including respondent Nenita S. Concepcion. Angelina S. agreement made with their participation can compel
Soriente, et al. vs. The Estate of the late Arsenio E. them to submit to arbitration. Stanfilco Employees
Concepcion, etc., G.R. No. 160239, November 25, 2009. Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative
vs. DOLE Philippines, Inc. (Stanfilco Division), Oribanex
APPEAL; LOCUS STANDI. Services, Inc., Spouses Elly and Myrna Abujos, G.R. No.
154048, November 27, 2009.
Petitioners correctly argue that the Credit Cooperative

has no locus standi on appeal, since it failed to file a
notice of appeal to the RTC’s September 14, 1999 EVIDENCE; PAROL EVIDENCE RULE.
Decision granting the motion for summary judgment. It
was only the Union which appealed the case through a
120
The “parol evidence rule” forbids any addition to or conduct substantial proceedings in order to put the main
contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by controversy to rest.
testimony or other evidence purporting to show that, at
or before the execution of the parties’ written agreement,
The sole object of a preliminary injunction is to maintain
other or different terms were agreed upon by the parties,
the status quo until the merits can be heard. A
varying the purport of the written contract. When an
preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of
agreement has been reduced to writing, the parties
an action prior to judgment of final order, requiring a
cannot be permitted to adduce evidence to prove alleged
party, court, agency, or person to refrain from a
practices which, to all purposes, would alter the terms of
particular act or acts. It is a preservative remedy to
the written agreement. Whatever is not found in the
ensure the protection of a party’s substantive rights or
writing is understood to have been waived and
interests pending the final judgment on the principal
abandoned. None of the above-cited exceptions finds
action. A plea for an injunctive writ lies upon the
application in this case, more particularly the alleged
existence of a claimed emergency or extraordinary
failure of the MOA to express the true intent and
situation which should be avoided for, otherwise, the
agreement of the parties concerning the
outcome of a litigation would be useless as far as the
commitment/service fee of P320,000.00. Norton
party applying for the writ is concerned. Equitable PCI
Resources and Development Corporation vs. All Asia
Bank, Inc. vs. Hon. Salvador y Apurillo, et al., G.R. No.
Bank Corporation, G.R. No. 162523, November 25, 2009.
168746, November 5, 2009.
INJUNCTION; REQUIREMENTS.
INJUNCTION; REQUIREMENTS.
A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon

A preliminary injunction may be granted only where the
clear showing of an actual existing right to be protected
plaintiff appears to be clearly entitled to the relief sought
during the pendency of the principal action. The twin
and has substantial interest in the right sought to be
requirements of a valid injunction are the existence of a
defended. While the existence of the right need not be
right and its actual or threatened violations. Thus, to be
conclusively established, it must be clear. The standard is
entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected
even higher in the case of a preliminary mandatory
and the violation against that right must be shown.
injunction.
Moreover, the rule is well entrenched that the issuance of
the writ of preliminary injunction as an ancillary or
preventive remedy to secure the right of a party in a The evidence presented before us in support of a
pending case rests upon the sound discretion of the trial preliminary injunction is weak and inconclusive, and the
court. However, if the court commits grave abuse of its alleged right sought to be protected by petitioner is
discretion in the issuance of the writ of preliminary vehemently disputed. Power Sites and Signs, Inc. vs.
injunction, such that the act amounts to excess or lack of United Neon (A Division of Ever Corporation), G.R. No.
jurisdiction, the same may be nullified through a writ of 163406, November 24, 2009.
certiorari or prohibition. Such grave abuse of discretion in
the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction implies a JUDGMENT; FINALITY.
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or whether the power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of Since the Fajardos did not appeal from the May 11, 2006
passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to an Order of the RTC, the same became final and executory
evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform as a matter of course. It can no longer be modified in any
the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law. respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
For the extraordinary writ of certiorari to lie, there must erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it is
be a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of made by the court that rendered it or by an appellate
power. court. As a final and valid order, it could not be
collaterally attacked through the Fajardos’ artful motion
to treat Alberto’s April 24, 2006 motion as a scrap of
A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely paper, where the sole object, in truth, is the nullification
on initial and incomplete evidence. The evidence of the May 11, 2006 Order. Rufina Fajardo, et al. vs.
submitted during the hearing on an application for a writ Alberto Comandante, et al., G.R. No. 185396, November
of preliminary injunction is not conclusive or complete for 24, 2009.
only a “sampling” is needed to give the trial court an idea
of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending
the decision of the case on the merits. As such, the JURISDICTION; DARAB.
findings of fact and opinion of a court when issuing the
writ of preliminary injunction are interlocutory in nature The case of Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v.
and made even before the trial on the merits is Court of Appeals lists down the indispensable elements
commenced or terminated. There are vital facts that have for a tenancy relationship to exist: “(1) the parties are
yet to be presented during the trial which may not be the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2)
obtained or presented during the hearing on the the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural
application for the injunctive writ. The trial court needs to land; (3) there is consent between the parties to the
relationship; (4) the purpose of the relationship is to
121
bring about agricultural production; (5) there is personal jurisdiction on the RTC-SACs would be contrary to
cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural Section 57 and would result in void rulings. What
lessee; and (6) the harvest is shared between the adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in
landowner and the tenant or the agricultural lessee.” a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be
paid to landowners, leaving to the courts the ultimate
power to decide this question on the merits.
The parties in the present case have no tenurial,
leasehold, or any other agrarian relationship that could
bring their controversy within the ambit of agrarian Thus, the RTC-SAC should have conducted its own
reform laws and within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. In independent and thorough investigation of the evidence
fact, SEARBEMCO has no allegation whatsoever in its submitted before it by the parties; the case should have
motion to dismiss regarding any tenancy relationship been accorded its hearing and reception of evidence, and
between it and DOLE that gave the present dispute the independent consideration of the facts and the law on the
character of an agrarian dispute. matter of just compensation. The RTC-SAC could not
simply rely on and adopt the decision of the DARAB, an
administrative body that preliminarily determines the
We have always held that tenancy relations cannot be
reasonable compensation to be paid to landowners. Land
presumed. The elements of tenancy must first be proved
Bank of the Philippines vs. Agustin C. Dizon, G.R. No.
by substantial evidence which can be shown through
160394, November 27, 2009.
records, documents, and written agreements between
the parties. A principal factor, too, to consider in
determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is the JURISDICTION; LEASE.
intent of the parties.
The allegation of existence of implied new lease or tacita
SEARBEMCO has not shown that the above-mentioned reconduccion will not divest the MeTC of jurisdiction over
indispensable elements of tenancy relations are present the ejectment case. It is an elementary rule that the
between it and DOLE. It also cannot be gleaned from the jurisdiction of the court in ejectment cases is determined
intention of the parties that they intended to form a by the allegations pleaded in the complaint and cannot be
tenancy relationship between them. In the absence of made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer
any such intent and resulting relationship, the DARAB or pleadings filed by the defendant. This principle holds
cannot have jurisdiction. Instead, the present petition is even if the facts proved during trial do not support the
properly cognizable by the regular courts, as the CA and cause of action alleged in the complaint. In connection
the RTC correctly ruled. Stanfilco Employees Agrarian with this, it is well to note that in unlawful detainer cases
Reform Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative vs. DOLE the elements to be proved and resolved are the facts of
Philippines, Inc. (Stanfilco Division), Oribanex Services, lease and expiration or violation of its terms.
Inc., Spouses Elly and Myrna Abujos, G.R. No. 154048,
November 27, 2009.
Here, no interpretative exercise is needed to conclude
that respondent has complied with such requirement. In
JURISDICTION; JUST COMPENSATION. respondent’s Complaint, he specifically alleged that (1)
the former owner, Mr. Chua, and petitioner entered into a
contract of lease; (2) subsequently, respondent
The LBP argues that the case before the RTC-SAC is an
purchased the leased premises from Mr. Chua and
original action for determination of just compensation in
became the owner thereof; (3) thereafter, the lease
the exercise of that court’s original and exclusive
contract between Mr. Chua and petitioner expired; and
jurisdiction; therefore, the RTC-SAC should have
(4) petitioner refused to vacate the premises despite the
conducted its own independent determination of the facts
expiration and non-renewal of the lease. Joven Yuki, Jr.
and law involved. The LBP further argues that the RTC-
vs. Wellington Co, G.R. No. 178527, November 27, 2009.
SAC completely disregarded the basic requirements of
procedural due process when it merely adopted the
decision of the DARAB. JURISDICTION; OMBUDSMAN ORDER.
Section 57 of RA 6657 clearly provides that RTC-SACs The crux of the matter is whether the CA has jurisdiction
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions over decisions and orders of the Ombudsman in criminal
for the determination of just compensation payable to cases. This issue has been directly addressed in Kuizon v.
landowners under the land reform program. The RTC- Desierto and reiterated in the more recent Golangco v.
SAC is not an appellate court that passes upon DARAB Fung,wherein the Court declared, thus: “The Court of
decisions determining just compensation under the land Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and
reform program. decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot,
therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of
Consequently, although the new rules speak of directly
the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-
appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTC-SACs,
administrative cases.”
the jurisdiction of these designated courts to determine
just compensation under Section 57 of RA 6657 is
original and exclusive. Any effort to transfer this original The question that arises next is what remedy should an
jurisdiction to the adjudicators and to confer appellate aggrieved party avail of to assail the Ombudsman’s
122
finding of the existence or lack of probable cause in To sustain a motion to dismiss, the movant needs to
criminal cases or non-administrative cases. In Estrada v. show that the plaintiff’s claim for relief does not exist at
Desierto, the Court emphasized that parties seeking to all. On the contrary, the complaint is sufficient “if it
question the resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman contains sufficient notice of the cause of action even
in criminal cases or non-administrative cases, may file an though the allegations may be vague or indefinite, in
original action for certiorari with this Court, not with the which event, the proper recourse would be, not a motion
CA, when it is believed that the Ombudsman acted with to dismiss, but a motion for a bill of particulars.Stanfilco
grave abuse of discretion. Office of the Ombudsman, Employees Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose
represented by Hon. Aniano A. Desierto vs. Heirs of Cooperative vs. DOLE Philippines, Inc. (Stanfilco
Margarita vda. De Ventura represented by Pacita V. Division), Oribanex Services, Inc., Spouses Elly and
Pascual, et al., G.R. No. 151800, November 5, 2009, Myrna Abujos, G.R. No. 154048, November 27, 2009.
MORTGAGE; EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE. PARTIES; INDISPENSABLE PARTIES.
In extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, the party Section 7, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court defines
alleging non-compliance with the publication requirement indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom
has the burden of proving the same. In this case, the there can be no final determination of an action and who,
records are bereft of any evidence to prove that Citytrust for this reason, must be joined either as plaintiffs or as
did not comply with the requisite publication. Neither was defendants. Jurisprudence further holds that a party is
there evidence disproving the qualification of “The indispensable, not only if he has an interest in the
Guardian” newspaper to publish the notice of auction subject matter of the controversy, but also if his interest
sale. is such that a final decree cannot be made without
affecting this interest or without placing the controversy
in a situation where the final determination may be
We find that the evidence submitted by Citytrust
wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. He
sufficiently established compliance with the statutory
is a person whose absence disallows the court from
requirements on posting and publication of notice of
making an effective, complete, or equitable
auction sale of a mortgaged property. Bank of the
determination of the controversy between or among the
Philippines Islands, etc. vs. Evangeline L. Puzon, G.R. No.
contending parties.
160046, November 27, 2009.
When the controversy involves a property held in

MORTGAGE; FORECLOSURE.
common, Article 487 of the Civil Code explicitly provides
that “any one of the co-owners may bring an action in
The collection of surplus is inconsistent with the ejectment.”
annulment of foreclosure because in suing for the return
of the surplus proceeds, the mortgagor is deemed to
We have explained in Vencilao v. Camarenta and in
have affirmed the validity of the sale since nothing is due
Sering v. Plazo that the term “action in ejectment”
if no valid sale has been made. It is only after the
includes a suit for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful
dismissal of complaint for annulment or when the
detainer (desahucio). We also noted in Sering that the
foreclosure sale is declared valid that the mortgagor may
term “action in ejectment” includes “also, an accion
recover the surplus in an action specifically brought for
publiciana (recovery of possession) or accion
that purpose. However, to avoid multiplicity of suits, the
reinvidicatoria (recovery of ownership).” Most recently in
better recourse is for the mortgagor to file a case for
Estreller v. Ysmael, we applied Article 487 to an accion
annulment of foreclosure with an alternative cause of
publiciana case; in Plasabas v. Court of Appeals we
action for the return of the surplus, if any. Bernando B.
categorically stated that Article 487 applies to
Jose, Jr. vs. Michael Phils., Inc. et al., G.R. No. 169606,
reivindicatory actions.
November 27, 2009.
We upheld in several cases the right of a co-owner to file

MOTION TO DISMISS; HYPOTHETICAL ADMISSION.
a suit without impleading other co-owners, pursuant to
Article 487 of the Civil Code. We made this ruling in
In a motion to dismiss, a defendant hypothetically Vencilao, where the amended complaint for “forcible
admits the truth of the material allegations of the entry and detainer” specified that the plaintiff is one of
plaintiff’s complaint. This hypothetical admission extends the heirs who co-owns the disputed properties. InSering,
to the relevant and material facts pleaded in, and the and Resuena v. Court of Appeals, the co-owners who filed
inferences fairly deductible from, the complaint. Hence, the ejectment case did not represent themselves as the
to determine whether the sufficiency of the facts alleged exclusive owners of the property. InCelino v. Heirs of
in the complaint constitutes a cause of action, the test is Alejo and Teresa Santiago, the complaint for quieting of
as follows: admitting the truth of the facts alleged, can title was brought in behalf of the co-owners precisely to
the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the recover lots owned in common. In Plasabas, the plaintiffs
prayer? alleged in their complaint for recovery of title to property
(accion reivindicatoria) that they are the sole owners of
the property in litigation, but acknowledged during the
trial that the property is co-owned with other parties, and
123
the plaintiffs have been authorized by the co-owners to Procedure prohibits the dismissal of a suit on the ground
pursue the case on the latter’s behalf. of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties and allows the
amendment of the complaint at any stage of the
proceedings, through motion or on order of the court on
These cases should be distinguished from Baloloy v.
its own initiative. Only if plaintiff refuses to implead an
Hular and Adlawan v. Adlawan where the actions for
indispensable party, despite the order of the court, may
quieting of title and unlawful detainer, respectively, were
it dismiss the action.
brought for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claimed
to be the sole owner. We held that the action will not
prosper unless the plaintiff impleaded the other co- There is a need, therefore, to remand the case to the
owners who are indispensable parties. In these cases, the RTC with an order to implead Margarita Pastelero Vda. de
absence of an indispensable party rendered all Valdez and Dolores Valdez as defendants so they may, if
subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of they so desire, be heard. Anicia Valdez-Tallorin vs.
authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but Heirs of Juanito Tarona, et al., G.R. No. 177429,
even as to those present. November 24, 2009.
We read these cases to collectively mean that where the PARTIES; REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.
suit is brought by a co-owner, without repudiating the co-
ownership, then the suit is presumed to be filed for the
The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every
benefit of the other co-owners and may proceed without
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of
impleading the other co-owners. However, where the co-
the real party-in-interest, i.e., the party who stands to be
owner repudiates the co-ownership by claiming sole
ownership of the property or where the suit is brought
party entitled to the avails of the suit.
against a co-owner, his co-owners are indispensable
parties and must be impleaded as party-defendants, as
the suit affects the rights and interests of these other co- As Navarro correctly points out, Kargo Enterprises is a
owners. Josephine Marmo, et al. vs. Moises O. Anacay, sole proprietorship, which is neither a natural person, nor
G.R. No. 182585, November 27, 2009. a juridical person, as defined by Article 44 of the Civil
Code.
Thus, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 3 of the Rules, Kargo
Enterprises cannot be a party to a civil action.
Indispensable parties are those with such an interest in
the controversy that a final decree would necessarily
affect their rights, so that the courts cannot proceed As the registered owner of Kargo Enterprises, Karen Go is
without their presence. Joining indispensable parties into the party who will directly benefit from or be injured by a
an action is mandatory, being a requirement of due judgment in this case. Thus, contrary to Navarro’s
process. Without their presence, the judgment of the contention, Karen Go is the real party-in-interest, and it
court cannot attain real finality. is legally incorrect to say that her Complaint does not
state a cause of action because her name did not appear
in the Lease Agreement that her husband signed in
Judgments do not bind strangers to the suit. The absence
behalf of Kargo Enterprises. Whether Glenn Go can
of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions
legally sign the Lease Agreement in his capacity as a
of the court null and void. Indeed, it would have no
manager of Kargo Enterprises, a sole proprietorship, is a
authority to act, not only as to the absent party, but as
question we do not decide, as this is a matter for the trial
to those present as well. And where does the
court to consider in a trial on the merits. Roger V.
responsibility for impleading all indispensable parties lie?
Navarro Vs. Hon. Jose L. Escobido, Presiding Judge, RTC,
It lies in the plaintiff.
Branch 37, Cagayan de Oro City, and Karen T. Go, doing
business under the name Kargo Enterprises, G.R. No.
Here, the Taronas sought the annulment of the tax 153788, November 27, 2009.
declaration in the names of defendant Tallorin and two
others, namely, Margarita Pastelero Vda. de Valdez and
PLEADINGS; AMENDMENT.
Dolores Valdez and, in its place, the reinstatement of the
previous declaration in their father Juanito’s name.
Further, the Taronas sought to strike down as void the The rule on amendment need not be applied rigidly,
affidavit in which Juanito renounced his tenancy right in particularly where no surprise or prejudice is caused the
favor of the same three persons. It is inevitable that any objecting party. Where there is a variance in defendant’s
decision granting what the Taronas wanted would pleadings and the evidence adduced at the trial, the
necessarily affect the rights of such persons to the Court may treat the pleading as if it had been amended
property covered by the tax declaration. to conform to the evidence. Agripina Panganiban vs.
Sps. Romeo Roldan, et al., G.R. No. 163053, November
25, 2009.
But the Taronas’ action cannot be dismissed outright. As
the Court held in Plasabas v. Court of Appeals, the non-
joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for PLEADINGS; SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING.
dismissal. Section 11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
124
Pleadings are amended in order to allege facts which of the plaintiff to comply with the rules. The failure of the
occurred prior to the filing of the original pleading. An plaintiff to prosecute the action without any justifiable
amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it cause within a reasonable period of time will give rise to
amends. In the case at bar, the subsequent answer could the presumption that he is no longer interested in
neither validly amend the first answer nor result in the obtaining the relief prayed for.
withdrawal of the latter. It is to be noted that the new
Union officers, upon their election, moved for their
In this case, there was no justifiable reason for
intervention and substitution on the premise that they
petitioners’ failure to file a motion to set the case for pre-
became the real party in interest since the defendants in
trial. Petitioners’ stubborn insistence that the case was
the case have ceased to be the legal representatives of
not yet ripe for pre-trial is erroneous. Although
the Union. Certainly, their election as new officers is an
petitioners state that there are strong and compelling
occurrence which arose after the filing of the first answer.
reasons justifying a liberal application of the rule, the
Hence, the purported amended answer should have been
Court finds none in this case. The burden to show that
designated as a supplemental answer. A supplemental
there are compelling reasons that would make a
pleading states the transactions, occurrences or events
dismissal of the case unjustified is on petitioners, and
which took place since the time the pleading sought to be
they have not adduced any such compelling
supplemented was filed. A supplemental pleading is
reason. Jazmin L. Espiritu and Porfirio Lazaro, Jr. vs.
meant to supply deficiencies in aid of the original
Vladimir G. Lazaro, et al., G.R. No. 181020, November
pleading and not to dispense with or substitute the latter.
25, 2009.
It does not supersede the original, but assumes that the
original pleading is to stand. As such, the Answer with
Counterclaim filed by Aquino and Frisnedi did not result
in the withdrawal of the Answer with Cross-Claim filed by
the original defendants in this case, but was merely RECONVEYANCE; DECREE OF REGISTRATION.
supplemented by the subsequent answer. Jose Feliciano
Loy, et al. vs. San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-
Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization It is well to remember that in an action for reconveyance,
(SMCEU-PTGWO), et al., G.R. No. 164886, November 24, the decree of registration is highly regarded as
2009. incontrovertible. What is sought is the transfer of the
property or its title, which has been wrongfully or
erroneously registered in another person’s name, to its
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF. rightful owner or to one who has a better right. The
present action for reconveyance only entails the
Section 1 of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court imposes upon segregation of the portion wrongfully included in the
the plaintiff the duty to set the case for pre-trial after the certificate of title. The decree of registration is to be
last pleading is served and filed. Under Section 3 of Rule respected, but the certificate of title will be cancelled for
17, failure to comply with the said duty makes the case the purpose of amending it in order to exclude the
susceptible to dismissal for failure to prosecute for an portion wrongfully included therein. A new certificate
unreasonable length of time or failure to comply with the covering the portion reconveyed shall then be
rules. subsequently issued in the name of the real owner.
Respondents Lazaro filed the Cautionary Answer with However, the CA went beyond this and declared the
Manifestation and Motion to File a entire deed of sale, covering 273 sq m, void for being
Supplemental/Amended Answer on July 19, 2002, a copy simulated. As such, the CA decision would result not only
of which was received by petitioners on August 5, 2002. in the amendment of petitioners’ certificate of title, but in
Believing that the pending motion had to be resolved the absolute revocation of petitioners’ title itself. The
first, petitioners waited for the court to act on the motion property would then revert to its previous owner, subject
to file a supplemental answer. Despite the lapse of to the right of respondents over the portion of the lot
almost one year, petitioners kept on waiting, without which they claim as their own. Spouses Exequiel Lopez
doing anything to stir the court into action. and Eusebia Lopez vs. Spouses Eduardo Lopez, et
al., G.R. No. 161925, November 25, 2009.
In any case, petitioners should not have waited for the
court to act on the motion to file a supplemental answer RULE 42; ANNEXES TO PETITION.
or for the defendants to file a supplemental answer. As
previously stated, the rule clearly states that the case Petitioner contends that the Petition for Review filed by
must be set for pre-trial after the last pleading is served the respondent with the CA is procedurally infirmed and
and filed. Since respondents already filed a cautionary that the appellate court should have outrightly dismissed
answer and [petitioners did not file any reply to it] the the same. Specifically, petitioner points out that while
case was already ripe for pre-trial. respondent attached to the petition the parties’
respective position papers, he failed to attach to said
It bears stressing that the sanction of dismissal may be position papers the annexes thereto. This, petitioner
imposed even absent any allegation and proof of the insists, warrants the dismissal of respondent’s petition
plaintiff’s lack of interest to prosecute the action, or of per Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, in relation to
any prejudice to the defendant resulting from the failure Section 3 of the same Rule.
125
We do not agree. Section 2 of Rule 42 does not require It has been repeatedly held that, as a rule, the findings
that all the pleadings and documents filed before the of fact of the CA are final and conclusive and cannot be
lower courts must be attached as annexes to the petition. reviewed on appeal by this Court if they are borne out by
Aside from clearly legible duplicate originals or true the records or are based on substantial evidence. The
copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower factual issues raised by Napoles in this petition,
courts, it merely requires that the petition be specifically the failure of the NBI to recover the marked
accompanied by copies of pleadings and other material money from his possession, the presence of fluorescent
portions of the record as would support the allegations of powder on his hands, and the alleged violation of his
the petition. As to what these pleadings and material constitutional right when he was arrested by the NBI
portions of the record are, the Rules grants the petitioner have all been squarely discussed and fairly settled in the
sufficient discretion to determine the same. This appellate court’s decision.
discretion is of course subject to CA’s evaluation whether
the supporting documents are sufficient to make out a
More importantly, Napoles failed to show any of the
prima facie case. Thus, Section 3 empowers the CA to
exceptional circumstances enumerated in the rules and
dismiss the petition where the allegations contained
jurisprudence whereby a review is permitted, namely: (1)
therein are utterly bereft of evidentiary foundation. Since
when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
in this case the CA gave due course to respondent’s
speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the
Petition for Review and proceeded to decide it on the
inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken or
merits, it can be fairly assumed that the appellate court
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in
is satisfied that respondent has sufficiently complied with
the appreciation of facts; (4) when the judgment is
Section 2 of Rule 42. Joven Yuki, Jr. vs. Wellington
premised on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the
Co, G.R. No. 178527, November 27, 2009.
findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA, in
making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case,
RULE 45; QUESTION OF FACT. and the same are contrary to the admissions of both
appellants and appellees; (7) when the findings of fact of
the CA are at variance with those of the trial court, in
The issue of whether we can review factual conclusions of
which case this Court has to review the evidence in order
the CA, when contrary to those of the administrative
to arrive at the correct findings based on the record; (8)
tribunal, need not detain us unnecessarily. We have long
when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation
held in a number of cases that factual findings of
of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, which are deemed
the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
to have acquired expertise in matters within their
petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by
respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only
respondents; (10) when the findings of fact of the CA are
respect but even finality, and bind the Court when
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and are
supported by substantial evidence. Corollary thereto is
contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when
our well-entrenched holding that this Court is not a trier
the trial court has overlooked certain material facts and
of facts; this is strictly adhered to in labor cases.
circumstances which, if taken into account, would alter
However, the rule admits of exceptions when: (1) the
the result of the case in that they would introduce an
findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises
element of reasonable doubt entitling the accused to
or conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly
acquittal. Jimmy R. Napoles vs. Office of the
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse
Ombudsman (Visayas), et al., G.R. No. 183834.
of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a
November 25, 2009
misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are
conflicting; (6) in making its findings, the Court of
Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its RULE 65; QUESTION OF FACT.
findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant
and appellee; (7) the findings are contrary to those of
The well-entrenched rule in our jurisdiction is that only
the trial court; (8) the findings are conclusions without
questions of law may be entertained by this Court in a
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9)
petition for review on certiorari. This rule, however, is not
the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in petitioner’s
ironclad and admits certain exceptions, such as when (1)
main and reply briefs, are not disputed by respondent;
the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or
(10) the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken,
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of
record; and (11) the Court of Appeals manifestly
discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the
misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are
parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a
conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on
different conclusion. In the case at bar, we gave due
which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of
course to MSD’s petition as the findings of fact and the
absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of
conclusions of law of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of
differ from those of the CA. Merck Sharp and Dohme
Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the
(Philippines), et al. vs. Jonar P. Robles, et al., G.R. No.
Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
176506, November 25, 2009.
and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would
justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the
RULE 45; QUESTION OF FACT. Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and
126
(11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both rendered judgment against her when she failed to appear
parties. in the preliminary conference.
After a painstaking review of the records, this Court finds The Court holds that the italicized provision above does
no justification to warrant the application of any not apply in the case of petitioner, since she and
exception to the general rule. Reynaldo G. Cabigting vs. Caballero were not co-defendants in the same case. The
San Miguel Foods, Inc., G.R. No. 167706, November 5, ejectment case filed against petitioner was distinct from
2009. that of Caballero, even if the trial court consolidated the
cases and, in the interest of justice, considered the
Answer filed by Caballero in Civil Case No. 17974 as the
RULE 65; INJUNCTION.
Answer also of petitioner since she affixed her signature
thereto.
A Petition for Certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, is intended for the correction of errors of
Considering that petitioner was sued in a separate case
jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting
for ejectment from that of Caballero and Sadol,
to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is only
petitioner’s failure to appear in the preliminary
to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its
conference entitled respondent to the rendition of
jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave
judgment by the trial court on the ejectment case filed
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
against petitioner, docketed as Civil Case No. 17973, in
jurisdiction. It may issue only when the following
accordance with Section 7 of the 1991 Revised Rules on
requirements are alleged in the petition and established:
Summary Procedure. Angelina S. Soriente, et al. vs. The
(1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any
Estate of the late Arsenio E. Concepcion, etc., G.R. No.
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2)
160239, November 25, 2009.
such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there UNLAWFUL DETAINER; ISSUE.
is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law. Excess of jurisdiction as
In unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases, the only
distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an
issue to be determined is who between the contending
act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board
parties has the better right to possess the contested
or officer is not authorized, and invalid with respect to
property, independent of any claim of ownership.
the particular proceeding, because the conditions which
However, where the issue of ownership is so intertwined
alone authorize the exercise of the general power in
with the issue of possession, the courts may pass upon
respect of it are wanting. Without jurisdiction means lack
the issue of ownership if only to determine who has the
or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and
better right to possess the property. Agripina
determine a cause or causes, considered either in general
Panganiban vs. Sps. Romeo Roldan, et al., G.R. No.
or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of
163053, November 25, 2009.
power to exercise authority.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER; NATURE.

In the case at bar, this Court agrees with the conclusion
of the CA that the RTC committed no grave abuse of
discretion in granting YKS’ plea for injunctive relief. Unlawful detainer and forcible entry suits under Rule 70
Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. vs. Hon. Salvador y Apurillo, et of the Rules of Court are designed to summarily restore
al., G.R. No. 168746, November 5, 2009. physical possession of a piece of land or building to one
who has been illegally or forcibly deprived thereof,
without prejudice to the settlement of the parties’
SUMMARY PROCEDURE; PRELIMINARY
opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate
CONFERENCE.
proceedings. These actions are intended to avoid
disruption of public order by those who would take the
Under Section 7 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary law in their hands purportedly to enforce their claimed
Procedure, if a sole defendant shall fail to appear in the right of possession. In these cases, the issue is pure
preliminary conference, the plaintiff shall be entitled to physical or de facto possession, and pronouncements
judgment in accordance with Section 6 of the Rule, that made on questions of ownership are provisional in
is, the court shall render judgment as may be warranted nature. The provisional determination of ownership in the
by the facts alleged in the Complaint and limited to what ejectment case cannot be clothed with finality.
is prayed for therein. However, “[t]his Rule (Sec. 7) shall
not apply where one of two or more defendants sued
In any case, we sustain the finding that respondent has
under a common cause of action, who had pleaded a
the better right to possess the subject property. The
common defense, shall appear at the preliminary
Contract of Lease executed by petitioners and respondent
conference.” Petitioner claims that the preceding
remains valid. It is undisputed that petitioners failed to
provision applies to her as a defendant, since the
comply with the terms thereof by their failure to pay the
ejectment cases were consolidated by the trial court, and
stipulated rent. As lessor of the subject property,
she and Caballero filed the same Answer to the
respondent has the right to demand that petitioners pay
Complaint; hence, the trial court should not have
their unpaid obligations and, in case of their failure, that
127
they vacate the premises. Considering that the lease As a general rule, an ejectment suit cannot be abated or
contract has long expired, with more reason should suspended by the mere filing of another action raising
respondent be allowed to recover the subject property. ownership of the property as an issue. The Court has, in
Spouses Danilo T. Samonte and Rosalinda N. Samonte fact, affirmed this rule in the following precedents:
vs. Century Savings Bank, G.R. No. 176413, November
25, 2009
1. Injunction suits instituted in the RTC by defendants
in ejectment actions in the municipal trial courts or
UNLAWFUL DETAINER; NATURE. other courts of the first level (Nacorda v. Yatco, 17
SCRA 920 [1966]) do not abate the latter; and
neither do proceedings on consignation of rentals
To make out a case of unlawful detainer under Section 1,
(Lim Si v. Lim, 98 Phil. 868 [1956], citing Pue, et al.
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the Complaint must allege
v. Gonzales, 87 Phil. 81 [1950]).
that the defendant is unlawfully withholding from the
plaintiff the possession of certain real property after the
expiration or termination of the former’s right to hold 2. An “accion publiciana” does not suspend an ejectment
possession by virtue of a contract, express or implied, suit against the plaintiff in the former (Ramirez v.
and that the action is being brought within one year from Bleza, 106 SCRA 187 [1981]).
the time the defendant’s possession became unlawful.
3. A “writ of possession case” where ownership is
The Complaint alleged that petitioner occupied the concededly the principal issue before the Regional
subject property by tolerance of the late Arsenio Trial Court does not preclude nor bar the execution
Concepcion. While tolerance is lawful, such possession of the judgment in an unlawful detainer suit where
becomes illegal upon demand to vacate by the owner and the only issue involved is the material possession or
the possessor by tolerance refuses to comply with such possession de facto of the premises (Heirs of F.
demand. Respondent sent petitioner a demand letter Guballa, Sr. v. C.A., et al.; etc., 168 SCRA 518
dated September 22, 2000 to vacate the subject [1988]).
property, but petitioner did not comply with the demand.
A person who occupies the land of another at the latter’s
4. An action for quieting of title to property is not a bar
tolerance or permission, without any contract between
to an ejectment suit involving the same property
them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he
(Quimpo v. de la Victoria, 46 SCRA 139 [1972]).
will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action
for ejectment is the proper remedy against him. Under
Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the one-year 5. Suits for specific performance with damages do not
period within which a complaint for unlawful detainer can affect ejectment actions (e.g., to compel renewal of
be filed should be counted from the date of demand, a lease contract) (Desamito v. Cuyegkeng, 18 SCRA
because only upon the lapse of that period does the 1184 [1966]; Rosales v. CFI, 154 SCRA 153 [1987];
possession become unlawful. Respondent filed the Commander Realty, Inc. v. C.A., 161 SCRA 264
ejectment case against petitioner on April 27, 2001, [1988]).
which was less than a year from the date of formal
demand. Clearly, therefore, the action was filed within 6. An action for reformation of instrument (e.g., from
the one-year period prescribed for filing an ejectment or deed of absolute sale to one of sale with pacto de
unlawful detainer case. retro) does not suspend an ejectment suit between
the same parties (Judith v. Abragan, 66 SCRA 600
The sole issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case [1975]).
is physical or material possession. All that the trial court
can do is to make an initial determination of who is the 7. An action for reconveyance of property or “accion
owner of the property, so that it can resolve who is reivindicatoria” also has no effect on ejectment suits
entitled to its possession absent other evidence to regarding the same property (Del Rosario v.
resolve ownership. Courts in ejectment cases decide Jimenez, 8 SCRA 549 [1963];Salinas v. Navarro, 126
questions of ownership only it is necessary to decide the SCRA 167; De la Cruz v. C.A., 133 SCRA 520
question of possession. The reason for this rule is to [1984]); Drilon v. Gaurana, 149 SCRA 352 [1987];
prevent the defendant from trifling with the summary Ching v. Malaya, 153 SCRA 412 [1987];Philippine
nature of an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of Feeds Milling Co., Inc. v. C.A., 174 SCRA 108; Dante
asserting ownership over the disputed property. Angelina v. Sison, 174 SCRA 517 [1989]; Guzman v. C.A.
S. Soriente, et al. vs. The Estate of the late Arsenio E. [annulment of sale and reconveyance], 177 SCRA
Concepcion, etc., G.R. No. 160239, November 25, 2009. 604 [1989]; Demamay v. C.A., 186 SCRA 608
[1990]; Leopoldo Sy v. C.A., et al., [annulment of
UNLAWFUL DETAINER; SUSPENSION. sale and reconveyance], G.R. No. 95818, Aug. 2,
1991).
The ejectment case should not be suspended pending the
resolution of the action for nullity of foreclosure. 8. Neither do suits for annulment of sale, or title, or
document affecting property operate to abate
ejectment actions respecting the same property
128
(Salinas v. Navarro [annulment of deed of sale with constitutive of fraud. Petitioners insist that the
assumption of mortgage and/or to declare the same improperly issued writ of attachment may be discharged
an equitable mortgage], 126 SCRA 167 [1983]; Ang without the necessity of filing a counter-bond. Petitioners
Ping v. RTC [annulment of sale and title], 154 SCRA also argue that respondents failed to show that the writ
153 [1987]; Caparros v. C.A. [annulment of title], of attachment was issued upon a ground which is at the
170 SCRA 758 [1989]; Dante v. Sison [annulment of same time also respondents’ cause of action. Petitioners
sale with damages], 174 SCRA 517; Galgala v. maintain that respondents’ amended complaint was not
Benguet Consolidated, Inc.[annulment of document], an action based on fraud but was a simple case for
177 SCRA 288 [1989]). collection of sum of money plus damages.
Only in rare instances is suspension allowed to await the On the other hand, respondents argue that the Court of
outcome of a pending civil action. In Vda. de Legaspi v. Appeals did not err in ruling that the writ of attachment
Avendaño, and Amagan v. Marayag,we ordered the can only be discharged by filing a counter-bond.
suspension of the ejectment proceedings on According to respondents, petitioners cannot avail of
considerations of equity. We explained that the ejectment Section 13, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court to have the
of petitioners therein would mean a demolition of their attachment set aside because the ground for the
house and would create confusion, disturbance, issuance of the writ of attachment is also the basis of
inconvenience, and expense. Needlessly, the court would respondents’ amended complaint. Respondents assert
be wasting much time and effort by proceeding to a that the amended complaint is a complaint for damages
stage wherein the outcome would at best be temporary for the breach of obligation and acts of fraud committed
but the result of enforcement would be permanent, by petitioners.
unjust and probably irreparable. Spouses Danilo T.
Samonte and Rosalinda N. Samonte vs. Century Savings
In this case, the basis of respondents’ application for the
Bank, G.R. No. 176413. November 25, 2009
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment is Section
1(d), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.
WRIT OF AMPARO; COVERAGE.
The applicant for a writ of preliminary attachment must
The Court is, under the Constitution, empowered to sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the alleged
promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of fraud because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from
constitutional rights. In view of the heightening the debtor’s mere non-payment of the debt or failure to
prevalence of extrajudicial killings and enforced comply with his obligation.
disappearances, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo was
issued and took effect on October 24, 2007 which
We rule that respondents’ allegation that petitioners
coincided with the celebration of United Nations Day and
undertook to sell exclusively and only through JRP/LGD
affirmed the Court’s commitment towards
for Target Stores Corporation but that petitioners
internationalization of human rights. More than three
transacted directly with respondents’ foreign buyer is
months later or on February 2, 2008, the Rule on the
sufficient allegation of fraud to support their application
Writ of Habeas Data was promulgated.
for a writ of preliminary attachment. Since the writ of
preliminary attachment was properly issued, the only
The coverage of the writs is limited to the protection of way it can be dissolved is by filing a counter-bond in
rights to life, liberty and security. And the writs cover not accordance with Section 12, Rule 57 of the Rules of
only actual but also threats of unlawful acts or omissions. Court. Metro, Inc. and Spouses Frederick and LIza Juan
vs. Lara’s Gifts and Decors, Inc. et al., G.R. No. 171741,
November 27, 2009.
To thus be covered by the privilege of the writs,
respondents must meet the threshold requirement that
their right to life, liberty and security is violated or WRIT OF POSSESSION; FAILURE TO RETURN
threatened with an unlawful act or omission. Evidently, SURPLUS.
the present controversy arose out of a property dispute
between the Provincial Government and respondents.
In Sulit v. Court of Appeals, we withheld the issuance of
Absent any considerable nexus between the acts
a writ of possession because the mortgagee failed to
complained of and its effect on respondents’ right to life,
deliver the surplus from the proceeds of the foreclosure
liberty and security, the Court will not delve on the
sale which is equivalent to approximately 40% of the
propriety of petitioners’ entry into the property. P/Supt.
total mortgage debt. Sulit was considered as an
Felixberto Castillo, Police Officers Romeo Bagtas, et al.
exception to the general rule that it is ministerial upon
vs. Dr. Amanda T. Cruz, Nixon T. Cruz and Ferdinand T.
the court to issue a writ of possession even during the
Cruz, G.R. No. 182165, November 25, 2009.
period of redemption. We explained that equitable
considerations prevailing in said case demand that a writ
WRIT OF ATTACHMENT; FRAUD. of possession should not issue.
Petitioners contend that the writ of attachment was In the subsequent case of Saguan v. Philippine Bank of
improperly issued because respondents’ amended Communications, however, we clarified that the
complaint failed to allege specific acts or circumstances exception made in Sulit does not apply when the period
129
to redeem has already expired or when ownership over issuance of the bond certified that it may only be
the property has already been consolidated in favor of accepted in the above-mentioned cities. Thus, the trial
the mortgagee-purchaser. In other words, even if the court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
mortgagee-purchaser fails to return the surplus, a writ of lack of or in excess of jurisdiction when it issued the writ
possession must still be issued. In the instant case, the of attachment founded on the said bond. Sofia Torres, et
period to redeem has already lapsed. Thus, following the al. vs. Nicanor Satsatin, et al., G.R. No. 166759,
ruling in Saguan, the issuance of a writ of possession in November 25, 2009.
favor of the petitioner is in order.
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT;
Relatedly, we held in Sulit that if the mortgagee is JURISDICTION.
retaining more of the proceeds of the sale than he is
entitled to, this fact alone will not affect the validity of
In provisional remedies, particularly that of preliminary
the sale but simply gives the mortgagor a cause of action
attachment, the distinction between the issuance and the
to recover such surplus.
implementation of the writ of attachment is of utmost
importance to the validity of the writ. The distinction is
In the instant case, the cadastral court is without indispensably necessary to determine when jurisdiction
jurisdiction to order petitioner to deliver to respondent over the person of the defendant should be acquired in
the surplus or excess of the purchase price. The only order to validly implement the writ of attachment upon
issue in a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession his person.
is the purchaser’s entitlement to possession. No
documentary or testimonial evidence is even required for
This Court has long put to rest the issue of when
the issuance of the writ as long as the verified petition
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be
states the facts sufficient to entitle the purchaser to the
acquired in cases where a party resorts to provisional
relief requested. As held in Saguan, when the
remedies. A party to a suit may, at any time after filing
mortgagee-purchaser fails to return the surplus, the
the complaint, avail of the provisional remedies under the
remedy of a mortgagor “lies in a separate civil action for
Rules of Court. Specifically, Rule 57 on preliminary
collection of a sum of money. Bernando B. Jose, Jr. vs.
attachment speaks of the grant of the remedy “at the
Michael Phils., Inc. et al., G.R. No. 169606, November
commencement of the action or at any time before entry
27, 2009.
of judgment.” This phrase refers to the date of the filing
of the complaint, which is the moment that marks “the
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT; BOND. commencement of the action.” The reference plainly is to
a time before summons is served on the defendant, or
even before summons issues.
A writ of preliminary attachment is defined as a
provisional remedy issued upon order of the court where
an action is pending to be levied upon the property or In Cuartero v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that the
properties of the defendant therein, the same to be held grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves
thereafter by the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of three stages: first, the court issues the order granting
whatever judgment that might be secured in the said the application; second, the writ of attachment issues
action by the attaching creditor against the defendant. pursuant to the order granting the writ; and third, the
writ is implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not
necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the
In the case at bar, the CA correctly found that there was
defendant be first obtained. However, once the
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in
implementation of the writ commences, the court must
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in
have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, for without
approving the bond posted by petitioners despite the fact
such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to
that not all the requisites for its approval were complied
act in any manner against the defendant. Any order
with. In accepting a surety bond, it is necessary that all
issuing from the Court will not bind the defendant.
the requisites for its approval are met; otherwise, the
bond should be rejected.
Thus, it is indispensable not only for the acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but also
Every bond should be accompanied by a clearance from
upon consideration of fairness, to apprise the defendant
the Supreme Court showing that the company concerned
of the complaint against him and the issuance of a writ of
is qualified to transact business which is valid only for
preliminary attachment and the grounds therefor that
thirty (30) days from the date of its issuance. However, it
prior or contemporaneously to the serving of the writ of
is apparent that the Certification issued by the Office of
attachment, service of summons, together with a copy of
the Court Administrator (OCA) at the time the bond was
the complaint, the application for attachment, the
issued would clearly show that the bonds offered by
applicant’s affidavit and bond, and the order must be
Western Guaranty Corporation may be accepted only in
served upon him. Sofia Torres, et al. vs. Nicanor
the RTCs of the cities of Makati,Pasay, and Pasig.
Satsatin, et al., G.R. No. 166759, November 25, 2009.
Therefore, the surety bond issued by the bonding
company should not have been accepted by the RTC of
Dasmariñas, Branch 90, since the certification secured by
the bonding company from the OCA at the time of the
130
DECEMBER 2009 CASES circumstances of the case. Barangay Sangalang,

represented by its Chairman Dante C. Marcellana vs.
Barangay Maguihan, represented by its Chairman Arnulfo
Villarez, G.R. No. 159792, December 23, 2009.
Civil Procedure
APPEAL; FINDINGS OF FACT.
APPEAL; CERTIORARI.
As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court when
affirmed by the CA are final and conclusive on, and
The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of cannot be reviewed on appeal by, this Court as long as
the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule they are borne out by the records or are based on
45, which is not similar to a petition for certiorari under substantial evidence. The Court is not a trier of facts, its
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As provided in Rule 45 of jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law
the Rules of Court, decisions, final orders or resolutions that may have been committed by the lower
of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the courts. Republic of the Philippines vs. Ignacio Leonor and
nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be Catalino Razon, G.R. No. 161424, December 23, 2009.
appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review,
which would be but a continuation of the appellate
process over the original case. On the other hand, a
special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action
based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a Well-settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of
general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the facts. When supported by substantial evidence, the
lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding, and
Rule 45. Santiago Cua, Jr., et al. vs. Miguel Ocampo are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls
Tan, et al./Santiago Cua, Sr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, under any of the following recognized exceptions: (1)
et al., G.R. No. 181455-56/G.R. No. 182008, December When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
4, 2009. speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) When the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of
APPEAL; DECISION OF RTC ACTING IN EXERCISE
discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a
OF ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
misappreciation of facts; (5) When the findings of fact
are conflicting; (6) When the CA in making its findings,
In the case at bar, it is clear that when the case was went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
appealed to the RTC, the latter took cognizance of the contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
case in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, not its appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to those of
original jurisdiction. Hence, any further appeal from the the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are
RTC Decision must conform to the provisions of the Rules conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
of Court dealing with said matter. It is apparent that they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the
petitioner has availed itself of the wrong remedy. Since petition as well as in the petitioners’ main and reply
the RTC tried the case in the exercise of its appellate briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10)
jurisdiction, petitioner should have filed a petition for When the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the
review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, instead of an supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the
ordinary appeal under Rule 41. The law is clear in this evidence on record. None of these exceptions is present
respect. Barangay Sangalang, represented by its in this case. We find that the Decision of the CA is
Chairman Dante C. Marcellana vs. Barangay Maguihan, supported by the required quantum of evidence. Jesus
represented by its Chairman Arnulfo Villarez, G.R. No. Campos and Rosemarie Campos-Bautista vs. Nenita
159792, December 23, 2009. Buevinida Pastrana, et al., G.R. No. 175994, December
8, 2009.
APPEAL; FAILURE TO PAY DOCKET FEES.
The Order denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
was silent as to the issue of the non-payment of docket Even assuming that Fuji admitted that the feeds
fees; however, this Court deems that the RTC must have delivered were defective, the question of whether Fuji
accepted the explanation given by respondent, otherwise, had replaced the feeds is a factual matter not usually
said court would have dismissed the appeal and reviewable in a petition filed under Rule 45. A petition for
reconsidered its decision. The failure to pay docket fees review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court covers only
does not automatically result in the dismissal of an questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable by
appeal, it being discretionary on the part of the appellate this Court because they are final and conclusive
court to give it due course or not. This Court will then not especially if borne out by the record or based on
interfere with matters addressed to the sound discretion substantial evidence. . . . Whether Fuji delivered
of the RTC in the absence of proof that the exercise of defective feeds, or whether the statement is tantamount
such discretion was tainted with bias or prejudice, or to an admission that the feeds delivered were defective,
made without due circumspection of the attendant or whether Fuji failed to replace defective feeds, are
131
questions of fact which necessitate an examination of the The NLRC did not err in considering the issue of the
probative value of the evidence adduced before the trial veracity of the confirmatory tests even if the same was
court. Shrimp Specialist, Inc. vs. Fuji-Triumph Agri- raised only in respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration of
Industrial Corporation/Fuji-Trimph Agri-Industrial its Decision, it being crucial in determining the validity of
Corporation vs. Shrimp Specialist, Inc., et al. G.R. No. respondents’ dismissal from their employment. Technical
168756/G.R. No. 171476. December 7, 2009. rules of procedure are not strictly adhered to in labor
cases. In the interest of substantial justice, new or
additional evidence may be introduced on appeal before
the NLRC. Such move is proper, provided due process is
observed, as was the case here, by giving the opposing
The factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by party sufficient opportunity to meet and rebut the new or
the appellate court, are generally binding on the additional evidence introduced. The Constitution no less
Supreme Court. After a careful review of the records, the directs the State to afford full protection to labor. To
Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of achieve this goal, technical rules of procedure shall be
the trial court and the appellate court. Shrimp Specialist, liberally construed in favor of the working class in
Inc. vs. Fuji-Triumph Agri-Industrial Corporation/Fuji- accordance with the demands of substantial justice.
Trimph Agri-Industrial Corporation vs. Shrimp Specialist, Plantation Bay Resort & Spa and Efren Belarmino vs.
Inc., et al. G.R. No. 168756/G.R. No. 171476. December Romel S. Dubrico, et al., G.R. No. 182216, December 4,
7, 2009. 2009.
APPEAL; FINDINGS OF FACT. APPEAL; ISSUES RAISED FOR FIRST TIME ON

APPEAL.
Even assuming that Fuji admitted that the feeds
delivered were defective, the question of whether Fuji Anent the argument that the donation inter vivos
had replaced the feeds is a factual matter not usually impaired the legitimes of petitioners, the Court deems it
reviewable in a petition filed under Rule 45. A petition for unnecessary to discuss the same. Said argument was
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court covers only indeed only raised for the first time on appeal to the
questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable by Court of Appeals and in the Supplement to the Motion for
this Court because they are final and conclusive Reconsideration of the appellate court’s Amended
especially if borne out by the record or based on Decision at that. Points of law, theories, issues, and
substantial evidence. . . . Whether Fuji delivered arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court
defective feeds, or whether the statement is tantamount need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a
to an admission that the feeds delivered were defective, reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first
or whether Fuji failed to replace defective feeds, are time at such late stage. Basic considerations of due
questions of fact which necessitate an examination of the process underlie this rule. Herminio M. Gutierrez, et al.
probative value of the evidence adduced before the trial vs. Flora Mendoza-Plaza, et al., G.R. No. 185477,
court. Shrimp Specialist, Inc. vs. Fuji-Triumph Agri- December 4, 2009.
Industrial Corporation/Fuji-Trimph Agri-Industrial
Corporation vs. Shrimp Specialist, Inc., et al. G.R. No.
168756/G.R. No. 171476. December 7, 2009.
APPEAL; REQUIREMENTS OF APPEAL.
In HLURB Case No. REM-071597-9831, petitioners failed

to perfect the appeal from the 25 January 2002 Decision
of Arbiter Balasolla in the manner prescribed by the
The petition before us raises factual issues which are not HLURB 1996 Rules of Procedure (HLURB Rules).
proper in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules Petitioners admittedly failed to comply with Section 3(b),
of Court. However, we find that one of the exceptional Rule XII of the HLURB Rules, which specifically requires
circumstances qualifying a factual review by the Court the attachment to the petition for review of a verified
exists, that is, the factual findings of the CA are at certification against forum shopping jointly executed by
variance with those of the trial court. We shall then give the petitioner and his counsel. The absence of such joint
due course to the instant petition and review the factual verified certification shall result in the dismissal of the
findings of the CA. Heirs of Domingo Hernandez Sr., et petition for review, pursuant to Section 1, Rule XIV of the
al. vs. Plaridel Mingoa, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 146548, HLURB Rules. Considering that the petition for review
December 18, 2009. filed by petitioners lacks the required verified certification
against forum shopping, the petition for review was
APPEAL; FINDINGS OF FACT. correctly dismissed for failure to comply with the
requirements of the HLURB Rules. Hence, the 25 January
2002 Decision of Arbiter Balasolla became final for non-
While it is a well-settled rule, also applicable in labor perfection of the appeal. Mayon Estate Corporation and
cases, that issues not raised below cannot be raised for Earthland Developer Corporation vs. Lualhati Beltran,
the first time on appeal, there are exceptions thereto G.R. No. 165387, December 18, 2009.
among which are for reasons of public policy or interest.
132
CERTIORARI; ABSENCE OF APPEAL OR ANY PLAIN, administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the
SPEEDY OR ADEQUATE REMEDY. same after due deliberation.” The non-observance of the
doctrine results in the petition having no cause of action,
thus, justifying its dismissal. In this case, the necessary
In addition, Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
consequence of the failure to exhaust administrative
provides that the remedy of certiorari may only be
remedies is obvious: the disallowance as ruled by the
availed of if “there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy,
LAO-C has now become final and executory. Governor
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
Orlando A. Fua, Jr., et al. vs. The Commission on Audit,
law.” . . . . It was absolutely necessary for petitioner to
et al., G.R. No. 175803, December 4, 2009.
allege in the petition, and adduce evidence to prove, that
any other existing remedy is not speedy or adequate.
Thus, since petitioner could have appealed the Decision CERTIORARI; GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
of the Director to the Commission Proper under the 1997
Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA, he is definitely
Grave abuse of discretion means a capricious and
not entitled to a writ of certiorari, because there was
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
some other speedy and adequate remedy available to
jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it
him. Petitioner having failed to pursue an appeal with the
must be so grave as when the power is exercised in an
Commission Proper, the Decision issued by the COA-LAO-
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or
Local has become final and executory. Governor Orlando
personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as
A. Fua, Jr., et al. vs. The Commission on Audit, et
to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual
al., G.R. No. 175803, December 4, 2009.
refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law. Quasha Ancheta Peña & Nolasco
CERTIORARI; ABSENCE OF APPEAL OE ANY PLAIN, Law Office and Legend International Resorts, Limited vs.
SPEEDY OR ADEQUATE REMEDY. The Special Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, et
al., G.R. No. 182013, December 4, 2009.
Admittedly, Metrobank’s petition for certiorari before the
CA assails the dismissal order of the RTC and, under CERTIORARI; GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
normal circumstances, Metrobank should have filed an
appeal.
In the case at bar, this Court holds that there was no
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
However, where the exigencies of the case are such that jurisdiction committed by the Special Sixth Division of the
the ordinary methods of appeal may not prove adequate Court of Appeals in not giving due deference to the
— either in point of promptness or completeness, so that decision of its co-division. As correctly pointed out by the
a partial if not a total failure of justice could result – a Special Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, the
writ of certiorari may still be issued. decision of its co-division is not binding on its other
division. Further, it must be stressed that judicial
decisions that form part of our legal system are only the
Grave abuse of discretion may arise when a lower court
decisions of the Supreme Court. Moreover, at the time
or tribunal violates or contravenes the Constitution, the
petitioners made the aforesaid Manifestation, the
law or existing jurisprudence. As will be discussed in
Decision dated 14 December 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No.
greater detail below, the RTC decision dismissing
96717 of the Special Tenth Division was still on appeal
Metrobank’s petition was patently erroneous and clearly
before this Court. Therefore, the Special Sixth Division of
contravened existing jurisprudence. For this reason, we
the Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for not giving due
cannot fault Metrobank for resorting to the filing of a
deference to the said Decision of its co-division, and its
petition for certiorari with the CA to remedy a patent
actuation cannot be considered grave abuse of discretion
legal error in the hope of obtaining a speedy and
amounting to lack or excess of its jurisdiction. Quasha
adequate remedy. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company
Ancheta Peña & Nolasco Law Office and Legend
vs. Hon. Salvador Abad Santos, Presiding Judge, RTC,
International Resorts, Limited vs. The Special Sixth
BR. 65, Makati City and Manfred De Koning, G.R. No.
Division of the Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 182013,
157867, December 15, 2009.
December 4, 2009.
CERTIORARI; EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE

CERTIORARI; GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
REMEDIES.
In fine, the issuance by the RTC of a writ of execution

By immediately filing the present petition for certiorari,
and the notice of garnishment to satisfy the judgment in
petitioner failed to exhaust the administrative remedies
favor of respondents could not be considered grave
available to him. The hornbook doctrine, reiterated
abuse of discretion. The term grave abuse of discretion,
in Joseph Peter Sison, et al. vs. Rogelio Tablang, etc., is
in its juridical sense, connotes capricious, despotic,
as follows: “The general rule is that before a party may
oppressive, or whimsical exercise of judgment as is
seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be of
himself of all the means afforded him by administrative
such degree as to amount to an evasion of positive duty
processes. The issues which administrative agencies are
or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as
authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
them and submitted to the court without first giving such
133
capricious manner by reason of passion and hostility. The null and void. Admittedly, the tenor of the dispositive
word capricious, usually used in tandem with the portion of the August 7, 1996 RTC decision, as modified
term arbitrary, conveys the notion of willful and by the CA and affirmed by this Court, did not order the
unreasoning action. Thus, when seeking the corrective transfer of ownership upon payment of the adjudged
hand of certiorari, a clear showing of caprice and compensation. Neither did such condition appear in the
arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion is imperative. In text of the RTC decision, and of this Court’s Decision in
this case, NPC utterly failed to demonstrate caprice or G.R. No. 168732. As aptly pointed out by the CA in its
arbitrariness on the part of the RTC in granting assailed Decision: XXX XXX XXX Clearly, the writ of
respondents’ motion for execution. Accordingly, the CA execution issued by the RTC and affirmed by the CA does
committed no reversible error in dismissing NPC’s petition not vary, but is, in fact, consistent with the final decision
for certiorari. National Power Corporation vs. Omar G. in this case. The assailed writ is, therefore,
Maruhom, et al., G.R. No. 183297, December 23, 2009. valid. National Power Corporation vs. Omar G. Maruhom,
et al., G.R. No. 183297, December 23, 2009.
CERTIORARI; INTERLOCUTORY ORDER.
EXECUTION; EPIRA.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that interlocutory
orders, because they do not dispose of the case on the The instant petition for injunction was filed directly to this
merits, are not appealable. Likewise, the extraordinary Court as mandated by Section 78 of the EPIRA Law. In as
writ of certiorari is generally not available to challenge an much as this Court does not have a sheriff of its own to
interlocutory order of the trial court. In such a case, the execute our decision, we deem it appropriate, pursuant
proper remedy of the aggrieved party is an ordinary to Section 6, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court and
appeal from an adverse judgment, incorporating in the considering that the principal office of NPC is located in
appeal the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order. Quezon City, to authorize the Clerk of Court of the
However, where the assailed interlocutory order is Regional Trial Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of Quezon City
patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not to execute our judgment which became final and
afford adequate and expeditious relief, the Court may executory on 10 October 2008 and for which an entry of
allow certiorari as a mode of redress. Equitable PCI Bank, judgment was made on 27 October 2008. After receipt of
Inc. vs. Maria Leticia Fernandez, et al., G.R. No. 163117, the list containing the names of the affected NPC
December 18, 2009. employees and benefits due each of them, the Clerk of
Court of the Regional Trial Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of
Quezon City is directed to forthwith execute our
CERTIORARI; VOID JUDGMENT.
judgment. NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association [NPC
DAMA], et al. vs. National Power Corp., et al.,G.R. No.
Petitioner also raises the issue of the impropriety of the 156208, December 2, 2009
remedy resorted to by the respondent which is the filing
of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
EXECUTION; EXEMPTION OF GSIS’S FUNDS AND
Court, claiming that the said remedy is inappropriate
PROPERTIES FROM EXECUTION AND
because there are still other plain, speedy and adequate
GARNISHMENT.
remedies available, such as an ordinary appeal, the
Decision of the RTC having attained its finality. The
question, however, is whether the said Decision has Regarding the alleged exemption of the funds and
indeed attained finality. . . . The said doctrine [of finality properties of GSIS, we quote with approval pertinent
of judgment], however, is applicable only when the portions of the Decision of the CA dated August 3, 2006
judgment or decision is valid. In the present case, as in CA-G.R. SP No. 84079: “The petition and pending
earlier pronounced, and as ruled by the CA, the judgment incidents hinge on the principal issue of whether the
in question is void, the RTC not having acquired exemption from execution and garnishment of the funds
jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. It is a and properties of GSIS under Sec. 39 of Rep. Act No.
well-entrenched principle that a void judgment can never 8291 may be invoked to quash the writ of execution
become final. . . . Thus, from the above discussion, the issued pursuant to the final and executory judgment
Decision of the RTC, not having attained its finality due to against it. We rule in the negative.” XXX XXX XXX
its being void, the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, ‘In Rubia vs. GSIS (432 SCRA 529), the Supreme Court
filed by the respondent with the CA, was ruled that the exemption from execution enjoyed by
proper. Constantino A. Pascual vs. Lourdes S. Pascual, GSIS under Sec. 39 of Rep. Act No. 8291 is not absolute.
G.R. No. 171916, December 4, 2009. XXX XXX XXX In so far as Section 39 of the GSIS charter
exempts the GSIS from execution, suffice it to say that
such exemption is not absolute and does not encompass
EXECUTION; DISPOSITIVE PORTION.
all the GSIS funds. XXX XXX XXX The processual
exemption of the GSIS funds and properties under
It is a fundamental legal axiom that a writ of execution Section 39 of the GSIS Charter, in our view, should be
must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the read consistently with its avowed principal purpose: to
decision sought to be executed. A writ of execution may maintain actuarial solvency of the GSIS in the protection
not vary from, or go beyond, the terms of the judgment of assets which are to be used to finance the retirement,
it seeks to enforce. When a writ of execution does not disability and life insurance benefits of its members.
conform strictly to a decision’s dispositive portion, it is Clearly, the exemption should be limited to the purposes
134
and objects covered. Any interpretation that would give it three public places. A public place is a place exposed to
an expansive construction to exempt all GSIS assets from the public and where the public gathers together or
legal processes absolutely would be unwarranted.’ In the passes to and fro. As can be gleaned from Sheriff Ipac’s
instant case, the final and executory judgment arose Affidavit of Posting, the Notices were posted on the
from loans extended by GSIS to private respondent’s Meralco posts within the vicinities of Baliuag Roman
predecessors-in-interest in the course of its business and Catholic Church, Baliuag Public Market and near the
secured by a mortgage. As in Rubia, GSIS’ relationship chapel of Sabang, Baliuag, Bulacan. The aforementioned
with private respondent’s predecessors-in-interest is vicinities where the Meralco posts were erected are public
purely private and contractual in nature. As such, GSIS places, to which the general public has a right to resort.
cannot claim immunity from the enforcement of the final The Meralco posts where the Notices were posted are but
and executory judgment against it. ” Petitioner is asking component structures of the public place itself. The law
this Court to reverse our findings in Rubia, supra, and as does not intend that notices to the public be posted on
a result, rule that the immunity granted to it by Rep. Act specific bulletin boards or information areas of a public
No. 8291 is absolute. We see no reason to depart from place. What the law directs is for the notices to be placed
the conclusions reached in said case. In fact, all the more in an area where the same is perceptible to the
should GSIS not be allowed to hide behind such immunity public. Sps. Rogelio Marcelo & Milagros Marcelo vs.
in this case, where its obligation arises not just from a Philippine Commercial International Bank [PCIB], G.R.
simple business transaction, but from its utter failure to No. 182735, December 4, 2009.
return properties that it had wrongfully
foreclosed. Government Service Insurance System vs.
EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE;
The Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, et al./Government
PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT –
Service Insurance System vs. Hon. Celso Laviña, et al.,
G.R. No. 175393/G.R. No. 177731, December 18, 2009.
The trial court’s opinion, that The Times Newsweekly’s
minimal readership made it insufficient to meet the
EXECUTION; PENDING APPEAL.
publication requirement is, to our minds, too narrow and
limiting as to strip the newspaper of its privilege as one
Evident from the usage of the word “may,” the language of the authorized publications for the notices of auction
of the subject provision denotes that it is merely sale in Bulacan. As this Court held in many cases, to be a
directory, and not mandatory, for the trial court to issue newspaper of general circulation, it is enough that it is
the special order before the expiration of the period to published for the dissemination of local news and general
appeal. The trial court may still thereafter resolve a information; that it has a bona fide subscription list of
motion for execution pending appeal, provided: (i) the paying subscribers; and that it is published at regular
motion is filed within the five-day reglementary period; intervals. The newspaper need not have the largest
and (ii) the special order is issued prior to the transmittal circulation, so long as it is of general circulation. As
of the records to the Comelec. Both parties concede that evidenced by the Affidavit of Publication executed by The
the motion for execution pending appeal must be filed Times Newsweekly’s publisher, Teddy F. Borres, the said
within the five-day period to appeal. In the present case, newspaper is of general circulation in the Provinces of
the Urgent Motion was filed well within the reglementary Bulacan, Pampanga, Bataan, Zambales, Nueva Ecija,
period. Indeed, in one case, the Court construed a Tarlac and other cities. The same is published every
similarly phrased provision to mean that the ruling on the Saturday by The Daily Record, Inc. Sps. Rogelio Marcelo
motion for execution may issue after the period of & Milagros Marcelo vs. Philippine Commercial
appeal, as long as the motion for execution pending International Bank [PCIB], G.R. No. 182735, December
appeal was filed before the expiration of the time to 4, 2009.
appeal. Keeping in mind that “hurried justice is not
always authentic justice,” the permissive nature of the
FORUM SHOPPING; NATURE AND REQUISITES –
rule allows the trial court to apply the same insofar as it
is practicable, albeit the rigid compliance therewith is not
altogether impossible, such that a motion for execution Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions
pending appeal may be filed at the latest on the second or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the
day after notice of the decision, and heard and resolved supposition that one or the other court would make a
at the latest on the fifth day after notice of the decision, favorable disposition. It is an act of malpractice and is
in compliance with the mandatory three-day notice rule, prohibited and condemned as trifling with courts and
barring any intervening resetting or non-working days. abusing their processes. In determining whether or not
Michael L. San Miguel vs. Commission on Elections and there is forum shopping, what is important is the
Christopher vs. Aguilar, G.R. No. 188240, December 23, vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a
2009. party who asks different courts and/or administrative
bodies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant
the same or substantially the same reliefs and in the
EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE;
process creates the possibility of conflicting decisions
POSTING REQUIREMENT.
being rendered by the different bodies upon the same
issues. Forum shopping is present when, in two or more
The petitioners argue that the posting of the Notice of cases pending, there is identity of (1) parties, (2) rights
Sheriff’s Sale on Meralco posts did not comply with Act or causes of action and reliefs prayed for, and (3) the two
No. 3135 requiring the posting of the same in at least preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered
135
in the other action will, regardless of which party is It has not escaped our notice that petitioner deliberately
successful, amount to res judicata in the action under filed two cases, herein consolidated, involving the same
consideration. Santiago Cua, Jr., et al. vs. Miguel parties and issues, in its desperate attempt to stay the
Ocampo Tan, et al./Santiago Cua, Sr., et al. vs. Court of execution of the judgment against it. Petitioner should be
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 181455-56/G.R. No. 182008, reminded that our rules on forum shopping are meant to
December 4, 2009. prevent the possibility of conflicting decisions being
rendered by different fora upon the same issues.
Petitioner is admonished from bending the rules of
FORUM SHOPPING; NATURE AND REQUISITES.
procedure to suit its purposes. Obedience to the rules
promulgated by this Court to ensure the efficient
The test in determining the presence of forum shopping administration of justice must be the norm, and not the
is whether in two or more cases pending, there is identity exception. Government Service Insurance System vs.
of (1) parties, (2) rights or causes of action, and (3) The Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, et al./Government
reliefs sought. The case filed by Silvestra, which was Service Insurance System vs. Hon. Celso Laviña, et al.,
pending when respondents filed the complaint for G.R. No. 175393/G.R. No. 177731, December 18, 2009.
unlawful detainer, was for annulment of the deed of sale
that she executed in favor of petitioner Divina Barias’
FORUM SHOPPING; SUBMISSION OF CERTIFICATE
mother. Thus, the causes of action of that case and
AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING.
respondents’ complaint for unlawful detainer subject of
the present petition are different: the cause of action of
the first is the alleged fraud in inducing Silvestra to Assuming arguendo that Solomon did have the legal
execute the deed of sale, while the cause of action of the obligation to inform the Court in G.R. No. 182008 of the
second is the alleged unlawful possession of petitioners of pendency of G.R. No. 181455-56, his failure to do so
that portion of the property which was allegedly sold by does not necessarily result in the dismissal of the former.
Silvestra. The reliefs sought in both cases are likewise Although the submission of a certificate against forum
different. In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for shopping is deemed obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.
resolution is physical or material possession of the Hence, in this case in which such a certification was in
property involved, independent of any claim of ownership fact submitted – only, it was defective — the Court may
by any of the parties. Where the issue of ownership is still refuse to dismiss and may, instead, give due course
raised by any of the parties, the courts may pass upon to the Petition in light of attendant exceptional
the same in order to determine who has the right to circumstances. Santiago Cua, Jr., et al. vs. Miguel
possess the property. The adjudication is, however, Ocampo Tan, et al./Santiago Cua, Sr., et al. vs. Court of
merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an Appeals, et al., G.R. NO. 181455-56/G.R. NO.
action between the same parties involving title to the 182008, DECEMBER 4, 2009.
property. Spouses Dennis Barias and Divina Barias vs.
Heirs of Bartolome Boneo, namely, Juanita Leopoldo, et
al., G.R. No. 166941, December 14, 2009.
AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING.
FORUM SHOPPING; NATURE AND REQUISITES.

Even if only petitioner Domingo Hernandez, Jr. executed
the Verification/Certification against forum-shopping, this
Respondents Miguel, et al., cannot insist on identity of will not deter us from proceeding with the judicial
interests between petitioner Santiago Sr. in G.R. No. determination of the issues in this petition. XXX XXX XXX
182008 and petitioners Santiago Jr., et al., in G.R. No. Here, all the petitioners are immediate relatives who
181455-56, when the Complaint itself of respondents share a common interest in the land sought to be
Miguel, et al., before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. reconveyed and a common cause of action raising the
07-610, impleads the petitioners Santiago Sr. and same arguments in support thereof. There was sufficient
Santiago Jr., et al., as defendants a quo in their basis, therefore, for Domingo Hernandez, Jr. to speak for
individual capacities as PRCI directors, and not and in behalf of his co-petitioners when he certified that
collectively as the PRCI Board of Directors. Each they had not filed any action or claim in another court or
individual PRCI director, therefore, is not precluded from tribunal involving the same issues. Thus, the
hiring his own counsel, presenting his own arguments Verification/Certification that Hernandez, Jr. executed
and defenses, and resorting to his own procedural constitutes substantial compliance under the
remedies, apart and independent from the other PRCI Rules. Heirs of Domingo Hernandez Sr., et al. vs.
directors. In addition, the consolidation of G.R. No. Plaridel Mingoa, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 146548, December
181455-56 and G.R. No. 182008 has already eliminated 18, 2009.
the danger of conflicting decisions being issued in said
cases. Santiago Cua, Jr., et al. vs. Miguel Ocampo Tan,
et al./Santiago Cua, Sr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et
AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING.
al., G.R. No. 181455-56/G.R. No. 182008, December 4,
2009.
Based on [Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act
No. 4118], a writ of possession may issue either (1)
FORUM SHOPPING; RATIONALE.
within the one year redemption period, upon the filing of
a bond, or (2) after the lapse of the redemption period,
136
without need of a bond. In order to obtain a writ of parties or their privies, it is essential that the issue be
possession, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale must file a identical. If a particular point or question is in issue in the
petition, in the form of an ex parte motion, in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the
registration or cadastral proceedings of the registered determination of that particular point or question, a
property. The reason why this pleading, although former judgment between the same parties or their
denominated as a petition, is actually considered a privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that
motion is best explained in Sps. Arquiza vs. CA, where same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in
we said: XXX XXX XXX. Since a petition for a writ of the first suit. Identity of cause of action is not required,
possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, but merely identity of issues. Legend International
is neither a complaint nor an initiatory pleading, a Resorts, Limited vs. The Special Sixth Division of the
certificate against non-forum shopping is not required. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 182013, December 4,
The certificate that Metrobank attached to its petition is 2009.
thus a superfluity that the lower court should have
disregarded. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs.
JUDGMENT; ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT AFTER
Hon. Salvador Abad Santos, Presiding Judge, RTC, BR.
TRANSFER OF INTEREST.
65, Makati City and Manfred De Koning, G.R. No.
157867, December 15, 2009.
On PSALM’s contention that since it was not a party to
the case and that the petitioners are not its employees,
JUDGMENT; ANNULMENT.
the properties that it acquired from NPC cannot be levied,
is untenable. The issue here is about PSALM’s assets that
Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that a were acquired from NPC. As explained above, PSALM
petition for annulment of judgment is available only when took ownership over most of NPC’s assets. There was
a party is precluded from filing a motion for new trial, an indeed a over these assets – from NPC to PSALM – by
appeal or a petition for relief without fault on his part. operation of law. These properties may be used to satisfy
Moreover, such petition will only be allowed in the our judgment. This being the case, petitioners may go
presence of either extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. after such properties. The fact that PSALM is a non-party
In view of these provisions, recourse to a petition for to the case will not prevent the levying of the said
annulment of judgment is improper if petitioner lost the properties, including their fruits and proceeds. However,
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal or petition for PSALM should not be denied due process. The levying of
relief due to a cause or causes attributable to petitioner said properties and their fruits/proceeds, if still needed in
himself. Nor can it be resorted to if petitioner has case NPC’s properties are insufficient to satisfy our
previously availed of any of the aforementioned judgment, is without prejudice to PSALM’s participation in
remedies. In this case, petitioners filed an appeal and a said proceedings. Its participation therein is necessary to
motion for new trial. They also failed to establish any of prevent the levying of properties other than that it had
the grounds for a petition for annulment of judgment. acquired from NPC. Such a proceeding is to be conducted
Obviously, petitioners simply intended to unduly delay in the proper forum where petitioners may take the
the enforcement of the December 5, 1993 RTC decision appropriate action.
and defeat its execution. Thus, petitioners should be held
solidarily liable with their counsel (who abetted
Under Section 19, Rule 3 of the 1997 Revised Rules of
petitioners’ frivolous appeal, motion for new trial and this
Civil Procedure, the Court may, upon motion, direct the
petition for annulment of judgment) for treble the costs
person to whom the interest is transferred to be
of suit. Heirs of Rodrigo Yacapin, namely, Sol Belnas, et
substituted in the action or joined with the original party.
al. vs. Felimon Belida [Deceased], represented by Merlyn
In petitioners’ Manifestation with Urgent Omnibus
B. Palos, et al., G.R. No. 171669, December 14, 2009.
Motions dated 9 February 2009, they prayed that the
properties acquired by PSALM from NPC be also
JUDGMENT; CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT – levied/garnished. We consider this prayer to be
tantamount to a motion to join PSALM as a party-
respondent in this case in so far as to the properties, and
The doctrine of res judicata actually embraces two
any income arising therefrom, that PSALM acquired from
different concepts: (1) bar by former judgment and (b)
NPC. It is in this light that we order the Clerk of Court of
conclusiveness of judgment. The second concept –
this division to implead or join PSALM as a party-
conclusiveness of judgment – states that a fact or
respondent in this case. As above-explained, PSALM shall
question, which was in issue in a former suit and was
not be denied due process for it can participate in the
there judicially passed upon and determined by a court of
proper forum by preventing the levying of properties
competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the
other than that it had acquired from NPC. NPC Drivers
judgment therein as far as the parties to that action and
and Mechanics Association [NPC DAMA], et al. vs.
persons in privity with them are concerned and cannot be
National Power Corp., et al., G.R. No. 156208, December
again litigated in any future action between such parties
2, 2009.
or their privies in the same court or any other court of
concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or a different
cause of action, while the judgment remains unreversed JUDGMENT; FINALITY OF JUDGMENT.
by proper authority. It has been held that in order that a
judgment in one action can be conclusive as to a
The doctrine of finality of judgments accepts of
particular matter in another action between the same
exceptions only under certain circumstances, as we have
137
held in Spouses Gomez vs. Correa, et al.: “It is settled and executory, it can no longer be disturbed, altered or
that when a final judgment is executory, it becomes modified. Except for clerical errors or mistakes, all the
immutable and unalterable. The judgment may no longer issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid
be modified in any respect, even if the modification is to rest. In Dapar vs. Biascan, this Court reiterates that
meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment
conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the attains finality, it thereby becomes immutable and
modification is attempted to be made by the court unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect,
rendering it or by the highest Court of the land. The even if the modification is meant to correct what is
doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law,
sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted
judgments must become final at some definite point in to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest
time. The only recognized exceptions are the correction court of the land. Just as the losing party has the right to
of clerical errors or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning
entries in which case there is no prejudice to any party, party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the
and where the judgment is void. Government Service resolution of his case. The instant Petition offers no
Insurance System vs. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig cogent reason that would sway this Court to make a
City, et al./Government Service Insurance System vs. radical departure from its hesitancy to reopen a case that
Hon. Celso Laviña, et al.,G.R. No. 175393/G.R. No. has attained finality. Sps. Rogelio Marcelo & Milagros
177731, December 18, 2009. Marcelo vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank
[PCIB], G.R. No. 182735, December 4, 2009.
JUDGMENT; FINALITY OF JUDGMENT.
JUDGMENT; FINALITY OF JUDGMENT.
None of the exceptional circumstances to this doctrine
exist in this case. The modification that would result The main role of the courts of justice is to assist in the
should the petition be granted would not involve merely enforcement of the law and in the maintenance of peace
clerical errors, but would entail presentation of alleged and order by putting an end to judiciable controversies
newly-discovered evidence that should have been raised with finality. Nothing better serves this role than the long
as affirmative defenses during trial. Moreover, the established doctrine of immutability of judgments.
judgment involved herein has been upheld, and not
declared void, by this Court. What petitioner seeks to do
It is never a small matter to maintain that litigation must
is for this Court to now hold that there had already been
end and terminate sometime and somewhere, even at
reconveyance, conducted through various transactions, of
the risk of occasional errors. A judgment that has
the subject properties even before the commencement of
acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable,
the case with the RTC, and, in effect, for us to nullify a
and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the
final and executory judgment that had been passed upon
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of
by the RTC, the CA, and this Court in the first SC case.
fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that
This we cannot do; not with the submissions presented to
rendered it or by the highest court of the land. The
us by petitioner; not during the execution stage of the
reason for the rule is that if, on the application of one
proceedings; not even under the veiled threat that in
party, the court could change its judgment to the
failing to grant the petition, we will be deciding against
prejudice of the other, it could thereafter, on application
the fate of the GSIS funds that exist for the service of
of the latter, again change the judgment and continue
government employees who deserve to be favored in law
this practice indefinitely. The equity of a particular case
under the principles of social justice and equity.
must yield to the overmastering need of certainty and
unalterability of judicial pronouncements.
Even if petitioner claims that it recognizes the finality of
the RTC decision, as affirmed by both the CA and this
The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final
Court, and that it only wants that the execution be
judgment has a two-fold purpose: (1) to avoid delay in
conducted properly, to grant the petition would be to
the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to
negate the factual findings of the RTC and to render
make orderly the discharge of judicial business and (2) to
useless the conclusions reached in the three levels of the
put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of
judiciary on the reconveyance of the subject
occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist.
properties. Government Service Insurance System vs.
Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. The rights and
The Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, et al./Government
obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense
Service Insurance System vs. Hon. Celso Laviña, et al.,
for an indefinite period of time. The doctrine is not a
G.R. No. 175393/G.R. No. 177731, December 18, 2009.
mere technicality to be easily brushed aside, but a matter
of public policy as well as a time-honored principle of
JUDGMENT; FINALITY OF JUDGMENT. procedural law.
Revisiting the records of this case would reveal that the The foregoing considerations show that granting the
case attained its finality as of 26 September 2007, and second motion for reconsideration (with respect to the
the same has already been recorded in the Book of denial of the award of legal interest and attorney’s fees)
Entries of Judgment. This Court, in a long line of cases, absolutely risks the trivialization of the doctrine of
has maintained that once the judgment has become final immutability of a final and executory judgment, and,
138
therefore, the motion should be rejected. Apo Fruits JURISDICTION; ACQUISITION OF JURISDICTION

Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. vs. The Hon. Court THROUGH SERVICE OF SUMMONS.
of Appeals, and Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No.
164195, December 4, 2009.
Petitioner contends that there was a valid substituted
service of summons as shown in not one, but three
JUDGMENT; JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. Officer’s Return. He points out that the absence in the
officer’s return of a statement about the impossibility of
personal service does not conclusively prove that the
It is not correct to say that petitioners were deprived of
service was invalid. He adds that proof of prior attempts
their day in court when the RTC dismissed the complaint
to serve personally can be deduced from the other
even before conducting trial on the merits. As held
returns when there are several in a series of officer’s
in Luzon Development Bank vs. Conquilla, the
returns all tending to establish the impossibility of
court, motu proprio, may render judgment on the
personal service upon the respondent. However, the said
pleadings based on the parties’ admissions in their
argument of the petitioner is merely a plain deduction
pleadings and even without introduction of evidence, if
that veers away from the well-established requisite that
and when these amply establish that there is insufficiency
the officer must show that the defendant cannot be
of factual basis for the action. In this case, petitioners
served promptly, or that there was an impossibility of
admit that they are mere possessors of the parcels of
prompt service. A cursory reading of the three Officer’s
land in question and have been ordered by the MeTC to
Returns does not show any compliance with the said
vacate the same. The gist of their claim in the action for
requisite. Constantino A. Pascual vs. Lourdes S. Pascual,
quieting of title with preliminary injunction is that the
G.R. No. 171916, December 4, 2009.
MeTC Decision in the ejectment case against them should
not be implemented, because respondents’ TCTs are
spurious, having emanated from OCT No. 614, which has JurisDICTION; ACQUSITION OF JURISDICTION
been declared null and void in a Partial Decision rendered THROUGH SERVICE OF SUMMONS.
in Civil Case No. Q-35672. Petitioners’ main prayer is for
the nullification of respondents’ TCTs. From such
Petitioner further states that the presumption of
allegations, it is already clear that petitioners’ action
regularity in the performance of official functions must be
cannot succeed. Firstly, Section 48 of the Property
applied to the present case. He expounds on the fact that
Registration Decree provides that a certificate of title
as between the process server’s return of substituted
cannot be subject to collateral attack and can only be
service, which carries with it the presumption of
altered, modified or cancelled in a direct proceeding in
regularity and the respondent’s self-serving assertion
accordance with law. In Foster-Gallego vs. Galang, the
that she only came to know of the case against her when
Court held that the issue of whether a title was procured
she received a copy of the petitioner’s motion to declare
by falsification or fraud should be raised in an action
her in default, the process server’s return is undoubtedly
expressly instituted for the purpose, not in an action for
more deserving of credit. The said argument, however, is
quieting of title.
only meritorious, provided that there was a strict
compliance with the procedure for serving a summons. In
Hence, herein petitioners’ action for quieting of title is a the absence of even the barest compliance with the
mere collateral attack against respondents’ TCT Nos. procedure for a substituted service of summons outlined
59721, 59725, 59726 and 59727, and is proscribed by in the Rules of Court, the presumption of regularity in the
the law. Secondly, as early as 2001 in Pinlac vs. Court of performance of public functions does not
Appeals, the Court categorically struck down the Partial apply. Constantino A. Pascual vs. Lourdes S. Pascual,
Decision issued in Civil Case No. Q-35672, upon which G.R. No. 171916, December 4, 2009.
herein petitioners base their claim that respondents’ TCTs
are spurious. The Court ruled that said Partial Decision
JURISDICTION; VOID JUDGMENT.
was null and void. Sotero Roy Leonero, et al. vs. Spouses
Marcelino B. Barba, et al., G.R. No. 159788, December
23, 2009. Applying the above disquisitions, the jurisdiction over the
person of the respondent was never vested with the RTC,
because the manner of substituted service by the process
JURISDICTION; ACQUISITION OF JURISDICTION
server was apparently invalid and ineffective. As such,
THROUGH SERVICE OF SUMMONS.
there was a violation of due process. Jurisdiction over the
defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of
In a case where the action is in personam and the summons or the defendant’s voluntary appearance in
defendant is in the Philippines, the service of summons court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to
may be done by personal or substituted service as laid the court’s jurisdiction or when there is no valid service
out in Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of of summons, “any judgment of the court which has no
Court. . . . A plain and simple reading of the above jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and
provisions indicates that personal service of summons void.” Constantino A. Pascual vs. Lourdes S. Pascual,
should and always be the first option, and it is only when G.R. No. 171916, December 4, 2009.
the said summons cannot be served within a reasonable
time can the process server resort to substituted
service. Constantino A. Pascual vs. Lourdes S. Pascual,
G.R. No. 171916, December 4, 2009.
139
This Court provides in Section 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of will help secure and not defeat justice.” Heirs of
Court that a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or Domingo Hernandez Sr., et al. vs. Plaridel Mingoa, Sr., et
a final order should be filed within the period for appeal, al., G.R. No. 146548, December 18, 2009.
which is within 15 days after notice to the appellant of
the judgment or final order appealed from. The 2002
PARTIES; INDISPENSABLE PARTIES IN
Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals also states that
DERIVATIVE SUITS.
unless an appeal or a motion for reconsideration or new
trial is filed within the 15-day reglementary period, the
Court of Appeals’ decision becomes final. Hence, the Under Rule 3, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, an
general rule is that no motion for extension of time to file indispensable party is a party-in-interest, without whom
a motion for reconsideration is allowed. Sps. Rogelio there can be no final determination of an action. The
Marcelo & Milagros Marcelo vs. Philippine Commercial interests of such indispensable party in the subject
International Bank [PCIB], G.R. No. 182735, December matter of the suit and the relief are so bound with those
4, 2009. of the other parties that his legal presence as a party to
the proceeding is an absolute necessity. As a rule, an
indispensable party’s interest in the subject matter is
such that a complete and efficient determination of the
equities and rights of the parties is not possible if he is
The rule as to the non-extension of time to file a motion not joined.
for reconsideration is, however, not absolute. As early as
1986 in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. vs. Maximo M.
The majority of the stockholders of PRCI are
Japson, this Court has pronounced: xxx xxx xxx
indispensable parties to Civil Case No. 07-610, for they
Accordingly, motions for extension of time to file a
have approved and ratified, during the Special
motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed only
Stockholders’ Meeting on 7 November 2006, the
in connection with cases pending before this Court, which
Resolution dated 26 September 2006 of the PRCI Board
may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the
of Directors. Obviously, no final determination of the
extension requested. No such motion may be filed before
validity of the acquisition by PRCI of JTH or of the
any lower courts. In opting for the liberal application of
constitution of the JTH Board of Directors can be had
the rules in the interest of equity and justice, we cannot
without consideration of the effect of the approval and
look with favor on a course of action which would place
ratification thereof by the majority
the administration of justice in a straight jacket for then
stockholders. Santiago Cua, Jr., et al. vs. Miguel Ocampo
the result would be a poor kind of justice if there would
Tan, et al./Santiago Cua, Sr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals,
be justice at all. Sps. Rogelio Marcelo & Milagros Marcelo
et al., G.R. No. 181455-56/G.R. No. 182008, December
vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank
4, 2009.
[PCIB], G.R. No. 182735, December 4, 2009
PARTIES; INDISPENSABLE PARTIES IN ACTION

PARTIES; COURT OF APPEALS AS PARTY.
FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY.
Anent the contention that the petition erroneously

The CA upheld respondent District Engineer’s view that
impleaded the CA as respondent in contravention of
the MCTC should have considered the inhabitants
Section 4(a) of Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
of Barangay Poblacion indispensable parties to the
Procedure, we shall apply our ruling in Simon vs. Canlas,
ejectment case since the land belonged to them and
wherein we held that: “x x x [The] Court agrees that the
since it was for their benefit that the gym was to be built.
correct procedure, as mandated by Section 4, Rule 45 of
But, ownership of the land is not the issue in forcible
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is not to implead the
entry actions. The issue in such actions is who among the
lower court which rendered the assailed decision.
parties has prior possession de facto. While the trial court
However, impleading the lower court as respondent in
may have to determine the issue of ownership, such
the petition for review on certiorari does not
determination is only provisional, to ascertain who
automatically mean the dismissal of the appeal but
among the parties has a better right of possession. The
merely authorizes the dismissal of the petition. Besides,
Episcopal Diocese of the Northern Philippines vs. The
formal defects in petitions are not uncommon. The Court
District Engineer, MPED-DPWH, G.R. No. 178606,
has encountered previous petitions for review on
December 15, 2009.
certiorari that erroneously impleaded the CA. In those
cases, the Court merely called the petitioners’ attention
to the defects and proceeded to resolve the case on their PROCEDURAL RULES; CONSTRUCTION.
merits. The Court finds no reason why it should not
afford the same liberal treatment in this case. While Notwithstanding petitioner’s wrong mode of appeal, the
unquestionably, the Court has the discretion to dismiss CA should not have so easily dismissed the petition,
the appeal for being defective, sound policy dictates that considering that the parties involved are local
it is far better to dispose of cases on the merits, rather government units and that what is involved is the
than on technicality as the latter approach may result in determination of their respective territorial jurisdictions.
injustice. This is in accordance with Section 6, Rule 1 of In the same vein, the CA’s strict reliance on the
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which encourages a requirements under Section 13 of Rule 44 of the 1997
reading of the procedural requirements in a manner that Rules of Procedure relating to subject index and page
140
references in an appellant’s brief is, to stress, putting a Miguel Ocampo Tan, et al./Santiago Cua, Sr., et al. vs.
premium on technicalities. While the purpose of Section Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 181455-56/G.R. No.
13, Rule 44, is to present to the appellate court in the 182008, December 4, 2009.
most helpful light, the factual and legal antecedents of a
case on appeal, said rule should not be strictly applied
PROCEDURAL RULES; LIBERAL APPLICATION.
considering that petitioner’s brief before the CA contained
only 9 pages, the records of the case consisted only of a
few documents and pleadings, and there was no At first glance, the petition suffers from an incipient
testimonial evidence. Barangay Sangalang, represented procedural defect. What petitioners assail in their petition
by its Chairman Dante C. Marcellana vs. Barangay is a resolution issued by the COMELEC in the exercise of
Maguihan, represented by its Chairman Arnulfo its quasi-legislative power. Certiorari under Rule 65, in
Villarez, G.R. No. 159792, December 23, 2009. relation to Rule 64, cannot be availed of, because it is a
remedy to question decisions, resolutions and issuances
made in the exercise of a judicial or quasi-judicial
PROCEDURAL RULES; CONSTRUCTION.
function. Prohibition is also an inappropriate remedy,
because what petitioners actually seek from the Court is
The belated filing of the Amended Petition is a determination of the proper construction of a statute
inexcusable. “Time and again, we held that rules of and a declaration of their rights thereunder. Obviously,
procedure exist for a noble purpose, and to disregard their petition is one for declaratory relief, over which this
such rules, in the guise of liberal construction, would be Court does not exercise original jurisdiction. However,
to defeat such purpose. Procedural rules are not to be petitioners raise a challenge on the constitutionality of
disdained as mere technicalities. They may not be the questioned provisions of both the COMELEC
ignored to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law resolution and the law. Given this scenario, the Court
ensures the effective enforcement of substantive rights may step in and resolve the instant petition. The
through the orderly and speedy administration of transcendental nature and paramount importance of the
justice. Rules are not intended to hamper litigants or issues raised and the compelling state interest involved in
complicate litigation; they help provide a vital system of their early resolution—the period for the filing of CoCs for
justice where suitors may be heard following judicial the 2010 elections has already started and hundreds of
procedure and in the correct forum. Public order and our civil servants intending to run for elective offices are to
system of justice are well served by a conscientious lose their employment, thereby causing imminent and
observance by the parties of the procedural irreparable damage to their means of livelihood and, at
rules.” Susan G. Po and Lilia G. Mutia vs. Omerio the same time, crippling the government’s manpower—
Dampal, G.R. No. 173329, December 21, 2009. further dictate that the Court must, for propriety, if only
from a sense of obligation, entertain the petition so as to
expedite the adjudication of all, especially the
PROCEDURAL RULES; LIBERAL APPLICATION.
constitutional, issues. In any event, the Court has ample
authority to set aside errors of practice or technicalities
When a party adopts an improper remedy, as in this of procedure and resolve the merits of a case. Repeatedly
case, his Petition may be dismissed outright. However, in stressed in our prior decisions is the principle that the
the interest of substantial justice, the strict application of Rules were promulgated to provide guidelines for the
procedural technicalities should not hinder the speedy orderly administration of justice, not to shackle the hand
disposition of this case on the merits. Thus, while the that dispenses it. Otherwise, the courts would be
instant Petition is one for certiorari under Rule 65 of the consigned to being mere slaves to technical rules,
Rules of Court, the assigned errors are more properly deprived of their judicial discretion. Eleazar P. Quinto and
addressed in a petition for review under Rule 45. The Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. vs. Commission on
merits of the Petitions in both G.R. No. 181455-56 and Elections, G.R. No. 189698, December 1, 2009.
No. 182008 compel this Court to give more weight to
substantive justice, instead of technical rules. Indeed,
WRIT OF POSSESSION; ISSUANCE.
where, as here, there is a strong showing that a grave
miscarriage of justice would result from the strict
application of the Rules, the Court will not hesitate to A writ of possession is defined as “a writ of execution
relax the same in the interest of substantial justice. It employed to enforce a judgment to recover the
bears stressing that the rules of procedure are merely possession of land. It commands the sheriff to enter the
tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They land and give its possession to the person entitled under
were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the the judgment.” There are three instances when a writ of
court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves possession may be issued: (a) in land registration
to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. proceedings under Section 17 of Act No. 496; (b) in
In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession
ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that, on of the mortgaged realty and no third person, not a party
the balance, technicalities take a backseat against to the foreclosure suit, had intervened; and (c) in
substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under
if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118.
rather than promote justice, it is always within the power The present case falls under the third
of the Court to suspend the Rules, or except a particular instance. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Hon.
case from its operation. Santiago Cua, Jr., et al. vs. Salvador Abad Santos, Presiding Judge, RTC, BR. 65,
141
Makati City and Manfred De Koning, G.R. No. 157867, not entitled to the easement of right of way prayed for,
December 15, 2009. having failed to prove the essential requisites for such
entitlement, hence, the writ was lifted. The present case
having been heard and found dismissible as it was in fact
WRIT OF POSSESSION; INTERVENTION.
dismissed, the writ of preliminary injunction is deemed
lifted, its purpose as a provisional remedy having been
We also find merit in Metrobank’s contention that the served, the appeal therefrom notwithstanding. Unionbank
lower court should not have allowed De Koning to vs. Court of Appeals enlightens: “x x x a
intervene in the proceedings. A judicial proceeding, dismissal, discontinuance or non-suit of an action in
order, injunction, etc., is ex parte when it is taken or which a restraining order or temporary injunction has
granted at the instance and for the benefit of one party been granted operates as a dissolution of the restraining
only, and without notice to, or contestation by, any order or temporary injunction,” regardless of whether the
person adversely interested. Given that the proceeding period for filing a motion for reconsideration of the order
for a writ of possession, by the terms of Section 7 of Act dismissing the case or appeal therefrom has expired. The
No. 3135, is undoubtedly ex parte in nature, the lower rationale therefor is that even in cases where an appeal
court clearly erred not only when it notified De Koning of is taken from a judgment dismissing an action on the
Metrobank’s ex parte petition for the writ of possession, merits, the appeal does not suspend the judgment, hence
but also when it allowed De Koning to participate in the the general rule applies that a temporary injunction
proceedings and when it took cognizance and upheld De terminates automatically on the dismissal of the action.”
Koning’s motion to dismiss. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Purisimo S. Buyco vs. Nelson Baraquia, G.R. No.
Company vs. Hon. Salvador Abad Santos, Presiding 177486, December 21, 2009.
Judge, RTC, BR. 65, Makati City and Manfred De
Koning, G.R. No. 157867, December 15, 2009.
Special Proceedings
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; REQUISITES.

APPEAL; SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE.
For the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to be

In special proceedings, such as the instant proceeding
proper, it must be shown that the invasion of the right
for settlement of estate, the period of appeal from any
sought to be protected is material and substantial, that
decision or final order rendered therein is 30 days, a
the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable and
notice of appeal and a record on appeal being
that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the
required. . . . The appeal period may only be interrupted
writ to prevent serious damage. In the absence of a clear
by the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration.
legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes
Once the appeal period expires without an appeal being
grave abuse of discretion. In this case, respondents failed
perfected, the decision or order becomes final, thus: xxx
to show that they have a right to be protected and that
xxx xxx In the case under consideration, it was on 13
the acts against which the writ is to be directed are
August 1999 that the RTC issued an Amended Decision.
violative of the said right. The records of the case, the
On 12 October 1999, Jaime Robles erroneously filed a
Orders of the trial court and the Resolutions of the Court
notice of appeal instead of filing a record on appeal. The
of Appeals make no mention of respondents’ said right.
RTC, in an order dated 22 November 1999, denied this
In fact, respondents do not deny their indebtedness to
for his failure to file a record on appeal as required by the
EPCIB. Foreclosure is valid where the debtor is in default
Rules of Court. Petitioner failed to comply with the
in the payment of an obligation. XXX XXX XXX In a real
requirements of the rule; hence, the 13 August 1999
estate mortgage when the principal obligation is not paid
Amended Decision of the RTC lapsed into finality. It was
when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose the
therefore an error for the Court of Appeals to entertain
mortgage and to have the property seized and sold with
the case knowing that Jaime Robles’ appeal was not
the view of applying the proceeds to the payment of the
perfected and had lapsed into finality. In the matter of
obligation. On the face of respondents’ clear admission
the Heirship [Intestate Estates] of the late Hermogenes
that they were unable to settle their obligations which
Rodriguez, et al., Rene B. Pascual vs. Jaime M.
were secured by the mortgages, EPCIB has a clear right
Robles,G.R. No. 182645, December 4, 2009.
to foreclose the mortgages. We fail to see any reason
why the foreclosure of the mortgages should be enjoined,
and the issuance of the preliminary injunction constitutes APPEAL; PERFECTION OF APPEAL.
grave abuse of discretion. Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. vs.
Maria Leticia Fernandez, et al., G.R. No. 163117,
This Court has invariably ruled that perfection of an
December 18, 2009.
appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by
law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; REQUISITES. failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has
the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and
precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction
Indubitably, in the case at bar, the writ of preliminary
over the case. The right to appeal is not a natural right
injunction was granted by the lower court upon
nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory
respondent’s showing that he and his poultry business
privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and
would be injured by the closure of the subject road. After
in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party
trial, however, the lower court found that respondent was
who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the
142
requirement of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to Petitioners’ position does not lie. Their cause of action is
appeal is lost. The reason for rules of this nature is actually to seek the declaration of Pablo and Lucille’s
because the dispatch of business by courts would be marriage as void for being bigamous and impugn
impossible, and intolerable delays would result, without Patrick’s legitimacy, which causes of action are governed
rules governing practice. Public policy and sound practice not by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which took
demand that judgments of courts should become final effect on March 15, 2003, and Art. 171 of the Family
and irrevocable at some definite date fixed by law. Such Code, respectively, hence, the petition should be filed in
rules are a necessary incident to the proper, efficient and a Family Court as expressly provided in said Code.
orderly discharge of judicial functions. Thus, we have
held that the failure to perfect an appeal within the
It is well to emphasize that, doctrinally, validity of
prescribed reglementary period is not a mere
marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be
technicality, but jurisdictional. Just as a losing party has
questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the
the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed
proper party, and not through collateral attack such as
period, so does the winner also have the correlative right
the petition filed before the court a quo. Ma. Cristina
to enjoy the finality of the decision. Failure to meet the
Torres Braza, et al. vs. The City Civil Registrar of
requirements of an appeal deprives the appellate court of
Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, et al., G.R. No. 181174,
jurisdiction to entertain any appeal. There are exceptions
December 4, 2009.
to this rule, unfortunately respondents did not present
any circumstances that would justify the relaxation of
said rule. In the matter of the Heirship [Intestate Other Proceedings
Estates] of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et al., Rene
B. Pascual vs. Jaime M. Robles, G.R. No. 182645, DERIVATIVE SUIT; APPRAISAL RIGHT.
December 4, 2009.
It bears to point out that every derivative suit is

CORRECTION OF ENTRY UNDER RULE 108; necessarily grounded on an alleged violation by the board
MARRIAGE. of directors of its fiduciary duties, committed by
mismanagement, misrepresentation, or fraud, with the
In a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule latter two situations already implying bad faith. If the
108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Original Court upholds the position of respondents Miguel, et al. –
Registry), the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify that the existence of mismanagement,
marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiation. misrepresentation, fraud, and/or bad faith renders the
right of appraisal unavailable – it would give rise to an
absurd situation. Inevitably, appraisal rights would be
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court vis a vis Article 412 of the
unavailable in any derivative suit. This renders the
Civil Code charts the procedure by which an entry in the
requirement in Rule 8, Section 1(3) of the [Interim Rules
civil registry may be cancelled or corrected. The
of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies]
proceeding contemplated therein may generally be used
superfluous and effectively inoperative; and in
only to correct clerical, spelling, typographical and other
contravention of an elementary rule of legal
innocuous errors in the civil registry. A clerical error is
hermeneutics that effect must be given to every word,
one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the
clause, and sentence of the statute, and that a statute
understanding; an error made by a clerk or a transcriber;
should be so interpreted that no part thereof becomes
a mistake in copying or writing, or a harmless change
inoperative or superfluous. Santiago Cua, Jr., et al. vs.
such as a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or
Miguel Ocampo Tan, et al./Santiago Cua, Sr., et al. vs.
of a misstatement of the occupation of the parent.
Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 181455-56/G.R. No.
Substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed
182008, December 4, 2009.
only in adversarial proceedings, in which all interested
parties are impleaded and due process is properly
observed. DERIVATIVE SUIT; SEPARATE DERIVATIVE SUIT.
The allegations of the petition filed before the trial court With the corporation as the real party-in-interest and the
clearly show that petitioners seek to nullify the marriage indispensable party, any ruling in one of the derivative
between Pablo and Lucille on the ground that it is suits should already bind the corporation as res judicata
bigamous and impugn Patrick’s filiation in connection in the other. Allowing two different minority stockholders
with which they ask the court to order Patrick to be to institute separate derivative suits arising from the
subjected to a DNA test. Ma. Cristina Torres Braza, et al. same factual background, alleging the same causes of
vs. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan, Negros action, and praying for the same reliefs, is tantamount to
Occidental, et al., G.R. No. 181174, December 4, 2009. allowing the corporation, the real party-in-interest, to file
the same suit twice, resulting in the violation of the rules
against a multiplicity of suits and even forum-shopping.
CORRECTION OF ENTRY; MARRIAGE.
It is also in disregard of the separate-corporate-entity
principle, because it is to look beyond the corporation
Petitioners insist that the main cause of action is for the and to give recognition to the different identities of the
correction of Patrick’s birth records and that the rest of stockholders instituting the derivative suits. It is for these
the prayers are merely incidental thereto. reasons that the derivative suit, Civil Case No. 08-458,
143
although filed by a different set of minority stockholders Lawrence Lim Swee Lin, Tham Ka Hon, and Dato Surin
from those in Civil Case No. 07-610, should still not be Upatkoon, in their capacity as directors of PRCI and/or
allowed to proceed. Santiago Cua, Jr., et al. vs. Miguel JTH. Clearly, the acquisition by PRCI of JTH and the
Ocampo Tan, et al./Santiago Cua, Sr., et al. vs. Court of constitution of the JTH Board of Directors are no longer
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 181455-56/G.R. No. 182008, just the acts of the majority of the PRCI Board of
December 4, 2009. Directors, but also of the majority of the PRCI
stockholders. By ratification, even an unauthorized act of
an agent becomes the authorized act of the principal. To
DERIVATIVE SUIT; CLASS SUITS.
declare the Resolution dated 26 September 2006 of the
PRCI Board of Directors null and void will serve no
A shareholder’s derivative suit seeks to recover for the practical use or value, or affect any of the rights of the
benefit of the corporation and its whole body of parties, because the Resolution dated 7 November 2006
shareholders when injury is caused to the corporation of the PRCI stockholders — approving and ratifying said
that may not otherwise be redressed because of failure of acquisition and the manner in which PRCI shall constitute
the corporation to act. Thus, ‘the action is derivative, i.e., the JTH Board of Directors — will still remain valid and
in the corporate right, if the gravamen of the complaint is binding. Santiago Cua, Jr., et al. vs. Miguel Ocampo
injury to the corporation, or to the whole body of its Tan, et al./Santiago Cua, Sr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals,
stock and property without any severance or distribution et al., G.R. No. 181455-56/G.R. No. 182008, December
among individual holders, or it seeks to recover assets 4, 2009.
for the corporation or to prevent the dissipation of its
assets.’ [Citations.]” (Jones, supra, 1 Cal.3d 93, 106, 81
REHABILITATION PROCEEDINGS; LABOR CLAIMS.
Cal.Rptr. 592, 460 P.2d 464.) In contrast, “a direct action
[is one] filed by the shareholder individually (or on behalf
of a class of shareholders to which he or she belongs) for Labor claims are included among the actions suspended
injury to his or her interest as a shareholder. … [¶] … upon the placing under rehabilitation of employer-
[T]he two actions are mutually exclusive: i.e., the right of corporations.
action and recovery belongs to either the shareholders
(direct action) *651 or the corporation (derivative
This Court notes that PD 902-A itself does not provide for
action).”
the duration of the automatic stay. Neither does the
Order of the SEC. Hence, the suspensive effect has no
Based on allegations in the Complaint of Miguel, et al., in time limit and remains in force as long as reasonably
Civil Case No. 07-610, the Court determines that there is necessary to accomplish the purpose of the Order. Gina
only a derivative suit, based on the devices and schemes M. Tiangco and Salvacion Jenny Manego vs. Uniwide
employed by the PRCI Board of Directors that amounts to Sales Warehouse Club, Inc. and Jimmy Gow, G.R. No.
mismanagement, misrepresentation, fraud, and bad 168697, December 14, 2009.
faith. Santiago Cua, Jr., et al. vs. Miguel Ocampo Tan, et
al./Santiago Cua, Sr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et
REHABILITATION PROCEEDINGS; STAY ORDER.
al., G.R. No. 181455-56/G.R. No. 182008, December 4,
2009.
Petitioners seek to have the suspension of proceedings
lifted on the ground that the SEC already approved
respondent USWCI’s [second amendment to the
rehabilitation plan]. However, there is no legal ground to
DERIVATIVE SUITS; MOOTNESS. do so because the suspensive effect of the stay order is
not time-bound. As we held in Rubberworld, it continues
to be in effect as long as reasonably necessary to
That a court will not sit for the purpose of trying moot
accomplish its purpose. This is clarified in the Interim
cases and spend its time in deciding questions, the
Rules. Gina M. Tiangco and Salvacion Jenny Manego vs.
resolution of which cannot in any way affect the rights of
Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, Inc. and Jimmy
the person or persons presenting them, is well settled.
Gow, G.R. No
Where the issues have become moot and academic, there
is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the
resolution of the same of no practical use or value. Criminal Procedure
The Resolution dated 26 September 2006 of the PRCI DISMISSAL; APPEAL BY PRIVATE PARTY.
Board of Directors was approved and ratified by the
stockholders, holding 74% of the outstanding capital
The dismissal made by the RTC can only be appealed by
stock in PRCI, during the Special Stockholders’ Meeting
the OSG. The private offended party has no legal
held on 7 November 2006.
personality to do so. Here, the Supreme Court applied
the general rule under Sec. 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III,
Respondents Miguel, et al., instituted Civil Case No. 07- Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987 which
610 only on 10 July 2007, against herein petitioners provided that only the OSG can bring and/or defend
Santiago Sr., Santiago Jr., Solomon, and Robles, actions on behalf of the Republic or represent the people
together with Renato de Villa, Lim Teong Leong,
144
or the State in criminal proceedings pending in the The Constitution, particularly Article IX, Section 20,
Supreme Court and the CA. empowers the COMELEC to investigate and, when
appropriate, prosecute election cases. Furthermore,
under Section 265 of the OEC, the COMELEC, through its
Private offended parties have limited roles in criminal
duly authorized legal officers, has the exclusive power to
cases. They are only witnesses for the prosecution. Thus,
conduct the preliminary investigation of all election
a private offended party may not appeal the dismissal of
offenses punishable under the OEC and to prosecute the
a criminal case or the acquittal of an accused because the
same. Under Section 265 of the OEC, the COMELEC may
aggrieved party is the People of the Philippines. However,
avail itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of
the offended party may appeal the civil aspect of the
the government. Thus, Section 2, Rule 34 of the
case and may, thus, file a special civil action for certiorari
COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides for the continuing
questioning the decision/action of the court on
delegation of authority to other prosecuting arms of the
jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, the private offended
government, which authority, however, may be revoked
party cannot bring the action in the name of the People
or withdrawn at anytime by the COMELEC in the proper
of the Philippines, but must prosecute the same in his
exercise of its judgment. Section 10 of the same Rule 34
own personal capacity. Elvira O. Ong vs. Jose Casim
gives the COMELEC the power to motu proprio revise,
Genio, G.R. No. 182336. December 23, 2009.
modify and reverse the resolution of the Chief State
Prosecutor and/or provincial/city prosecutors.
INFORMATION; OBJECTION TO FORM.
Clearly, the Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and City
Objections relating to the form of the complaint or Fiscals, and/or their respective assistants have been
information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. given continuing authority, as deputies of the
The accused-appellant should have moved before Commission, to conduct a preliminary investigation of
arraignment either for a bill of particulars or for the complaints involving election offenses under the election
quashal of the information. Having failed to pursue either laws and to prosecute the same. However, such authority
remedy, he is deemed to have waived his objections to may be revoked or withdrawn anytime by the COMELEC
any formal defect in the information. The People of the either expressly or impliedly, when in its judgment, such
Philippines vs. Romar Teodoro y Vallejo, G.R. No. revocation or withdrawal is necessary to protect the
172372. December 4, 2009. integrity of the process to promote the common good or
where it believes that the successful prosecution of the
Information; options available to RTC upon filing of case can be done by the COMELEC. Moreover, being
information. The options available to the RTC upon the mere deputies or agents of the COMELEC, provincial or
filing of an information before it by the public prosecutor city prosecutors deputized by it are expected to act in
or any prosecutor of the Secretary of Justice, are the accord with and not contrary to or in derogation of the
following: (1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record resolutions, directives or orders of the COMELEC in
clearly failed to establish probable cause; (2) if the RTC relation to election cases where it had been deputized to
finds probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest; and (3) investigate and prosecute by the COMELEC. As mere
in case of doubt as to the existence of probable cause, deputies, provincial and city prosecutors acting on behalf
order the prosecutor to present additional evidence of the COMELEC must proceed within the lawful scope of
within 5 days from notice, the issue to be resolved by the their delegated authority. Bievenido Diño and Renato
court within thirty (3) days from the filing of the Comparativo vs. Pablo Olivarez, G.R. No. 170447,
information. The Supreme Court held that dismissal of December 4, 2009.
the case by the RTC judge in this case did not amount to
grave abuse of discretion. Rather, it clearly showed his PETITION FOR REVIEW; QUESTIONS OF FACT.
compliance with his duty to personally evaluate the
resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence.
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Elvira O. Ong vs. Jose Casim Genio, G.R. No. 182336.
Rules of Court should only raise issues involving
December 23, 2009
questions of law and not questions of fact. As a general
rule, a Rule 45 petition for certiorari should only involve
JURISDICTION; ELECTION CASES. legal questions which should be raised and distinctly set
forth in the petition because the Supreme Court is not a
A public prosecutor exceeded the authority delegated to trier of facts. The Supreme Court will not disturb the
him by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to factual findings of the Court of Appeals, unless such
prosecute election-related cases when he filed amended findings are mistaken, absurd, speculative, conflicting,
informations in court against the respondent Pablo tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the
Olivares even after he had been directed by the Legal findings reached by the court of origin.
Department of the COMELEC to suspend the
implementation of his joint resolution (which found that The Supreme Court explained that questions of law exist
the respondent should be indicted) but before his when there is doubt on what law is applicable to a certain
delegated authority had been revoked by the COMELEC set of facts, while questions of fact are involved when
en banc. there is an issue regarding the truth or falsity of the
statements of facts. Questions on whether certain pieces
of evidence should be accorded with probative value or
145
whether the proofs presented by one party are clear, position to pass judgment thereon. A review of the
convincing, and adequate to establish a proposition, are petition does not show any reversible error committed by
issues of fact which are not subject to review by the the appellate court; hence, the petition must be denied.
Supreme Court. Juno Batistis vs. People of the Petitioner failed to present any argument that would
Philippines, G.R. No. 181571. December 16, 2009. convince the Court that the SEC and the CA made any
misappreciation of the facts and the applicable laws such
that their decisions should be overturned. Catmon Sales
PROBABLE CASE; REVERSAL OF FINDING.
International Corporation vs. Atty. Manuel D. Yngson, Jr.
as Liquidator of Catmon Sales International Corporation,
A new presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court can G.R. No. 179761, January 15, 2010.
reverse the order issued by a former presiding Judge
finding no probable cause against respondents. although
APPEAL; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
the former presiding judge had found no probable cause
AGENCIES.
against respondents, he did not altogether close the
issue. In fact, he ignored respondents’ motion to dismiss
the case and even directed the City Prosecutor’s Office to No matter how hard it tries to learn the technical
submit additional evidence. This indicated that he still intricacies of certain highly regulated human activities,
had doubts about his findings. Thus, when Judge the Supreme Court will always be inadequately equipped
Justalero took over, Judge Justalero committed no grave to identify the facts that matter when resolving issues
abuse of discretion when he reversed his predecessor’s involving such activities. Invariably, the Court must
earlier unsettled position. respect the factual findings of administrative agencies
which have expertise on matters that fall within their
jurisdiction. Here, since the HLURB has the expertise in
There was no grave abuse of discretion when Judge
applying zonal classifications on specific properties and
Justalero found probable cause against respondents.
since petitioner GEA fails to make out a clear case that it
Probable cause assumes the existence of facts that would
has erred, the Court must rely on its finding that
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
respondent EGI’s land site does not, for the purpose of
that a crime has been committed and that it was likely
applying height restrictions, adjoin an R-1
committed by the person sought to be arrested. It
zone. Greenhills East Association, Inc. vs. E. Ganzon,
requires neither absolute certainty nor clear and
Inc., G.R. No. 169741, January 22, 2010.
convincing evidence of guilt. The test for issuing a
warrant of arrest is less stringent than that used for
establishing the guilt of the accused. As long as the APPEAL; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS.
evidence shows a prima facie case against the accused,
the trial court has sufficient ground to issue a warrant for
In the case at bench, the issues raised by the petitioners
his arrest. People of the Philippines vs. Jan Michael Tan
are essentially factual matters, the determination of
and Archie Tan, G.R. No. 182310, December 9, 2009.
which are best left to the courts below. Well-settled is
the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
Factual findings of the lower courts are entitled to great
weight and respect on appeal, and in fact accorded
finality when supported by substantial evidence on the
record. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla
JANUARY 2010 CASES
of evidence. It is that amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
Civil Procedure conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable,
might conceivably opine otherwise. But to erase any
APPEAL; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE doubt on the correctness of the assailed ruling, we have
AGENCIES. carefully perused the records and, nonetheless, arrived at
the same conclusion. We find that there is substantial
evidence on record to support the Court of Appeals and
We stress the settled rule that the findings of fact of trial court’s conclusion that the signatures of Julian and
administrative bodies, such as the SEC, will not be Guillerma in the Deed of Absolute Sale were
interfered with by the courts in the absence of grave forged. Spouses Patricio and Myrna Bernales vs. Heirs of
abuse of discretion on the part of said agencies, or unless Julian Sambaan, et al., G.R. No. 163271, January 15,
the aforementioned findings are not supported by 2010.
substantial evidence. These factual findings carry even
more weight when affirmed by the CA. They are
accorded not only great respect but even finality, and are APPEAL; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS.
binding upon this Court, unless it is shown that the
administrative body had arbitrarily disregarded or Conclusions and findings of fact by the trial court are
misapprehended evidence before it to such an extent as entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be
to compel a contrary conclusion had such evidence been disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons because
properly appreciated. By reason of the special knowledge the trial court is in a better position to examine real
and expertise of administrative agencies over matters evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the
falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better witnesses while testifying in the case. The fact that the
146
CA adopted the findings of fact of the trial court makes courts below and therefore sustain the judgment of the
the same binding upon this court. In Philippine Airlines, appellate court. Bernarda CH. Osmeña vs. Nicasio CH.
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held that factual findings of Osmeña, et al., G.R. No. 171911, January 26, 2010.
the CA which are supported by substantial evidence are
binding, final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. A
departure from this rule may be warranted where the
findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and
conclusions of the trial court, or when the same is APPEAL; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF LOWER COURT;
unsupported by the evidence on record. There is no EXCEPTION.
ground to apply the exception in the instant case,
however, because the findings and conclusions of the CA Well-settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of
are in full accord with those of the trial court. Spouses facts. When supported by substantial evidence, the
Patricio and Myrna Bernales v. Heirs of Julian Sambaan, findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding with,
et al., G.R. No. 163271, January 15, 2010. and are not reviewable by us unless the case falls under
any of the recognized exceptions. One of the exceptions
APPEAL; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS. is when the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to
those of the trial court or quasi-judicial agency. In this
case, the findings of fact of the CA and the DARAB are
Petitioner likewise faults the CA in giving full credence to
conflicting, thus we are compelled to take a look at the
the Sheriff’s Partial Return dated May 5, 2004 stating
factual milieu of this case. Bienvenido T. Buada, et al. vs.
that respondent DKS had already turned over possession
Cement Center, Inc., G.R. No. 180374. January 22,
of subject premises to the government. Suffice it to
2010.
state, though, that this matter is factual in nature and is
beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari.
The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower APPEAL; SCOPE OF REVIEW.
courts, whose findings on these matters are received with
respect and considered binding by the Supreme Court Lastly, petitioner prays in the alternative that
subject only to certain exceptions, none of which is respondents be ordered to pay the monetary award as
present in this instant petition. This is especially true contained in the RTC decision. We cannot, however,
when the findings of the RTC have been affirmed by the grant such relief as again, this is beyond our competence
CA as in this case. Philippine National Bank v. DKS in this petition. To reiterate, we are only confined here
International, Inc. and Michael Dy, G.R. No. 179161, to reviewing errors of law allegedly committed by the CA
January 22, 2010. in its assailed Decision. Such relief should have been
sought in the appeal from the main case. Philippine
APPEAL; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF LOWER COURT. National Bank vs. DKS International, Inc. and Michael
Dy, G.R. No. 179161, January 22, 2010.
The core issue for our resolution is whether the CA erred
in giving credence to the deed of sale dated April 26, APPEAL; STATUTORY PRIVILEGE.
1982 and in holding that respondents are the owners of
the disputed lots. This Court is not bound to weigh all The failure to file an appeal from the decision rendering it
over again the evidence adduced by the parties, final and executory is not a denial of due process. The
particularly where the findings of both the trial court and right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due
the appellate court coincide. The resolution of factual process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be
issues is a function of the trial court whose findings on exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the
these matters are, as a general rule, binding on this provisions of the law. Jaime T. Torres vs. China Banking
Court, more so where these have been affirmed by the Corporation, G.R. No. 165408, January 15, 2010.
CA. We have thoroughly reviewed the records of this
case and agree that the deed of sale dated April 26, 1982
is a legal and binding document. The testimonies of the
witnesses to the document attest to the parties freely
signing the document and the occurrence of the CERTIORARI; CLAIM OF FORUM SHOPPING WHERE
transaction in a clear and definite manner. Moreover, it is APPEAL TAKEN IN MAIN CASE.
a notarized document which renders it a prima facie
evidence of the facts contained therein. In the absence
of documents or testimonies from disinterested persons The Florendos also point out that a special civil action
proving petitioner’s claim of a fictitious sale, there is no of certiorari can no longer be resorted to when, as in this
basis to set aside the deed of sale. In petitions for case, the matter raised in such action may be deemed
review on certiorari, the jurisdiction of this Court is already covered by the appeal that respondent
limited to the review and revision of errors of law Paramount had taken from the RTC decision. These two
allegedly committed by the appellate court inasmuch as remedies, they argue, are mutually exclusive and, when
the latter’s findings of fact are deemed conclusive. Given instituted, the second constitutes forum shopping. There
that the facts of this case, as gleaned from the records, is no forum shopping in this case. What respondent
fully support the decision of the trial court and the CA, Paramount imputes in the certiorari action is the RTC’s
we see no valid reason to overturn the findings of the grave abuse of discretion in allowing the execution
147
pending appeal of its decision. In the ordinary appeal jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as
from the main case, what Paramount challenges is the where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
merit of the trial court’s decision. Rosario T. Florendo vs. manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and
Paramount Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 167976, January must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion
21, 2010. of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. Grave
abuse of discretion refers not merely to palpable errors of
CERTIORARI; GENERALLY NOT AVAILABLE TO
jurisdiction or to violations of the Constitution, the law
REVIEW FINAL JUDGMENT ON MERITS.
and jurisprudence. It refers also to cases in which, for
various reasons, there has been gross misapprehension
The CA ruled that there was nothing novel about a of facts. We find that the CA correctly took notice of the
petition for certiorari being filed with that court when the government’s take-over and repossession of the subject
act or omission complained of involved grave abuse of property, as these are the very same facts which the RTC
discretion or excess of jurisdiction. This Court must considered to be the reasons why the writ of execution
disagree. In determining whether the proper remedy is a with break open order it earlier issued cannot anymore
special civil action for certiorari or a petition for review, it be implemented. Without discussing these issues, the CA
is not so much the nature of the question or questions would not be able to make a determination whether the
that would be raised that matters. With very rare recall of the writ of execution was proper under the
exceptions, what is decisive is whether or not the circumstances. Such an assessment is imperative
challenged order is a final order that disposes of the because the resolution of the issue of whether or not the
merit of the case. The Court held in Metropolitan Manila RTC committed grave abuse of discretion hinges on
Development Authority v. Jancom Environmental Corp. it. Philippine National Bank vs. DKS International, Inc.
that the remedy for seeking the reversal or modification and Michael Dy, G.R. No. 179161, January 22, 2010.
of a judgment rendered on the merits of the case is
appeal. This is true even if the error imputed to the
CERTIORARI; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
officer, body, or tribunal constitutes alleged lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case or grave
abuse of discretion in making its or his findings of fact or The Florendos argue that the CA should not have taken
of law. The Court cannot countenance the blurring of the cognizance of respondent Paramount’s special civil action
distinction between a special civil action for certiorari and of certiorari considering its failure to first seek the RTC’s
a petition for review. [Note: this case involved a special reconsideration of its questioned special order. The
civil action for certiorari filed in the Court of Appeals to general rule is of course that a motion for reconsideration
question a decision of the Civil Service of the challenged order is a prerequisite to the filing of a
Commission] Department of Labor and Employment, et special civil action of certiorari in a higher court to annul
al. vs. Ruben Y Maceda, G.R. No. 185112, January 18, such order. This gives the lower court a chance to
2010. correct the errors imputed to it. But one of the
exceptions to such requirement is where the matter
involved is urgent. Here, the CA correctly dispensed with
the requirement since the RTC had already issued a writ
of execution and so its enforcement was imminent.
Besides, it cannot be said that the CSC [Commission on Besides, the issue of the validity of the execution pending
Civil Service] gravely abused its discretion in dismissing appeal in this case was a pure question of law. (Rosario
respondent Maceda’s complaint. Grave abuse of T. Florendo vs. Paramount Insurance Corp., G.R. No.
discretion exists where the public respondent acts in a 167976, January 21, 2010.
manner so patent and gross that it amounts to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to do what
CERTIORARI; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
the law enjoins on him. It is not sufficient that the CA
disagreed with the findings of the CSC or considered
them in error; it had to determine that the CSC’s findings Settled is the rule that a special civil action for certiorari
had run berserk, prompted by passion and personal can prosper only if the aggrieved party has no other
hostility rather than by reason. The CA did not make this plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
determination. (Department of Labor and Employment, course of law, such as a motion for reconsideration, so as
et al. vs. Ruben Y Maceda, G.R. No. 185112, January 18, to allow the lower court to correct its alleged error.
2010. Respondents did not move for the reconsideration of the
May 25, 2004 decision of the RTC. Considering that the
RTC leniently granted respondents’ motions for extension
to file an answer, it did not render the assailed order and
decision arbitrarily by reason of personal hostility. Thus,
It is well to remind petitioner that the sole issue raised a motion for reconsideration, if meritorious, was not
before the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 88098, is whether or not useless. Consequently, the petition for certiorari should
the RTC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack have been dismissed outright for respondent’s failure to
of or in excess of jurisdiction when it recalled the writ of file a motion for reconsideration. Juanito Geronimo, et al.
execution with break open order. By grave abuse of vs. The Heirs of Carlito Geronimo represented by
discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical Angelito Geronimo, G.R. No. 169858, January 26, 2010.
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
148
CERTIORARI; PERIOD TO FILE. verified petition with full compliance with the
requirements therefor and shall be disposed of in
accordance with the second paragraph of this section.
Considering that the motion for reconsideration dated
August 17, 2001 denied by the order dated February 11,
2002 was in reality and effect a prohibited second motion Clearly, the petitioner’s charging GSIS, et al. with indirect
for reconsideration vis-à-vis the orders dated October contempt by mere motions was not permitted
21, 1999 and October 8, 1999, the assailed orders dated by the Rules of Court. (Eligio P. Mallari vs. Government
July 30, 2001, October 21, 1999, and October 8, 1999 Service Insurance System and the Provincial Sheriff of
could no longer be subject to attack by certiorari. Thus, Pampanga, G.R. No. 157659, January 25, 2010.
the petition for certiorari filed only in March 2002 was
already improper and tardy for being made beyond the
CONTEMPT; FILING FEES FOR INDIRECT
60-day limitation defined in Section 4, Rule 65,
CONTEMPT APPLICATION.
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which
requires a petition for certiorari to be filed “not later than
sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or And, secondly, even assuming that charges for contempt
resolution,” or, in case a motion for reconsideration or could be initiated by motion, the petitioner should have
new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required tendered filing fees. The need to tender filing fees
or not, “the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from derived from the fact that the procedure
notice of the denial of the said motion.” It is worth for indirect contempt under Rule 71, Rules of Court was
emphasizing that the 60-day limitation is considered an independent special civil action. Yet, the petitioner
inextendible, because the limitation has been prescribed did not tender and pay filing fees, resulting in the trial
to avoid any unreasonable delay that violates the court not acquiring jurisdiction over the action. Truly,
constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of the omission to tender filing fees would have also
their cases. (Eligio P. Mallari vs. Government Service warranted the dismissal of the charges. It seems to be
Insurance System and the Provincial Sheriff of indubitable from the foregoing that the petitioner
Pampanga, G.R. No. 157659, January 25, 2010. initiated the charges for indirect contempt without regard
to the requisites of the Rules of Court simply to vex the
adverse party. He thereby disrespected the orderly
CONTEMPT; APPLICATION FOR INDIRECT
administration of justice and committed, yet again, an
CONTEMPT.
abuse of procedures. Eligio P. Mallari vs. Government
Service Insurance System and the Provincial Sheriff of
Indeed, a person may be charged with indirect contempt Pampanga, G.R. No. 157659, January 25, 2010.
only by either of two alternative ways, namely: (1) by
a verified petition, if initiated by a party; or (2)
EJECTMENT; SUPERSEDEAS BOND.
by an order or any other formal charge requiring the
respondent to show cause why he should not be punished
for contempt, if made by a court against which the Petitioner next contends that the writ of execution with
contempt is committed. In short, a charge of indirect break open order was abruptly recalled without
contempt must be initiated through a verified respondents complying with the mandatory requirements
petition, unless the charge is directly made by the court of Sec. 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner
against which the contemptuous act is stresses that in order to stay the immediate execution of
committed. Justice Regalado has explained why the a judgment in an ejectment case while an appeal is
requirement of the filing of a verified petition for pending, the defendant must perfect his appeal, file a
contempt is mandatory: supersedeas bond and periodically deposit the rentals
which became due during the pendency of the appeal.
But despite the failure of respondents to post the
This new provision clarifies with a regulatory norm the
required supersedeas bond, the CA still affirmed the
proper procedure for commencing contempt
recall of the issuance of the writ of execution with break
proceedings. While such proceeding has been classified
open order. Petitioner’s contention fails to persuade us.
as a special civil action under the former Rules, the
Sec. 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court is not applicable in
heterogeneous practice, tolerated by the courts, has
this case. In Uy v. Santiago, we held that it is only the
been for any party to file a mere motion without paying
execution of the MeTC or Municipal Trial Courts’
any docket or lawful fees therefor and without complying
judgment pending appeal with the RTC which may be
with the requirements for initiatory pleadings, which is
stayed by compliance with the requisites provided
now required in the second paragraph of this amended
in Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. This can be
section. Worse, and as a consequence of
deduced from the wordings of the subject provision, to
unregulated motions for contempt, said incidents
wit:
sometimes remain pending for resolution although the
main case has already been decided. There are other
undesirable aspects but, at any rate, the same may now Section 19. Immediate Execution Of
be eliminated by this amendatory procedure. Judgment; How To Stay Same.- If
judgment is rendered against the
defendant, execution shall issue
Henceforth, except for indirect contempt proceedings
immediately upon motion, unless an
initiated motu proprio by order of or a formal charge by
appeal has been perfected and the
the offended court, all charges shall be commenced by a
149
defendant to stay execution files a property and which was not a party to the ejectment
sufficient supersedeas bond, approved case, would be ordered to vacate the same in order that
by the Municipal Trial Court and possession thereof may be delivered to petitioner. We
executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay thus hold that under these circumstances, the recall of
the rents, damages, and costs accruing the writ of execution with break open order was
down to the time of the judgment warranted. (Philippine National Bank vs. DKS
appealed from, and unless, during the International, Inc. and Michael Dy, G.R. No. 179161,
pendency of the appeal, he deposits January 22, 2010.
with the appellate court the amount of
rent due from time to time under the
EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL.
contract, if any, as determined by the
judgment of the Municipal Trial Court.
In the absence of a contract, he shall What is more, on October 28, 2008 the CA decided in the
deposit with the Regional Trial Court main case to reverse and set aside the decision of the
the reasonable value of the use and RTC, dismiss the Florendos’ complaint, and order the
occupation of the premises for the issuance of new titles to the lands in the name of
preceding month or period at the rate respondent Paramount. Assuming that such decision has
determined by the judgment of the not yet become final, the RTC decision subject of
lower court on or before the tenth day execution pending appeal has nonetheless already lost its
of each succeeding month or presumptive validity. This development gives the Court
period. The supersedeas bond shall be all the more reason to affirm the CA decision subject of
transmitted by the Municipal Trial the present petition. Rosario T. Florendo vs. Paramount
Court, with the other papers, to the Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 167976, January 21, 2010.
clerk of the Regional Trial Court to
which the action is appealed. XXX EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL; POSTING OF BOND.
XXX XXX
Lastly, the Florendos’ posting of a P4 million bond to

This is not the situation here. Respondents are not answer for the damages that respondent Paramount
staying the execution of the judgment of the MeTC might suffer in case the RTC decision is reversed on
pending appeal to the RTC as the latter court, in fact, had appeal is quite insufficient. The lands had a market value
already rendered its judgment on the appeal. Clearly, of P42 million in 2001. Rosario T. Florendo vs. Paramount
the above-quoted provision does not find any application Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 167976, January 21, 2010.
in the present petition. Philippine National Bank vs. DKS
International, Inc. and Michael Dy, G.R. No. 179161,
January 22, 2010. EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL; REQUIREMENT OF
“SPECIAL AND GOOD REASONS”.
EXECUTION; RECALL OF WRIT OF EXECUTION WITH

BREAK OPEN ORDER. The Florendos insist that the CA erred in rejecting as
reasonable basis for execution pending appeal a)
Rosario’s old age, given that precedents exist for such
This, notwithstanding a review of the record, justification; b) respondent Paramount’s delaying tactics
nevertheless shows that the CA was correct in holding and its possible insolvency; and c) the P4 million bond
that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion or that the Florendos posted. Normally, execution will issue
act in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the order which as a matter of right only (a) when the judgment has
recalled the writ of execution with break open order. By become final and executory; (b) when the judgment
virtue of the Decisions of the MeTC and the RTC which debtor has renounced or waived his right of appeal; (c)
both ruled in favor of petitioner in the subject forcible when the period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal
entry case, petitioner was indeed, as a matter of right, having been filed; or (d) when, having been filed, the
entitled to a writ of execution pursuant to Sec. 21, Rule appeal has been resolved and the records of the case
70 of the Rules of Court. Thus, the RTC ordered the have been returned to the court of origin. Execution
issuance of a writ of execution with break open in the pending appeal is the exception to the general rule. As
dispositive portion of its March 10, 2004 Decision. But such exception, the court’s discretion in allowing it must
before said writ could be implemented, inescapable be strictly construed and firmly grounded on the
material facts and circumstances were brought to the existence of good reasons. “Good reasons,” it has been
attention of the RTC. The respondents had already held, consist of compelling circumstances that justify
surrendered possession of the subject premises to the immediate execution lest the judgment becomes
government. Clearly, the portion of the Decision illusory. The circumstances must be superior,
ordering respondents to vacate the subject property and outweighing the injury or damages that might result
peacefully surrender possession thereof to petitioner has should the losing party secure a reversal of the
become impossible to implement. For how can judgment. Lesser reasons would make of execution
respondents surrender possession of the premises when pending appeal, instead of an instrument of solicitude
they were no longer in possession? And, as correctly and justice, a tool of oppression and inequity. The
observed by the RTC, it would be a misstep if the Florendos point out that Rosario is already in her old age
government which is admittedly the owner of the subject and suffers from life threatening ailments. But the trial
150
court has allowed execution pending appeal for all of the 1964) and Act No. 3135, on one hand, and the jurisprudence
Florendos, not just for Rosario whose share in the subject clarifying the reckoning of the redemption period in judicial
lands had not been established. No claim is made that sales of real property, on the other hand, the Court has
the rest of the Florendos are old and ailing. incorporated in Section 28 of Rule 39 of the current Rules of
Consequently, the execution pending appeal was Court (effective on July 1, 1997) the foregoing judicial
indiscreet and too sweeping. All the lands could be sold construction of reckoning the redemption period from the date
for P42 million, the value mentioned in the petition, and of the registration of the certificate of sale, to wit:
distributed to all the Florendos for their enjoyment with
no sufficient assurance that they all will and can return
Sec. 28. Time and manner of, and amounts
such sum in case the CA reverses, as it has in fact done,
payable on, successive redemptions; notice
the RTC decision. Moreover, it is unclear how much of
to be given and filed. — The judgment
the proceeds of the sale of the lands Rosario needed for
obligor, or redemptioner, may redeem the
her old age. The RTC also justified the execution pending
property from the purchaser, at any time
appeal on respondent Paramount’s delaying tactics and
within one (1) year from the date of the
the possibility that it could become insolvent during the
registration of the certificate of sale, by
appeal. But these justifications are purely speculative.
paying the purchaser the amount of his
The RTC has already decided the case and whether the
purchase, with one per centum per month
proceedings on appeal will be delayed is not in the hands
interest thereon in addition, up to the time
of Paramount. The CA has control of the time elements
of redemption, together with the amount of
in appealed cases. As for the Florendos’ fear of
any assessments or taxes which the
Paramount’s insolvency, such is wholly irrelevant since
purchaser may have paid thereon after
the judgment did not require it to pay them any form of
purchase, and interest on such last named
damages. Indeed, the Florendos are the ones required
amount at the same rate; and if the
by the RTC to reimburse Paramount the value of its bid
purchaser be also a creditor having a prior
and the amounts of real estate taxes that it had paid on
lien to that of the redemptioner, other than
the properties. Rosario T. Florendo vs. Paramount
the judgment under which such purchase
Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 167976, January 21, 2010.
was made, the amount of such other lien,
with interest. XXX XXX XXX.
EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE;
COMPUTATION OF PERIOD.
Accordingly, the mortgagor or his successor-in-interest
must redeem the foreclosed property within one year
Anent the redemption of property sold in an extrajudicial from the registration of the sale with the Register of
foreclosure sale made pursuant to the special power referred Deeds in order to avoid the title from consolidating in the
to in Section 1 of Act No. 3135, as amended, the debtor, his purchaser. By failing to redeem thuswise, the mortgagor
successor-in-interest, or any judicial creditor or judgment loses all interest over the foreclosed property. The
creditor of said debtor, or any person having a lien on the purchaser, who has a right to possession that
property subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under extends beyond the expiration of the redemption period,
which the property is sold has the right to redeem the becomes the absolute owner of the property when no
property at anytime within the term of one year from and after redemption is made, that it is no longer necessary for the
the date of the sale, such redemption to be governed by the purchaser to file the bond required under Section 7 of Act
provisions of Section 464 to Section 466 of the Code of Civil No. 3135, as amended, considering that the possession
Procedure, to the extent that said provisions were not of the land becomes his absolute right as the
inconsistent with the provisions of Act 3135. In this regard, land’s confirmed owner. Eligio P. Mallari vs. Government
we clarify that the redemption period envisioned under Act Service Insurance System and the Provincial Sheriff of
3135 is reckoned from the date of the registration of the sale Pampanga, G.R. No. 157659, January 25, 2010.
not from and after the date of the sale, as the text of Act 3135
shows. Although the original Rules of Court (effective on July
FORUM-SHOPPING.
1, 1940) incorporated Section 464 to Section 466 of the Code
of Civil Procedure as its Section 25 (Section 464); Section 26
(Section 465); and Section 27 (Section 466) of Rule 39, with By forum shopping, a party initiates two or more actions
Section 27 still expressly reckoning the redemption period to in separate tribunals, grounded on the same cause,
be “at any time within twelve months after the sale;” and trusting that one or the other tribunal would favorably
although the Revised Rules of Court (effective on January 1, dispose of the matter. The elements of forum shopping
1964) continued to provide in Section 30 of Rule 39 that the are the same as in litis pendentia where the final
redemption be made from the purchaser “at any time within judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the
twelve (12) months after the sale,” the 12-month period of other. The elements of forum shopping are: (1) identity
redemption came to be held as beginning “to run not from the of parties, or at least such parties as would represent the
date of the sale but from the time of registration of the sale in same interest in both actions; (2) identity of rights
the Office of the Register of Deeds.” This construction was due asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on
to the fact that the sheriff’s sale of registered (and the same facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding
unregistered) lands did not take effect as a conveyance, or did particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other
not bind the land, until the sale was registered in the Register action will, regardless of which party is successful,
of Deeds. Desiring to avoid any confusion arising from the amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.
conflict between the texts of the Rules of Court (1940 and Here, however, the various suits Fidela initiated against
151
Evelina and Aida involved different causes of action and Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of
sought different reliefs. The present civil action that she competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the
filed with the RTC sought to recover possession of the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or
property based on Evelina and Aida’s failure to account board, or to some corporation or person requiring the
for its fruits. The estafa cases she filed with the RTC performance of a particular duty therein specified, which
accused the two of misappropriating and converting her duty results from the official station of the party to whom
share in the harvests for their own benefit. Her the writ is directed or from operation of law. This
complaint for dispossession under Republic Act 8048 with definition recognizes the public character of the remedy,
the DARAB sought to dispossess the two for allegedly and clearly excludes the idea that it may be resorted to
cutting coconut trees without the prior authority of Fidela for the purpose of enforcing the performance of duties in
or of the Philippine Coconut Authority. The above cases which the public has no interest. The writ is a proper
are similar only in that they involved the same parties recourse for citizens who seek to enforce a public right
and Fidela sought the placing of the properties under and to compel the performance of a public duty, most
receivership in all of them. But receivership is not an especially when the public right involved is mandated by
action. It is but an auxiliary remedy, a mere incident of the Constitution. As the quoted provision instructs,
the suit to help achieve its purpose. Consequently, it mandamus will lie if the tribunal, corporation, board,
cannot be said that the grant of receivership in one case officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of
will amount to res judicata on the merits of the other an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an
cases. The grant or denial of this provisional remedy will office, trust or station.
still depend on the need for it in the particular
action. Evelina G. Chavez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals and
The writ of mandamus, however, will not issue to compel
Atty. Fidela Y. Vargas, G.R. No. 174356, January 20,
an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or
2010.
which it is his duty not to do, or to give to the applicant
anything to which he is not entitled by law. Nor will
JUDGMENTS; DOCTRINE OF IMMUTABILITY. mandamus issue to enforce a right which is in substantial
dispute or as to which a substantial doubt exists,
although objection raising a mere technical question will
A judgment that has become final and executory is
be disregarded if the right is clear and the case is
immutable and unalterable; the judgment may no longer
meritorious. As a rule, mandamus will not lie in the
be modified in any respect, even if the modification is
absence of any of the following grounds: [a] that the
meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous
court, officer, board, or person against whom the action
conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the
is taken unlawfully neglected the performance of an act
modification is attempted to be made by the court
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
rendering it or by the highest Court of the land. While
office, trust, or station; or [b] that such court, officer,
there are recognized exceptions – e.g., the correction of
board, or person has unlawfully excluded
clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which
petitioner/relator from the use and enjoyment of a right
cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and
or office to which he is entitled. On the part of the
whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the
relator, it is essential to the issuance of a writ of
decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable –
mandamus that he should have a clear l egal right to the
none of these exceptions apply to the present case.
thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of
Litigation must at some time end, even at the risk of
respondent to perform the act required. Uy Kiao Eng vs.
occasional errors. Public policy dictates that once a
Nixon Lee, G.R. No. 176831, January 15, 2010.
judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable,
the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his
victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. MANDAMUS; NATURE.
Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets
at naught the role and purpose of the courts to resolve
Recognized further in this jurisdiction is the principle that
justiciable controversies with finality. In the present
mandamus cannot be used to enforce contractual
case, the lapse of the period for appeal rendered the RTC
obligations. Generally, mandamus will not lie to enforce
without any jurisdiction to entertain, much less grant, the
purely private contract rights, and will not lie against an
plaintiffs-respondents’ appeal from the final and
individual unless some obligation in the nature of a
immutable MCTC judgment. This very basic legal reality
public or quasi-public duty is imposed. The writ is not
would forever be lost if we allow the CA to dismiss the
appropriate to enforce a private right against an
defendants-petitioners’ appeal outright on the basis of a
individual. The writ of mandamus lies to enforce the
technicality that, after all, has been substantially
execution of an act, when, otherwise, justice would be
complied with. Sps. Heber & Charlita Edillo vs. Sps.
obstructed; and, regularly, issues only in cases relating
Norberto & Desideria Dulpina, G.R. No. 188360, January
to the public and to the government; hence, it is called a
21, 2010.
prerogative writ. To preserve its prerogative character,
mandamus is not used for the redress of private wrongs,
but only in matters relating to the public. Moreover, an
important principle followed in the issuance of the writ is
that there should be no plain, speedy and adequate
Special Proceedings
remedy in the ordinary course of law other than the
remedy of mandamus being invoked. In other words,
MANDAMUS; NATURE AND GROUNDS.
152
mandamus can be issued only in cases where the usual aside, and not more than six (6) months after such
modes of procedure and forms of remedy are powerless judgment or final order was entered. It must be filed
to afford relief. Although classified as a legal remedy, within the reglementary period, which is reckoned from
mandamus is equitable in its nature and its issuance is the time the party’s counsel receives notice of the
generally controlled by equitable principles. Indeed, the decision for notice to counsel of the decision is notice to
grant of the writ of mandamus lies in the sound the party. Since the Decision of the Court of Appeals
discretion of the court. Uy Kiao Eng vs. Nixon Lee, G.R. became final and executory and Entry of Judgment was
No. 176831, January 15, 2010. issued on November 30, 2001, the Decision can no
longer be reviewed by this Court. Hence, the third and
fourth issues raised need not be discussed. Jaime T.
PARTIES; MISJOINDER NOT GROUND FOR
Torres vs. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 165408,
DISMISSAL.
January 15, 2010.
Misjoinder of parties does not warrant the dismissal of

PROCEDURAL RULES; LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION.
the action. Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court
clearly provides: “Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder
of parties. — Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of A liberal construction of the Rules is apt in situations
parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may involving excusable formal errors in a pleading, as long
be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of as the same do not subvert the essence of the
any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the proceeding, and they connote at least a reasonable
action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against attempt at compliance with the Rules. The Court is not
a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with precluded from rectifying errors of judgment, if blind and
separately.” stubborn adherence to procedure would result in the
sacrifice of substantial justice for technicality. To deprive
respondents, particularly Dorotea, of their claims over
It bears stressing that TCT No. T-56923, covering the
the subject property on the strength of sheer technicality
subject property, was issued in the name of Dorotea.
would be a travesty of justice and equity. Littie Sarah A.
This is established by the record, and petitioners
Agdeppa, et al. vs. Heirs of Ignacio Benete, represented
themselves admit this fact. However, because TCT No.
by Doroteo Bonete, et al., G.R. No. 164436. January 15,
T-75454, allegedly issued in favor of Littie Sarah, and the
2010.
purported deed of sale, allegedly executed by Dorotea in
favor of Littie Sarah, are not on record. Considering the
allegations in the pleadings, it is best that a trial on the PROCEDURAL RULES; LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION.
merits be conducted. We fully agree with the
apt and judicious ruling of the CA, when it said: “As the
An appeal to the CA from an RTC Decision rendered in
former owner of the subject property, the same having
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction is via a Petition
been titled in her name under TCT No. T-56923, Dorotea
for Review under Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Cariaga Bonete, being the real party [in] interest, has the
Section 2 of Rule 42 prescribes the following
legal capacity to file the instant case for reconveyance
requirements: XXX XXX XXX. Non-compliance with
and annulment of deed of sale. The complaint was filed
these requirements is sufficient ground for the dismissal
by the [respondents] precisely to question the issuance
of the Petition, pursuant to Section 3 of the same Rule,
of TCT No. T-75454 in the name of Littie Sarah Agdeppa
which reads: XXX XXX XXX. In not a few cases, we
as the transaction allegedly contemplated was only to
have ruled that the right to appeal is neither a natural
secure Dorotea’s loan. Why the property became the
right nor a part of due process; it is a mere statutory
subject of the deed of sale which is being disputed by
privilege that may be exercised only in the manner and
Dorotea should be threshed out in a full-blown trial on
strictly in accordance with the provisions of law allowing
the merits in order to afford the contending parties their
the appeal. The party who seeks to appeal must comply
respective days in court. As held in Del Bros. Hotel
with the requirements of the law and the rules; failure to
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 33, the
comply leads to the dismissal and the loss of the right to
complaint is not supposed to contain evidentiary matters
appeal. But while we have so ruled, we recognize
as this will have to be done at the trial on the merits of
nonetheless that the right to appeal is an essential part
the case.” Littie Sarah A. Agdeppa, et al. vs. Heirs of
of our system of judicial processes, and courts should
Ignacio Benete, represented by Doroteo Bonete, et al.,
proceed with caution in order not to deprive a party of
G.R. No. 164436. January 15, 2010.
the right to appeal. We invariably made this recognition
due to our overriding concern that every party-litigant be
PETITION FOR RELIEF; REMEDY FOR ALLEGATIONS given the amplest opportunity to ventilate and secure the
OF COUNSEL’S MISTAKE OR INEXCUSABLE resolution of his cause, free from the constraints of
NEGLIGENCE. technicalities. This line of rulings is based, no less, on
the Rules of Court which itself calls for a liberal
construction of its provisions, with the objective of
Further, the proper remedy for allegations of mistake or
securing for the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive
inexcusable negligence of counsel, which prevented a
disposition of every action and proceeding. In this line of
party from taking an appeal, is a petition for relief under
rulings, we have repeatedly stressed that litigation is not
Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The petition must be filed
merely a game of technicalities. The law and
within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the
jurisprudence grant to courts – in the exercise of their
judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set
153
discretion along the lines laid down by this Court – the In any event, we hold that the CA erred in granting
prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of receivership over the property in dispute in this case. For
even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty one thing, a petition for receivership under Section 1(b),
to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the
speedily and the parties’ right to an opportunity to be property or fund subject of the action is in danger of
heard. Sps. Heber & Charlita Edillo vs. Sps. Norberto & being lost, removed, or materially injured, necessitating
Desideria Dulpina, G.R. No. 188360, January 21, 2010. its protection or preservation. Its object is the
prevention of imminent danger to the property. If the
action does not require such protection or preservation,
PROCEDURAL RULES; LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION.
the remedy is not receivership. Here Fidela’s main gripe
is that Evelina and Aida deprived her of her share of the
A commonality and the weightier reason (although not so land’s produce. She does not claim that the land or its
given this characterization) behind our rulings in these productive capacity would disappear or be wasted if not
cited cases is the lack of merit of the respective entrusted to a receiver. Nor does Fidela claim that the
petitioners’ underlying cases. In both cases, we took into land has been materially injured, necessitating its
account the relative merits of the parties’ cases and protection and preservation. Because receivership is a
found that a liberal interpretation, applied to the harsh remedy that can be granted only in extreme
interlocutory issues before us, would be for naught situations, Fidela must prove a clear right to its
because the petitioners’ underlying cases clearly lacked issuance. But she has not. Indeed, in none of the other
merit. As we ruled then, so do we rule now. We assess, cases she filed against Evelina and Aida has that remedy
albeit preliminarily, if the appeal is meritorious on its face been granted her. Besides, the RTC dismissed Fidela’s
and relax the applicable rule of procedure only after action for lack of jurisdiction over the case, holding that
a prima facie finding of merit. That there was substantial the issues it raised properly belong to the DARAB. The
compliance with the Rules because the background facts case before the CA is but an offshoot of that RTC case.
can be found within the four corners of the petition and Given that the RTC has found that it had no jurisdiction
its incorporated annexes, is not a novel ruling for this over the case, it would seem more prudent for the CA to
Court. In the case of Deloso v. Marapao (involving the first provisionally determine that the RTC had jurisdiction
same deficiency for lack of a specific and separate before granting receivership which is but an incident of
statement of facts outlining the factual background relied the main action. Evelina G. Chavez, et al. vs. Court of
upon), we said: Appeals and Atty. Fidela Y. Vargas, G.R. No. 174356,
January 20, 2010.
An examination of the petition filed with the Court of
Appeals reveals that while it does not contain a separate SUMMARY JUDGMENT; APPROPRIATE WHERE
section on statement of facts, the facts of the case are, in THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT.
fact, integrated in the petition particularly in the
discussion/argument portion. Moreover, the decision of
A summary judgment is apt when the essential facts of
the DARAB which contains the facts of the case was
the case are uncontested or the parties do not raise any
attached to the petition and was even quoted by the
genuine issue of fact. Here, to resolve the issue of the
appellate court. The petition also sufficiently discusses
excessive charges allegedly incorporated into the auction
the errors committed by the DARAB in its assailed
bid price, the RTC simply had to look at a) the pleadings
decision.
of the parties; b) the loan agreements, the promissory
note, and the real estate mortgages between them; c)
There was, therefore, substantial compliance with Sec. 6, the foreclosure and bidding documents; and d) the
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. It is settled that liberal admissions and other disclosures between the parties
construction of the Rules may be invoked in situations during pre-trial. Since the parties admitted not only the
where there may be some excusable formal deficiency or existence, authenticity, and genuine execution of these
error in a pleading, provided that the same does not documents but also what they stated, the trial court did
subvert the essence of the proceeding and connotes at not need to hold a trial for the reception of the evidence
least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the Rules. of the parties. BPI contends that a summary judgment
After all, rules of procedure are not to be applied in a was not proper given the following issues that the parties
very rigid, technical sense; they are used only to help raised: 1) whether or not the loan agreements between
secure substantial justice. them were valid and enforceable; 2) whether or not the
Yus have a cause of action against BPI; 3) whether or not
Given this precedent, it only remains for us to determine the Yus are proper parties in interest; 4) whether or not
if we can apply a liberal construction of the Rules the Yus are estopped from questioning the foreclosure
because a meaningful litigation of the case can ensue proceeding after entering into a compromise agreement
given the Petition’s prima facie merit. Sps. Heber & with Magnacraft; 5) whether or not the penalty charges
Charlita Edillo vs. Sps. Norberto & Desideria Dulpina, and fees and expenses of litigation and publication are
G.R. No. 188360, January 21, 2010. excessive; and 6) whether or not BPI violated the Truth
in Lending Act. But these are issues that could be readily
resolved based on the facts established by the pleadings
RECEIVERSHIP. and the admissions of the parties. Indeed, BPI has failed
to name any document or item of fact that it would have
wanted to adduce at the trial of the case. A trial would
154
have been such a great waste of time and The consolidation of ownership in the purchaser’s name
resources. Bank of the Philippines Islands, Inc. vs. Sps. and the issuance to him of a new TCT then entitles him to
Norman and Angelina Yu, et al., G.R. No. 184122, demand possession of the property at any time, and the
January 20, 2010. issuance of a writ of possession to him becomes a matter
of right upon the consolidation of title in his name. The
court can neither halt nor hesitate to issue the writ of
SUMMARY PROCEDURE; EFFECT OF FILING
possession. It cannot exercise any discretion to
PROHIBITED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
determine whether or not to issue the writ, for the
issuance of the writ to the purchaser in an extrajudicial
According to the defendants-petitioners, the plaintiffs- foreclosure sale becomes a ministerial function. XXX
respondents’ filing of a motion for reconsideration of the XXX XXX. The proceeding upon an application for a writ
MCTC judgment did not stop the running of the period for of possession is ex parte and summary in nature, brought
appeal since a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited for the benefit of one party only and without notice being
pleading under the RRSP. We agree with the defendants- sent by the court to any person adverse in interest. The
petitioners. Jurisdiction over forcible entry and unlawful relief is granted even without giving an opportunity to be
detainer cases belongs to the Metropolitan Trial Courts, heard to the person against whom the relief is
the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial sought. Its nature as an ex parte petition under Act No.
Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. The RRSP 3135, as amended, renders the application for the
[Revised Rules of Summary Procedure] applies to prevent issuance of a writ of possession a non-litigious
undue delays in the disposition of cases; to achieve this proceeding. It is clear from the foregoing that a non-
end, the filing of certain pleadings – a motion for redeeming mortgagor like the petitioner had no more
reconsideration, among others – is prohibited. right to challenge the issuance of the writ of execution
Specifically, Section 19(c) of the Rules of Summary cum writ of possession upon the ex parte application of
Procedure and Section 13(c) of Rule 70 of the Rules of GSIS. He could not also impugn anymore the
Court consider a motion for reconsideration of a extrajudicial foreclosure, and could not undo the
judgment a prohibited pleading. Thus, when the consolidation in GSIS of the ownership of the properties
plaintiffs-respondents filed on June 5, 2007 a Motion for covered by TCT No. 284272-R and TCT No. 284273-R,
Reconsideration of the MCTC Judgment, the motion did which consolidation was already irreversible. Hence, his
not stop the running of the period for appeal. With the moves against the writ of execution cum writ of
continuous running of this period, the May 23, 2007 possession were tainted by bad faith, for he was only too
MCTC judgment (which the plaintiffs-respondents aware, being his own lawyer, of the dire consequences of
received through counsel on May 31, 2007) had long his non-redemption within the period provided by law for
lapsed to finality when the plaintiffs-respondents filed that purpose. Eligio P. Mallari vs. Government Service
their Notice of Appeal on July 30, 2007. Sps. Heber & Insurance System and the Provincial Sheriff of
Charlita Edillo vs. Sps. Norberto & Desideria Dulpina, Pampanga, G.R. No. 157659, January 25, 2010
G.R. No. 188360, January 21, 2010.
WRIT OF POSSESSION; NATURE AND INSTANCES

OF ISSUANCE.
Special Proceedings
We sustain the CA, and confirm that the petitioner, as

MANDAMUS; UNAVAILABLE WHERE OTHER PLAIN,
defaulting mortgagor, was not entitled under Act 3135,
SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE
as amended, and its pertinent jurisprudence to any prior
(E.G., ALLOWANCE OF WILL).
notice of the application for the issuance of the writ of
possession. A writ of possession, which commands the
sheriff to place a person in possession of real property, In the instant case, the Court, without unnecessarily
may be issued in: (1) land registration proceedings under ascertaining whether the obligation involved here—the
Section 17 of Act No. 496; (2) judicial foreclosure, production of the original holographic will—is in the
provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged nature of a public or a private duty, rules that the
property, and no third person, not a party to the remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of by respondent
foreclosure suit, had intervened; (3) extrajudicial Lee because there lies another plain, speedy and
foreclosure of a real estate mortgage, pending adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Let it be
redemption under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended noted that respondent has a photocopy of the will and
by Act No. 4118; and (4) execution sales, pursuant to that he seeks the production of the original for purposes
the last paragraph of Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of of probate. The Rules of Court, however, does not
Court. Eligio P. Mallari vs. Government Service prevent him from instituting probate proceedings for the
Insurance System and the Provincial Sheriff of allowance of the will whether the same is in his
Pampanga, G.R. No. 157659, January 25, 2010. possession or not. Rule 76, Section 1 relevantly provides:
WRIT OF POSSESSION; NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS Section 1. Who may petition for the
FOR ISSUANCE. allowance of will.—Any executor, devisee,
or legatee named in a will, or any other
person interested in the estate, may, at
any time, after the death of the testator,
155
petition the court having jurisdiction to For his part, respondent prayed in his Comment that, in
have the will allowed, whether the same addition to his liquidation fee already awarded in his
be in his possession or not, or is lost or favor, his claim for reimbursement of administrative
destroyed. expenses be granted. We answer in the negative. This
Court’s ruling in Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v.
Garcia is instructive: “It is well-settled that a party who
An adequate remedy is further provided by Rule 75,
has not appealed from a decision cannot seek any relief
Sections 2 to 5, for the production of the original
other than what is provided in the judgment appealed
holographic will. Thus—
from. An appellee who has himself not appealed may not
obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief
SEC. 2. Custodian of will to deliver.—The other than the ones granted in the decision of the court
person who has custody of a will shall, below. The appellee can only advance any argument that
within twenty (20) days after he he may deem necessary to defeat the appellant’s claim or
knows of the death of the testator, to uphold the decision that is being disputed, and he can
deliver the will to the court having assign errors in his brief if such is required to strengthen
jurisdiction, or to the executor named in the views expressed by the court a quo. These assigned
the will. errors in turn may be considered by the appellate court
solely to maintain the appealed decision on other
SEC. 3. Executor to present will and accept grounds, but not for the purpose of reversing or
or refuse trust.—A person named as modifying the judgment in the appellee’s favor and giving
executor in a will shall within twenty (20) him other reliefs.” As aptly observed by the CA,
days after he knows of the death of the respondent did not appeal the SEC decision. Thus, the
testator, or within twenty (20) days after decision of the CA on the amount due the respondent has
he knows that he is named executor if he become final as to him, and can no longer be reviewed,
obtained such knowledge after the death of much less be reversed, by this Court. Catmon Sales
the testator, present such will to the court International Corporation vs. Atty. Manuel D. Yngson, Jr.
having jurisdiction, unless the will has as Liquidator of Catmon Sales International Corporation,
reached the court in any other manner, G.R. No. 179761, January 15, 2010.
and shall, within such period, signify to the
court in writing his acceptance of the trust APPEAL; PERFECTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
or his refusal to accept it. APPEAL.
SEC. 4. Custodian and executor subject to Petitioner GEA contends that it had already perfected its
fine for neglect.—A person who neglects appeal when it filed on November 20, 2001 a notice of
any of the duties required in the two last appeal with the OP from the decision of the HLURB. The
preceding sections without excuse Rules and Regulations Governing Appeals to the Office of
satisfactory to the court shall be fined not the President of the Philippines requires the appellant to
exceeding two thousand pesos. file, not only a notice of appeal, but also a memorandum
on appeal that must, among other things, state the
SEC. 5. Person retaining will may be grounds relied on for the appeal, the issues involved, and
committed.—A person having custody of a the reliefs sought. The appellant must, to perfect his
will after the death of the testator who appeal, comply with these requirements within 15 days
neglects without reasonable cause to from receipt of a copy of the HLURB decision. Petitioner
deliver the same, when ordered so to do, GEA, however, failed to submit an appeal memorandum.
to the court having jurisdiction, may be Still, the OP actually gave petitioner GEA a chance to
committed to prison and there kept until comply with the omitted requirement by directing it in
he delivers the will. the Order of November 27, 2001 to submit its appeal
memorandum and draft decision within 15 days from
notice; otherwise, it would dismiss the case. Since GEA
There being a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the received the above order on December 12, 2001, it had
ordinary course of law for the production of the subject until December 27, 2001 within which to comply with it.
will, the remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of. Petitioner GEA points out that it filed two successive
Suffice it to state that respondent Lee lacks a cause of motions for extension of time within which to file the
action in his petition. Thus, the Court grants the required memorandum appeal and draft decision. Since
demurrer. Uy Kiao Eng v. Nixon Lee, G.R. No. 176831, GEA had already filed its memorandum appeal before the
January 15, 2010. OP could deny those motions, it cannot be said that GEA
filed the memorandum appeal out of time. But petitioner
GEA gambled when it did not file the memorandum
appeal and draft decision within the extra 15 days that
the OP gave it. It asked first for an extension of 15 days
Other proceedings and then an additional extension of five days. GEA had
no right to assume, however, that the OP would grant
APPEAL; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO APPEAL. these extensions. The governing rules did not provide for
them. Consequently, GEA has only itself to blame when
156
its appeal was dismissed. Notably, the OP also required Divinagracia, however, contained the following final
petitioner GEA to file, along with its memorandum caveat: that “for notice of appeal filed after the
appeal, a draft decision. GEA did not. It instead filed promulgation of this decision, errors in the matter of non-
two more motions for extension of time within which to payment or incomplete payment of the two appeal fees in
do so. Section 5 of the Rules of that office provides that election cases are no longer excusable.” It cannot be
failure to comply with its orders may warrant a dismissal overemphasized, however, that the warning given
of the appeal. Consequently, the OP acted within its in Divinagracia is inapplicable to the case at bar, since
authority in dismissing GEA’s appeal for this additional the notice of appeal in the instant case was filed on June
reason. Greenhills East Association, Inc. vs. E. Ganzon, 5, 2008. In the strict legal viewpoint, Divinagracia
Inc., G.R. No. 169741, January 22, 2010. contextually finds applicability only in cases where
notices of appeal were filed at least after the
promulgation of the Divinagracia decision on July 27,
APPEAL IN ELECTION CASES; PAYMENT OF APPEAL
2009. Since petitioner paid the appeal fee of PhP 1,000
FEE.
simultaneously with his filing of his notice of appeal on
June 5, 2008, the appeal is considered perfected
As Aguilar stated and COMELEC Resolution No. 8654 pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 8654, taking it
reiterated, the payment of the PhP 1,000 appeal fee beyond the ambit of Divinagracia. Again, petitioner’s
within five days from the promulgation of the Regional failure to pay the remaining PhP 3,200 within the
Trial Court or MTC decision technically “perfects” the prescribed period cannot be taken against him, since the
appeal from the trial court’s decision. Such appeal is not COMELEC failed to notify him regarding the additional
dismissible as a matter of course on account alone of the appeal fee, as provided by Resolution No. 8654.
inadequate payment or nonpayment of the filing fee of Although Nollen, following superseded jurisprudence,
PhP 3,200. The legal situation, however, changes if the failed to pay the filing fee on time, he nonetheless
appellant, in the words of Resolution No. 8654, fails, as voluntarily paid the remaining PhP 3,200 appeal fee on
directed, to pay the amount within 15 days from receipt October 6, 2008. We, thus, credit him for remitting the
of notice from the COMELEC. In the instant case, albeit amount of PhP 3,200, which, applying extant rules and
Nollen paid the PhP 3,200 only in October 2008, or long prevailing jurisprudence, cannot be considered as having
after his receipt of the June 2008 MTC decision, his been belatedly paid. Hence, his petition should be given
appeal may validly be viewed as not fatally belated. due course. Mateo R. Nollen, Jr. vs. Commission on
COMELEC Resolution No. 8654 is applicable to his appeal, Elections and Susana M. Caballes, G.R. No. 187635,
as the appeal was on June 5, 2008, or prior to July 24, January 11, 2010.
2008 when the more stringent Resolution No. 8486 took
effect. Mateo R. Nollen, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections
EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL IN ELECTION CASE.
and Susana M. Caballes, G.R. No. 187635, January 11,
2010.
Section 11, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC sets the
standards in the grant or denial of a motion for execution
APPEAL IN ELECTION CASES; APPLICATION OF
pending appeal in election contests involving elective
RULE ON PAYMENT OF APPEAL FEE.
municipal and barangay officials, to wit – XXX XXX
XXX. The sole issue in this case is whether the RTC
For the sake of laying down clearly the rules regarding abided by the standards set forth in the foregoing rule
the payment of the appeal fee, a discussion of the when it granted petitioner’s motion for execution pending
application of the recent Divinagracia v. COMELEC to appeal. In setting aside the RTC special order dated
election contests involving elective municipal February 15, 2008, the COMELEC ruled that the issuance
and barangay officials is necessary. Divinagracia of the writ of execution pending appeal failed to satisfy
explained the purpose of Resolution No. 8486 which, as the requirements laid down in Rule 14, Section 11 of A.M.
earlier stated, the COMELEC issued to clarify existing No. 07-4-15-SC. According to the COMELEC, the notice of
rules and address the resulting confusion caused by the the RTC’s clerk of court violated the 3-day notice rule
two appeal fees required, for the perfection of appeals, inasmuch as respondent was only given one day from the
by the two different jurisdictions: the court and filing of the motion within which to submit his
COMELEC. Divinagracia stressed that if the appellants opposition. The relevant rule provides that a motion for
had already paid the amount of PhP 1,000 to the lower execution pending appeal filed by the prevailing party
courts within the five-day reglementary period, they are shall contain a three-day notice to the adverse party and
further required to pay the COMELEC, through its Cash execution pending appeal shall not issue without prior
Division, the appeal fee of PhP 3,200 within fifteen (15) notice and hearing. It should be emphasized that these
days from the time of the filing of the notice of appeal requirements are for the purpose of avoiding surprises
with the lower court. If the appellants failed to pay the that may be sprung upon the adverse party who must be
PhP 3,200 within the prescribed period, then the appeal given time to study and meet the arguments in the
should be dismissed. The Court went on to state motion before a resolution by the court. Where a party
in Divinagracia that Aguilar did not “dilute the force of had the opportunity to be heard, then the purpose has
COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 on the matter of been served and the requirement substantially complied
compliance with the COMELEC-required appeal fees.” The with. In this case, even the COMELEC admitted that
resolution, to reiterate, was mainly issued to clarify the respondent was heard and afforded his day in court;
confusion caused by the requirement of payment of two hence, it should not have annulled the RTC special order
appeal fees. on said ground. Jesus M. Calo vs. Commission on
157
Elections and Ramon “Monching RMC” M. Calo, G.R. No. Commission on Elections and Ramon “Monching RMC” M.
185222, January 19, 2010. Calo, G.R. No. 185222, January 19, 2010.
EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL IN ELECTION CASE. JURISDICTION; FIXING OF LIQUIDATOR’S FEES.
The COMELEC also found that respondent’s presumptive Petitioner insists that pursuant to SEC Memorandum
victory must prevail in the light of the fact that, in the Circular No. 14, Series of 2001 (Circular), the liquidator’s
event that the RTC’s appreciation of the votes is fee shall be determined by the agreement between the
overturned, then respondent would still be the winning liquidating corporation and the liquidator. Only when
candidate. The COMELEC thus concluded that it was they fail to reach an agreement may the SEC exercise the
more prudent to preserve the status quo prior to the RTC power to fix the amount. Considering that the SEC
decision dated February 8, 2008 so as not to disrupt determined the liquidator’s fee without requiring the
government service. In the recent case of Pecson v. parties to meet and settle the amount, petitioner
COMELEC, the Court ruled that: contends that it was denied its right to due process.
Indeed, the Circular provides:
x x x decisions of the courts in election protest cases,
resulting as they do from a judicial evaluation of the The compensation or fees of the MANCOM, receivers and
ballots and after full-blown adversarial proceedings, liquidators shall be determined by the agreement
should at least be given similar worth and recognition as between the parties and the MANCOM members, receiver
decisions of the board of canvassers. This is especially or liquidator. This compensation/fees shall be of an
true when attended by other equally weighty amount which the corporation is willing and able to pay
circumstances of the case, such as the shortness of the and the MANCOM members, receiver or liquidator is
term of the contested elective office, of the case. willing to accept as fee or compensation for the
engagement of their/his service.
The Court also stressed in Pecson that disruption of
public service cannot per se be a basis to deny execution In case of failure of agreement, the Commission shall
pending appeal – determine the fees and/or compensation of MANCOM,
receivers and liquidators in accordance with the
guidelines set herein.
We additionally note that “disruption of public service”
necessarily results from any order allowing execution
pending appeal and is a concern that this Court was However, as correctly pointed out by the CA:
aware of when it expressly provided the remedy under
the Rules. Such disruption is therefore an element that
To countenance petitioner’s posturing would be to unduly
has been weighed and factored in and cannot be per se a
delimit the broad powers granted to the SEC under
basis to deny execution pending appeal.
Presidential Decree No. 902-A, specifically the all-
encompassing provision in Section 3 that the SEC has
Similarly in this case, the COMELEC should have accorded “absolute jurisdiction, supervision and control” over all
respect and weight to the RTC’s decision proclaiming corporations who are the grantees of primary franchises
petitioner as winner. Note that aside from the evidence and/or license or permit issued by the government to
presented by the parties during the election contest and operate in the Philippines. There is no gainsaying,
the expert testimony of the witnesses from the National therefore, that the SEC is authorized to determine the
Bureau of Investigation, the RTC made its own fees of receivers and liquidators not only when there is
assessment and findings on the contested ballots. On “failure of agreement” between the parties but also in the
the basis of all this, the RTC concluded that “[petitioner] absence thereof. A contrary ruling would give license to
will still have the plurality of 981 votes in favor of corporations under liquidation or receivership to refuse to
[petitioner] and 315 votes also for [petitioner], participate in negotiations for the fixing of the
respectively.” It was also the RTC’s conclusion that “the compensation of their liquidators or receivers so as to
victory of the protestant has been clearly established.” evade their obligation to pay the same.
Aside from these, the RTC also laid down the superior
circumstances necessitating the grant of execution
Petitioner may not have been given the chance to meet
pending appeal: (1) allowing the status quo to continue
face to face with respondent for the purpose of
would unjustly give premium to the perpetrators of fraud,
determining the latter’s fee. But this fact alone should
anomalies and irregularities and suppress the will of the
not invalidate the amount fixed by the SEC. What
electorate; (2) the sovereign will of the people should be
matters is the reasonableness of the fee in light of the
given utmost respect and (3) the injury or damage to be
services rendered by the liquidator. It is the policy of the
sustained by petitioner would outweigh the injury or
SEC to provide uniform/fair and reasonable compensation
damage of respondent. Given that the RTC’s exercise of
or fees for the comparable services rendered by the duly
its discretionary power to grant execution pending appeal
designated members of the Management Committee
per special order dated February 15, 2008 was not
(MANCOM), rehabilitation receivers and liquidators in
tainted with any bias or capricious and whimsical
corporations or partnerships placed under
arbitrariness, we find that the COMELEC committed an
MANCOM/receivership or liquidation, pursuant to Section
error in annulling and setting it aside. Jesus M. Calo vs.
6(d) of Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the SEC Rules on
158
Corporate Recovery, the Corporation Code of the The offenses designated in the Informations are for
Philippines, the Securities Regulation Code, and other violations of Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425, which define
related laws enforced by the SEC. The Court notes that and penalize the crimes of illegal sale and possession of
respondent initially demanded P623,214.35, representing regulated drugs. The allegations in the Informations for
his liquidator’s fee of P450,000.00 and out-of-pocket the unauthorized sale and possession of “shabu” or
expenses of P173,214.35. Respondent later manifested methamphetamine hydrochloride are immediately
that he was amenable to reduce by one-half his followed by the qualifying phrase “which is a regulated
liquidator’s fee. Before fixing the amount due the drug”. Thus, it is clear that the designations and
respondent, the SEC, in fact, ordered that an audit be allegations in the Informations are for the crimes of
conducted to determine the proper amount to be paid. illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs.
Clearly, the fee fixed by the SEC was not without basis. Ephedrine has been classified as a regulated drug by the
Besides, as correctly held by the CA, “respondent actually Dangerous Drugs Board in Board Resolution No. 2, Series
rendered services in accordance with his oath of office as of 1988.
liquidator for which he is entitled to be compensated by
petitioner.” Catmon Sales International Corporation vs.
Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, can be
Atty. Manuel D. Yngson, Jr. as Liquidator of Catmon
applied by analogy in convicting the appellant of the
Sales International Corporation, G.R. No. 179761,
offenses charged, which are included in the crimes
January 15, 2010.
proved. Under these provisions, an offense charged is
necessarily included in the offense proved when the
essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part
of those constituting the latter. At any rate, a minor
variance between the information and the evidence does
Criminal Procedure
not alter the nature of the offense, nor does it determine
or qualify the crime or penalty, so that even if a
APPEAL; FACTUAL FINDINGS. discrepancy exists, this cannot be pleaded as a ground
for acquittal. In other words, his right to be informed of
As a general rule, factual findings and conclusions of the the charges against him has not been violated because
trial court and the Court of Appeals are entitled to great where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he is
weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. duly informed not only of such specific crime, but also of
However, if there is any indication that the trial court lesser crimes or offenses included therein. People of the
overlooked certain facts or circumstances which would Philippines vs. Joselito Noque y Gomez, G.R. No.
substantially affect the disposition of the case, the 175319, January 15, 2010.
Supreme Court will not hesitate to review the same. In
this case, the Supreme Court reviewed the factual DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; EVIDENCE.
findings of the trial court because of inconsistencies in
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on material
In prosecution of cases involving illegal possession of
points. Julius Cacao y Prieto vs. People of the
prohibited drugs, the prosecution must establish with
Philippines, G.R. No. 180870, January 22, 2010.
moral certainty the elemental act of possession of a
prohibited substance coupled with the fact that such
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; EVIDENCE. possession is not authorized by law. Essential, however,
in a drug-related case is that the identity of the
Does conviction for the sale and possession of dangerous drug be established beyond reasonable doubt.
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) violate the Since the dangerous drug constitutes the corpus delicti of
accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a
nature and causes of the accusations against him if the judgment of conviction, it behooves upon the prosecution
fact that was established and proven during trial was the to establish and prove with certainty that the dangerous
sale and possession of ephedrine, a regulated drug? drug presented in court as evidence against the accused
is the same item recovered from his possession. Julius
Cacao y Prieto vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
The Supreme Court answered in the negative ruling that 180870, January 22, 2010.
the chemical formula of ephedrine is C10 H15 NO,
whereas that of methamphetamine is C10 H15 N. The
only difference between ephedrine and ESTAFA; PROBABLE CAUSE.
methamphetamine is the presence of a single atom of
oxygen in the former. The removal of the oxygen in Whether the facsimile message is admissible in evidence
ephedrine will produce methamphetamine. With and whether the element of deceit in the crime of estafa
ephedrine containing fifty percent (50%) of is present are matters best ventilated in a full-blown trial,
methamphetamine hydrochloride if the oxygen content in not during the preliminary investigation. A preliminary
the former is removed, the nearly 680 grams of investigation is not the occasion for the full and
ephedrine seized from the appellant contains about 340 exhaustive display of the prosecution’s evidence. The
grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride. presence or absence of the elements of the crime is
evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may
be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. In
fine, the validity and merits of a party’s defense or
159
accusation, as well as the admissibility of testimonies and burdened to prove corpus delicti beyond reasonable
evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at doubt either by direct evidence or by circumstantial or
the preliminary investigation level. Samuel Lee, et al. vs. presumptive evidence. But corpus delicti need not be
KBC Bank N.V. (Formerly Kredietbank, N.V.), G.R. No. proved by an autopsy report of the dead victim’s body or
164673, January 15, 2010. even by the testimony of the physician who examined
such body. While such report or testimony is useful for
understanding the nature of the injuries the victim
suffered, they are not indispensable proof of such injuries
or of the fact of death. Nor is the presentation of the
EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION; ADMISSIBILITY. murder weapons also indispensable since the physical
existence of such weapons is not an element of the crime
For confession to be admissible, it must be (a) voluntary; of murder. People of the Philippines vs. Romulo Tuniaco,
(b) made with the assistance of a competent and et al., (Accused) Alex Aleman (Appellant), G.R. No.
independent counsel; (c) express; and (d) in writing. 185710, January 19, 2010.
These requirements were met in this case. A lawyer, not
working with or not beholden to the police, assisted the MURDER; PROBABLE CAUSE.
accused during the custodial investigation. The police
officer also testified that he saw the accused, before the
It is settled that, when confronted with a motion to
taking of his statement, conversing with his counsel at
withdraw an Information (on the ground of lack of
the police station. People of the Philippines vs. Romulo
probable cause to hold the accused for trial based on a
Tuniaco, et al., (Accused) Alex Aleman (Appellant), G.R.
resolution of the DOJ Secretary), the trial court has the
No. 177727, January 19, 2010.
duty to make an independent assessment of the merits of
the motion. It may either agree or disagree with the
JURISDICTION; PD 957.
recommendation of the Secretary. Reliance alone on the
resolution of the Secretary would be an abdication of the
The public prosecutor has the authority to file a criminal trial court’s duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima
information for violation of Presidential Decree (PD) 957 facie case. The court must itself be convinced that there
and the Regional Trial Court has the power to hear and is indeed no sufficient evidence against the
adjudicate the action, the penalty being a P20,000.00 accused. Harold V. Tamargo vs. Romulo Awingan, Lloyd
fine and imprisonment of not exceeding 10 years or both Antiporda and Licerio Antiporda, Jr., G.R. No. 177727,
such fine and imprisonment. This penalty brings the January 19, 2010.
offense within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
Victoria P. Cabral vs. Jacinto Uy, et al., G.R. No. 174584,
RAPE; EVIDENCE.
January 22, 2010.
By the distinctive nature of rape cases, conviction usually

rests solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim,
provided that such testimony is credible, natural,
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION; PROBABLE CAUSE. convincing, and consistent with human nature and the
normal course of things. Accordingly, the Supreme Court
The test in a malicious prosecution cas should be whether has consistently adhered to the following guiding
sufficient facts exist which show that, in bringing the principles in the review of similar cases, to wit: (1) an
criminal action, complainant acted without probable accusation for rape can be made with facility; while the
cause, defined as the existence of such facts and accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for
circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2)
mind that the person charged and prosecuted in a considering that, in the nature of things, only two
criminal case is probably guilty of the crime or persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the
wrongdoing. Limanch-O Hotel and Leasing Corporation, testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
et al. vs. City of Ologapo, et al., G.R. No. 185121, extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the
January 18, 2010. prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of
the evidence for the defense. People of the Philippines
vs. Felipe Ayade y Pulod, G.R. No. 188561, January 15,
2010.
MURDER; CORPUS DELICTI.
Corpus delicti has been defined as the body, foundation,

or substance of a crime. The evidence of a dead body Evidence
with a gunshot wound on its back would be evidence that
murder has been committed. Corpus delicti has two
elements: (a) that a certain result has been established, AUTHENTICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS.
for example, that a man has died, and (b) that some
person is criminally responsible for it. The prosecution is
160
We are not swayed by petitioners’ allegation that the PAROL EVIDENCE RULE; EXCEPTIONS.
comparisons made by the document examiner, the CA
and the trial court, of Guillerma’s signature in the Deed
The Salimbangons point out that the CA ought to have
of Absolute Sale and her specimen signatures, violated
rejected Eduardo Ceniza’s testimony that the heirs had
Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court on the
intended to establish the easement of right of way solely
authentication of private documents. It should be borne
for the benefit of the interior Lots D and E which had no
in mind that in this case respondents were not presenting
access to the city street. The partition agreement also
evidence to authenticate a private document. On the
made Lot A, now owned by the Salimbangons, a
contrary, they are challenging the signatures appearing
beneficiary of that easement. Thus:
in the Deed of Absolute Sale. Spouses Patricio and Myrna
Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian Sambaan, et al., G.R. No.
163271, January 15, 2010. 2. To Eduardo Ceniza [now the Tans], Lot B subject to a
perpetual and grat[u]itous road right of way 1.50 m.
wide along its SW. boundary in favor of Lots A, D & E of
FINDING OF FORGED SIGNATURES.
the subdivision; (Underscoring supplied)
Moreover, the findings of the NBI document examiner

The parol evidence rule, said the Salimbangons,
were corroborated by the trial court’s own observation,
precluded the parties from introducing testimony that
as affirmed by the CA, that “even a cursory examination
tended to alter or modify what the parties had agreed on
of Guillerma’s questioned signature from her specimen
above. But the exclusionary provision of the parol
signatures in the enlarged photographs (Exhibits ‘F’ and
evidence rule admits of exceptions. Section 9, Rule 130
‘F-1’) would show that it needs no expert witness to
of the Revised Rules on Evidence states:
notice the wide difference in stroke, as well as the writing
style in capital ‘G’.” What is more, Emma S. Felicilda, the
daughter of then deceased Guillerma, likewise testified Sec. 9. Evidence of written
that “in fact my mother was the one who filed the agreements. – When the terms of an
complaint in this instant case because according to her, agreement have been reduced to writing,
she did not sign the said document”. Spouses Patricio it is considered as containing all the terms
and Myrna Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian Sambaan, et agreed upon and there can be, between
al., G.R. No. 163271, January 15, 2010. the parties and their successors in
interest, no evidence of such terms other
than the contents of the written
JUDICIAL NOTICE BY QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY.
agreement. However, a party may
present evidence to modify, explain or
In relying on the Mandaluyong zoning map, the HLURB add to the terms of the written agreement
took note of the standard procedure observed in fixing if he puts in issue in his pleading:
the boundaries of lands, where the preparation and
drafting of the illustrative maps precede the drafting of
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity,
the text that describes those boundaries. Although the
mistake or imperfection in the written
text of the ordinance is controlling, any doubt or
agreement;
vagueness in the meaning of its provisions may be
(b) The failure of the written
cleared up by a reference to the official map. As a quasi-
agreement to express the true intent and
judicial body, which enjoys an expertise in land zoning
agreement of the parties thereto; XXX
classifications, the HLURB can take judicial notice of such
XXX XXX.
official maps as are generated and used in government
zoning activities. The Court has no reason to disturb its
findings in this case. Greenhills East Association, Inc. vs. Here, the Tans had put in issue the true intent and
E. Ganzon, Inc., G.R. No. 169741, January 22, 2010. agreement of the parties to the partition when they
alleged in their complaint that, contrary to what
paragraph 2 quoted above seems to imply, the easement
NOTARIZED DOCUMENT.
was actually for the benefit of Lots D and E only. The
complaint thus said: XXX XXX XXX XXX.
We have thoroughly reviewed the records of this case Consequently, with the above averment, the Tans were
and agree that the deed of sale dated April 26, 1982 is a entitled to introduce evidence to establish the true intent
legal and binding document. The testimonies of the and agreement of the parties although this may depart
witnesses to the document attest to the parties freely from what the partition agreement literally provided. At
signing the document and the occurrence of the any rate, as the CA said, the Salimbangons did not object
transaction in a clear and definite manner. Moreover, it is at the hearing to admission of Eduardo Ceniza’s
a notarized document which renders it a prima facie testimony even when this seemed at variance, as far as
evidence of the facts contained therein. In the absence they were concerned, with the partition agreement
of documents or testimonies from disinterested persons among the heirs. Consequently, the Salimbangons may
proving petitioner’s claim of a fictitious sale, there is no also be deemed to have waived their right to now
basis to set aside the deed of sale. (Bernarda CH. question such testimony on appeal. Sps. Manuel and
Osmeña vs. Nicasio CH. Osmeña, et al., G.R. No. Victoria Salimbangon vs. Sps. Santos and Erlinda Tan,
171911, January 26, 2010. G.R. No. 185240, January 21, 2010.
161
FEBRUARY 2010 CASES
PROBATIVE VALUE OF DOCUMENT EXAMINATION Civil Procedure

COMMISSIONED BY PARTY.
ACTIONS; PRESCRIPTION/LACHES.
It is of no moment that the examination of the Deed of
Absolute Sale was commissioned by the respondents. In
Petitioners contend that it is error on the part of the CA
the end, it is the court which has the discretion and
to rule that their cause of action has been barred by
authority on whether to give probative value to the
prescription and laches. According to them, since the OCT
results of the examination. As held in Sali v. Abubakar,
from which ALI derived its title is void for want of a duly
the fact that the NBI conducted the examination of
approved survey plan, their cause of action did not
certain contested documents upon the request of a
prescribe. However, as discussed above, the conclusion
private litigant does not necessarily nullify the
of the trial court that OCT No. 242 is void was not
examination thus made: “x x x Its purpose is,
sufficiently borne out by the evidence on record. Verily,
presumably, to assist the court having jurisdiction over
the premise upon which petitioners build their theory of
said litigations, in the performance of its duty to settle
imprescriptibility of their action did not exist.
correctly the issue relative to said documents. Even a
non-expert private individual may examine the same, if
there are facts within his knowledge which may help the In sum, we find no reason to disturb the CA’s finding
courts in the determination of said issue. Such that: ”As previously emphasized, OCT No. 242 of ALI’s
examination, which may properly be undertaken by a predecessor-in-interest was issued on May 7, 1950, or
non-expert private individual, does not, certainly, forty-five (45) years before plaintiffs-appellees filed their
become null and void when the examiner is an expert complaint on March 10, 1995. As such, it is the Court’s
and/or an officer of the NBI. Indeed, any person, expert firmly held view that plaintiffs-appellees’ claim is barred
or not, either in his private or in his official capacity, may not only by prescription, but also by laches.
testify in court on matters, within his personal
knowledge, which are relevant to a suit, subject to the Aside from the fact that OCT No. 242 had become
judicial authority to determine the credibility of said incontrovertible after the lapse of one (1) year from the
testimony and the weight thereof. [On] the other hand, time a decree of registration was issued, any action for
the question whether a public official may or shall be reconveyance that plaintiffs-appellees could have availed
ordered or permitted by his superior to examine of is also barred. Although plaintiffs-appellees’ complaint
documents and testify thereon in a given case, is one was for quieting of title, it is in essence an action for
mainly administrative in character, which is within the reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust,
competence of said superior officer, or the Bureau considering that plaintiffs-appellees were alleging in said
Director or Head of the Office, or the corresponding complaint that there was a serious mistake, if not fraud,
department head to decide, and is independent of the in the issuance of OCT No. 242 in favor of ALI’s
validity of the examination thus made or of the credence predecessor-in-interest. It is now well-settled that an
and weight to be given by the Court to the conclusions action for reconveyance, which is a legal remedy granted
reached, in consequence of said examination, by the to a landowner whose property has been wrongfully or
official who made it.” Spouses Patricio and Myrna erroneously registered in another’s name, must be filed
Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian Sambaan, et al., G.R. No. within ten years from the issuance of the title, since such
163271, January 15, 2010. issuance operates as a constructive notice. Since ALI’s
title is traced to an OCT issued in 1950, the ten-year
prescriptive period expired in 1960.
QUESTION OF FACT. By laches is meant the negligence or omission to assert a

right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption
that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it
The core issue to be resolved in the present controversy
or declined to assert it. It does not involve mere lapse or
is the authenticity of the Deed of Absolute Sale which is a
passage of time, but is principally an impediment to the
question of fact rather than of law. In Manila Bay Club
assertion or enforcement of a right, which has become
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we held that for a
under the circumstances inequitable or unfair to permit.
question to be one of law, it must involve no examination
In the instant case, plaintiffs-appellees, as well as their
of the probative value of the evidence presented by the
predecessor-in-interest, have not shown that they have
litigants or any of them. There is a question of law when
taken judicial steps to nullify OCT No. 242, from which
the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is
ALI’s title was derived, for forty-five (45) years. To allow
pertaining to a certain state of facts. On the other hand,
them to do so now, and if successful, would be clearly
there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the
unjust and inequitable to those who relied on the validity
truth or the falsity of alleged facts. Spouses Patricio and
of said OCT, the innocent purchasers for value, who are
Myrna Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian Sambaan, et al., G.R.
protected by the precise provisions of P.D. 1529″.
No. 163271, January 15, 2010.
Spouses Morris Carpo and Socorro Carpo vs. Ayala Land,
Incorporated, G.R. No. 166577, February 3, 2010.
162
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT; FRAUD. jurisdictional discretion, but an absolute lack of

jurisdiction. Republic of the Philippines (DENR) vs.
Technological Advocates for Agro-Forest Programs
On the last point, petitioner posits that the unfavorable
Association, Inc. (TAFPA, Inc.), G.R. No. 165333,
Decision of the Labor Arbiter and the Decision of the
February 9, 2010.
NLRC were issued and obtained by means of fraud, which
is a valid ground for their annulment. In our jurisdiction,
however, fraud is never presumed and should be proved ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT; SCOPE OF REMEDY.
as mere allegations are not enough. The burden of proof
rests on petitioner, which, in this case, he failed to
As regards petitioner’s remaining arguments, suffice it to
discharge. immy Areno, Jr. vs. Skycable PCC-
say that this is not an appeal from the decision and
Baguio, G.R. No. 180302. February 5, 2010.
orders of the RTC, which to reiterate has become final
and executory; the correctness of the judgment is
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT; GROUND OF LACK OF therefore not in issue. Accordingly, there is no need to
JURISDICTION. address the errors allegedly committed by the trial court
in issuing the assailed orders. Republic of the Philippines
(DENR) vs. Technological Advocates for Agro-Forest
It should be stressed that in a petition for annulment of
Programs Association, Inc. (TAFPA, Inc.), G.R. No.
judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must
165333, February 9, 2010.
show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion, but
an absolute lack of jurisdiction. In the present case, the
CA has put to rest the issue of whether the RTC had APPEAL; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
jurisdiction over respondent’s cause of action. The CA AGENCIES.
was correct when it concluded that: “In the present case,
the action a quo is one for mandamus and, under Section
The CA refused to give credence to petitioner’s assertion
21 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended, the
of having no knowledge of the suspension because he
Regional Trial Court exercises original jurisdiction in the
refused to receive the suspension order preferring that it
issuance of the writs of certiorari, prohibition,
be sent by registered mail. The appellate court affirmed
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction
the factual finding of the NLRC that petitioner was
which may be enforced in any part of their regions. The
definitely aware of his suspension but only feigned
court a quo after evaluating the allegations in the
ignorance of the same. As a rule, we refrain from
initiatory pleading concluded that the action is one for
reviewing factual assessments of agencies exercising
specific performance and proceeded to hear it as such.
adjudicative functions. Factual findings of administrative
In doing so, the said court retained jurisdiction. The
agencies that are affirmed by the CA are conclusive on
same law grants the Regional Trial Courts exclusive
the parties and not reviewable by this Court so long as
original jurisdiction over all cases in which the subject of
these findings are supported by substantial evidence.
the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation and all
Anyhow, evidence on record repudiates petitioner’s
cases in which the demand exceeds P100,000.00, to
pretension. His insistence that he had no notice of his
which the action a quo belongs.” Republic of the
suspension is belied by evidence as it shows that the
Philippines (DENR) vs. Technological Advocates for Agro-
suspension order was served on petitioner on February 7,
Forest Programs Association, Inc. (TAFPA, Inc.), G.R. No.
2002 by his immediate superior, Al Luzano, but petitioner
165333, February 9, 2010.
declined to sign it. No acceptable reason was advanced
for doing so except petitioner’s shallow excuse that it
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT; NATURE AND should be sent to him by registered mail. Jimmy Areno,
GROUNDS. Jr. vs. Skycable PCC-Baguio, G.R. No. 180302. February
5, 2010.
An action to annul a final judgment is an extraordinary
remedy, which is not to be granted indiscriminately by APPEAL; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
the court. It is a recourse equitable in character and AGENCIES.
allowed only in exceptional cases. The reason for the
restriction is to prevent this extraordinary action from
Indeed findings of fact and conclusions of an adjudicative
being used by a losing party to make a complete farce of
body like the HLURB, which can be considered as a trier
a duly promulgated decision that has long become final
of facts on specific matters within its field of expertise,
and executory. Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of
should be considered as binding and conclusive upon the
Civil Procedure, the only grounds for annulment of
appellate courts. This is in addition to the fact that it was
judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
in a better position to assess and evaluate the credibility
Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of
of the contending parties and the validity of their
judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the
respective evidence. However, these doctrines hold true
person of the defending party or over the subject matter
only when such findings and conclusions are supported
of the claim. It is absence of, or no, jurisdiction; that is,
by substantial evidence. In the present case, we find it
the court should not have taken cognizance of the
difficult to find sufficient evidential support for the
petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction
HLURB’s conclusion that it did not acquire jurisdiction
over the subject matter. It should be stressed that in a
over the person of Viola. We are thus persuaded that
petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of
there is ample justification to disturb the findings of the
jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of
163
HLURB. Spouses William Genato and Rebecca Genato vs. exceptions to this rule. In this case, the factual
Rita Viola, G.R. No. 169706, February 5, 2010. findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of
the RTC; thus, we find it proper to review the
evidence. Lolita Reyes doing business under the name
APPEAL; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS.
and style, Solid Brothers West Marketing vs. Century
Canning Corporation, G.R. No. 165377, February 16,
Ordinarily, this Court will not review, much less reverse, 2010.
the factual findings of the CA, especially where such
findings coincide with those of the trial court. The
findings of facts of the CA are, as a general rule,
conclusive and binding upon this Court, since this Court is
not a trier of facts and does not routinely undertake the Petitioner seeks a review of the factual findings of the
re-examination of the evidence presented by the trial court, which were sustained by the Court of Appeals,
contending parties during the trial of the case. The that petitioner’s driver was negligent in driving the bus,
above rule, however, is subject to a number of which caused physical injuries to respondent and the
exceptions, such as (1) when the inference made is death of respondent’s husband. The rule is settled that
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when the findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by
there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding is the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court when
grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or supported by the evidence on record. The Court has
conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based carefully reviewed the records of this case, and found no
on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial
fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA, in making its court . . . . Philippine Hawk Corporation vs. Vivian Tan
findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16, 2010.
same is contrary to the admissions of both parties; (7)
when the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the
trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based; (9) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain Ordinarily, in a Petition for Review on Certiorari, this
relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if Court only considers questions of law, as it is not a trier
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; of facts. However, there are exceptions to this general
and (10) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised rule, such as, when the findings of fact of the appellate
on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the court are contrary to those of the trial court. Such
evidence on record. Republic of the Philippines vs. Heirs circumstance exists in this case, hence, the Court is
of Julio Ramos, represented by Reynaldo Ramos Medina, compelled to take a closer look at the records. Nelson
et al., G.R. No. 169481, February 22, 2010. Lagazo vs. Gerald B. Soriano and Galileo B. Soriano, G.R.
No. 170864, February 16, 2010.
APPEAL; ISSUE RAISED FOR FIRST TIME ON
APPEAL.
As has repeatedly been underscored, in petitions for
review on certiorari, the general rule is that only
questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed Petitioner also challenges the validity of the suspension
upon by the Court. Factual findings of the appellate order for being unsigned. The same has no merit. Upon
court are generally binding on the Court, especially when careful examination, it appears that the contention was
in complete accord with the findings of the trial court, as raised for the first time in petitioner’s motion for
in the present case, save for some recognized reconsideration of the Decision of the CA. In Arceno v.
exceptions. The issues raised by petitioner are Government Service Insurance System, the hornbook
predicated on the appreciation of factual issues. In principle that new issues cannot be raised for the first
weighing the evidence of the parties, the trial court found time on appeal was reiterated. We emphasized therein
respondents’ more credible. Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. that the rule is based on principles of fairness and due
Spouses Edward J. Heshan and Neilia L. Heshan, et al., process and is applicable to appealed decisions
G.R. No. 179117, February 3, 2010. originating from regular courts, administrative agencies
or quasi-judicial bodies, whether rendered in a civil case,
a special proceeding or a criminal case, citing the case
of Tan v. Commission on Elections. Even assuming that it
was raised, the same would be without merit because the
The issue presented before Us is whether the CA suspension order bears the signature of respondent’s
correctly found that petitioner was liable to pay engineering manager and petitioner’s immediate
respondent’s claim. This is a factual issue. The Court is superior, Al Luzano, who, in fact, is a member of the
not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction being limited to panel committee that conducted an investigation on the
reviewing only errors of law that may have been complaint of Soriano against petitioner. Jimmy Areno,
committed by the lower courts. As a general rule, Jr. vs. Skycable PCC-Baguio, G.R. No. 180302. February
petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil 5, 2010.
Procedure filed before this Court may only raise questions
of law. However, jurisprudence has recognized several
164
APPEAL; SCOPE OF REVIEW; APPELLATE COURT In this case for damages based on quasi-delict, the trial
MAY REVIEW MATTERS, EVEN IF NOT ASSIGNED AS court awarded respondent the sum of P745,575.00,
ERRORS IN THE APPEAL, IF THEIR representing loss of earning capacity (P590,000.00) and
CONSIDERATION IS NECESSARY IN ARRIVING AT A actual damages (P155,575.00 for funeral expenses),
JUST DECISION OF THE CASE. plus P50,000.00 as moral damages. On appeal to the
Court of Appeals, petitioner assigned as error the award
of damages by the trial court on the ground that it was
As regards the issue on the damages awarded, petitioner
based merely on suppositions and surmises, not the
contends that it was the only one that appealed the
admissions made by respondent during the trial. In its
decision of the trial court with respect to the award of
Decision, the Court of Appeals sustained the award by
actual and moral damages; hence, the Court of Appeals
the trial court for loss of earning capacity of the deceased
erred in awarding other kinds of damages in favor of
Silvino Tan, moral damages for his death, and actual
respondent, who did not appeal from the trial court’s
damages, although the amount of the latter award was
decision. Petitioner’s contention is
modified.
unmeritorious. Section 8, Rule 51 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure provides . . .
In fine, the Court of Appeals correctly awarded civil
indemnity for the death of respondent’s husband,
Philippine National Bank v. Rabat cited the book of
temperate damages, and moral damages for the physical
Justice Florenz D. Regalado to explain the section above,
injuries sustained by respondent in addition to the
thus:
damages granted by the trial court to respondent. The
trial court overlooked awarding the additional damages,
In his book, Mr. Justice Florenz D. Regalado commented which were prayed for by respondent in her Amended
on this section, thus: Complaint. The appellate court is clothed with ample
authority to review matters, even if they are not assigned
1. Sec. 8, which is an amendment of the former Sec. 7 as errors in the appeal, if it finds that their consideration
of this Rule, now includes some substantial changes in is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the
the rules on assignment of errors. The basic procedural case. Philippine Hawk Corporation vs. Vivian Tan Lee,
rule is that only errors claimed and assigned by a party G.R. No. 166869, February 16, 2010.
will be considered by the court, except errors affecting its
jurisdiction over the subject matter. To this exception CERTIORARI; EXTENSION OF PERIOD TO FILE.
has now been added errors affecting the validity of the
judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein.
On the People’s argument that a motion for extension of
time to file a petition for certiorari is no longer allowed,
Also, even if the error complained of by a party is not the same rests on shaky grounds.
expressly stated in his assignment of errors but the same
is closely related to or dependent on an assigned error
That no mention is made in the above-quoted amended
and properly argued in his brief, such error may now be
Section 4 of Rule 65 of a motion for extension, unlike in
considered by the court. These changes are of
the previous formulation, does not make the filing of
jurisprudential origin.
such pleading absolutely prohibited. If such were the
intention, the deleted portion could just have simply been
2. The procedure in the Supreme Court being generally reworded to state that “no extension of time to file the
the same as that in the Court of Appeals, unless petition shall be granted.” Absent such a prohibition,
otherwise indicated (see Secs. 2 and 4, Rule 56), it has motions for extension are allowed, subject to the Court’s
been held that the latter is clothed with ample authority sound discretion. The present petition may thus be
to review matters, even if they are not assigned as errors allowed, having been filed within the extension sought
on appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary and, at all events, given its merits. Jaime S. Domdom v.
in arriving at a just decision of the case. Also, an Hon. Third and Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan,
unassigned error closely related to an error properly Commission on Audit and The People of the
assigned (PCIB vs. CA, et al., L-34931, Mar. 18, 1988), Philippines, G.R. Nos. 182382-83, February 24, 2010.
or upon which the determination of the question raised
by error properly assigned is dependent, will be
considered by the appellate court notwithstanding the
failure to assign it as error (Ortigas, Jr. vs. Lufthansa
German Airlines, L-28773, June 30, 1975; Soco vs. Even assuming that certiorari may lie, the Court still
Militante, et al., G.R. No. 58961, June 28, 1983). cannot grant the instant petition because the petitioners
failed to show that public respondent, in issuing the
assailed Orders, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction,
It may also be observed that under Sec. 8 of this Rule,
or gravely abused her discretion amounting to lack or
the appellate court is authorized to consider a plain error,
excess of jurisdiction. As mentioned earlier, the RTC
although it was not specifically assigned by the appellant
issued the assailed Order in accordance with Section 3,
(Dilag vs. Heirs of Resurreccion, 76 Phil. 649), otherwise
Rule 17, in relation to Section 1, Rule 18 of the Revised
it would be sacrificing substance for technicalities.
Rules of Civil Procedure. There is no showing that the
RTC judge issued the Order in a despotic or arbitrary
165
manner, or that she was motivated by passion or At the outset, the petition should have been dismissed
personal hostility against petitioners. Grave abuse of outright because petitioner resorted to the wrong mode
discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of appeal by filing the instant petition for certiorari under
of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in Rule 65. Section 1 of the said Rule explicitly provides
other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary that a petition for certiorari is available only when there
manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the remedy of
to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari under
perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in Rule 45 is not only available but also the proper mode of
contemplation of law. Such is wanting in this appeal. For all intents and purposes, we find that
case. Benedicta Samson and Marcial Samson vs. Hon. petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari under
Judge Geraldine Fiel-Macaraig, et al., G.R. No. 166356, Rule 65 as a substitute for a lost appeal. We note that
February 2, 2010. petitioner received a copy of the January 19, 2005
Resolution of the CA denying his motion for
reconsideration on January 28, 2005. Under Section 2 of
CERTIORARI; IMPROPER REMEDY WHERE APPEAL
Rule 45, petitioner has 15 days from notice of the said
IS AVAILABLE.
Resolution within which to file his petition for review
on certiorari. As such, he should have filed his appeal on
The appellate court correctly ruled that the petition for or before February 12, 2005. However, records show that
certiorari was not the proper remedy. A writ of certiorari the petition was posted on March 1, 2005, or long after
lies only for an error of jurisdiction. It can be availed of the period to file the appeal has lapsed. Atty.
only if the lower tribunal has acted without or in excess Mangontawar M. Gubat vs. National Power Corporation,
of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion G.R. No. 167415. February 26, 2010.
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and if there is
no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Where the error is
IS AVAILABLE.
not one of jurisdiction but an error of law or fact which is
a mistake of judgment, certiorari is not available. In
such case, the remedy is appeal. The assailed RTC Order Petitioner should have filed a petition for review under
dated 20 June 2003 was issued when petitioners failed to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court instead of a petition
move for a pre-trial of the case for annulment of the for certiorari under Rule 65, since she is assailing the CA
extra-judicial foreclosure in accordance with Section 1, decision and resolution which are final judgments. Rule
Rule 18 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which 45 clearly provides that decisions, final orders or
provides: XXX XXX XXX In said Order, the RTC resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the
dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be
for an unreasonable length of time, pursuant to Section appealed to us by filing a petition for review, which is just
3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court which states, thus: XXX a continuation of the appellate process over the original
XXX XXX The RTC Order dated 20 June 2003 was a final case. And the petition for review must be filed within
judgment which disposed of the case on the merits. This fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final
was even clarified in the subsequent RTC Order of 22 order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of
December 2003 (which denied petitioners’ motion for petitioner’s motion for a new trial or reconsideration filed
reconsideration) wherein the lower court stated that: in due time after notice of the judgment. In this case,
“Therefore, the dismissal was ‘with prejudice’ or a petitioner received a copy of the CA Resolution denying
dismissal that had the effect of adjudication upon the her motion for reconsideration on November 24, 2004;
merits in accordance with Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules and, thus, under Rule 45, she has 15 days from receipt of
of Court.” The remedy to obtain reversal or modification such resolution, or until December 9, 2004, to file a
of the judgment on the merits is appeal. This is true petition for review. However, petitioner did not file a
even if the error, or one of the errors, ascribed to the petition for review; instead, she filed a petition
court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction for certiorari under Rule 65 on January 24, 2005. Hence,
over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in the CA decision and resolution have already attained
excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the finality, and petitioner has lost her right to appeal.
findings of fact or of law set out in the decision. The
availability of the right to appeal precludes recourse to
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper if a
the special civil action for certiorari. The RTC Order
tribunal, a board or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-
subject of the petition was a final judgment which
judicial functions has acted without or in excess of
disposed of the case on the merits; hence, it was a
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
subject for an ordinary appeal, not a petition for
to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal, or
certiorari. Benedicta Samson and Marcial Samson vs.
any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
Hon. Judge Geraldine Fiel-Macaraig, et al., G.R. No.
course of law. In this case, petitioner had the remedy of
166356, February 2, 2010.
appeal, and it was the speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law. Thus, a special civil action
CERTIORARI; IMPROPER REMEDY WHERE APPEAL for certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal
IS AVAILABLE. that the petitioner has already lost. Certiorari cannot be
allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment
166
to the proper forum despite the availability of that perceived error attributed to it by a re-examination of the
remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for a lost legal and factual circumstances of the case. The rule is,
appeal. Certiorari will not be a cure for failure to timely however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such
file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. as where the order is a patent nullity because the court a
Flor Martinez, represented by Macario Martinez, quo had no jurisdiction; where the questions raised in the
authorized representative and Attorney-in-fact vs. certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed
Ernesto G. Garcia and Edilberto M. Brua, G.R. No. upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised
166536, February 4, 2010. and passed upon in the lower court; where there is an
urgent necessity for the resolution of the question, and
any further delay would prejudice the interests of the
Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of
IS AVAILABLE; EXCEPTIONS.
the action is perishable; where, under the circumstances,
a motion for reconsideration would be useless; where the
While there are instances where the extraordinary petitioner was deprived of due process and there is
remedy of certiorari may be resorted to despite the extreme urgency for relief; where, in a criminal case,
availability of an appeal, the long line of decisions relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the grant of
denying the special civil action for certiorari, either before such relief by the trial court is improbable; where the
appeal was availed of or in instances where the appeal proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due
period had lapsed, far outnumber the instances process; where the proceedings were ex parte or in
where certiorari was given due course. The few which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
significant exceptions are: (1) when public welfare and where the issue raised is one purely of law or where
the advancement of public policy dictate; (2) when the public interest is involved. The Court finds that the issue
broader interests of justice so require; (3) when the writs raised by petitioner had been duly raised and passed
issued are null; (4) when the questioned order amounts upon by the Sandiganbayan Third Division, it having
to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority, which we denied consolidation in two resolutions; that the issue
find to be not present in this case. Notably, petitioner calls for resolution and any further delay would prejudice
did not even fail to advance an explanation why appeal the interests of petitioner; and that the issue raised is
was not availed of, nor was there any showing that the one purely of law, the facts not being contested. There is
issue raised in the petition for certiorari could not be thus ample justification for relaxing the rule requiring the
raised on appeal. Concomitant to a liberal application of prior filing of a motion for reconsideration. Jaime S.
the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of Domdom v. Hon. Third and Fifth Division of the
the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his Sandiganbayan, Commission on Audit and The People of
failure to abide by the rules. Flor Martinez, represented the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 182382-83, February 24,
by Macario Martinez, authorized representative and 2010.
Attorney-in-fact vs. Ernesto G. Garcia and Edilberto M.
Brua, G.R. No. 166536, February 4, 2010.
CERTIORARI; SCOPE OF REMEDY.

In fact, the argument raised by petitioner, i.e., that the
IS AVAILABLE; EXCEPTIONS.
Court of Appeals had no legal authority to vary the
findings of the trial court and substitute its own
Concededly, the NPC may have pursued the wrong conclusion, which were patently contrary to the trial
remedy when it filed a petition for certiorari instead of an court’s findings, and conclusion, relates to the wisdom
appeal since the ruling on attorney’s fees is already a and soundness of the assailed CA decision and
ruling on the merits. However, we find that the trial resolution. Where the issue or question involved affects
court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision – not the
excess of jurisdiction when it ordered NPC solidarily liable jurisdiction of the court to render said decision – the
with the plaintiffs for the payment of the attorney’s fees. same is beyond the province of a special civil action
The rule that a petition for certiorari is dismissible when for certiorari. Erroneous findings and conclusions do not
the mode of appeal is available admits of exceptions, to render the appellate court vulnerable to the corrective
wit: (a) when the writs issued are null; and, (b) when the writ of certiorari, for where the court has jurisdiction over
questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of the case, even if its findings are not correct, these would,
judicial authority. Clearly, respondent has shown its at the most, constitute errors of law and not abuse of
entitlement to the exceptions. Atty. Mangontawar M. discretion correctible by certiorari. For if every error
Gubat vs. National Power Corporation, G.R. No. 167415. committed by the trial court or quasi-judicial agency were
February 26, 2010. to be the proper subject of review by certiorari, then trial
would never end, and the dockets of appellate courts
CERTIORARI; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; would be clogged beyond measure. Even if we consider
EXCEPTIONS. this petition for certiorari under Rule 65, it must be
shown that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion
equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and not mere
Concededly, the settled rule is that a motion for errors of judgment, for the petition to be granted. As we
reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing said, certiorari is not a remedy for errors of judgment,
of a petition for certiorari, its purpose being to grant an which are correctible by appeal. By grave abuse of
opportunity for the court a quo to correct any actual or discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical
167
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of as to the amount thereof. Metropolitan Bank and Trust
jurisdiction, and mere abuse of discretion is not enough Co. and Solidbank Corporation vs. Bernardita H. Perez,
— it must be grave. Flor Martinez, represented by represented by her Attorney in fact Patria H. Perez, G.R.
Macario Martinez, authorized representative and No. 181842, February 5, 2010.
DOCKET FEES; GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE
SYSTEM (GSIS) NOT EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT.
CERTIORARI; STRICT OBSERVANCE OF
PROCEDURAL RULES.
Faced with the differing opinions of the GSIS, the OSG
and the OCAT, we now proceed to probe into the heart of
In petitions for certiorari, procedural rules must be this matter: may Congress exempt the GSIS from the
strictly observed. payment of legal fees? No.
The acceptance of a petition for certiorari as well as the The GSIS urges the Court to show deference to Congress
grant of due course thereto is, in general, addressed to by recognizing the exemption of the GSIS under Section
the sound discretion of the court. Although the court has 39 of RA 8291 from legal fees imposed under Rule 141.
absolute discretion to reject and dismiss a petition Effectively, the GSIS wants this Court to recognize a
for certiorari, it does so only x x x when there are power of Congress to repeal, amend or modify a rule of
procedural errors, like violations of the Rules of procedure promulgated by the Court. However, the
Court. Marcelino Domingo vs. Court of Appeals, et Constitution and jurisprudence do not sanction such
al., G.R. No. 169122, February 2, 2010. view. Rule 141 (on Legal Fees) of the Rules of Court was
promulgated by this Court in the exercise of its rule-
making powers under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the
CONTEMPT; DEFIANCE OF COURT’S ORDERS AND
Constitution.
ABUSE OF RULES OF PROCEDURE.
The power to promulgate rules concerning pleading,

Petitioner has doggedly pursued her case in this Court by
practice and procedure in all courts is a traditional power
filing three successive motions for reconsideration,
of this Court. It necessarily includes the power to
including the letter-motion subject of this resolution.
address all questions arising from or connected to the
This, despite our repeated warnings that “no further
implementation of the said rules. The Rules of Court was
pleadings shall be entertained in this case.” Her
promulgated in the exercise of the Court’s rule-making
unreasonable persistence constitutes utter defiance of
power. It is essentially procedural in nature as it does not
this Court’s orders and an abuse of the rules of
create, diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.
procedure. This, alongside her thinly veiled threats to
Corollarily, Rule 141 is basically procedural. It does not
leak her case to the media to gain public sympathy –
create or take away a right but simply operates as a
although the tone of petitioner’s compliance with our
means to implement an existing right. In particular, it
show-cause resolution was decidedly subdued compared
functions to regulate the procedure of exercising a right
to her earlier letters – constitutes contempt of court.
of action and enforcing a cause of action. In particular, it
In Republic v. Unimex, we held: “A statement of this
pertains to the procedural requirement of paying the
Court that no further pleadings would be entertained is a
prescribed legal fees in the filing of a pleading or any
declaration that the Court has already considered all
application that initiates an action or proceeding.
issues presented by the parties and that it has
adjudicated the case with finality. It is a directive to the
parties to desist from filing any further pleadings or The GSIS cannot successfully invoke the right to social
motions. Like all orders of this Court, it must be strictly security of government employees in support of its
observed by the parties. It should not be circumvented petition. It is a corporate entity whose personality is
by filing motions ill-disguised as requests for separate and distinct from that of its individual
clarification.” Florencia G. Diaz vs. Republic of the members. The rights of its members are not its rights;
Philippines, G.R. No. 181502, February 2, 2010. its rights, powers and functions pertain to it solely and
are not shared by its members. Its capacity to sue and
bring actions under Section 41(g) of RA 8291, the
DOCKET FEES; ADDITIONAL FEES PAYABLE
specific power which involves the exemption that it
CONSTITUTE LIEN ON JUDGMENT.
claims in this case, pertains to it and not to its members.
Indeed, even the GSIS acknowledges that, in claiming
The foregoing disposition notwithstanding, respondent is exemption from the payment of legal fees, it is not
liable for the balance between the actual fees paid and asking that rules be made to enforce the right to social
the correct payable filing fees to include an assessment security of its members but that the Court recognize the
on the award of unrealized income, following Section 2 of alleged right of the GSIS “to seek relief from the courts
Rule 141 . . . and jurisprudence, viz: “The exception of justice sans payment of legal fees.” However, the
contemplated as to claims not specified or to claims alleged right of the GSIS does not exist. The payment of
although specified are left for determination of the court legal fees does not take away the capacity of the GSIS to
is limited only to any damages that may arise after the sue. It simply operates as a means by which that
filing of the complaint or similar pleading for then it will capacity may be implemented.
not be possible for the claimant to specify nor speculate
168
Since the payment of legal fees is a vital component of constitute force, the trespasser does not have to institute
the rules promulgated by this Court concerning pleading, a state of war. No other proof is necessary. Spouses
practice and procedure, it cannot be validly annulled, Eulogio N. Antazo and Nelia C. Antazo vs. Leonides
changed or modified by Congress. As one of the Doblada, et al., G.R. No. 178908, February 4, 2010.
safeguards of this Court’s institutional independence, the
power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and
EJECTMENT; ISSUE OF PRIOR ACTUAL PHYSICAL
procedure is now the Court’s exclusive domain. That
POSSESSION.
power is no longer shared by this Court with Congress,
much less with the Executive.
Petitioners contend that respondents’ claim is not
supported by competent evidence. They aver that when
The separation of powers among the three co-equal
they bought the property from Anciano, the latter
branches of our government has erected an impregnable
transferred to them possession and ownership of the
wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules of
subject property. They point out that, after they
pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province
purchased the property from Anciano, they declared it in
of this Court. The other branches trespass upon this
their names for taxation purposes and paid real property
prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders that
tax thereon. The petition is without merit. Petitioners’
effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the procedural
argument is misplaced, considering that this is a forcible
rules promulgated by this Court. Viewed from this
entry case. They are apparently referring to “possession”
perspective, the claim of a legislative grant of exemption
flowing from ownership of the property, as opposed to
from the payment of legal fees under Section 39 of RA
actual possession. In ejectment cases, possession means
8291 necessarily fails. Re: Petition for recognition of the
nothing more than actual physical possession, not legal
exemption of the Government Service Insurance System
possession in the sense contemplated in civil law. Prior
from payment of legal fees, A.M. No. 08-2-01-0,
physical possession is the primary consideration in a
February 11, 2010.
forcible entry case. A party who can prove prior
possession can recover such possession even against the
Docket fees; Government Service Insurance System owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his
(GSIS) not exempt from payment. Congress could not possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time,
have carved out an exemption for the GSIS from the he has the security that entitles him to remain on the
payment of legal fees without transgressing another property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects
equally important institutional safeguard of the Court’s him. The party in peaceable quiet possession shall not
independence — fiscal autonomy. Fiscal autonomy be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror. We
recognizes the power and authority of the Court to levy, are convinced that respondents were in prior possession
assess and collect fees, including legal fees. Moreover, of the property and that petitioners deprived them of
legal fees under Rule 141 have two basic components, such possession by means of force.
the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the Special
Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF). The laws which
While the Letter intimates that petitioners were in
established the JDF and the SAJF expressly declare the
possession of the property prior to respondents and that
identical purpose of these funds to “guarantee the
the latter were the ones who forcibly evicted them
independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the
therefrom, such statement is clearly self-serving and
Constitution and public policy.” Legal fees therefore do
unsupported by other evidence. Verily, this information,
not only constitute a vital source of the Court’s financial
assuming that it is true, is not relevant to the resolution
resources but also comprise an essential element of the
of this case. This case involves respondents’ cause of
Court’s fiscal independence. Any exemption from the
action against petitioners for evicting them from the
payment of legal fees granted by Congress to
subject property which was in their possession. It is
government-owned or controlled corporations and local
immaterial how respondents came into such possession
government units will necessarily reduce the JDF and the
or by what right they did so. Even usurpers of land
SAJF. Undoubtedly, such situation is constitutionally
owned by another are entitled to remain on it until they
infirm for it impairs the Court’s guaranteed fiscal
are lawfully ejected therefrom. Spouses Eulogio N.
autonomy and erodes its independence. Re: Petition for
Antazo and Nelia C. Antazo vs. Leonides Doblada, et
recognition of the exemption of the Government Service
al., G.R. No. 178908, February 4, 2010.
Insurance System from payment of legal fees, A.M. No.
08-2-01-0, February 11, 2010.
EJECTMENT; NATURE OF REMEDY AND ISSUE
INVOLVED.
EJECTMENT; ELEMENT OF FORCE IN FORCIBLE
ENTRY.
Prior physical possession is an indispensable element in
forcible entry cases. Thus, the ultimate question here is
We also note that petitioners did not deny in their Answer
who had prior physical possession of the disputed land.
respondents’ allegation that they constructed a concrete
Nelson Lagazo vs. Gerald B. Soriano and Galileo B.
fence on the subject property. Failure to specifically deny
Soriano, G.R. No. 170864, February 16, 2010.
the allegation amounts to a judicial admission. Unlawfully
entering the subject property, erecting a structure
thereon and excluding therefrom the prior possessor EJECTMENT; RATIONALE OF REMEDY.
would necessarily imply the use of force. In order to
169
Granting that petitioners had earlier possession and inscribed on respondent Brua’s certificate of title. Flor
respondents were the ones who first forcibly Martinez, represented by Macario Martinez, authorized
dispossessed them of the property, this circumstance representative and Attorney-in-fact vs. Ernesto G. Garcia
would not have given petitioners license to recover and Edilberto M. Brua, G.R. No. 166536, February 4,
possession in the same way. Such course of action is 2010.
precisely what is sought to be avoided by the rule on
ejectment. The underlying philosophy behind ejectment
EXPROPRIATION; DAMAGES FOR TAKING OF
suits is to prevent breach of the peace and criminal
PROPERTY WITHOUT PAYMENT OF JUST
disorder and to compel the party out of possession to
COMPENSATION.
respect and resort to the law alone to obtain what he
claims is his. The party deprived of possession must not
take the law into his own hands. Petitioners would have We stress, however, that the City of Iloilo should be held
had a right of action against respondents to file an liable for damages for taking private respondent’s
ejectment suit, but they evidently let the chance pass property without payment of just compensation.
and chose the easier and faster way. Unfortunately for In Manila International Airport Authority v. Rodriguez, the
them, this time, their opponents chose to resort to Court held that a government agency’s prolonged
appropriate judicial measures. Spouses Eulogio N. Antazo occupation of private property without the benefit of
and Nelia C. Antazo vs. Leonides Doblada, et al., G.R. expropriation proceedings undoubtedly entitled the
No. 178908, February 4, 2010. landowner to damages. City of Iloilo, represented by
Hon. Jerry P. Treñas, City Mayor vs. Hon. Loilita-Bersana,
et al., G.R. No. 168967, February 12, 2010.
EXECUTION; EFFECT OF LEVY ON EXECUTION AS
AGAINST PRIOR ADVERSE CLAIM.
EXPROPRIATION; DETERMINATION OF JUST
COMPENSATION.
Petitioner contends that the adverse claim of respondent
Garcia inscribed on the title of the subject property is but
a notice that the latter has an interest adverse to We now turn to the reckoning date for the determination
respondent Brua’s title, to the extent of P150,000.00 of just compensation. Petitioner claims that the
secured by a real estate mortgage, and such adverse computation should be made as of September 18, 1981,
claim cannot be considered superior to that of a final sale the date when the expropriation complaint was filed. We
conducted by the sheriff by virtue of a court judgment agree. In a long line of cases, we have constantly
that has attained finality. Sec. 12, Rule 39 of the Rules affirmed that: ”x x x just compensation is to be
of Court provides: ”SEC. 12. Effect of levy on execution ascertained as of the time of the taking, which usually
as to third persons. – The levy on execution shall create coincides with the commencement of the expropriation
a lien in favor of the judgment obligee over the right, title proceedings. Where the institution of the action precedes
and interest of the judgment obligor in such property at entry into the property, the just compensation is to be
the time of the levy, subject to liens and encumbrances ascertained as of the time of the filing of the complaint.”
then existing.”
When the taking of the property sought to be
Clearly, the levy does not make the judgment creditor expropriated coincides with the commencement of the
the owner of the property levied upon. He merely expropriation proceedings, or takes place subsequent to
obtains a lien. Such levy on execution is subject and the filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the just
subordinate to all valid claims and liens existing against compensation should be determined as of the date of the
the property at the time the execution lien attached, such filing of the complaint. Even under Sec. 4, Rule 67 of the
as real estate mortgages. Respondent Garcia’s 1964 Rules of Procedure, under which the complaint for
adverse claim, which refers to the deed of mortgage expropriation was filed, just compensation is to be
executed by respondent Brua in his favor, was annotated determined “as of the date of the filing of the
on respondent Brua’s title registered with the Registry of complaint.” Here, there is no reason to depart from the
Deeds of Rizal on June 23, 1980 as Entry No. 49853. general rule that the point of reference for assessing the
The adverse claim was already existing when the Notice value of the Subject Property is the time of the filing of
of Levy on Execution, as well as the Certificate of Sale in the complaint for expropriation. City of Iloilo,
favor of petitioner, was inscribed on July 11, 1988 and represented by Hon. Jerry P. Treñas, City Mayor vs. Hon.
September 2, 1988, respectively; and, hence, the Loilita-Bersana, et al., G.R. No. 168967, February 12,
adverse claim is sufficient to constitute constructive 2010.
notice to petitioner regarding the subject property. When
petitioner registered her Notice of Levy on Execution on EXPROPRIATION; NO RECOVERY OF POSSESSION.
the title of the subject property, she was charged with
the knowledge that the subject property sought to be
levied upon on execution was encumbered by an interest We commiserate with the private respondent. The school
the same as or better than that of the registered owner was constructed and has been in operation since 1985.
thereof. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion was Petitioner and the residents of Iloilo City have long
committed by the CA when it held that the notice of levy reaped the benefits of the property. However, non-
and subsequent sale of the subject property could not payment of just compensation does not entitle the
prevail over respondent Garcia’s existing adverse claim private landowners to recover possession of their
expropriated lot. Concededly, Javellana also slept on his
170
rights for over 18 years and did not bother to check with Cariño and the Heirs of Mateo Cariño and Bayosa
the PNB if a deposit was actually made by the petitioner. Ortega, G.R. No. 165003, February 2, 2010.
Evidently, from his inaction in failing to withdraw or even
verify the amounts purportedly deposited, private
INJUNCTION; SHOWING OF IRREPARABLE INJURY.
respondent not only accepted the valuation made by the
petitioner, but also was not interested enough to pursue
the expropriation case until the end. As such, private What is more, the provisional remedy of preliminary
respondent may not recover possession of the Subject injunction may only be resorted to when there is a
Property, but is entitled to just compensation. It is high pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which
time that private respondent be paid what was due him cannot be remedied under any standard of
after almost 30 years. City of Iloilo, represented by Hon. compensation. Here, since there is a valid cause to
Jerry P. Treñas, City Mayor vs. Hon. Loilita-Bersana, et foreclose on the mortgages, petitioners G.G. Sportswear
al., G.R. No. 168967, February 12, 2010. and Gidwani cannot claim that the irreparable damage
they wanted to prevent by their application for
preliminary injunction is the loss of their properties to
EXPROPRIATION; STAGES.
auction sale. Their real injury, if it turns out that the
right to foreclose belongs to PIO rather than to BDO, is
Expropriation proceedings have two stages. The first payment of the proceeds of the auction sale to the wrong
phase ends with an order of dismissal, or a determination party rather than to their creditor. But this kind of injury
that the property is to be acquired for a public purpose. is purely monetary and is compensable by an appropriate
Either order will be a final order that may be appealed by judgment against BDO. It is not in any sense an
the aggrieved party. The second phase consists of the irreparable injury. G.G. Sportsware Manufacturing Corp.,
determination of just compensation. It ends with an et al. vs. Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc., et al., G.R. No.
order fixing the amount to be paid to the landowner. 184434, February 8, 2010
Both orders, being final, are appealable.
INJUNCTION; SHOWING OF RIGHT TO MAIN
An order of condemnation or dismissal is final, resolving RELIEF.
the question of whether or not the plaintiff has properly
and legally exercised its power of eminent domain. Once
Petitioners G.G. Sportswear and Gidwani point out that
the first order becomes final and no appeal thereto is
BDO’s March 15, 2005 letter and its April 21, 2005
taken, the authority to expropriate and its public use can
certification show that the bank already transferred to
no longer be questioned.
PIO all its rights to the loan receivables of G.G.
Sportswear. Thus, BDO lost its right to foreclose the
Javellana did not bother to file an appeal from the May mortgages on the properties that secured the unpaid
17, 1983 Order which granted petitioner’s Motion for loans, thus, entitling petitioners to an order enjoining the
Issuance of Writ of Possession and which authorized foreclosures. Further, petitioners claim that BDO bloated
petitioner to take immediate possession of the Subject G.G. Sportswear’s outstanding obligation such that it was
Property. Thus, it has become final, and the petitioner’s being made to pay more through the foreclosure than
right to expropriate the property for a public use is no was actually due. The test for issuing a TRO or an
longer subject to review. On the first question, injunction is whether the facts show a need for equity to
therefore, we rule that the trial court gravely erred in intervene in order to protect perceived rights in equity.
nullifying the May 17, 1983 Order. City of Iloilo, In general, a higher court will not set aside the trial
represented by Hon. Jerry P. Treñas, City Mayor vs. Hon. court’s grant or denial of an application for preliminary
Loilita-Bersana, et al., G.R. No. 168967, February 12, injunction unless it gravely abused its discretion as when
2010. it lacks jurisdiction over the action, ignores relevant
considerations that stick out of the parties’ pleadings,
sees the facts with a blurred lens, ignores what is
INJUNCTION; INJUNCTION AGAINST NATIONAL
relevant, draws illogical conclusions, or simply acts in
COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (NCIP).
random fashion. Injunction may be issued only when the
plaintiff appears to be entitled to the main relief he asks
The petition was accompanied by a prayer for a writ of in his complaint. This means that the plaintiff’s
preliminary injunction or TRO to prevent the CA from allegations should show clearly that he has a cause of
enforcing its decision. The Court, however, did not issue action. This means that he enjoys some right and that
any TRO or injunctive writ in this case. This was because the defendant has violated it. And, where the defendant
R.A. 8371 prohibits the issuance of a restraining order or is heard on the application for injunction, the trial court
preliminary injunction against the NCIP in any case, must consider, too, the weight of his opposition. If one
dispute or controversy arising from or necessary to its were to go by respondent BDO’s March 15, 2005 letter to
interpretation or the interpretation of other laws relating petitioner G.G. Sportswear and its April 21, 2005
to indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples certification, the bank appears to have already assigned
(ICCs/IPs) and ancestral domains. The City Mayor of all the loan receivables of G.G. Sportswear to respondent
Baguio and the Head of the Demolition Team-Engr. PIO. Logically, BDO no longer had the right to foreclose
Nazita Bañez Vs. Atty. Brain Masweng, Regional Hearing on the mortgages that secured the loans. But, judging
Officer, NCIP-CAR, the heirs of Judith Cariño, Jacqueline by its answer to the complaint, BDO wanted that
corrected. For it claimed that it actually assigned just a
171
measly portion of its loan receivables to respondent PIO. proceeding. Upon the other hand, Section 2, Rule 19 of
Did the allegations of the parties and the documents they the Rules of Court provides the time within which a
attached to their pleadings give ample justification for motion for intervention may be filed, viz.: ”SECTION 2.
the issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction order to Time to intervene.– The motion for intervention may be
stop the foreclosure sale of the Bel-Air property? Two filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial
considerations militate against it: court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be
attached to the motion and served on the original
parties.”
First. The mortgaged properties were due for
foreclosure. Admittedly, petitioner G.G. Sportswear had
defaulted on the loans secured by the subject This rule, however, is not inflexible. Interventions have
mortgages. Petitioners had, therefore, no right to been allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the
complain about losing their properties to foreclosure. Rule, when demanded by the higher interest of justice.
Interventions have also been granted to afford
indispensable parties, who have not been impleaded, the
Second. The issue of which party owns the loan
right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered
receivables and, consequently, had the right to foreclose
by the trial court, when the petition for review of the
the mortgages is essentially an issue between BDO and
judgment has already been submitted for decision before
PIO. This issue is the concern of petitioners G.G.
the Supreme Court, and even where the assailed order
Sportswear and Gidwani but only to the extent that they
has already become final and executory. In Lim v.
are entitled to ensure that the proceeds of the
Pacquing, the motion for intervention filed by the
foreclosure sale were paid to the right party.
Republic of the Philippines was allowed by this Court to
avoid grave injustice and injury and to settle once and for
As it happens, however, this is not even a genuine issue. all the substantive issues raised by the parties. In fine,
Respondent PIO, which had been impleaded in the case, the allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention
did not contest BDO’s ownership of the loan receivables rests on the sound discretion of the court after
and its right to foreclose the mortgages. It would, consideration of the appropriate circumstances. We
therefore, make no sense to insist that PIO be the one to stress again that Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a rule of
foreclose when it denounces such right. Besides, the real procedure whose object is to make the powers of the
estate mortgages presented for foreclosure remained in court fully and completely available for justice. Its
BDO’s name. No document has been presented purpose is not to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and
superseding it. For the above reasons, it cannot be said promote the administration of justice. Eleazar P. Quinto
that petitioners G.G. Sportswear and Gidwani have and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections,
established a right to the main relief they want, namely, G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010.
the arrest of the foreclosure sale of their mortgaged
properties after they had admitted not paying their
INTERVENTION; REQUIREMENT OF SPECIFIC AND
loans. As for their claim that BDO had bloated G.G.
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OR INTEREST IN CASE.
Sportswear’s outstanding obligation, the remedy if this
turns out to be true is to direct BDO to return the excess
proceeds with damages as the circumstances may We rule that, with the exception of the IBP – Cebu City
warrant. G.G. Sportsware Manufacturing Corp., et al. vs. Chapter, all the movants-intervenors may properly
Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 184434, intervene in the case at bar. First, the movants-
February 8, 2010 intervenors have each sufficiently established a
substantial right or interest in the case. As a Senator of
the Republic, Senator Manuel A. Roxas has a right to
INTERVENTION; PERIOD AND REQUISITES.
challenge the December 1, 2009 Decision, which nullifies
a long established law; as a voter, he has a right to
Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides: ”A intervene in a matter that involves the electoral process;
person who has legal interest in the matter in litigation or and as a public officer, he has a personal interest in
in the success of either of the parties, or an interest maintaining the trust and confidence of the public in its
against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected system of government. On the other hand, former
by a distribution or other disposition of property in the Senator Franklin M. Drilon and Tom V. Apacible are
custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with candidates in the May 2010 elections running against
leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The appointive officials who, in view of the December 1, 2009
court shall consider whether or not the intervention will Decision, have not yet resigned from their posts and are
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of not likely to resign from their posts. They stand to be
the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor’s directly injured by the assailed Decision, unless it is
rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.” reversed. Moreover, the rights or interests of said
movants-intervenors cannot be adequately pursued and
Pursuant to the foregoing rule, this Court has held that a protected in another proceeding. Clearly, their rights will
motion for intervention shall be entertained when the be foreclosed if this Court’s Decision attains finality and
following requisites are satisfied: (1) the would-be forms part of the laws of the land. With regard to the
intervenor shows that he has a substantial right or IBP – Cebu City Chapter, it anchors its standing on the
interest in the case; and (2) such right or interest cannot assertion that “this case involves the constitutionality of
be adequately pursued and protected in another elections laws for this coming 2010 National Elections,”
172
and that “there is a need for it to be allowed to intervene As to the issue of res judicata, the Court of Appeals ruled
xxx so that the voice of its members in the legal that the decision in the case of Guico v. San Pedro was
profession would also be heard before this Highest binding on the Carpos as it proceeded to discuss, thus:
Tribunal as it resolves issues of transcendental
importance.” Prescinding from our rule and ruling case
In Guico vs. San Pedro, the Supreme Court resolved the
law, we find that the IBP-Cebu City Chapter has failed to
conflicting claims over a tract of land situated in barrio
present a specific and substantial interest sufficient to
Tindig na Manga, Parañaque, Rizal, which was subdivided
clothe it with standing to intervene in the case at bar. Its
into eleven (11) lots. The subject land was sought to be
invoked interest is, in character, too indistinguishable to
registered by a certain Eduardo C. Guico on the basis of
justify its intervention. Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A.
an accompanying plan Psu-80886, which interestingly is
Tolentino, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
also the basis of ALI’s TCT No. T-5333, now TCT No.
189698, February 22, 2010.
41262. Guico’s application was opposed by, among
others, Florentino Baltazar, on the basis of plan Psu
JUDGMENT; FINALITY. 56007, under which plaintiffs-appellees’ title was derived.
Respondent should not suffer for petitioner’s failure to It appears that Lots 2 and 3 were adjudicated to Guico on
avail itself of the appropriate remedies provided for by the basis of Psu-80886 (Lot 3 is the subject matter of the
law and the Rules. After a decision is declared final and instant case), Lot 10 in favor of Baltazar on the basis of
executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning Psu 56007, under which plaintiffs-appellees’ title was
party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within based, and the rest to the heirs of Narciso Mayuga.
the prescribed period, the winning party has the While Baltazar claimed Lot 3 on the basis of his Psu-
correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on 56007, his claim was rejected and the Lot was
the case. Whether through inadvertence or negligence of adjudicated to Guico on the basis of his Psu-80886.
its deputized counsel or the OSG itself, the decision has
already become final and executory. To conclude
It is clear, therefore, that whatever claim plaintiffs-
otherwise would run counter to the basic principle of fair
appellees have on the subject property on the basis of
play. Besides, there would be no end to litigations if the
Lot 3 Psu-56007, through their predecessor-in-interest,
parties who have unsuccessfully availed themselves of
Florentino Baltazar, the same had been clearly and finally
any of the appropriate remedies or lost them through
denied by the Supreme Court in Guico vs. San Pedro.
their fault or inadvertence could have unfavorable
decisions annulled by simply bringing an action for
annulment of judgment. Republic of the Philippines For res judicata to apply, four requisites must be met:
(DENR) vs. Technological Advocates for Agro-Forest (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) it
Programs Association, Inc. (TAFPA, Inc.), G.R. No. must be a judgment or an order on the merits; (3) it
165333, February 9, 2010. must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there
must be, between the first and the second actions,
JUDGMENT; OBITER DICTUM.
identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of
action. Plaintiffs-appellees only have objections with
Our Fariñas ruling on the equal protection implications of respect to the fourth requisite, offering the lame excuse
the deemed-resigned provisions cannot be minimalized that it is not bound by such decision, there being no
as mere obiter dictum. It is trite to state that an identity of parties in Guico vs. San Pedro and the instant
adjudication on any point within the issues presented by case.
the case cannot be considered as obiter dictum. This rule
applies to all pertinent questions that are presented and
We agree with petitioners that it is not apparent from an
resolved in the regular course of the consideration of the
examination of Guico and the evidence on record that
case and lead up to the final conclusion, and to any
indeed the predecessors-in-interest of ALI and the Carpos
statement as to the matter on which the decision is
with respect to the subject property are Eduardo Guico
predicated. For that reason, a point expressly decided
and Florentino Baltazar, especially since the parties’
does not lose its value as a precedent because the
respective OCTs were not issued in these persons’ names
disposition of the case is, or might have been, made on
but rather a certain Alberto Yaptinchay and Apolonio
some other ground; or even though, by reason of other
Sabater. It cannot be categorically said that there was
points in the case, the result reached might have been
identity of parties between the Guico case and the instant
the same if the court had held, on the particular point,
case. Clearly, one of the elements of res judicata, i.e.,
otherwise than it did. Flor Martinez, represented by
that there must be, between the first and the second
Macario Martinez, authorized representative and
actions, identity of parties, is lacking. In any event, the
CA’s questioned Decision had sufficient basis in fact and
law even without relying on the Guico case. Spouses
Morris Carpo and Socorro Carpo vs. Ayala Land,
JUDGMENT; RES JUDICATA. Incorporated, G.R. No. 166577, February 3, 2010.
JUDGMENT; REQUIREMENT TO STATE LEGAL BASIS.
173
Petitioner next alleges that the CA denied reconsideration As to petitioner’s complaint regarding this Court’s denial
without indicating its legal basis in violation of the of her petition through a mere minute resolution (which
mandate of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, allegedly deprived her of due process as the Court did
which provides that no petition for review or motion for not issue a full-blown decision stating the facts and
reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused applicable jurisprudence), suffice it to say that the Court
due course or denied without stating the legal basis is not duty-bound to issue decisions or resolutions signed
therefor. This requirement, however, was complied with by the justices all the time. It has ample discretion to
in the instant case, when the CA, in its resolution denying formulate ponencias, extended resolutions or even
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, stated that it minute resolutions issued by or upon its authority,
found no cogent reason to modify, much less reverse depending on its evaluation of a case, as long as a legal
itself. Jimmy Areno, Jr. vs. Skycable PCC-Baguio, G.R. basis exists. When a minute resolution (signed by the
No. 180302. February 5, 2010. Clerk of Court upon orders of the Court) denies or
dismisses a petition or motion for reconsideration for lack
of merit, it is understood that the assailed decision or
JUDGMENT; STARE DECISIS.
order, together with all its findings of fact and legal
conclusions, are deemed sustained. Florencia G. Diaz vs.
In truth, this Court has already ruled squarely on Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181502, February 2,
whether these deemed-resigned provisions challenged in 2010.
the case at bar violate the equal protection clause of the
Constitution in Fariñas, et al. v. Executive Secretary, et
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; DEFENDANT’S
al. In Fariñas, the constitutionality of Section 14 of the
ADMISSION OF MATERIAL AVERMENTS OF
Fair Election Act, in relation to Sections 66 and 67 of the
COMPLAINT.
Omnibus Election Code, was assailed on the ground,
among others, that it unduly discriminates against
appointive officials. As Section 14 repealed Section 67 In this case, the trial court rendered a judgment on the
(i.e., the deemed-resigned provision in respect of elected pleadings. Section 1, Rule 34 of the Rules of Court
officials) of the Omnibus Election Code, elected officials reads: “SECTION 1. Judgment on the pleadings. – Where
are no longer considered ipso facto resigned from their an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits
respective offices upon their filing of certificates of the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading,
candidacy. In contrast, since Section 66 was not the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment
repealed, the limitation on appointive officials continues on such pleading. However, in actions for declaration of
to be operative – they are deemed resigned when they nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal separation,
file their certificates of candidacy. The petitioners the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always
in Fariñas thus brought an equal protection challenge be proved.”
against Section 14, with the end in view of having the
deemed-resigned provisions “apply equally” to both
The trial court has the discretion to grant a motion for
elected and appointive officials. We held, however, that
judgment on the pleadings filed by a party if there is no
the legal dichotomy created by the Legislature is a
controverted matter in the case after the answer is filed.
reasonable classification, as there are material and
A judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts
significant distinctions between the two classes of
as pleaded, and is based exclusively upon the allegations
officials. Consequently, the contention that Section 14 of
appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the
the Fair Election Act, in relation to Sections 66 and 67 of
accompanying annexes. This case is unusual because it
the Omnibus Election Code, infringed on the equal
was petitioner, and not the claimant respondent, who
protection clause of the Constitution, failed muster.
moved for a judgment on the pleadings during the pre-
trial. This is clear from the trial court’s Order dated 7
The case at bar is a crass attempt to resurrect a dead October 1997 which reads: ”When this case was called
issue. The miracle is that our assailed Decision gave it for pre-trial, parties appeared together with
new life. We ought to be guided by the doctrine of stare counsel. Defendant [Doris U. Sunbanun] moved that
decisis et non quieta movere. This doctrine, which is considering that there is no dispute as far as the contract
really “adherence to precedents,” mandates that once a is concerned and the only disagreement between the
case has been decided one way, then another case parties is on the interpretation of the contract so that the
involving exactly the same point at issue should be issue boils down on to which of the parties are correct on
decided in the same manner. This doctrine is one of their interpretation. With the conformity of the plaintiff
policy grounded on the necessity for securing certainty [Aurora B. Go], this case is therefore considered closed
and stability of judicial decisions. XXX XXX XXX Flor and submitted for judgment on the pleading.”
Martinez, represented by Macario Martinez, authorized
representative and Attorney-in-fact vs. Ernesto G. Garcia
Petitioner, in moving for a judgment on the pleadings
and Edilberto M. Brua, G.R. No. 166536, February 4,
without offering proof as to the truth of her own
2010.
allegations and without giving respondent the opportunity
to introduce evidence, is deemed to have admitted the
JUDGMENT; SUFFICIENCY OF MINUTE RESOLUTION material and relevant averments of the complaint, and to
OF SUPREME COURT. rest her motion for judgment based on the pleadings of
the parties. Doris U. Sunbanun vs. Aurora B. Go, G.R.
No. 163280, February 2, 2010.
174
JURISDICTION; ACTION TO COLLECT ON BOND. JURISDICTION; COMPUTATION OF

JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT IN COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES.
In the instant case, the original complaint filed with the
trial court was in the nature of a collection case,
purportedly to collect on the obligation of petitioner by Section 19(8) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended
virtue of the bonds executed by it in favor of respondent, by Republic Act No. 7691, states. . . Relatedly, Supreme
essentially a contractual obligation. As petitioner Court Circular No. 21-99 was issued declaring that the
correctly points out, an action to collect on a bond used first adjustment in jurisdictional amount of first level
to secure the payment of taxes is not a tax collection courts outside of Metro Manila from P100,000.00
case, but rather a simple case for enforcement of a to P200,000.00 took effect on March 20, 1999.
contractual liability. In Mambulao, Mambulao Lumber Meanwhile, the second adjustment from P200,000.00
Company (MLC) was liable for deficiency sales tax to the to P300,000.00 became effective on February 22, 2004 in
Republic. The parties agreed to an installment plan, accordance with OCA Circular No. 65-2004 issued by the
whereby MLC obligated itself to pay such obligation in 12 Office of the Court Administrator on May 13, 2004.
equal monthly installments. To secure the installment Based on the foregoing, there is no question that at the
payments, MLC and Mambulao Insurance and Surety time of the filing of the complaint on April 5, 2004, the
Corporation executed a surety bond in favor of the MTCC’s jurisdictional amount has been adjusted
Republic. MLC defaulted in the payment of its obligation. to P300,000.00.
Thus, the Republic proceeded against the surety bond.
MLC sought the dismissal of the case against it on the
But where damages is the main cause of action, should
ground of prescription, arguing that under Sec. 331, in
the amount of moral damages prayed for in the
relation to Sec. 183(A), of the National Internal Revenue
complaint be the sole basis for determining which court
Code (NIRC), internal revenue taxes must be assessed
has jurisdiction or should the total amount of all the
within five (5) years from the filing of the corresponding
damages claimed regardless of kind and nature, such as
return. Thus, we ruled in that case that the NIRC was
exemplary damages, nominal damages, and attorney’s
inapplicable to the case and that the Republic had ten
fees, etc., be used? In this regard, Administrative
(10) years from default of payment within which to
Circular No. 09-94 is instructive:
collect the indebtedness of MLC. We explained that an
action based upon a surety bond cannot be considered a
tax collection case. Rather, such action would properly be 2. The exclusion of the term “damages of whatever kind”
a case based on a contract. Philippine British Assurance in determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19
Co. Inc. vs. Republic of the Philippines represented by (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by
the Bureau of Customs, G.R. No. 185588, February 2, R.A. No. 7691, applies to cases where the damages are
2010. merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause
of action. However, in cases where the claim for
damages is the main cause of action, or one of the
JURISDICTION; CIVIL ACTION INCAPABLE OF
causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be
PECUNIARY ESTIMATION OVER WHICH REGIONAL
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the
TRIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION.
court. (Emphasis ours.)
Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law. At the

In the instant case, the complaint filed in Civil Case No.
time petitioner filed his suit in the trial court, statutory
5794-R is for the recovery of damages for the alleged
law vests on Regional Trial Courts exclusive original
malicious acts of petitioners. The complaint principally
jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of pecuniary
sought an award of moral and exemplary damages, as
estimation. An action for specific performance, such as
well as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, for the
petitioner’s suit to enforce the Agreement on joint child
alleged shame and injury suffered by respondent by
custody, belongs to this species of actions. Thus,
reason of petitioners’ utterance while they were at a
jurisdiction-wise, petitioner went to the right
police station in Pangasinan. It is settled that jurisdiction
court. Indeed, the trial court’s refusal to entertain
is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the
petitioner’s suit was grounded not on its lack of power to
complaint since the latter comprises a concise statement
do so but on its thinking that the Illinois court’s divorce
of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s causes of
decree stripped it of jurisdiction. This conclusion is
action. It is clear, based on the allegations of the
unfounded. What the Illinois court retained was
complaint, that respondent’s main action is for damages.
“jurisdiction x x x for the purpose of enforcing all and
Hence, the other forms of damages being claimed by
sundry the various provisions of [its] Judgment for
respondent, e.g., exemplary damages, attorney’s fees
Dissolution.” Petitioner’s suit seeks the enforcement not
and litigation expenses, are not merely incidental to or
of the “various provisions” of the divorce decree but of
consequences of the main action but constitute the
the post-divorce Agreement on joint child custody. Thus,
primary relief prayed for in the complaint.
the action lies beyond the zone of the Illinois court’s so-
called “retained jurisdiction.” Herald Black Dacasin vs.
Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin, G.R. No. 168785, February Considering that the total amount of damages claimed
5, 2010. was P420,000.00, the Court of Appeals was correct in
ruling that the RTC had jurisdiction over the case. Irene
Sante and Reynaldo vs. Hon. Edilberto T. Claravall, etc.,
et al., G.R. No. 173915, February 22, 2010.
175
JURISDICTION; ESTOPPEL. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. and Solidbank

Corporation vs. Bernardita H. Perez, represented by her
Attorney in fact Patria H. Perez, G.R. No. 181842,
On Metrobank’s raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction
February 5, 2010.
over the complaint for respondent’s failure to pay the
correct docket fees, apropos is the ruling in National
Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals: “Although the JURISDICTION; PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES IS
payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT.
requirement, the trial court may allow the plaintiff in an
action to pay the same within a reasonable time before
Clearly, therefore, the payment of legal fees under Rule
the expiration of the applicable prescriptive or
141 of the Rules of Court is an integral part of the rules
reglementary period. If the plaintiff fails to comply with
promulgated by this Court pursuant to its rule-making
this requirement, the defendant should timely raise the
power under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the
issue of jurisdiction or else he would be considered in
Constitution. In particular, it is part of the rules
estoppel. In the latter case, the balance between the
concerning pleading, practice and procedure in courts.
appropriate docket fees and the amount actually paid by
Indeed, payment of legal (or docket) fees is a
the plaintiff will be considered a lien on any award he
jurisdictional requirement. It is not simply the filing of
may obtain in his favor. (emphasis and underscoring
the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading but the
supplied)
payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial
court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature
Metrobank raised the issue of jurisdiction only before the of the action. Appellate docket and other lawful fees are
appellate court after it and its co-petitioner participated required to be paid within the same period for taking an
in the proceedings before the trial court. While lack of appeal. Payment of docket fees in full within the
jurisdiction may be raised at any time, a party may be prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an
held in estoppel if, as in the present case, it has actively appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does
taken part in the proceedings being questioned. not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. and Solidbank action and the decision sought to be appealed from
Corporation vs. Bernardita H. Perez, represented by her becomes final and executory. Re: Petition for recognition
Attorney in fact Patria H. Perez, G.R. No. 181842, of the excemption of the Government Service Insurance
February 5, 2010. System from payment of legal fees, A.M. No. 08-2-
01-0, February 11, 2010.
JURISDICTION; PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES.
JURISDICTION; REMAND TO REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS TO SETTLE CHILD
In Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of
CUSTODY ISSUE.
Appeals, the Court held that a pleading which does not
specify in the prayer the amount sought shall not be
admitted or shall be expunged, and that a court acquires Instead of ordering the dismissal of petitioner’s suit, the
jurisdiction only upon payment of the prescribed docket logical end to its lack of cause of action, we remand the
fee. This rule was relaxed in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. case for the trial court to settle the question of
v. Asuncion which was echoed in the 2005 case of Heirs Stephanie’s custody. Stephanie is now nearly 15 years
of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melico, the pertinent portion of the old, thus removing the case outside of the ambit of the
decision in the latter case reads: ”Plainly, while the mandatory maternal custody regime under Article 213
payment of prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional and bringing it within coverage of the default standard on
requirement, even its non-payment at the time of filing child custody proceedings – the best interest of the
does not automatically cause the dismissal of the child. As the question of custody is already before the
case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable trial court and the child’s parents, by executing the
prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the Agreement, initially showed inclination to share custody,
party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the it is in the interest of swift and efficient rendition of
rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when insufficient justice to allow the parties to take advantage of the
filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiffs and there court’s jurisdiction, submit evidence on the custodial
was no intention to defraud the government, the arrangement best serving Stephanie’s interest, and let
Manchester rule does not apply.” the trial court render judgment. This disposition is
consistent with the settled doctrine that in child custody
proceedings, equity may be invoked to serve the child’s
Metrobank takes exception to the application of Sun
best interest. Herald Black Dacasin vs. Sharon Del Mundo
Insurance Office to the present case because, by its
Dacasin, G.R. No. 168785, February 5, 2010.
claim, respondent deliberately concealed the insufficient
payment of docket fees. Metrobank’s position fails. The
ensuing months in which the leased premises would be JURISDICTION; VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE AND
rendered vacant could not be determined at the time of SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION.
the filing of the complaint. It bears recalling that the
building constructed on respondent’s leased premises
It is settled that if there is no valid service of summons,
was specifically constructed to house a bank, hence, the
the court can still acquire jurisdiction over the person of
idle period before another occupant with like business
the defendant by virtue of the latter’s voluntary
may opt to lease would be difficult to project.
176
appearance. Thus Section 20 of Rule 14 of the Rules of right of every Filipino, since they were not furnished
Court provides: ”Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance. – The copies of pleadings by the plaintiff and the Order dated
defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be May 3, 2005;
equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a
motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of
xxxx
jurisdiction over the person shall not be deemed a
voluntary appearance.”
and accordingly prayed as follows:
And Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses
Wilson Dy Hong Pi and Lolita Dy, et al. enlightens: WHEREFORE, . . . it is most respectfully prayed . . . that
the Order dated May 5, 2005 declaring [them] in default
be LIFTED.
Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil
case is acquired either by the coercive power of legal
processes exerted over his person, or his voluntary Respondents did not, in said motion, allege that their
appearance in court. As a general proposition, one who filing thereof was a special appearance for the purpose
seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted only to question the jurisdiction over their persons.
to the jurisdiction of the court. It is by reason of this rule Clearly, they had acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the
that we have had occasion to declare that the filing of court. Rapid Realty and Development Corporation vs.
motions to admit answer, for additional time to file Orlando Villa, et al., G.R. No. 184197, February 11,
answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to 2010.
lift order of default with motion for reconsideration,
is considered voluntary submission to the court’s MANDAMUS; REQUIREMENT OF CLEAR LEGAL
jurisdiction. This, however, is tempered by the concept RIGHT.
of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes
a special appearance to challenge, among others, the
court’s jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered For mandamus to issue, it is essential that the person
to have submitted to its authority. petitioning for it has a clear legal right to the claim
sought. It will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel
compliance with a duty, which is questionable or over
Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that: which a substantial doubt exists. Thus, unless the right
to the relief sought is unclouded, it will be
(1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the denied. Teresita L. Araos, et al. vs. Hon. Lea Regala,
general rule on voluntary appearance; Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 226, Quezon City and Social
Security System (SSS), G.R. No. 174237, February 18,
2010.
(2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court
over the person of the defendant must be explicitly
made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and ORDERS; SERVICE ON DEPUTIZED ATTORNEY
BINDING.
(3) Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to
the jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where Verily, it was Atty. Julie who entered his appearance as
a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and counsel for DENR on January 18, 2000 and, as such, was
submitted to the court for resolution. (italics and the counsel on record. It was only later or on June 8,
underscoring supplied) 2000 that the OSG, through Assistant Solicitor General
Mariano M. Martinez, informed Atty. Julie that the latter
had been deputized to assist the Solicitor General in the
In their first Motion to Lift the Order of Default dated
case pending before the RTC. As such, being the counsel
January 30, 2006, respondents alleged:
on record, Atty. Julie had the authority to represent the
petitioner, and it was but logical that notices of court
xxxx processes sent to him were sufficient to bind petitioner.
Thus, the CA correctly concluded that petitioner’s right to
due process was not violated.
4. In the case of respondents, there is no reason why
they should not receive the Orders of this Honorable
Court since the subject of the case is their multi-million Since Atty. Julie had the authority to represent the DENR
real estate property and naturally they would not want to before the RTC, notices of decision, orders, and other
be declared in default or lose the same outright without court processes to him as counsel on record and the duly
the benefit of a trial on the merits; deputized counsel of the OSG were sufficient to bind
petitioner, and both the counsel and the OSG’s failure to
appeal the decision and to avail themselves of the other
5. It would be the height of injustice if the respondents
remedies provided by the Rules was likewise binding
is [sic] denied the equal protection of the laws[;]
upon petitioner. Republic of the Philippines (DENR) vs.
Technological Advocates for Agro-Forest Programs
6. Respondents must be afforded “Due process of Law” Association, Inc. (TAFPA, Inc.), G.R. No. 165333,
as enshrined in the New Constitution, which is a basic February 9, 2010.
177
PLEADINGS; AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT. respondent in filing the Petition for Certiorari before the
CA. As Special Attorney, he is one of the counsels of NPC
in the proceedings before the trial court, and the NPC
Lastly, we find no error, much less grave abuse of
never questioned his authority to sign the petition for its
discretion, on the part of the Court of Appeals in
behalf. Atty. Mangontawar M. Gubat vs. National Power
affirming the RTC’s order allowing the amendment of the
Corporation, G.R. No. 167415. February 26, 2010.
original complaint from P300,000.00 to P1,000,000.00
despite the pendency of a petition for certiorari filed
before the Court of Appeals. While it is a basic PLEADINGS; PERIOD TO FILE MOTION FOR
jurisprudential principle that an amendment cannot be RECONSIDERATION IN SUPREME COURT.
allowed when the court has no jurisdiction over the
original complaint and the purpose of the amendment is
Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 56-A of the 1997 Rules of
to confer jurisdiction on the court, here, the RTC clearly
Court, in relation to Section 1, Rule 52 of the same rules,
had jurisdiction over the original complaint and
COMELEC had a period of fifteen days from receipt of
amendment of the complaint was then still a matter of
notice of the assailed Decision within which to move for
right. Irene Sante and Reynaldo vs. Hon. Edilberto T.
its reconsideration. COMELEC received notice of the
Claravall, etc., et al., G.R. No. 173915, February 22,
assailed Decision on December 2, 2009, hence, had until
2010.
December 17, 2009 to file a Motion for Reconsideration.
The Motion for Reconsideration of COMELEC was timely
PLEADINGS; AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE filed. It was filed on December 14, 2009. The
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST corresponding Affidavit of Service (in substitution of the
FORUM SHOPPING. one originally submitted on December 14, 2009) was
subsequently filed on December 17, 2009 – still within
the reglementary period. Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A.
It is thus clear that the failure to attach the Secretary’s
Tolentino, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
Certificate, attesting to General Manager Antonio
189698, February 22, 2010.
Merelos’s authority to sign the Verification and
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, should not be
considered fatal to the filing of the petition. Nonetheless, PLEADINGS; PERSONAL SERVICE AND FILING
the requisite board resolution was subsequently GENERALLY MANDATORY.
submitted to the CA, together with the pertinent
documents. Considering that petitioner substantially
The petition is unmeritorious. Section 11, Rule 13 of the
complied with the rules, the dismissal of the petition was,
Rules of Court states: “
therefore, unwarranted. Time and again, we have
emphasized that dismissal of an appeal on a purely
technical ground is frowned upon especially if it will result SEC. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. —
in unfairness. The rules of procedure ought not to be Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings
applied in a very rigid, technical sense for they have been and other papers shall be done personally. Except with
adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice. respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to
For this reason, courts must proceed with caution so as other modes must be accompanied by a written
not to deprive a party of statutory appeal; rather, they explanation why the service or filing was not done
must ensure that all litigants are granted the amplest personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to
opportunity for the proper and just ventilation of their consider the paper as not filed.”
causes, free from the constraint of technicalities. Mid-
Pasig Land Development Corporation vs. Mario Tablante, Section 11 is mandatory. Marcelino Domingo vs. Court
doing business under the name and style ECRM of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 169122, February 2, 2010.
Enterprises, rockland Construction Company, Laurie
Litam, MC Home Depot, Inc., G.R. No. 162924, February
4, 2010. PRE-TRIAL; PLAINTIFF’S DUTY TO MOVE THAT
CASE BE SET FOR PRE-TRIAL.
PLEADINGS; CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM

SHOPPING; PRESUMPTION OF AUTHORITY OF We agree with private respondent BPI that the failure of
SIGNATORY. the Ex-Officio Sheriff to file her Answer should not have
prevented petitioners from performing their duty under
Section 1 of Rule 18. Petitioners could have availed of
The same liberal application should also apply to the other remedies, such as the filing of a motion to declare
question of the alleged lack of authority of Atty. Doromal Ex-Officio Sheriff in default, to avoid unnecessary delay
to execute the certification of non-forum shopping for in court proceedings. Benedicta Samson and Marcial
lack of a board resolution from the NPC. True, only Samson vs. Hon. Judge Geraldine Fiel-Macaraig, et
individuals vested with authority by a valid board al., G.R. No. 166356, February 2, 2010.
resolution may sign the certificate of non-forum shopping
in behalf of the corporation, and proof of such authority
must be attached to the petition, the failure of which will PROCEDURAL RULES; INSTANCE WHERE LIBERAL
be sufficient cause for dismissal. Nevertheless, it cannot APPLICATION NOT ALLOWED.
be said that Atty. Doromal does not enjoy the
presumption that he is authorized to represent
178
While there are instances where the extraordinary PROCEDURAL RULES; REQUISITES FOR LIBERAL
remedy of certiorari may be resorted to despite the APPLICATION.
availability of an appeal, the long line of decisions
denying the special civil action for certiorari, either before
Liberal application of procedural rules is allowed only
appeal was availed of or in instances where the appeal
when two requisites are present: (1) there is a plausible
period had lapsed, far outnumber the instances
explanation for the non-compliance, and (2) the outright
where certiorari was given due course. The few
dismissal would defeat the administration of justice.
significant exceptions are: (1) when public welfare and
In Tible & Tible Company, Inc. v. Royal Savings and Loan
the advancement of public policy dictate; (2) when the
Association, the Court held that “the two pre-requisites
broader interests of justice so require; (3) when the writs
for the relaxation of the rules are: (1) justifiable cause or
issued are null; (4) when the questioned order amounts
plausible reason for non-compliance; and (2) compelling
to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority, which we
reason to convince the court that outright dismissal of
find to be not present in this case. Notably, petitioner
the petition would seriously impair the orderly
did not even fail to advance an explanation why appeal
administration of justice.” Both requisites are lacking in
was not availed of, nor was there any showing that the
the present case. Marcelino Domingo vs. Court of
issue raised in the petition for certiorari could not be
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 169122, February 2, 2010.
raised on appeal. Concomitant to a liberal application of
the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of
the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his PROCEDURAL RULES; SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE;
failure to abide by the rules. Flor Martinez, represented LIBERAL APPLICATION.
by Macario Martinez, authorized representative and
Attorney-in-fact vs. Ernesto G. Garcia and Edilberto M. From the foregoing, it is thus clear that the failure to
Brua, G.R. No. 166536, February 4, 2010. attach the Secretary’s Certificate, attesting to General
Manager Antonio Merelos’s authority to sign the
PROCEDURAL RULES; LIBERAL APPLICATION. Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping,
should not be considered fatal to the filing of the
petition. Nonetheless, the requisite board resolution was
In any case, the substantive issues we have already
subsequently submitted to the CA, together with the
discussed are justifiable reasons to relax the rules of
pertinent documents. Considering that petitioner
procedure. We cannot allow a patently wrong judgment
substantially complied with the rules, the dismissal of the
to be implemented because of technical lapses. This
petition was, therefore, unwarranted. Time and again,
ratiocination is in keeping with the policy to secure a just,
we have emphasized that dismissal of an appeal on a
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action or
purely technical ground is frowned upon especially if it
proceeding. Atty. Mangontawar M. Gubat vs. National
will result in unfairness. The rules of procedure ought
Power Corporation, G.R. No. 167415. February 26, 2010.
not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense for they
have been adopted to help secure, not override,
PROCEDURAL RULES; LIBERAL APPLICATION. substantial justice. For this reason, courts must proceed
with caution so as not to deprive a party of statutory
appeal; rather, they must ensure that all litigants are
Petitioner argues that the CA erred in admitting
granted the amplest opportunity for the proper and just
respondent’s Comment to petitioner’s Motion for
ventilation of their causes, free from the constraint of
Reconsideration which was filed 19 days late. A close
technicalities. Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation
scrutiny of Section 6, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
vs. Mario Tablante, doing business under the name and
which grants discretionary authority to the CA in ordering
style ECRM Enterprises, rockland Construction Company,
parties to file responsive and other pleadings in petitions
Laurie Litam, MC Home Depot, Inc., G.R. No. 162924,
for certiorari filed before it, will reveal that such rule is
February 4, 2010.
merely directory in nature. This is so because the word
“may” employed by the rule shows that it is not
mandatory but discretionary on the part of the CA to RES JUDICATA; REQUISITES.
require the filing of pleadings which it deems necessary
to assist it in resolving the controversies. In the same
Whether the principle of res judicata applies and whether
way, the admission of any responsive pleading filed by
petitioner has the legal capacity to maintain the action
party-litigants is a matter that rests largely on the sound
despite the revocation of her appointment as co-
discretion of the court. At any rate, rules of procedure
administratrix of Fr. Balbino’s estate are the core issues
may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice and
in the present case.
in order to afford litigants maximum opportunity for the
proper and just determination of their causes. Strict
adherence to technical adjective rules should never be The doctrine of res judicata lays down two main rules
unexceptionally required because a contrary precept which may be stated as follows: (1) The judgment or
would result in a failure to decide cases on their merits. decree of a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits
The CA could not have erred in admitting the comment, concludes the litigation between the parties and their
albeit filed late, when it viewed that the interest of justice privies and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit
would be better served by the policy of liberality. Jimmy involving the same cause of action either before the
Areno, Jr. vs. Skycable PCC-Baguio, G.R. No. 180302. same or any other tribunal; and (2) any right, fact, or
February 5, 2010. matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily
179
involved in the determination of an action before a turn-over to private respondent[-herein petitioner

competent court in which a judgment or decree Teresita de Mesa Reforzado] the property located at 140
is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the Lagmay St., San Juan, Metro Manila, through a writ of
judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between execution, the authority of respondent court in
the parties and their privies whether or not the claims or determining the ownership of said property merely
demands, purposes, or subject matters of the two suits being provisional. Private respondent, as co-special
are the same. These two main rules mark the distinction administratrix, should file a separate action for the
between the principles governing the two typical cases in recovery thereof, if she has strong reasons to believe
which a judgment may operate as evidence. In speaking that the same belongs to the estate of Fr. Balbino
of these cases, the first general rule above stated, and Caparas.
which corresponds to the afore-quoted paragraph (b) of
Section 47, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, is referred to
The ruling in CA-G.R. No. 33118, relied upon by the
as ”bar by former judgment“; while the second general
appellate court in holding that res judicata bars
rule, which is embodied in paragraph (c) of the same
petitioner’s present complaint for annulment of title and
section and rule, is known as ”conclusiveness of
reconveyance, is not a decision on the merits on
judgment.” (emphasis supplied)
the ownership of the property, the appellate court in
said case having merely resolved the propriety of the
In CA-G.R. SP No. 33118 (the petition for certiorari probate court’s issuance of a writ of possession in favor
assailing the probate court’s order for respondent Nazario of herein petitioner. The appellate court in fact declared
to turn over possession of the property to petitioner), the in CA-G.R. SP No. 33118 that herein petitioner had the
therein petitioner was herein respondent Nazario, and the remedy of filing a separate action for recovery of the
therein private respondent was herein petitioner. The property – a recourse she availed of when she filed the
issue presented in that petition for certiorari was whether complaint for annulment of title and reconveyance
the probate court validly ordered the issuance of a writ of subject of the present petition. Contrary then to the
possession over the property in favor of herein petitioner, ruling of the appellate court, the present action is not
whose legal capacity and cause of action stemmed from barred by res judicata. Teresita De Mesa Reforzado v.
her being the co-special administratrix of the estate of Fr. Spouses Nazario C. Lopez and Precila Lopez, G.R. No.
Balbino. From the earlier-stated allegations gathered 148306, February 24, 2010.
from petitioner’s complaint subject of the present
petition, she is suing respondents for the annulment of
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; REQUIREMENT OF ABSENCE
the title to the property issued to them and for the
OF GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT.
reconveyance of the property to Fr. Balbino’s estate.
There is thus identity of parties and subject matter in the
two cases. A summary judgment is allowed only if, after hearing, the
court finds that except as to the amount of damages, the
pleadings, affidavits, depositions and admissions show no
As to identity of causes of action, it is hornbook rule that
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
identity of causes of action does not mean absolute
movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The
identity, otherwise, a party could easily escape the
purpose of a summary judgment is to avoid drawn out
operation of res judicata by changing the form of the
litigations and useless delays because the facts appear
action or the relief sought. CA-G.R. SP No. 33118 which
undisputed to the mind of the court. Such judgment is
emanated from SP. Proc. No. B-894 involved estate
generally based on the facts proven summarily by
proceedings, while Civil Case No. 67043 subject of the
affidavits, depositions, pleadings, or admissions of the
present petition is for Annulment of Title, Reconveyance,
parties. For a full-blown trial to be dispensed with, the
Recovery of Possession and Ownership and Damages.
party who moves for summary judgment has the burden
These two cases differ in the form of action, but they
of demonstrating clearly the absence of genuine issues of
raise the same issue – ownership and possession of the
fact, or that the issue posed is patently insubstantial as
same property, and they invoke the same relief – for Fr.
to constitute a genuine issue. “Genuine issue” means an
Balbino’s estate to be declared the owner of the property
issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence
and for it reconveyed to his estate, and for the TCT in the
as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or
name of herein respondents to be annulled. And the
contrived. Petitioner pleaded for a summary judgment
evidence required to substantiate the respective claims of
on his fees on the claim that the parties intentionally did
the parties is substantially the same.
not inform him of the settlement. He alleged that he
never received a copy of NPC’s Motion to Withdraw
Be that as it may, however, an important requisite for Appeal before the CA and that instead, it was another
the principle of res judicata is wanting. The appellate lawyer who was furnished and who acknowledged receipt
court’s ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 33118 was not a final of the motion. When he confronted his clients, he was
and executory decision on the merits to put the present allegedly told that the NPC deceived them into believing
case within the ambit of res judicata. Thus the that what they received was only a partial payment
dispositive portion of the decision in CA-G.R. SP No. exclusive of the attorney’s fees. NPC contested these
33118 reads: ”IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, averments. It claimed good faith in the execution of the
the orders of respondent court dated June 30, 1993 and compromise agreement. It stressed that the attorney’s
January 6, 1994, are hereby set aside insofar as they fees were already deemed included in the monetary
direct petitioner[-herein respondent Nazario C. Lopez] to consideration given to the plaintiffs for the compromise.
180
The above averments clearly pose factual issues which submitted is the amount that should be credited to the
make the rendition of summary judgment not proper. account of the judgment debtor. Spouses William
Bad faith imports a dishonest purpose or some moral Genato and Rebecca Genato vs. Rita Viola, G.R. No.
obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong. It is 169706, February 5, 2010.
synonymous with fraud, in that it involves a design to
mislead or deceive another. The trial court should have
EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL OF RTC DECISION IN
exercised prudence by requiring the presentation of
ELECTION CASES; REQUIREMENTS.
evidence in a formal trial to determine the veracity of the
parties’ respective assertions. Whether NPC and the
plaintiffs connived and acted in bad faith is a question of There are clear cut requirements on when RTC decisions
fact and is evidentiary. Bad faith has to be established may be executed pending appeal.
by the claimant with clear and convincing evidence, and
this necessitates an examination of the evidence of all A valid exercise of discretion to allow execution pending
the parties. As certain facts pleaded were being appeal requires that it must be manifest in the decision
contested by the opposing parties, such would not sought to be executed that the defeat of the protestee
warrant a rendition of summary judgment. and the victory of the protestant have been clearly
established. The Rules of Procedure in Election Contests
Moreover, the validity or the correct interpretation of the now embody this doctrine, which the Comelec has in the
alleged compromise agreements is still in issue in view of past given value to and used in resolving cases before it,
the diverse interpretations of the parties thereto. In fact, and which has formed part of our jurisprudence.
in the Decision of the CA dated January 24, 1996, the
appellate court ordered the case to be remanded to the We have taken to heart the need to decide election
trial court for new trial, thereby ignoring completely contests with dispatch; hence, we promulgated A.M. No.
NPC’s motion to dismiss appeal based on the alleged 07-4-15-SC to address the matter. Noteworthy is the
compromise agreements it executed with the plaintiffs. fact that particular attention has been given to the
Even in its assailed Decision of September 9, 2002, the decision itself in election contests. For comparison, in
CA did not rule on the validity of the alleged compromise the Rules of Court, Section 1 of Rule 36 merely states:
agreements. This is only to be expected in view of its “A judgment or final order determining the merits of the
earlier ruling dated January 24, 1996 which directed the case shall be in writing personally and directly prepared
remand of the case to the court of origin for new trial. by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and
Considering the above disquisition, there is still a factual the law on which it is based, signed by him, and filed
issue on whether the NPC and the plaintiffs had already with the clerk of court.”
validly entered into a compromise agreement. Clearly,
the NPC and the plaintiffs have diverse interpretations as
regards the stipulations of the compromise agreement Notably, the word “must” is used in the above-quoted
which must be resolved. According to the NPC, the rule, thus, clearly indicating the mandatory — not merely
amounts it paid to the plaintiffs were in full satisfaction of directory — nature of the requirement of what the
their claims. Plaintiffs claim otherwise. They insist that decision should contain. The specific rules on the
the amounts they received were exclusive of attorney’s contents of decisions in election contests were formulated
claim. They also assert that NPC undertook to pay the so that the decision could, by itself, be taken as a
said attorney’s fees to herein petitioner. Atty. valuable aid in expeditiously deciding on appeal incidents
Mangontawar M. Gubat vs. National Power Corporation, peripheral to the main case. In the present case, the
G.R. No. 167415. February 26, 2010. contents of the decision become particularly relevant and
useful in light of the need to decide the case before us
with utmost dispatch, based only on the documents
Other proceedings submitted before us, considering that the records and
election materials are with another tribunal, as a matter
EXECUTION; SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT; of course. Leonor Dangan-Corral vs. Commission on
AMOUNT (HLURB). Elections and Ernesto Enero Fernandez, G.R. No. 190156,
February 12, 2010.
After a judgment has gained finality, it becomes the
ministerial duty of the court or quasi-judicial tribunal to EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL OF RTC DECISION IN
order its execution. In the present case, the final and ELECTION CASES; REQUIREMENT OF CLEAR
executory HLURB decision was partially executed by the SHOWING OF PROTESTANT’S VICTORY AND
sale of the 315 sacks of rice belonging to Viola. In PROTESTEE’S DEFEAT IN RTC DECISION.
determining the amount to be credited to the account of
Viola, we look at the Sheriff’s Partial Report and the For the limited purpose of determining whether the
Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale. Both documents state that in essential requisite of a clear showing in the decision of
the auction sale of the 315 sacks of rice, Mrs. Rebecca the protestant’s victory and the protestee’s defeat is
Genato submitted the highest bid in the amount present, we have examined the RTC Decision subject of
of P189,000.00. Drawing from Section 19, Rule 39 of the the present case. It is glaring and unmistakable that the
Rules of Court which states that “all sales of property said Decision does not conform to the requirements set
under execution must be made at public auction, to the forth in Section 2 of the Rules. It does not give the
highest bidder,” it naturally follows that the highest bid specifics of its findings. The general statement
181
invalidating 67% of the total votes cast on the ground to those of this case save for the fact that the land being
that the ballots were written by one person or written by claimed there is a portion of the Busol Forest Reserve.
two persons is grossly infirm. The Decision does not The petitioners in that case sought the intervention of
specify why the court considered particular groups of this Court after the CA upheld the jurisdiction of the NCIP
ballots to have been written by one person, and other and affirmed the TROs issued by the latter. The City
invalidated ballots to have been written by two persons. Mayor of Baguio and the Head of the Demolition Team-
Worse, the Decision does not state which and how many Engr. Nazita Bañez v. Atty. Brain Masweng, Regional
ballots were written by one person; and which and how Hearing Officer, NCIP-CAR, the heirs of Judith Cariño,
many ballots were written by two persons. The entire Jacqueline Cariño and the Heirs of Mateo Cariño and
Decision, even the lengthy part enumerating the exhibits Bayosa Ortega, G.R. No. 165003, February 2, 2010.
offered by each party, fails to yield the exact number of
and which ballots were written by one person, and the
INJUNCTION; REQUISITE OF PRESENT AND
exact number of and which ballots were written by two
UNMISTAKABLE RIGHT (NCIP).
persons. There is also no mention in the decision of
whether or not the RTC took into consideration the
entries of the Minutes of Voting and Counting relative to Private respondents base their claim to the disputed
illiterate or disabled voters, if any, who cast their votes area on an alleged time-immemorial possession and a
through assistors. The Decision merely states that “[a] survey plan awarded to their forebears by the Director of
careful and cursory examination of these ballots Lands in 1920. In 1940, Proclamation No. 603 withdrew
indubitably shows that these ballots are written either by the contested area from sale or settlement and reserved
one (1) or two (2) persons, given the palpable similarity the same for animal breeding station purposes, subject to
in the handwritings indicated in these ballots earlier private rights. The claim of respondents on the subject
declared by Protestant’s revisors as written by one (1) land is still pending before the NCIP. Thus, their rights
and two (2) persons.” It utterly violates the mandatory are mere expectations, not the present and unmistakable
requirement that “the court must clearly and distinctly right required for the grant of the provisional remedy of
specify why the pair or group of ballots has been written injunction. Moreover, the structures subject of the
by only one person. The specific figures or letters demolition order were either built or being constructed
indicating that the ballots have been written by one without the requisite permit at the time the demolition
person must be specified.” In the present case, the order was issued in 2003. Hence, private respondents
victory of the protestant and the defeat of the protestee were not entitled to the preliminary injunction issued by
were not clearly established in the Decision because of the NCIP. (The City Mayor of Baguio and the Head of the
the RTC’s failure to conform to the prescribed form of the Demolition Team-Engr. Nazita Bañez v. Atty. Brain
Decision. Because of said infirmity, there is no certainty, Masweng, Regional Hearing Officer, NCIP-CAR, the heirs
it not being mentioned in the Decision, on whether the of Judith Cariño, Jacqueline Cariño and the Heirs of
ballots of those who voted through assistors were also Mateo Cariño and Bayosa Ortega, G.R. No. 165003,
invalidated or not, in conjunction with the lack of a February 2, 2010.
specific number of ballots invalidated for being written by
one person. The ballots of those who voted through JURISDICTION; COMMISSION ON SETTLEMENT OF
assistors, if any, could validly be written by one person. LAND PROBLEMS (COSLAP).
It being unclear from the Decision whether these ballots,
if any, were invalidated, it follows that the victory of the
protestant and defeat of the protestee are unclear and Under these terms, the COSLAP has two different rules in
not manifest therein. Consequently, to allow the acting on a land dispute or problem lodged before it, e.g.,
execution of such a grossly infirm RTC Decision in COSLAP can assume jurisdiction only if the matter is one
disregard of established jurisprudence and clear and of those enumerated in paragraph 2(a) to (e) of the law.
straightforward rules is arbitrary and whimsical and Otherwise, it should refer the case to the agency having
constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack appropriate jurisdiction for settlement or resolution. In
or excess of jurisdiction. Leonor Dangan-Corral vs. resolving whether to assume jurisdiction over a case or
Commission on Elections and Ernesto Enero Fernandez, to refer it to the particular agency concerned, the
G.R. No. 190156, February 12, 2010. COSLAP considers: (a) the nature or classification of the
land involved; (b) the parties to the case; (c) the nature
of the questions raised; and (d) the need for immediate
INJUNCTION; NCIP’S JURISDICTION TO ISSUE and urgent action thereon to prevent injury to persons
TROS OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS. and damage or destruction to property. The terms of the
law clearly do not vest on the COSLAP the general power
Petitioners contend that injunction, as an original and to assume jurisdiction over any land dispute or problem.
principal action, falls within the jurisdiction of the regular Thus, under EO 561, the instances when the COSLAP
courts. The NCIP may issue TROs and writs of may resolve land disputes are limited only to those
preliminary injunction only as an auxiliary remedy to a involving public lands or those covered by a specific
pending case before it. Petitioners also assert that there license from the government, such as pasture lease
was no factual and legal basis for the NCIP’s issuance of agreements, timber concessions, or reservation grants.
a writ of preliminary injunction. We have already ruled Undisputably, the properties involved in the present
on the power of the NCIP to issue a writ of preliminary dispute are private lands owned by private parties, none
injunction in City Government of Baguio City v. Atty. of whom is a squatter, a patent lease agreement holder,
Masweng. The facts of that case are practically identical a government reservation grantee, a public land claimant
182
or a member of any cultural minority. Moreover, the The issue raised in this petition has been settled in the
dispute between the parties can hardly be classified as case of Tuason v. Court of Appeals. In Tuason, private
critical or explosive in nature that would generate social respondent therein filed a petition for the annulment of
tension or unrest, or a critical situation that would require her marriage on the ground of her husband’s
immediate and urgent action. The issues raised in the psychological incapacity. There, the trial court rendered
present case primarily involve the application of the Civil judgment declaring the nullity of the marriage and
Code provisions on Property and the Easement of Right of awarding custody of the children to private respondent
Way. As held in Longino v. General, “disputes requiring therein. No timely appeal was taken from the trial
no special skill or technical expertise of an administrative court’s judgment. We held that the decision annulling the
body that could be resolved by applying pertinent marriage had already become final and executory when
provisions of the Civil Code are within the exclusive the husband failed to appeal during the reglementary
jurisdiction of the regular courts.” The Machados period. The husband claimed that the decision of the
cannot invoke Section 3, paragraph 2(e) of EO 561, trial court was null and void for violation of his right to
which provides that the COSLAP may assume jurisdiction due process. He argued he was denied due process
over complaints involving “other similar land problems of when, after failing to appear on two scheduled hearings,
grave urgency,” to justify the COSLAP’s intervention in the trial court deemed him to have waived his right to
this case. The statutory construction principle present evidence and rendered judgment based solely on
of ejusdem generic prescribes that where general words the evidence presented by private respondent. We
follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a upheld the judgment of nullity of the marriage even if it
particular and specific meaning, such general words are was based solely on evidence presented by therein
not to be construed in their widest extent but are to be private respondent. We also ruled in Tuason that notice
held as applying only to persons or things of the same sent to the counsel of record is binding upon the client
kind as those specifically mentioned. A dispute between and the neglect or failure of the counsel to inform the
two parties concerning the right of way over private lands client of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of the
cannot be characterized as similar to those enumerated latter’s right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a
under Section 3, paragraph 2(a) to (d) of EO 561. judgment valid and regular on its face. In the present
In Davao New Town Development Corporation v. case, the 30 March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004
Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems – where resolution of the trial court had become final and
we ruled that the COSLAP does not have blanket executory upon the lapse of the reglementary period to
authority to assume every matter referred to it – we appeal. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the 17
made it clear that its jurisdiction is confined only to May 2004 resolution, which the trial court received on 28
disputes over lands in which the government has a June 2004, was clearly filed out of time. Applying the
proprietary or regulatory interest. Felicitas M. Machado doctrine laid down in Tuason, the alleged negligence of
and Marcelino P. Machado vs. Ricardo L. Gatdula, et al., counsel resulting in petitioner’s loss of the right to appeal
G.R. No. 156287, February 16, 2010. is not a ground for vacating the trial court’s judgments.
JUDGMENT; FINALITY (HLURB). However, when petitioner filed the motion to dismiss on 4
November 2004, the 30 March 2004 decision and the 17
May 2004 resolution of the trial court had long become
The April 27, 1999 HLURB Resolution, reinstating the
final and executory upon the lapse of the 15-day
December 18, 1996 Decision, has long been final and
reglementary period without any timely appeal having
executory. Nothing is more settled in the law than that a
been filed by either party. The 30 March 2004 decision
decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable
and the 17 May 2004 resolution may no longer be
and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any
disturbed on account of the belated motion to dismiss
respect even if the modification is meant to correct
filed by petitioner. The trial court was correct in denying
erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it was
petitioner’s motion to dismiss. Nothing is more settled in
made by the court that rendered it or by the highest
law than that when a judgment becomes final and
court of the land. The only recognized exceptions to the
executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The
general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-
same may no longer be modified in any respect, even if
called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to
the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to
any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances
be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. The reason is
transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its
grounded on the fundamental considerations of public
execution unjust and inequitable. None of the exceptions
policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional
is present in this case. The HLURB decision cannot be
error, the judgments or orders of courts must be final at
considered a void judgment, as it was rendered by a
some definite date fixed by law. Once a judgment has
tribunal with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
become final and executory, the issues there should be
complaint and, as discussed above, with jurisdiction over
laid to rest. Susie Chan-Tan vs. Jesse C. Tan, G.R. No.
the parties. Hence, the same can no longer be
167139. February 25, 2010
modified. Spouses William Genato and Rebecca Genato
vs. Rita Viola, G.R. No. 169706, February 5, 2010.
JURISDICTION; JUDGMENT ISSUED BY QUASI-
JUDICIAL AGENCY WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS
JUDGMENT; FINALITY OF JUDGMENT IN PETITION
VOID (COSLAP).
FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE.
183
In this case, the COSLAP did not have jurisdiction over law and not by the parties’ action or conduct. Estoppel
the subject matter of the complaint filed by Gatdula, yet generally does not confer jurisdiction over a cause of
it proceeded to assume jurisdiction over the case and action to a tribunal where none, by law, exists. Felicitas
even issued writs of execution and demolition against the M. Machado and Marcelino P. Machado vs. Ricardo L.
Machados. The lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by the Gatdula, et al., G.R. No. 156287, February 16, 2010.
parties’ participation in the proceedings before the
COSLAP. Under the circumstances, the Machados can
LEGAL FEES; EXEMPTION OF COOPERATIVE FROM
rightfully question its jurisdiction at anytime, even during
PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES DOES NOT APPLY TO
appeal or after final judgment. A judgment issued by a
PETITION FOR EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF
quasi-judicial body without jurisdiction is void. It cannot
MORTGAGE UNDER ACT NO. 3135.
be the source of any right or create any obligation. All
acts pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have
no legal effect. The void judgment can never become The question is whether petitioner’s application for
final and any writ of execution based on it is likewise extrajudicial foreclosure is exempt from legal fees under
void. Felicitas M. Machado and Marcelino P. Machado vs. Article 62(6) of RA 6938.
Ricardo L. Gatdula, et al., G.R. No. 156287, February 16,
2010. The scope of the legal fees exemption Article 62(6) of RA
6938 grants to cooperatives is limited to two types
JURISDICTION; JURISDICTION OVER PERSON IS of actions, namely: (1) actions brought under RA 6938;
WAIVABLE (HLURB). and (2) actions brought by the Cooperative Development
Authority to enforce the payment of obligations
contracted in favor of cooperatives. By simple deduction,
At this point, it may be beneficial to elaborate on the
it is immediately apparent that Article 62(6) of RA 6938
matter of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is defined as the
is no authority for petitioner to claim exemption from the
power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a
payment of legal fees in this proceeding because first,
case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to
the fees imposable on petitioner do not pertain to an
have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it
action brought under RA 6938 but to a petition for
must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage under Act
parties. Elementary is the distinction between
3135. Second, petitioner is not the Cooperative
jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over
Development Authority which can claim exemption only
the person. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
in actions to enforce payments of obligations on behalf of
conferred by the Constitution or by law. In contrast,
cooperatives. Baguio Market Vendors Multi-Purpose
jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the court by
Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO), etc. vs. Hon. Iluminada
virtue of the party’s voluntary submission to the
Cabato-Cortes, Executive Judge, RTC, Baguio City, G.R.
authority of the court or through the exercise of its
No. 165922. February 26, 2010
coercive processes. Jurisdiction over the person is
waivable unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter which
is neither subject to agreement nor conferred by consent MOTION TO DISMISS IN PETITION FOR
of the parties. In civil case, courts acquire jurisdiction DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE.
over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, while
jurisdiction over the defendants is acquired either As for the applicability to petitioner’s motion to dismiss of
through the service of summons upon them in the Section 7 of the Rule on the Declaration of Absolute
manner required by law or through their voluntary Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
appearance in court and their submission to its authority. Marriages, petitioner is correct. Section 7 of the Rule on
the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
The act of filing the complaint with the HLURB is Annulment of Voidable Marriages provides: ”SEC. 7.
unequivocally a voluntary submission by the Motion to dismiss. – No motion to dismiss the petition
complainants, including Viola, to the authority of the shall be allowed except on the ground of lack of
HLURB. Clearly, the HLURB acquired jurisdiction over jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties;
Viola, who was one of the complainants, upon the filing provided, however, that any other ground that might
of their complaint. Spouses William Genato and Rebecca warrant a dismissal of the case may be raised as
Genato vs. Rita Viola, G.R. No. 169706, February 5, an affirmative defense in an answer.”
2010.
The clear intent of the provision is to allow the
JURISDICTION; NO ESTOPPEL; JURISDICTION respondent to ventilate all possible defenses in an
CONFERRED BY LAW AND NOT BY PARTIES’ answer, instead of a mere motion to dismiss, so that
CONDUCT (COSLAP). judgment may be made on the merits. In construing a
statute, the purpose or object of the law is an important
factor to be considered. Further, the letter of the law
By reason of the Machados’ active participation in the
admits of no other interpretation but that the provision
mediation conferences and the COSLAP verification
applies only to a respondent, not a petitioner. Only a
surveys, the CA declared the Machados estopped from
respondent in a petition for the declaration of absolute
questioning the body’s jurisdiction and bound by its
nullity of void marriage or the annulment of voidable
decisions, orders and resolutions. We disagree with this
marriage files an answer where any ground that may
ruling. Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by
184
warrant a dismissal may be raised as an affirmative proceedings before the HLURB, she cannot now be
defense pursuant to the provision. The only logical permitted to impugn her representations to the injury of
conclusion is that Section 7 of the Rule does not apply to the petitioners. Spouses William Genato and Rebecca
a motion to dismiss filed by the party who initiated the Genato vs. Rita Viola, G.R. No. 169706, February 5,
petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of void 2010.
marriage or the annulment of voidable marriage. Since
petitioner is not the respondent in the petition for the
PARTIES; INDISPENSABLE PARTY (COMELEC
annulment of the marriage, Section 7 of the Rule does
CASE).
not apply to the motion to dismiss filed by her. Section 7
of the Rule not being applicable, petitioner’s claim that it
is unconstitutional for allegedly setting an obstacle to the Respondents Roxas, et al. assert that the Court should
preservation of the family is without basis. dismiss the petition for failure of petitioners Atienza, et
al. to implead the LP as an indispensable party.
Roxas, et al. point out that, since the petition seeks the
Section 1 of the Rule states that the Rules of Court
issuance of a writ of mandatory injunction against the
applies suppletorily to a petition for the declaration of
NECO, the controversy could not be adjudicated with
absolute nullity of void marriage or the annulment of
finality without making the LP a party to the case. But
voidable marriage. In this connection, Rule 17 of the
petitioners Atienza, et al.’s causes of action in this case
Rules of Court allows dismissal of the action upon notice
consist in respondents Roxas, et al.’s disenfranchisement
or upon motion of the plaintiff.
of Atienza, et al. from the election of party leaders and in
the illegal election of Roxas as party president.
However, when petitioner filed the motion to dismiss on 4 Atienza, et al. were supposedly excluded from the
November 2004, the 30 March 2004 decision and the 17 elections by a series of “despotic acts” of Roxas, et al.,
May 2004 resolution of the trial court had long become who controlled the proceedings. Among these acts are
final and executory upon the lapse of the 15-day Atienza, et al.’s expulsion from the party, their exclusion
reglementary period without any timely appeal having from the NECO, and respondent Drilon’s “railroading” of
been filed by either party. The 30 March 2004 decision election proceedings. Atienza, et al. attributed all these
and the 17 May 2004 resolution may no longer be illegal and prejudicial acts to Roxas, et al. Since no
disturbed on account of the belated motion to dismiss wrong had been imputed to the LP nor had some
filed by petitioner. The trial court was correct in denying affirmative relief been sought from it, the LP is not an
petitioner’s motion to dismiss. Nothing is more settled in indispensable party. Petitioners Atienza, et al.’s prayer
law than that when a judgment becomes final and for the undoing of respondents Roxas, et al.’s acts and
executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The the reconvening of the NECO are directed against
same may no longer be modified in any respect, even if Roxas, et al. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., et al. vs. Commission
the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 188920, February 16, 2010.
be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. The reason is
grounded on the fundamental considerations of public
PARTIES; STANDING; REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional
(COMELEC CASE).
error, the judgments or orders of courts must be final at
some definite date fixed by law. Once a judgment has
become final and executory, the issues there should be Respondents Roxas, et al. also claim that petitioners
laid to rest. Susie Chan-Tan vs. Jesse C. Tan, G.R. No. Atienza, et al. have no legal standing to question the
167139. February 25, 2010 election of Roxas as LP president because they are no
longer LP members, having been validly expelled from
the party or having joined other political parties. As non-
PARTIES; ESTOPPEL (HLURB).
members, they have no stake in the outcome of the
action. But, as the Court held in David v. Macapagal-
Moreover, it was only when the final and executory Arroyo, legal standing in suits is governed by the “real
judgment of the HLURB was already being executed parties-in-interest” rule under Section 2, Rule 3 of the
against Viola that she, for the first time, reversed her Rules of Court. This states that “every action must be
position; and claimed that she was not a party to the prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-
case and that the HLURB did not acquire jurisdiction over interest.” And “real party-in-interest” is one who stands
her. Viola is estopped from taking such inconsistent to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or
positions. Where a party, by his or her deed or conduct, the party entitled to the avails of the suit. In other
has induced another to act in a particular manner, words, the plaintiff’s standing is based on his own right to
estoppel effectively bars the former from adopting an the relief sought. In raising petitioners Atienza, et al.’s
inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that lack of standing as a threshold issue, respondents
causes loss or injury to the latter. The doctrine of Roxas, et al. would have the Court hypothetically assume
estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair the truth of the allegations in the petition. Here, it is
dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to precisely petitioners Atienza, et al.’s allegations that
forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, respondents Roxas, et al. deprived them of their rights as
or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were LP members by summarily excluding them from the LP
directed and who reasonably relied thereon. After roster and not allowing them to take part in the election
petitioners had reasonably relied on the representations of its officers and that not all who sat in the NECO were
of Viola that she was a complainant and entered into the in the correct list of NECO members. If Atienza, et al.’s
185
allegations were correct, they would have been complainants, including Viola, or to the Sps. Genato
irregularly expelled from the party and the election of would result by allowing the amendment, the purpose of
officers, void. Further, they would be entitled to which is merely to conform to procedural rules or to
recognition as members of good standing and to the correct a technical error. It is now too late to
holding of a new election of officers using the correct list dismiss this petition, and, in effect, nullify all proceedings
of NECO members. To this extent, therefore, Atienza, et had before the HLURB on the ground that Viola does not
al. who want to take part in another election would stand appear to have been impleaded as a party. The error or
to be benefited or prejudiced by the Court’s decision in defect is merely formal and not substantial and an
this case. Consequently, they have legal standing to amendment to cure such defect is expressly authorized
pursue this petition. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., et al. vs. by Sec. 4, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. Spouses William
Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 188920, Genato and Rebecca Genato vs. Rita Viola, G.R. No.
February 16, 2010. 169706, February 5, 2010.
PLEADINGS; ALLEGATIONS RATHER THAN CAPTION RECONSTITUTION; APPEAL; SCOPE OF REVIEW;

OF PLEADINGS CONTROL (HLURB). SUPREME COURT MAY REVIEW JURISDICTIONAL
INFIRMITIES EVEN IF NOT RAISED BY APPELLANT.
It is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations
therein that are controlling. The inclusion of the names Because of these fatal omissions, the trial court never
of all the parties in the title of a complaint is a formal acquired jurisdiction over respondents’ petition.
requirement under Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Consequently, the proceedings it conducted, as well as
Court. However, the rules of pleadings require courts to those of the CA, are null and void. It is unfortunate that
pierce the form and go into the substance. The non- despite the mandatory nature of the above requirements
inclusion of one or some of the names of all the and our constant reminder to courts to scrutinize and
complainants in the title of a complaint, is not fatal to the verify carefully all supporting documents in petitions for
case, provided there is a statement in the body of the reconstitution, the same still escaped the attention of the
complaint indicating that such complainant/s was/were trial court and the CA. And while petitioner also
made party to such action. This is specially true before overlooked those jurisdictional infirmities and failed to
the HLURB where the proceedings are summary in nature incorporate them as additional issues in its petition, this
without regard to legal technicalities obtaining in the Court has sufficient authority to pass upon and resolve
courts of law and where the pertinent concern is to the same since they affect jurisdiction. Republic of the
promote public interest and to assist the parties in Philippines vs. Heirs of Julio Ramos, represented by
obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of Reynaldo Ramos Medina, et al., G.R. No. 169481,
every action, application or other proceedings. February 22, 2010.
Respondent Viola, although her name did not appear in
the title as a party, was one of the persons who caused
RECONSTITUTION; JURISDICTION; EFFECT OF
the preparation of the complaint and who verified the
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH JURISDICTIONAL
same. The allegations in the body of the complaint
REQUIREMENTS IN JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION OF
indicate that she is one of the complainants. She
TITLE CASE.
categorically considered, and held out, herself as one of
the complainants from the time of the filing of the
complaint and up to the time the decision in the HLURB Because of these fatal omissions, the trial court never
case became final and executory. To repeat, the acquired jurisdiction over respondents’ petition.
averments in the body of the complaint, not the title, are Consequently, the proceedings it conducted, as well as
controlling. Hence, having been set forth in the body of those of the CA, are null and void. It is unfortunate that
the complaint as a complainant, Viola was a party to the despite the mandatory nature of the above requirements
case. Spouses William Genato and Rebecca Genato vs. and our constant reminder to courts to scrutinize and
Rita Viola, G.R. No. 169706, February 5, 2010. verify carefully all supporting documents in petitions for
reconstitution, the same still escaped the attention of the
trial court and the CA. And while petitioner also
PLEADINGS; FORMAL AMENDMENTS (HLURB).
overlooked those jurisdictional infirmities and failed to
incorporate them as additional issues in its petition, this
For clarity, the complaint should have been amended to Court has sufficient authority to pass upon and resolve
reflect in the title the individual complainants. There the same since they affect jurisdiction. Republic of the
being a “defect in the designation of the parties”, its Philippines vs. Heirs of Julio Ramos, represented by
correction could be summarily made at any stage of the Reynaldo Ramos Medina, et al., G.R. No. 169481,
action provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the February 22, 2010.
adverse party. In the present case, the specification of
the individual complainants in the title of the case would
RECONSTITUTION; JURISDICTION;
not constitute a change in the identity of the parties.
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION
Only their names were omitted in the title but they were
FOR RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE.
already parties to the case, most importantly, they were
heard through their counsel whom they themselves chose
to prepare the complaint and represent them in the case RA 26 lays down the specific procedure for the
before the HLURB. No unfairness or surprise to the reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens certificates of
186
title. It confers jurisdiction upon trial courts to hear and Tañedo, who despite knowledge of the proceedings did
decide petitions for judicial reconstitution. However, not participate therein, thereafter sold the same property
before said courts can assume jurisdiction over the to Benigno S. Aquino. The latter sought to have it
petition and grant the reconstitution prayed for, the registered in his name. The question in that case, as well
petitioner must observe certain special requirements and as in this one, was whether our decision in the case in
mode of procedure prescribed by law. Some of these which another person was the applicant constituted res
requirements are enumerated in Sections 12 and 13 of judicata as against his successors-in-interest.
RA 26.
We ruled there, and we so rule now, that in registration
Perusal of respondents’ Petition for Reconstitution, for the cases filed under the provisions of the Public Land Act for
purpose of verifying whether the strict and mandatory the judicial confirmation of an incomplete and imperfect
requirements of RA 26, particularly Section 12 (b) and title, an order dismissing an application for registration
(e) thereof, have been faithfully complied with, would and declaring the land as part of the public domain
reveal that it did not contain an allegation that no co- constitutes res judicata, not only against the adverse
owner’s, mortgagee’s or lessees duplicate had been claimant, but also against all persons. Florencia G. Diaz
issued or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181502,
or destroyed. The petition also failed to state the names February 2, 2010.
and addresses of the present occupants of Lot 54.
Correspondingly, the Notice of Hearing issued by the
TRIAL; CONSOLIDATION (SANDIGANBAYAN).
court a quo did not also indicate the names of the
occupants or persons in possession of Lot 54, in gross
violation of Section 13 of RA 26. Republic of the The rule allowing consolidation is designed to avoid
Philippines vs. Heirs of Julio Ramos, represented by multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression or
Reynaldo Ramos Medina, et al., G.R. No. 169481, abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, and
February 22, 2010. to simplify the work of the trial court – in short, the
attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation
to the parties-litigants. Thus, in Philippine Savings Bank
RES JUDICATA; APPLICABILITY IN LAND
v. Mañalac, Jr., the Court disregarded the technical
REGISTRATION CASE.
difference between an action and a proceeding, and
upheld the consolidation of a petition for the issuance of
The Court agrees with the Republic’s position that Reyes a writ of possession with an ordinary civil action in order
is applicable to this case. To constitute res judicata, the to achieve a more expeditious resolution of the cases. In
following elements must concur: the present case, it would be more in keeping with law
and equity if all the cases filed against petitioner were
consolidated with that having the lowest docket number
(1) the former judgment or order
pending with the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan.
must be final;
The only notable differences in these cases lie in the date
(2) the judgment or order must be
of the transaction, the entity transacted with and amount
on the merits;
involved. The charge and core element are the same
(3) it must have been rendered by
– estafa through falsification of documents based on
a court having jurisdiction over the subject
alleged overstatements of claims for miscellaneous and
matter and parties; and
extraordinary expenses. Notably, the main witness is
(4) there must be between the first
also the same – Hilconeda P. Abril. It need not be
and second actions, identity of parties, of
underscored that consolidation of cases, when proper,
subject matter, and of causes of
results in the simplification of proceedings which saves
action.
time, the resources of the parties and the courts, and a
possible major abbreviation of trial. It contributes to the
The first three requisites have undoubtedly been swift dispensation of justice, and is in accord with the aim
complied with. However, petitioner takes exception to the of affording the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive
fourth requisite, particularly on the issue of identity of determination of their cases before the courts. Above all,
parties. In her petition for review filed in this Court, she consolidation avoids the possibility of rendering
contends that since the applicants in the two cases are conflicting decisions in two or more cases which would
different, the merits of the two cases should, accordingly, otherwise require a single judgment. Jaime S. Domdom
be determined independently of each other. This v. Hon. Third and Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan,
contention is erroneous. Commission on Audit and The People of the
Philippines, G.R. Nos. 182382-83, February 24, 2010.
The facts obtaining in this case closely resemble those
in Aquino v. Director of Lands. In that case, Quintin WRIT OF AMPARO; APPEAL; EFFECT OF APPELLEE’S
Tañedo endeavored to secure title to a considerable tract FAILURE TO APPEAL.
of land by virtue of his possession thereof under CA 141.
When the case eventually reached this Court, we
The entrenched procedural rule in this jurisdiction is that
affirmed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the
a party who did not appeal cannot assign such errors as
proceedings as the property in question was part of the
are designed to have the judgment modified. All that
public domain. Quintin’s successor-in-interest, Florencia
said appellee can do is to make a counter-assignment of
187
errors or to argue on issues raised at the trial only for the lack of it, of the four non-answering respondents or (2)
purpose of sustaining the judgment in his favor, even on outright dismissal of the same petition as to them––hews
grounds not included in the decision of the court a quo or to the prescription of Sec. 20 of the Amparo Rule on
raised in the appellant’s assignment of errors or archiving and reviving cases. Parenthetically, petitioners
arguments. This tenet is enshrined as one of the basic have also not furnished this Court with sufficient data as
principles in our rules of procedure, specifically to avoid to where the afore-named respondents may be served a
ambiguity in the presentation of issues, facilitate the copy of their petition for review. Lourdes D. Rubrico, et
setting forth of arguments by the parties, and aid the al. vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 183871,
court in making its determinations. A party who fails to February 18, 2010.
acquire complete relief from a decision of the court has
various remedies to correct an omission by the court. He
WRIT OF AMPARO; COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY
may move for a correction or clarification of judgment, or
HAS LITTLE BEARING IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS.
even seek its modification through ordinary appeal.
There is thus no basis for the Court to skip the rule and
excuse herein respondents for failure to properly avail As explained by the CA, Gen. Esperon and P/Dir. Gen.
themselves of the remedies in the face of the parties’ Razon were included in the case on the theory that they,
contentions that have remained disputed. as commanders, were responsible for the unlawful acts
allegedly committed by their subordinates against
petitioners. To the appellate court, “the privilege of the
To the appellate court, the evidence adduced in the
writ of amparo must be denied as against Gen. Esperon
present case failed to measure up to that standard–
and P/Dir. Gen. Razon for the simple reason that
substantial evidence which a reasonable mind might
petitioners have not presented evidence showing that
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Since
those who allegedly abducted and illegally detained
respondents did not avail of any remedy against the
Lourdes and later threatened her and her family were, in
adverse judgment, the appellate court’s decision is,
fact, members of the military or the police force.” The
insofar as it concerns them, now beyond the ambit of
two generals, the CA’s holding broadly hinted, would
review.
have been accountable for the abduction and threats if
the actual malefactors were members of the AFP or PNP.
Respondents posit that there appears to be some shared As regards the three other answering respondents, they
confusion as to whether the reliefs granted by the were impleaded because they allegedly had not exerted
appellate court are final or interlocutory. They thus the required extraordinary diligence in investigating and
implore this Court to modify the appellate court’s satisfactorily resolving Lourdes’ disappearance or
judgment by considering the reliefs as temporary or bringing to justice the actual perpetrators of what
interlocutory and by adding thereto an order for the amounted to a criminal act, albeit there were allegations
production of logbooks and reports. At this late stage, against P/Insp. Gomez of acts constituting threats
respondents can no longer avail themselves of their stale against Mary Joy. While in a qualified sense tenable, the
remedies in the guise of praying for affirmative reliefs in dismissal by the CA of the case as against Gen. Esperon
their Comment. No modification of judgment could be and P/Dir. Gen. Razon is incorrect if viewed against the
granted to a party who did not appeal. If respondents backdrop of the stated rationale underpinning the
believed that the September 17, 2008 Decision of the assailed decision vis-à-vis the two generals, i.e.,
appellate court was merely interlocutory, they had every command responsibility. The Court assumes the latter
opportunity to question the conclusion of said court, but stance owing to the fact that command responsibility, as
they did not. They could have opposed petitioners’ a concept defined, developed, and applied under
motion for reconsideration filed with the appellate court, international law, has little, if at all, bearing in amparo
it being a prohibited pleading under the Amparo Rule, but proceedings.
they did not. Gen. Alexander B. Yano, Chief of Staff,
Armed Forces of the Philippines, et al. vs. Cleofas
It may plausibly be contended that command
Sanchez and Marciana Medina, G.R. No. 186640,
responsibility, as legal basis to hold military/police
February 11, 2010.
commanders liable for extra-legal killings, enforced
disappearances, or threats, may be made applicable to
WRIT OF AMPARO; ARCHIVING AND REVIVAL. this jurisdiction on the theory that the command
responsibility doctrine now constitutes a principle of
international law or customary international law in
At this juncture, it bears to state that petitioners have
accordance with the incorporation clause of the
not provided the CA with the correct addresses of
Constitution. Still, it would be inappropriate to apply to
respondents Cuaresma, Alfaro, Santana, Jonathan, and
these proceedings the doctrine of command
Sy/Reyes. The mailed envelopes containing the petition
responsibility, as the CA seemed to have done, as a form
for a writ of amparo individually addressed to each of
of criminal complicity through omission, for individual
them have all been returned unopened. And petitioners’
respondents’ criminal liability, if there be any, is beyond
motion interposed before the appellate court for notice or
the reach of amparo. In other words, the Court does not
service via publication has not been accompanied by
rule in such proceedings on any issue of criminal
supporting affidavits as required by the Rules of Court.
culpability, even if incidentally a crime or an infraction of
Accordingly, the appealed CA partial judgment––
an administrative rule may have been committed. As the
disposing of the underlying petition for a writ of amparo
Court stressed in Secretary of National Defense v.
without (1) pronouncement as to the accountability, or
188
Manalo (Manalo), the writ of amparo was conceived to 6 of the Rule, already issued ex parte the writ of amparo;
provide expeditious and effective procedural relief against (2) the CA, after a summary hearing, has dismissed the
violations or threats of violation of the basic rights to life, petition, but not on the basis of Sec. 22; and (3) the
liberty, and security of persons; the corresponding complaint in OMB-P-C-O7-0602-E named as respondents
amparo suit, however, “is not an action to determine only those believed to be the actual abductors of
criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt x Lourdes, while the instant petition impleaded, in addition,
x x or administrative liability requiring substantial those tasked to investigate the kidnapping and detention
evidence that will require full and exhaustive incidents and their superiors at the top. Yet, the acts
proceedings.” Of the same tenor, and by way of and/or omissions subject of the criminal complaint and
expounding on the nature and role of amparo, is what the amparo petition are so linked as to call for the
the Court said in Razon v. Tagitis: consolidation of both proceedings to obviate the mischief
inherent in a multiplicity-of-suits situation.
It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal
culpability for the disappearance [threats thereof or Given the above perspective and to fully apply the
extra-judicial killings]; it determines responsibility, or at beneficial nature of the writ of amparo as an inexpensive
least accountability, for the enforced disappearance and effective tool to protect certain rights violated or
[threats thereof or extra-judicial killings] for purposes of threatened to be violated, the Court hereby adjusts to a
imposing the appropriate remedies to address the degree the literal application of Secs. 22 and 23 of the
disappearance [or extra-judicial killings]. Amparo Rule to fittingly address the situation obtaining
under the premises. Towards this end, two things are at
once indicated: (1) the consolidation of the probe and
As the law now stands, extra-judicial killings and
fact-finding aspects of the instant petition with the
enforced disappearances in this jurisdiction are not
investigation of the criminal complaint before the OMB;
crimes penalized separately from the component criminal
and (2) the incorporation in the same criminal complaint
acts undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced
of the allegations in this petition bearing on the threats to
disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised
the right to security. Withal, the OMB should be furnished
Penal Code and special laws. The simple reason is that
copies of the investigation reports to aid that body in its
the Legislature has not spoken on the matter; the
own investigation and eventual resolution of OMB-P-C-
determination of what acts are criminal x x x are matters
O7-0602-E. Then, too, the OMB shall be given easy
of substantive law that only the Legislature has the
access to all pertinent documents and evidence, if any,
power to enact. x x x
adduced before the CA. Necessarily, Lourdes, as
complainant in OMB-P-C-O7-0602-E, should be allowed,
If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied if so minded, to amend her basic criminal complaint if the
to these proceedings, it should, at most, be only to consolidation of cases is to be fully effective. Lourdes D.
determine the author who, at the first instance, is Rubrico, et al. vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al., G.R.
accountable for, and has the duty to address, the No. 183871, February 18, 2010.
disappearance and harassments complained of, so as to
enable the Court to devise remedial measures that may
WRIT OF AMPARO; INTERIM RELIEFS.
be appropriate under the premises to protect rights
covered by the writ of amparo. As intimated earlier,
however, the determination should not be pursued to fix In line with this, Section 14 of the Amparo Rule provides
criminal liability on respondents preparatory to criminal for interim or provisional reliefs that the courts may
prosecution, or as a prelude to administrative disciplinary grant in order to, inter alia, protect the witnesses and the
proceedings under existing administrative issuances, if rights of the parties, and preserve all relevant evidence.
there be any. Lourdes D. Rubrico, et al. vs. Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 183871, February 18,
These provisional reliefs are intended to assist the
2010.
court before it arrives at a judicious determination of
the amparo petition. For the appellate court to, in the
WRIT OF AMPARO; EFFECT OF FILING OF RELATED present case, still order the inspection of the military
CRIMINAL ACTION. camps and order the army units to conduct an
investigation into the disappearance of Nicolas and
Heherson after it absolved petitioners is thus not in
Sec. 22 of the Amparo Rule proscribes the filing of an
order. The reliefs granted by the appellate court to
amparo petition should a criminal action have, in the
respondents are not in sync with a finding that
meanwhile, been commenced. The succeeding Sec. 23,
petitioners could not be held accountable for the
on the other hand, provides that when the criminal suit is
disappearance of the victims. Respondents posit that
filed subsequent to a petition for amparo, the petition
there appears to be some shared confusion as to whether
shall be consolidated with the criminal action where the
the reliefs granted by the appellate court are final or
Amparo Rule shall nonetheless govern the disposition of
interlocutory. They thus implore this Court to modify the
the relief under the Rule. Under the terms of said Sec.
appellate court’s judgment by considering the reliefs as
22, the present petition ought to have been dismissed at
temporary or interlocutory and by adding thereto an
the outset. But as things stand, the outright dismissal of
order for the production of logbooks and reports. At this
the petition by force of that section is no longer
late stage, respondents can no longer avail themselves of
technically feasible in light of the interplay of the
their stale remedies in the guise of praying for affirmative
following factual mix: (1) the Court has, pursuant to Sec.
189
reliefs in their Comment. No modification of judgment What is thus left for the Court to resolve is the issue of
could be granted to a party who did not appeal. If whether the grant of the RELIEFS by the appellate court
respondents believed that the September 17, 2008 after finding want of substantial evidence are valid and
Decision of the appellate court was merely interlocutory, proper.
they had every opportunity to question the conclusion of
said court, but they did not. They could have opposed
The requisite standard of proof – substantial
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration filed with the
evidence - speaks of the clear intent of the Rule to have
appellate court, it being a prohibited pleading under the
the equivalent of an administrative proceeding, albeit
Amparo Rule, but they did not. Gen. Alexander B. Yano,
judicially conducted, in resolving amparo petitions. To
Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, et al. vs.
the appellate court, the evidence adduced in the present
Cleofas Sanchez and Marciana Medina, G.R. No. 186640,
case failed to measure up to that standard– substantial
February 11, 2010.
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. Since respondents did
WRIT OF AMPARO; NATURE OF REMEDY. not avail of any remedy against the adverse judgment,
the appellate court’s decision is, insofar as it concerns
them, now beyond the ambit of review. Meanwhile, the
In other words, the Court does not rule in such
requirement for a government official or employee to
proceedings on any issue of criminal culpability, even if
observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of
incidentally a crime or an infraction of an administrative
duty stresses the extraordinary measures expected to be
rule may have been committed. As the Court stressed
taken in safeguarding every citizen’s constitutional rights
in Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (Manalo), the
as well as in the investigation of cases of extra-judicial
writ of amparo was conceived to provide expeditious and
killings and enforced disappearances. The failure to
effective procedural relief against violations or threats of
establish that the public official observed extraordinary
violation of the basic rights to life, liberty, and security of
diligence in the performance of duty does not result in
persons; the corresponding amparo suit, however, “is not
the automatic grant of the privilege of the amparo writ.
an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof
It does not relieve the petitioner from establishing his or
beyond reasonable doubt x x x or administrative liability
her claim by substantial evidence. The omission or
requiring substantial evidence that will require full and
inaction on the part of the public official provides,
exhaustive proceedings.” Lourdes D. Rubrico, et al. vs.
however, some basis for the petitioner to move and for
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 183871,
the court to grant certain interim reliefs. Gen. Alexander
February 18, 2010.
B. Yano, Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines,
et al. vs. Cleofas Sanchez and Marciana Medina, G.R. No.
WRIT OF AMPARO; NATURE OF REMEDY. 186640, February 11, 2010.
The privilege of the writ of amparo, to reiterate, is a WRIT OF AMPARO; REQUIREMENT OF

remedy available to victims of extra-judicial killings and SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
enforced disappearances or threats of similar nature,
regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act
Petitioners, to be sure, have not successfully
or omission is a public official or employee or a private
controverted answering respondents’ documentary
individual. Lourdes D. Rubrico, et al. vs. Gloria
evidence, adduced to debunk the former’s allegations
directly linking Lourdes’ abductors and tormentors to the
2010.
military or the police establishment. We note, in fact,
that Lourdes, when queried on cross-examination,
WRIT OF AMPARO; NATURE OF REMEDY. The expressed the belief that Sy/Reyes was an NBI agent.
privilege of the writ of amparo is envisioned basically to The Court is, of course, aware of what was referred to
protect and guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and in Razon as the “evidentiary difficulties” presented by the
security of persons, free from fears and threats that nature of, and encountered by petitioners in, enforced
vitiate the quality of this life. It is an extraordinary writ disappearance cases. But it is precisely for this reason
conceptualized and adopted in light of and in response to that the Court should take care too that no wrong
the prevalence of extra-legal killings and enforced message is sent, lest one conclude that any kind or
disappearances. Accordingly, the remedy ought to be degree of evidence, even the outlandish, would suffice to
resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought secure amparo remedies and protection. Sec. 17, as
by the Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the complemented by Sec. 18 of the Amparo Rule, expressly
indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for purposes less prescribes the minimum evidentiary substantiation
than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection requirement and norm to support a cause of action under
and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated the Rule.
allegations. Lourdes D. Rubrico, et al. vs. Gloria
Substantial evidence is more than a mere imputation of
2010.
wrongdoing or violation that would warrant a finding of
liability against the person charged; it is more than a
WRIT OF AMPARO; REQUIREMENT THAT scintilla of evidence. It means such amount of relevant
PETITIONER ESTABLISH CLAIM BY SUBSTANTIAL evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
EVIDENCE. adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally
190
reasonable minds might opine otherwise. Per the CA’s applicant. In Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, the Supreme
evaluation of their evidence, consisting of the testimonies Court allowed the offended party to challenge before it
and affidavits of the three Rubrico women and five other the trial court’s order granting bail. But in that case, the
individuals, petitioners have not satisfactorily hurdled the trial court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack
evidentiary bar required of and assigned to them under of jurisdiction in granting bail without conducting any
the Amparo Rule. In a very real sense, the burden of hearing at all. Thus, to disallow the appeal on the basis of
evidence never even shifted to answering respondents. lack of intervention of the OSG would “leave the private
The Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the complainant without any recourse to rectify the public
appellate court’s determination of the answering injustice.” In the case at bar, the trial court took time to
respondents’ role in the alleged enforced disappearance hear the parade of witnesses that the prosecution
of petitioner Lourdes and the threats to her family’s presented before reaching the conclusion that the
security. Lourdes D. Rubrico, et al. vs. Gloria Macapagal- evidence of guilt of applicant for bail was not
Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 183871, February 18, 2010. strong. Heirs of Sarah Marie Palma Burgos vs. Court of
Appeals and Johnny Co y Yu, G.R. No. 169711, February
8, 2010.
WRIT OF AMPARO; REQUIREMENT OF
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
CRIMINAL ACTION; PREJUDICIAL QUESTION.
In their petition for a writ of amparo, petitioners asked,
as their main prayer, that the Court order the impleaded Under the Rules, the existence of a prejudicial question is
respondents “to immediately desist from doing any acts a ground in a petition to suspend proceedings in a
that would threaten or seem to threaten the security of criminal action. Since suspension of the proceedings in
the Petitioners and to desist from approaching the criminal action may be made only upon petition and
Petitioners, x x x their residences and offices where they not at the instance of the judge or the investigating
are working under pain of contempt of [this] Court.” prosecutor, the latter cannot take cognizance of a claim
Petitioners, however, failed to adduce the threshold of prejudicial question without a petition to suspend
substantive evidence to establish the predicate facts to being filed. Since a petition to suspend can be filed only
support their cause of action, i.e., the adverted in the criminal action, the determination of the pendency
harassments and threats to their life, liberty, or security, of a prejudicial question should be made at the first
against responding respondents, as responsible for the instance in the criminal action, and not before the
disappearance and harassments complained of. This is Supreme Court in an appeal from the civil
not to say, however, that petitioners’ allegation on the action. Intergrated Bar of the Philippines, represented by
fact of the abduction incident or harassment is its National President Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, H. Harry L.
necessarily contrived. The reality on the ground, Roque, et al. vs. Honorable Manila Mayor Jose “Lito”
however, is that the military or police connection has not Atienza, G.R. No. 188920, February 16, 2010.
been adequately proved either by identifying the
malefactors as components of the AFP or PNP; or in case
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; EVIDENCE.
identification is not possible, by showing that they acted
with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the
government. For this reason, the Court is unable to In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
ascribe the authorship of and responsibility for the following elements must first be established: (1) proof
alleged enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the
harassment and threats on her daughters to individual presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit
respondents. To this extent, the dismissal of the case drug as evidence. In a prosecution for illegal possession
against them is correct and must, accordingly, be of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the
sustained. Lourdes D. Rubrico, et al. vs. Gloria accused was in possession of an item or an object
Macapagal-Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 183871, February 18, identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such
2010. possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused
was freely and consciously aware of being in possession
of the drug. The Supreme Court held that to sustain a
conviction, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
must be unequivocal, definite and straightforward. More
Criminal Procedure importantly, their testimonies must be consistent in
material respects with each other and with other
testimonies and physical evidence. People of the
BAIL; APPLICATION.
Philippines vs. Rolando Tamayo y Tena, G.R. No.
187070, February 24, 2010.
The question of granting bail to the accused is but an
aspect of the criminal action, preventing him or her from
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; EVIDENCE.
eluding punishment in the event of conviction. The grant
of bail or its denial has no impact on the civil liability of
the accused that depends on conviction by final In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic
judgment. Here, applicant has already been arraigned. substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the
Trial and judgment, with award for civil liability when offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a
warranted, could proceed even in the absence of the judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
191
Moreover, it must be clearly shown that the chain of

custody was strictly followed. Any break in the chain of
custody casts doubt on the integrity and evidentiary
Evidence
weight of the substance allegedly seized from the
accused and thus warrants his acquittal. People of the
Philippines vs. Wilson Suan y Jolongon, G.R. No. 184546, AWARD OF TEMPERATE DAMAGES IN ABSENCE OF
February 22, 2010. COMPETENT PROOF OF ACTUAL DAMAGES.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; EVIDENCE. In addition, the Court of Appeals correctly awarded
temperate damages in the amount of P10,000.00 for the
damage caused on respondent’s motorcycle. Under Art.
Here, while the prosecution was able to prove the
2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages “may be
factuality of the buy-bust operation, it dismally failed to
recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss
prove the identity of the substance taken from the
has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature
accused. When the certificate of inventory was prepared
of the case, be proved with certainty.” The cost of the
by PO2 Labasano, the item allegedly seized bore no
repair of the motorcycle was prayed for by respondent in
markings. However, in the Memorandum Laboratory
her Complaint. However, the evidence presented was
examination, it was already referred to as Exhibit A.
merely a job estimate of the cost of the motorcycle’s
There was also a difference in the weight of the
repair amounting to P17, 829.00. The Court of Appeals
substance in the certificate of inventory and that in the
aptly held that there was no doubt that the damage
chemistry report, which difference proved fatal to the
caused on the motorcycle was due to the negligence of
case of the prosecution. Moreover, the failure on the
petitioner’s driver. In the absence of competent proof of
part of the Team Leader or Records custodian as the case
the actual damage caused on the motorcycle or the
may be, to testify on what he did with the drug while he
actual cost of its repair, the award of temperate damages
was in possession resulted in a break in the chain of
by the appellate court in the amount of P10,000.00 was
custody– an obvious missing link from the point when the
reasonable under the circumstances. Philippine Hawk
drug was taken to the point when the same was
Corporation vs. Vivian Tan Lee, G.R. No. 166869,
submitted for examination. Under no circumstance can
February 16, 2010.
the Supreme Court consider or safely assume that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the drug was property
preserved by the apprehending officers. People of the BURDEN OF PROOF IN ABSENCE OF TRIAL.
Philippines vs. Wilson Suan y Jolongon, G.R. No. 184546,
February 22, 2010. We cannot accept petitioners’ proposition that they did
not have the burden of proof of showing the irregularity
EVIDENCE; OUT OF COURT IDENTIFICATION. of ALI’s title since the burden of proof purportedly did not
shift to them since no full-blown trial was conducted by
the RTC. This specious argument deserves scant credit.
Petitioners contend that their identification by the
Rule 131, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides:
prosecution witnesses was attended with irregularity
”Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the
considering that they were identified merely from among
duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
the four photographs at Camp Escudero. They posit that
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the
this manner of identification is suggestive. However, the
amount of evidence required by law.”
Supreme Court rejected this contention finding no
irregularity considering that the witnesses had an
unobstructed view of the petitioners’ appearance and that With the filing of the complaint, petitioners should
there was no indication that darkness prevailed during already have alleged all the bases of their cause of
the robbery. Experience dictates that due to the unusual action, particularly their allegation that ALI’s title is null
acts of violence committed right before the witnesses’ and void and that such title should be cancelled.
eyes, they remember with high degree of reliability the However, a scrutiny of the complaint would show that
identity of criminals. Moreover, the in-court identification petitioners never alleged the purported lack of an
of the petitioners later on dispels any doubt as to the approved survey plan as a defect of ALI’s title. All that
correctness of the petitioners’ identities. Thus, even the complaint alleged is that ALI’s titles should be
assuming arguendo that the out-of-court identification declared void for not being derivatives of the Carpos’
was defective, the defect was cured by the subsequent title. Implicit in that allegation is that petitioners were
positive identification in court for the “inadmissibility” of a relying solely on the supposed priority of their own title
police line-up identification should not necessarily over ALI’s. It stands to reason then that ALI did not
foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court have to allege in its Answer that its mother title, OCT No.
identification. Armando Vidar, et al. vs. People of the 242, was supported by a duly approved survey plan when
Philippines, G.R. No. 177361, February 1, 2010. petitioners did not raise the same as an issue in their
complaint or in any other pleading filed with the trial
court. Spouses Morris Carpo and Socorro Carpo vs. Ayala
Land, Incorporated, G.R. No. 166577, February 3, 2010.
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION ARISING FROM

WILLFUL SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE.
192
An examination of the evidence presented by petitioner In the computation of loss of earning capacity, only net
shows that it consisted only of depositions of its earnings, not gross earnings, are to be considered; that
witnesses. It had in its possession and disposition is, the total of the earnings less expenses necessary for
pertinent documents such as the flight manifest and the the creation of such earnings or income, less living and
plane’s actual seating capacity and layout which could other incidental expenses. In the absence of
have clearly refuted respondents’ claims that there were documentary evidence, it is reasonable to peg necessary
not enough passenger seats available for them. It expenses for the lease and operation of the gasoline
inexplicably failed to offer even a single piece of station at 80 percent of the gross income, and peg living
documentary evidence. The Court thus believes that if at expenses at 50 percent of the net income (gross income
least the cited documentary evidence had been produced, less necessary expenses). Philippine Hawk Corporation
it would have been adverse to petitioner’s vs. Vivian Tan Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16, 2010.
case. Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. Spouses Edward J.
Heshan and Neilia L. Heshan, et al., G.R. No. 179117,
EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN JUDICIAL
February 3, 2010.
RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE CASES.
EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL DAMAGES.

Section 2 of RA 26 enumerates in the following order the
sources from which reconstitution of lost or destroyed
The Court of Appeals also awarded actual damages for original certificates of title may be based.
the expenses incurred in connection with the death,
wake, and interment of respondent’s husband in the
Respondents predicate their Petition for Reconstitution on
amount of P154,575.30, and the medical expenses of
Section 2(f) of RA 26. And to avail of its benefits,
respondent in the amount of P168,019.55. Actual
respondents presented survey plan, technical description,
damages must be substantiated by documentary
Certification issued by the Land Registration Authority,
evidence, such as receipts, in order to prove expenses
Lot Data Computation, and tax declarations.
incurred as a result of the death of the victim or the
Unfortunately, these pieces of documentary evidence are
physical injuries sustained by the victim. A review of the
not similar to those mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to
valid receipts submitted in evidence showed that the
(e) of Section 2 of RA 26, which all pertain to documents
funeral and related expenses amounted only
issued or are on file with the Registry of Deeds. Hence,
to P114,948.60, while the medical expenses of
respondents’ documentary evidence cannot be
respondent amounted only to P12,244.25, yielding a
considered to fall under subparagraph (f). Under the
total of P127,192.85 in actual damages. Philippine Hawk
principle of ejusdem generis, where general words follow
Corporation vs. Vivian Tan Lee, G.R. No. 166869,
an enumeration of persons or things by words of a
February 16, 2010.
particular and specific meaning, such general words are
not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be
EVIDENCE OF LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY. held as applying only to persons or things of the same
kind or class as those specifically mentioned. Thus,
in Republic of the Philippines v. Santua, we held that
As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to
when Section 2(f) of RA 26 speaks of “any other
substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning
document,” the same must refer to similar documents
capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of
previously enumerated therein, that is, those mentioned
earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of
in Sections 2(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).
documentary evidence when: (1) the deceased is self-
employed and earning less than the minimum wage
under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice Also, the survey plan and technical description are not
may be taken of the fact that in the deceased’s line of competent and sufficient sources of reconstitution when
work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the the petition is based on Section 2(f) of RA 26. They are
deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning mere additional documentary requirements. This is the
less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. clear import of the last sentence of Section 12, RA 26
In this case, the records show that respondent’s earlier quoted. Thus, in Lee v. Republic of the
husband was leasing and operating a Caltex gasoline Philippines, where the trial court ordered reconstitution
station in Gumaca, Quezon. Respondent testified that on the basis of the survey plan and technical description,
her husband earned an annual income of one million we declared the order of reconstitution void for want of
pesos. Respondent presented in evidence a Certificate of factual support.
Creditable Income Tax Withheld at Source for the Year
1990, which showed that respondent’s husband earned a
Moreover, the Certification issued by the LRA stating that
gross income of P950,988.43 in 1990. It is reasonable to
Decree No. 190622 was issued for Lot 54 means
use the Certificate and respondent’s testimony as bases
nothing. The Land Registration Act expressly recognizes
for fixing the gross annual income of the deceased at one
two classes of decrees in land registration proceedings,
million pesos before respondent’s husband died on March
namely, (i) decrees dismissing the application and (ii)
17, 1999. However, no documentary evidence was
decrees of confirmation and registration. In the case at
presented regarding the income derived from their copra
bench, we cannot ascertain from said Certification
business; hence, the testimony of respondent as regards
whether the decree alluded to by the respondents
such income cannot be considered.
granted or denied Julio Ramos’ claim. Moreover, the
LRA’s Certification did not state to whom Lot 54 was
193
decreed. Thus, assuming that Decree No. 190622 is a located. Reynaldo’s testimony was also lacking in details
decree of confirmation, it would be too presumptuous to as to how he participated in searching for the title’s
further assume that the same was issued in the name whereabouts. Indeed, Reynaldo’s testimony is highly
and in favor of Julio Ramos. Furthermore, said suspect and cannot be given the expected probative
Certification did not indicate the number of the original weight. Republic of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Julio
certificate of title and the date said title was issued. Ramos, represented by Reynaldo Ramos Medina, et al.,
In Tahanan Development Corporation v. Court of G.R. No. 169481, February 22, 2010.
Appeals, we held that the absence of any document,
private or official, mentioning the number of the
EVIDENTIARY VALUE; UNSUBSTANTIATED DENIAL
certificate of title and date when the certificate of title
AS NEGATIVE AND SELF-SERVING EVIDENCE.
was issued, does not warrant the granting of such
petition.
We agree with the CA when it said that if indeed
petitioner did not transact with respondent, she should
With regard to the other Certification issued by the
not have entertained respondent’s collecting officers and
Registry of Deeds of Balanga City, it cannot be deduced
should not have offered settlement or returned some of
therefrom that OCT No. 3613 was actually issued and
the canned goods. The testimonies of respondent’s
kept on file with said office. The Certification of said
witnesses were further bolstered by the absence of any
Registry of Deeds that said title “is not among those
motive on their part to falsely testify against petitioner;
salvaged records of this Registry as a consequence of the
thus, their testimonies are hereby accorded full faith and
last World War,” did not necessarily mean that OCT No.
credit. Petitioner’s defense consists of denial. We have
3613 once formed part of its records.
held that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving
Anent the tax declaration submitted, the same covered evidence that has no weight in law and cannot be given
only taxable year 1998. Obviously, it had no bearing greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible
with what occurred before or during the last world war. witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. Lolita
Besides, a tax declaration is not a reliable source of Reyes doing business under the name and style, Solid
reconstitution of a certificate of title. As we held Brothers West Marketing vs. Century Canning
in Republic of the Philippines v. Santua, a tax declaration Corporation, G.R. No. 165377, February 16, 2010.
can only be prima facie evidence of claim of ownership,
which, however, is not the issue in a reconstitution
OFFER OF EVIDENCE; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO
proceeding. A reconstitution of title does not pass upon
OBJECT TO PURPOSE OF OFFERED EXHIBIT.
the ownership of land covered by the lost or destroyed
title but merely determines whether a re-issuance of such
title is proper. While petitioner denies having any transaction with
respondent regarding the sale and delivery to her of
respondent’s canned goods, a review of the evidence
We also share the observation of petitioner that the non-
shows otherwise. Records show that respondent
submission of an affidavit of loss by the person who was
submitted a certificate of registration of business name
allegedly in actual possession of OCT No. 3613 at the
under petitioner’s name and with her photo, which was
time of its loss, casts doubt on respondents’ claim that
marked as respondent’s Exhibit “L.” Notably,
OCT No. 3613 once existed and subsequently got lost.
respondent’s formal offer of evidence stated that the
Under Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the
purpose of Exhibit “L” was to show that petitioner had
owner must file with the proper Registry of Deeds a
submitted such certificate as one of her supporting
notice of loss executed under oath. Here, despite the
documents in applying as a distributor of respondent’s
lapse of a considerable length of time, the alleged owners
products, and also for the purpose of contradicting
of Lot 54 or the persons who were in possession of the
petitioner’s allegation that she had no transaction with
same, i.e., respondents’ grandparents, never executed
respondent. In petitioner’s Objections/Comment to
an affidavit relative to the loss of OCT No. 3613.
respondent’s offer of evidence, she offered no objection
to this exhibit. In fact, in the same Comment, petitioner
The presentation of such affidavit becomes even more prayed that the other exhibits be denied admission for
important considering the doubtful testimony of the purpose for which they were offered, except Exhibit
Reynaldo. When he testified on November 29, 2001, he “L.” In effect, petitioner admitted the purpose for which
was only 62 years old and, therefore, he was barely six Exhibit “L” was offered, i.e., one of the documents she
years old during the Japanese occupation until the submitted to respondent to be a distributor of the latter’s
Liberation. Also, his testimony consisted only of his products. Thus, such admission belies her allegation in
declaration that his unnamed grandmother used to keep her Answer with compulsory counterclaim that she had
said copy of OCT No. 3613; that it was buried in a no transaction with respondent for the purchase of the
foxhole during the Japanese occupation; and, canned goods, as well as her testimony on direct
subsequently, got lost. He did not testify on how he examination that she did not know respondent. Lolita
obtained knowledge of the alleged facts and Reyes doing business under the name and style, Solid
circumstances surrounding the loss of the owner’s copy Brothers West Marketing vs. Century Canning
of OCT No. 3613. In fact, he neither named the person Corporation, G.R. No. 165377, February 16, 2010.
responsible for the burying or hiding of the title in a
foxhole nor mentioned the place where that foxhole was
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES.
194
It is a basic rule in evidence that each party to a case

must prove his own affirmative allegations by the degree
of evidence required by law. In civil cases, the party
MARCH 2010 CASES
having the burden of proof must establish his case by
preponderance of evidence, or that evidence that is of
greater weight or is more convincing than that which is in Civil Procedure
opposition to it. It does not mean absolute truth; rather,
it means that the testimony of one side is more ACTIONS; ACTION FOR REFORMATION OF
believable than that of the other side, and that the INSTRUMENT; REQUISITES.
probability of truth is on one side than on the
other. Lolita Reyes doing business under the name and
style, Solid Brothers West Marketing vs. Century Canning For an action for reformation of instrument to prosper,
Corporation, G.R. No. 165377, February 16, 2010. the following requisites must concur: (1) there must have
been a meeting of the minds of the parties to the
contract; (2) the instrument does not express the true
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY; NO NEED TO intention of the parties; and (3) the failure of the
ALLEGE OR PROVE VALIDITY OF TITLE WHICH instrument to express the true intention of the parties is
ENJOYS PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY. due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident.
Petitioner having admitted the existence and execution of
It cannot be gainsaid that the issuance of OCT No. 242 the instrument, what remains to be resolved is whether
was a result of the registration decree of the Court of the contract expressed the true intention of the parties; if
First Instance of Rizal, pursuant to land registration not, whether it was due to mistake, fraud, inequitable
proceedings in Case No. 976. In the absence of proof to conduct or accident. The onus probandi is upon the
the contrary, OCT No. 242 and its derivatives, including party who insists that the contract should be
ALI’s TCT No. T-41262, enjoy the presumption of reformed. Notarized documents, like the deed in
regularity and ALI need not allege or prove that its title question [i.e., “Sale and Transfer of Rights over a Portion
was regularly issued. That is precisely the nature of such of a Parcel of Land”], enjoy the presumption of regularity
a presumption, it dispenses with proof. which can be overturned only by clear, convincing and
more than merely preponderant evidence. This petitioner
failed to discharge. Flordeliza Emilio vs. Bilma Rapal,
The presumption of regularity enjoyed by the registration
G.R. No. 181855, March 30, 2010.
decree issued in Case No. 976 and OCT No. 242 includes
the presumption that all the requisites for the issuance of
a valid title had been complied with. ALI need not allege ACTIONS; ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT.
or prove that a duly approved survey plan accompanied
the issuance of OCT No. 242 in 1950 because it is The Court finds that petitioner properly availed of the
presumed. It is the party who seeks to overcome the remedy of a petition for annulment of judgment in
presumption who would have the burden to present challenging the Manila RTC Decision. In his petition with
adequate and convincing evidence to the contrary. This, the appellate court, he did not limit his ground to
petitioners did not even attempt to do. Spouses Morris extrinsic fraud, as he invoked as well the Manila RTC’s
Carpo and Socorro Carpo vs. Ayala Land, lack of jurisdiction to annul the proceedings in
Incorporated, G.R. No. 166577, February 3, 2010. the Pagadian RTC which is a court of co-equal and
coordinate jurisdiction. Since petitioner’s petition raised
QUESTION OF FACT; EXISTENCE OF BAD FAITH IS lack of jurisdiction, he did not have to allege that the
QUESTION OF FACT AND EVIDENTIARY. ordinary remedies of new trial, reconsideration or appeal
were no longer available through no fault of his. This is
so because a judgment rendered or final order issued by
The above averments clearly pose factual issues which
the RTC without jurisdiction is null and void and may be
make the rendition of summary judgment not proper.
assailed any time either collaterally or in a direct action,
Bad faith imports a dishonest purpose or some moral
or by resisting such judgment or final order in any action
obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong. It is
or proceeding whenever it is
synonymous with fraud, in that it involves a design to
invoked. Jose Cabaral Tiu v. First Plywood
mislead or deceive another. The trial court should have
Corporation/Jose Cabaral Tiu vs. Timber Exports, Inc.
exercised prudence by requiring the presentation of
Angel Domingo, Country Bankers Ins.
evidence in a formal trial to determine the veracity of the
Corp., Perfecto Mondarte, Jr. and Cesar Dacal, G.R. No.
parties’ respective assertions. Whether NPC and the
176123/G.R. No. 185265, March 10, 2010
plaintiffs connived and acted in bad faith is a question of
fact and is evidentiary. Bad faith has to be established
by the claimant with clear and convincing evidence, and ACTIONS; ATTACK ON TITLE.
this necessitates an examination of the evidence of all
the parties. As certain facts pleaded were being The petitioners contend that this action for quieting of
contested by the opposing parties, such would not title should be disallowed because it constituted a
warrant a rendition of summary judgment. Atty. collateral attack on OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449),
Mangontawar M. Gubat vs. National Power Corporation, citing Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, viz:
G.R. No. 167415. February 26, 2010.
195
Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack.– A Administration vs. Val L. Villanueva, G.R. No. 168203,
certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. March 9, 2010
It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a
direct proceeding in accordance with law.
ACTIONS; QUIETING OF TITLE.
The petitioners’ contention is not well taken. An action or

Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal
proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when its
of any cloud, doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real
objective is to nullify the title, thereby challenging the
property. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real
judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The
property or any interest in real property by reason of any
attack is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding
such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other
that is apparently valid or effective, but is, in truth and in
hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an
fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and
action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the
may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought
judgment is nevertheless made as an incident
to remove such cloud or to quiet the title. In such action,
thereof. Teofisto Oño, et al. vs. Vicente N. Lim, G.R.
the competent court is tasked to determine the
No. 154270, March 9, 2010
respective rights of the complainant and the other
claimants, not only to place things in their proper places,
ACTIONS; EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE and to make the claimant, who has no rights to said
REMEDIES. immovable, respect and not disturb the one so entitled,
but also for the benefit of both, so that whoever has the
right will see every cloud of doubt over the property
With respect to the procedural aspect of the case,
dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly introduce the
respondent should have first exhausted the
improvements he may desire, as well as use, and even
administrative remedies still available to him by
abuse the property as he deems fit. Lim’s
appealing the challenged order of the [National
complaint pertinently alleged:
Electrification Administration] the Office of the President,
which exercises the power of supervision over it. Section
13, Chapter II of Presidential Decree No. 269 (PD 269), 18. If indeed, the genuine original of the Owner’s
otherwise known as the National Electrification Duplicate of the Reconstituted Original Certificate of Title
Administration Decree, provides that: No. RO-9699 (O-20449) for Lot
943, Balamban Cadastre xxx is in Defendant’s (Oño’s)
possession, then VNL submits the following
Sec. 13 - Supervision over NEA; Power Development
PROPOSITIONS:
Council – The NEA shall be under the supervision of the
Office of the President of the Philippines. All orders, rules
and regulations promulgated by the NEA shall be subject xxx
to the approval of the Office of the President of the
Philippines.
18.2. Therefore, the Original of Owner’s Duplicate
Certificate (which Respondents [Defendants Oños] claim
Considering that the President has the power to review in their Opposition is in their possession) must be
on appeal the orders or acts of petitioner NEA, the failure surrendered to VNL upon order of this Court, after the
of respondent to undertake such an appeal bars him from Court shall have determined VNL’s mother’s acquisition of
resorting to a judicial suit. It is settled that under the the attributes of ownership over said Lot 943, in this
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, action, in accordance with Section 107, P.D. 1529,
recourse through court action cannot prosper until after Property Registration Decree xxx
all such administrative remedies have first been
exhausted. If remedy is available within the
xxx
administrative machinery, this should be resorted to
before recourse can be made to courts. The party with an
administrative remedy must not only initiate the [t]hat OCT 20449 be cancelled and new title for Lot 943
prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief but be issued directly in favor of LUISA NARVIOS, to
also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking complete her title to said Lot;
judicial intervention in order to give the administrative
agency an opportunity to decide the matter itself The averments readily show that the action was neither a
correctly and prevent unnecessary and premature resort direct nor a collateral attack on OCT No. RO-9969-(O-
to the court. The non-observance of the doctrine of 20449), for Lim was asserting only that the existing title
exhaustion of administrative remedies results in lack of registered in the name of the petitioners’ predecessors
cause of action, which is one of the grounds in the Rules had become inoperative due to the conveyance in favor
of Court justifying the dismissal of the complaint. In the of Lim’s mother, and resultantly should be
present case, respondent failed to exhaust his cancelled. Lim did not thereby assail the validity of OCT
administrative remedies when he filed a case with the No. RO-9969-(O-20449), or challenge the judgment by
RTC without appealing the decision of the NEA to the which the title of the lot involved had been decreed. In
Office of the President. As such, his petition filed with other words, the action sought the removal of a cloud
the RTC must necessarily fail. National Electrification from Lim’s title, and the confirmation of Lim’s ownership
196
over the disputed property as the successor-in-interest of separation from work, even in the absence of opportunity
Luisa. Teofisto Oño, et al. vs. Vicente N. Lim, G.R. No. for him to controvert the matter, would constitute a
154270, March 9, 2010 violation of the fundamental requirements of fairness and
equity and the constitutional guarantee of due process.”
The Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings of
APPEAL; DISMISSAL ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS NOT
both the CSC and CA, given that they concur with each
FAVORED.
other and should be accorded great weight and
respect. Commission on Appointments, represented
The Court of Appeals’ dismissal of petitioners’ petition on herein by its Secretary Hon. Arturo L. Tiu vs. Celso M.
purely technical grounds was unwarranted. We agree Paler, G.R. No. 172623. March 3, 2010
with petitioners that the late filing and service of a copy
of the petition to the RTC was not a substantial infirmity
APPEAL; FINDINGS OF FACT OF LOWER COURTS.
that should cause the outright dismissal of the petition.
Likewise, the verification of a pleading is only a formal,
not jurisdictional, requirement. The purpose of requiring Verily, the evaluation and calibration of the evidence
a verification is to secure an assurance that the necessarily involves consideration of factual issues — an
allegations in the petition are true and correct, not exercise that is not appropriate for a petition for review
merely speculative. This requirement is simply a on certiorari under Rule 45. This rule provides that the
condition affecting the form of pleadings, and non- parties may raise only questions of law, because the
compliance therewith does not necessarily render the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Generally, we are
pleading fatally defective. The dismissal of appeals on not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence
purely technical grounds is frowned upon for it is far introduced in and considered by the tribunals below.
more better for the courts to excuse a technical lapse and When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of
afford the parties a review of the case on the merits to fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties
attain the ends of justice. Spouses Melchor, et al. vs. and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case
Ronald B. Bernal, et al., G.R. No. 169336, March 18, falls under any of the following recognized exceptions:
2010 (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded
entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures;
(2) When the inference made is manifestly
APPEAL; FINDINGS OF FACT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
mistaken, absurd or impossible;
AGENCY NOT BINDING WHEN MADE IN EXCESS OF
(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
JURISDICTION.
(4) When the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts;
While it bears emphasizing that findings of administrative (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;
agencies − such as the DARAB − which have acquired (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its
expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the
matters, are accorded not only respect but even finality same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant
by the courts. Care should be taken so that and appellee;
administrative actions are not done without due regard to (7) When the findings are contrary to those of
the jurisdictional boundaries set by the enabling law for the trial court;
each agency. In the case at bar, the DARAB has (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions
overstepped its legal boundaries in taking cognizance of without citation of specific evidence on which they are
the controversy between petitioners and respondents in based;
deciding who should be declared the farmer-beneficiaries (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as
over the land in dispute. The CA thus erred in affirming well as in the petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not
the decision of the DARAB, which was rendered in excess disputed by the respondents; and
of jurisdiction. Romanita Concha, et al. vs. (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of
Paulino Rubio, et al., G.R. No. 162446, March 29, 2010 Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
APPEAL; FINDINGS OF FACT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
BODY AND COURT OF APPEALS. We note, however, that the findings of fact of the RTC
are contrary to those of the CA. Thus, our review of such
Petitioner harps on Paler’s alleged bad faith and findings is warranted. Heirs of Jose Lim, represented
misrepresentation in filing his previous applications for by Elenito Lim vs. Juliet Villa Lim, G.R. No. 172690,
leave. However, as correctly found by the CSC and CA, March 3, 2010
the basis for Paler’s dismissal was his continuous absence
without leave, not bad faith and misrepresentation. APPEAL; FINDINGS OF FACT OF LOWER COURTS.
The CSC even noted that Paler never misrepresented or
misled petitioner as to where he was spending his
A petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall raise
vacation leave. He clearly stated in his application for
only questions of law. As a rule, findings of fact of a trial
leave dated April 17, 2003 that he was spending it not
judge, when affirmed by the CA, are binding upon the
only in the Philippines but also in the U.S. According to
Supreme Court. This rule admits of only a few
the CA, “to utilize Paler’s alleged misrepresentation in his
exceptions, such as when the findings are grounded
previously approved applications for leave as basis for his
entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; when
197
an inference made by the appellate court from its factual In any event, we reiterate the well-entrenched rule that
findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; the factual findings of trial courts, when adopted and
when there is grave abuse of discretion in the confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive and will
appreciation of facts; when the findings of the appellate generally not be reviewed on appeal. We are mandated
court go beyond the issues of the case, run contrary to to accord great weight to the findings of the RTC,
the admissions of the parties to the case, or fail to notice particularly as regards its assessment of the credibility of
certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will witnesses since it is the trial court judge who is in a
justify a different conclusion; when there is position to observe and examine the witnesses first
a misappreciation of facts; when the findings of fact are hand. Even after a careful and independent scrutiny of
conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on the records, we find no cogent reason to depart from the
which they are based, are premised on the absence of rulings of the courts below. Titan Construction
evidence, or are contradicted by the evidence on record. Corporation vs. Manuel A. David, Sr. and Martha S.
However, not one of the exceptions is present in this David, G.R. No. 169548, March 15, 2010
case. Hutama-RSEA/Supermax Phils., J.V.
vs. KCD Builders Corporation, represented by its
APPEAL; FINDINGS OF FACT OF TRIAL COURT
President Celso C. Diokno, G.R. No. 173181, March 3,
BINDING ON SUPREME COURT, ESPECIALLY THOSE
2010
AFFIRMED BY COURT OF APPEALS.
APPEAL; FINDINGS OF FACT OF LOWER COURTS.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding
that the Final Deed of Conveyance No. V-4477
The petitioners submit that Lim’s evidence did not and TCT No. (T-115094) RT-004 are void while validating
preponderantly show that the ownership of the lot had the sale between petitioner and Spouses Arayata, from
been transferred to Luisa; and that both the trial and the which TCT No. (T-8718) RT-7973 emanated from. The
appellate courts disregarded their showing that Antonio’s ultimate issue to be resolved is which between the titles
signature on the confirmation of sale was a of petitioner and respondent is genuine. Clearly, this
forgery. Clearly, the petitioners hereby seek a review of issue calls for a re-evaluation of the probative value of
the evaluation and appreciation of the evidence the evidence presented. We agree with respondents’
presented by the parties. The Court cannot anymore contention that the issues raised are purely questions of
review the evaluation and appreciation of the evidence, fact that this Court cannot review in a certiorari petition.
because the Court is not a trier of facts. Although this As a general rule, factual findings of the trial court,
rule admits of certain exceptions, viz: (1) when the especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence
surmises, or conjecture; (2) when the inference made is on record. There are recognized exceptions to this rule,
manifestly mistaken; (3) where there is a grave abuse of among which are: (1) the conclusion is grounded on
discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is
are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a
its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and the misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of facts are
findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on
and appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of
Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of
the findings of fact are conclusions without specific evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of
evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set Appeals are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9)
forth in the petition as well in the petitioners’ main and the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and, relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly
(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and are findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of
contradicted by the evidence on record, it does not the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the
appear now that any of the exceptions is present herein. admissions of both parties. However, in the instant case,
We thus apply the rule without hesitation, and reject the petitioner failed to demonstrate that their petition falls
appeal for that reason. It is emphasized, too, that the under any one of the above exceptions. We find no
CA upheld the conclusion arrived at by the RTC that the cogent reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, which
signature of Antonio had not been simulated or forged. the Court of Appeals had affirmed. Based on the
The CA ruled that the testimony of the notary public who foregoing, it now becomes unnecessary to dwell on the
had notarized the confirmation of sale to the effect that issues raised by petitioner, which are a mere rehash of
Antonio and Luisa had appeared before him prevailed their arguments before the appellate court. Such
over that of the petitioners’ expert witness. The arguments had in fact already been passed upon by the
concurrence of their conclusion on the genuineness of Court of Appeals. Segundo G. Dimaranan vs. Heirs of
Antonio’s signature now binds the Spouses Hermogenes Arayata, et al., G.R. No. 184193,
Court. Teofisto Oño, et al. vs. Vicente N. Lim, G.R. No. March 29, 2010
154270, March 9, 2010
APPEAL; IMPROPER DIRECT APPEAL TO SUPREME
APPEAL; FINDINGS OF FACT OF TRIAL COURT. COURT FROM REGIONAL TRIAL COURT.
198
Finally, petitioner came directly to this Court on a APPEAL; ISSUE RAISED FOR FIRST TIME ON
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, in APPEAL.
relation to Rule 41, of the Rules of Civil Procedure on
alleged pure questions of law. In Murillo v. Consul, we
Titan argues that the CA erred in not ruling that, even
laid down a doctrine that was later adopted by the 1997
assuming the sale was void, on grounds of equity, Martha
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. In that case, this Court
should reimburse petitioner its payment with legal
had the occasion to clarify the three (3) modes of appeal
interest. We note that this equity argument was raised
from decisions of the RTC, namely: (1) ordinary appeal
for the first time before the CA, which disposed of it in
or appeal by writ of error, where judgment was rendered
this manner: ”Anent defendant-appellant’s claim that the
in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in the exercise of
court a quo and this Court never considered the
its original jurisdiction; (2) petition for review, where
substantial amount of money paid by it to Martha David
judgment was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its
as consideration for the sale of the subject property,
appellate jurisdiction; and (3) petition for review to the
suffice it to say that said matter is being raised for the
Supreme Court.
first time in the instant motion for reconsideration. If
well-recognized jurisprudence precludes raising an
The first mode of appeal, governed by Rule 41, is issue only for the first time on appeal proper, with
brought to the Court of Appeals (CA) on questions of fact more reason should such issue be disallowed or
or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of disregarded when initially raised only in a motion
appeal, covered by Rule 42, is brought to the CA on for reconsideration of the decision of the appellate
questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and court. Nonetheless, record shows that only defendant-
law. The third mode of appeal, provided in Rule 45, is appellant was initially sued by plaintiff-appellee in his
filed with the Supreme Court only on questions of law. complaint for annulment of contract
and reconveyance upon the allegation that the sale
executed by his wife, Martha David, of their conjugal
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what
property in favor of defendant-appellant was without his
the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a
knowledge and consent and, therefore, null and void. In
question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or
its answer, defendant-appellant claimed that it bought
falsity of the alleged facts. Our ruling in Velayo-
the property in good faith and for value from Martha
Fong vs. Velayo is instructive: ”A question of law arises
David and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and
when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain
the payment of his counterclaim for attorney’s fees,
state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the
moral and exemplary damages. Subsequently, plaintiff-
doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.
appellee filed a motion for leave to file amended
For a question to be one of law, the same must not
complaint by impleading Martha David as a defendant,
involve an examination of the probative value of the
attaching the amended complaint thereto, copies of
evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The
which were furnished defendant-appellant, through
resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law
counsel. The amended complaint was admitted by the
provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is
court a quo in an Order dated October 23, 1996. Martha
clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence
David was declared in default for failure to file an
presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the
answer. The record does not show [that] a cross-
test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not
claim was filed by defendant-appellant against
the appellation given to such question by the party
Martha David for the return of the amount
raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court
of PhP1,500,000.00 it paid to the latter as
can determine the issue raised without reviewing or
consideration for the sale of the subject property. x
evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of
x x Thus, to hold Martha David liable to defendant-
law; otherwise it is a question of fact.”
appellant for the return of the consideration for the
sale of the subject property, without any claim
In her Reply to respondent’s Comment, petitioner prayed therefore being filed against her by the latter,
that this Court decide the case on the merits. To do so, would violate her right to due process. The essence
however, would require the examination by this Court of of due process is to be found in the reasonable
the probative value of the evidence presented, taking opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one
into account the fact that the RTC failed to adjudicate this may have in support of his defense. It is elementary that
controversy on the merits. This, unfortunately, we cannot before a person can be deprived of his property, he
do. It thus becomes exceedingly clear that the filing of should be first informed of the claim against him and the
the case directly with this Court ran afoul of the doctrine theory on which such claim is premised.” (Emphasis
of hierarchy of courts. Pursuant to this doctrine, direct supplied)
resort from the lower courts to the Supreme Court will
not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy sought
While it is true that litigation is not a game of
cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals. This Court is a
technicalities, it is equally true that elementary
court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to
considerations of due process require that a party be duly
satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the
apprised of a claim against him before judgment may be
Constitution and by immemorial
rendered. Thus, we cannot, in these proceedings, order
tradition. Generosa Almeda Latorre vs. Luis
the return of the amounts paid by Titan to Martha.
Esteban Latorre, G.R. No. 183926, March 29, 2010
However, Titan is not precluded by this Decision from
instituting the appropriate action against Martha before
199
the proper court. Titan Construction Corporation vs. APPEAL; QUESTION OF FACT DISTINGUISHED
Manuel A. David, Sr. and Martha S. David, G.R. No. FROM QUESTION OF LAW.
169548, March 15, 2010
This Court had repeatedly clarified the distinction
APPEAL; LATE FILING EXCUSED. between a question of law and a question of fact. A
question of law exists when the doubt or controversy
concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence
Petitioners allege that the petition filed before the Court
to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call
of Appeals should have been dismissed for late filing.
for an examination of the probative value of the evidence
Petitioners allege that respondent only had 15 days from
presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being
19 October 2004, the date of receipt of the 18 October
admitted. A question of fact, on the other hand, exists
2004 DOJ Resolution, within which to file a petition for
when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or
review before the Court of Appeals. However,
falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of
respondent filed his petition only on 4 November 2004, or
the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of
one day beyond the reglementary period for filing the
the witnesses, the existence and relevance of specific
petition for review. Petitioners allege that when the
surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to
petition was filed, the 18 October 2004 DOJ Resolution
each other and to the whole, and the probability of the
had already lapsed into finality. We do not agree. A
situation. Segundo G. Dimaranan vs. Heirs of
one-day delay does not justify the appeal’s dismissal
Spouses Hermogenes Arayata, et al., G.R. No. 184193,
where no element of intent to delay the administration of
March 29, 2010.
justice could be attributed to the petitioner. The Court
has ruled: “The general rule is that the perfection of an
appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by APPEAL; QUESTION RAISED FOR FIRST TIME ON
law is, not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure APPEAL.
to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought
to be reviewed final and unappealable. By way of
Finally, petitioner De Guia’s claim that he was an
exception, unintended lapses are disregarded so as to
innocent purchaser for value, who bought the subject
give due course to appeals filed beyond
property without notice of the mortgage on the subject
the reglementary period on the basis of strong and
property, was not raised in the trial court. As a rule, no
compelling reasons, such as serving the ends of justice
question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been
and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof. The purpose
raised in the court below. Points of law, theories, issues
behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to avoid
and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower
an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice
court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered
and to put an end to controversies.”
by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the
first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of due
Respondent had a valid excuse for the late filing of the process impel this rule. Manuel T. De Guia for himself
petition before the Court of Appeals. It is not disputed and as Attorney-in-fact of Fe Davis-Maramba, et al.
that there was a pending petition for prohibition before vs. Sps. Teofilo Morte and Angelina Villarico Morte, G.R.
the trial court. Before filing the petition for review before No. 161074. March 22, 2010
the Court of Appeals, respondent had to withdraw the
petition for prohibition before the trial court. The trial
APPEAL; SCOPE OF REVIEW IN SUPREME COURT.
court granted the withdrawal of the petition only on 4
November 2004, the date of filing of the petition for
review before the Court of Appeals. Under the Furthermore, settled is the rule that only errors of law
circumstances, we find the one-day delay in filing the and not of fact are reviewable by this Court in a petition
petition for review excusable. We reiterate: ”Rules of for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the Court. This applies with even greater force here, since
attainment of justice. If the application of the Rules the factual findings by the CA are in full agreement with
would tend to frustrate rather than to promote justice, it those of the trial court. Titan Construction Corporation
is always within our power to suspend the rules or except vs. Manuel A. David, Sr. and Martha S. David, G.R. No.
a particular case from their operation. Law and 169548, March 15, 2010
jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax
compliance with the procedural rules, even the most APPEAL; SCOPE OF REVIEW IN SUPREME COURT.
mandatory in character, mindful of the duty to reconcile
the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the
parties’ right to an opportunity to be heard.” The issue for resolution of whether the CA committed a
reversible error when it upheld the RTC judgment
declaring the Kasulatan ng Sanglaan (Exhibit “A”) and
Hence, we sustain the Court of Appeals in accepting the the Kasulatan ng Pagpapabuwis ng Palaisdaan (Exhibit
petition for review although it was filed one-day “C”), both dated November 10, 1979, as valid, is a
late. Department of Justice Secretary Raul M. factual issue. In petitions for review on certiorari as a
Gonzalez, et al. vs. Michael Alfio Pennisi, G.R. No. mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the
169958, March 5, 2010 petitioner can raise only questions of law – the Supreme
Court is not the proper venue to consider a factual issue
as it is not a trier of facts. A departure from the general
200
rule may be warranted where the findings of fact of the material dates in the petition may be excused since the
Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and dates are evident from the records. In the case at bar,
conclusions of the trial court, or when the same is the petition for certiorari filed before the CA contained a
unsupported by the evidence on record, which we found statement of material dates. Although the date of filing
not obtaining in this case. Manuel T. De Guia for himself of the motion for reconsideration was not stated, it is
and as Attorney-in-fact of Fe Davis-Maramba, et al. nevertheless evident from the records that the said
vs. Sps. Teofilo Morte and Angelina Villarico Morte, G.R. motion for reconsideration was filed on time on
No. 161074. March 22, 2010 December 10, 2001. Second, “the Rules do not specify
the precise documents, pleadings or parts of the records
that should be appended to the petition other than the
CERTIORARI; BURDEN TO SHOW EXCEPTION TO
judgment, final order, or resolution being assailed. The
REQUIREMENT OF MOTION FOR
Rules only state that such documents, pleadings or
RECONSIDERATION.
records should be relevant or pertinent to the assailed
resolution, judgment or orders; as such, the initial
In the case at bar, the petitioners stated in their Petition determination of which pleading, document or parts of
for Certiorari and Prohibition before the CA as follows: the records are relevant to the assailed order, resolution
or judgment, falls upon the petitioner. The CA will
18. Respondent sheriff and his deputies are now set to ultimately determine if the supporting documents are
implement the said writ of possession and are now poised sufficient to even make out a prima facie case”. The CA,
to evict the students and teachers from their classrooms, having given due course to the petition, must have found
grounds and school facilities; the documents sufficient. We find no sufficient reason to
reverse the Decision of the CA. Third, the caption of the
petition filed with the CA may not have specified the
19. Petitioners did not anymore file a motion for individual names of the heirs of Dr. Deleste but the
reconsideration of said order x x x and is proceeding verification contained all the names and signatures of the
directly to this Honorable Court because the filing of a four heirs. The petition sufficiently contains the full
motion for reconsideration would serve no useful purpose names of the petitioners therein, thus substantially
x x x Besides the relief sought is extremely urgent as the complying with the requirement of the Rules of Court.
respondent sheriff is set to implement the questioned Technicalities that impede the cause of justice must be
orders x x x and the circumstances herein clearly indicate avoided. In Heirs of Generoso A. Juaban v. Bancale,
the urgency of judicial intervention x x x hence, this which also finds application to the present case, the
petition. Court elaborated: “The court has the discretion to
dismiss or not to dismiss an appellant’s appeal. It is a
Plainly, the petitioners have the burden to substantiate power conferred on the court, not a duty. The discretion
that their immediate resort to the appellate court is must be a sound one, to be exercised in accordance with
based on any of the exceptions to the general rule. the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the
They have to show the urgent and compelling reasons for circumstances obtaining in each case. Technicalities,
such recourse. The afore-cited allegations of the however, must be avoided. The law abhors technicalities
petitioners in their petition before the CA did not that impede the cause of justice. The court’s primary
dispense with the burden of establishing that their case duty is to render or dispense justice. Litigations must be
falls under any of the exceptions to the general rule. decided on their merits and not on technicality. Every
Unlike the case of Ronquillo vs. Court of Appeals cited by party litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity
the petitioners, where not only was a writ of execution for the proper and just determination of his cause, free
issued but petitioner’s properties were already scheduled from the unacceptable plea of technicalities. Thus,
to be sold at public auction on April 2, 1980 at 10:00 dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is
a.m., the herein petitioners failed to show the specificity frowned upon where the policy of the court is to
and imminence of the urgency confronting their encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the
immediate recourse to the appellate court. We therefore rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid,
hold that the CA correctly found the necessity for a prior technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help
resort to a motion for reconsideration prior to the secure, not override substantial justice. It is a far better
institution of the Petition for Certiorari. The Parents- and more prudent course of action for the court to
Teachers Association [PTA] of St. Matthew excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review
Academy, et al. vs. The Metropolitan Bank & Trust of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather
Company, G.R. No. 176518, March 2, 2010 than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a
CERTIORARI; DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.” Atty. Voltaire
OF PETITION. I. Rovira vs. Heirs of Jose C. Delestre, et al., G.R. No.
160825, March 26, 2010
The discretion on initially determining the sufficiency of a
petition for certiorari lies with the court before which the CERTIORARI; EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
petition was filed. In this matter, the CA determined the REMEDIES.
petition filed before it to be sufficient. We sustain the
CA’s determination for the reasons specified below. First,
the failure to comply with the rule on a statement of
201
We have held in a litany of cases that the extraordinary because it would have been useless. Petitioners point out
remedies of certiorari and mandamus are available only that the 30 September 2004 order warned that no further
when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate pleadings would be entertained. We are not convinced
remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as a motion that this constitutes an exception to the rule on
for reconsideration. The writ of certiorari does not lie exhaustion of administrative remedies. Petitioners may
where another adequate remedy is available for the not arrogate to themselves the determination of whether
correction of the error. Likewise, mandamus is granted a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not. The
only in cases where no other remedy is available which is language of the order notwithstanding, petitioners are
sufficient to afford redress because generally, a writ of bound by procedural rules and may not disregard the
mandamus will not lie from one branch of the same on a wrong assumption that a motion for
government to a coordinate branch, for the obvious reconsideration might no longer be entertained. Even so,
reason that neither is inferior to the other. However, they should have awaited the denial of their motion for
there are several exceptions where a petition for reconsideration before filing the extraordinary remedy of
certiorari will lie without the prior filing of a motion for petition for certiorari. Pio Delos Reyes, represented by
reconsideration, to wit: heirs Fidel Delos Reyes, et al. vs. Hon. Waldo Q. Flores
in his capacity as Senior Deputy Executive Secretary,
Office of the President, et al., G.R. No. 168726, March 5,
a. where the order is a patent nullity, as where the
2010
court a quo has no jurisdiction;
b. where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding
have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower CERTIORARI; FINDINGS OF FACT OF
court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.
in the lower court;
c. where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of
As to the merits of the case, the question of whether
the question and any further delay would prejudice the
petitioners owned landholdings used for residential,
interests of the government or the petitioner or the
commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes from
subject matter of the action is perishable;
which they derived adequate income is a question of fact.
d. where, under the circumstances, a motion for
In a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
reconsideration would be useless;
Court, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised
e. where petitioner was deprived of due process and
before this Court. Well-settled is the rule that this Court
there is extreme urgency for relief;
is not a trier of facts. It is not this Court’s function to re-
f. where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest
examine the respective sets of evidence submitted by the
is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court
parties. As this case involves the application of P.D. No.
is improbable;
27 and LOI No. 474, the DAR Secretary, owing to his
g. where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity
agrarian expertise, is in a better position to make a final
for lack of due process;
determination whether petitioners’ landholdings may be
h. where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the
subject of exclusion from operation land transfer or
petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
retention. This Court need not weigh anew the evidence
i. where the issue raised is one purely of law or where
submitted by the parties and supplant the findings of fact
public interest is involved. (Emphasis supplied)
by the DAR Secretary, especially when such findings are
fully supported by evidence consisting of certifications
The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative issued by the Office of the Provincial Assessor of Bataan
remedies is that courts must allow administrative and the various certificates of title on
agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their record. Pio Delos Reyes, represented by heirs
responsibilities within the specialized areas of their Fidel Delos Reyes, et al. vs. Hon. Waldo Q. Flores in his
respective competence. To this end, administrative capacity as Senior Deputy Executive Secretary, Office of
agencies are afforded a chance to correct any previous the President, et al., G.R. No. 168726, March 5, 2010)
error committed in its forum. Furthermore, reasons of
law, comity, and convenience prevent the courts from
entertaining cases proper for determination by
administrative agencies. In this case, a motion for
reconsideration is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy In Garcia, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, the Court defined
in the ordinary course of law. Petitioners should have first grave abuse of discretion: “Grave abuse of discretion is
filed a motion for reconsideration of the 30 September defined as such capricious or whimsical exercise of
2004 order of the Office of the President. They cannot judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
prematurely resort to a petition for certiorari on the discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to
wrong assumption that a plain reading of the 30 an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
September 2004 order hinted that it was already final perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
and executory. The parties are presumed to know contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in
the hornbook rule that judgments become final and an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or
executory only upon the lapse of the reglementary period hostility.”
to appeal or to file a motion for reconsideration without
any appeal or motion for reconsideration having been PCGG failed to show that the Sandiganbayan acted with
made. Petitioners submit they no longer filed a motion grave abuse of discretion. The Resolutions ordering the
for reconsideration of the 30 September 2004 order release to Silangan and Polygon of their Oceanic cash
202
dividends, with interest, were grounded on sound legal public respondent COMELEC en banc committed grave
and factual bases: (1) PCGG agreed to the release abuse of discretion when it proceeded to decide and
to Silangan of 49% of its cash dividends, with interest; thereby grant private respondent’s Petition for Injunction
(2) Benedicto ceded to the government his 51% equity and Prayer for the Issuance of a Status Quo Ante Order,
in Silangan, not Oceanic; (3) Silangan, being a without considering the fact of dismissal of private
stockholder of Oceanic, was entitled to the cash dividends respondent’s Notice of Appeal. Petitioner further avers
declared by the company; (4) Silangan engaged the that the allowance by the COMELEC Second Division of
services of M.M. Lazaro & Associates and agreed to pay private respondent’s Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a
15% of the total amount it may recover as contingent Writ of Execution, notwithstanding the dismissal of
fee; (5) in its 25 April 1994 Decision, private respondent’s Notice of Appeal, amounted to the
the Sandiganbayan declared void PCGG’s sequestration of reversal of the decision of the RTC via a mere motion and
the Oceanic shares of stock in the names of not via an appeal as inscribed in our Constitution. What
Polygon, Aerocom, Silangan, Belgor, Jose and Victor the law forbids to be done directly was made possible by
— Silanan and Polygon were not sequestered; (6) private respondent indirectly.
In Presidential Commission, the Court affirmed
the Sandiganbayan’s 25 April 1994 Decision;
A careful review of the antecedent facts bears out the
(7) Presidential Commission became final and executory
fact that, indeed, the COMELEC Second Division granted
and was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgments; (8)
private respondent Tolean’s petition for injunction
the Sandiganbayan issued a writ of execution, dated 30
without considering that it had already dismissed private
September 2003, to implement the 25 April 1994
respondent’s Notice of Appeal. It is undisputed that on
Decision; and (9) the 30 September 2003 writ of
April 20, 2009, private respondent filed the subject
execution was implemented. Silangan and Polygon are
petition for injunction before the COMELEC Second
entitled to their Oceanic cash dividends, with interest,
Division, to enjoin the execution of the Decision of the
because they are not sequestered or impleaded in Civil
RTC, citing mainly as ground the fact that the victory of
Case No. 0009. In PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan, the Court
petitioner had not been clearly and sufficiently
affirmed the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan ordering
established due to the pendency of his Notice of Appeal.
the release to Aerocom of its cash dividends
However, on June 1, 2009, while the petition for
because Aerocom was not sequestered or impleaded in
injunction was still pending, the COMELEC Second
Civil Case No. 0009. Presidential Commission on Good
Division dismissed private respondent’s Notice of Appeal
Government vs. Silangan Investors and Managers,
due to his failure to pay the required appeal fees in
Inc. et al./Presidential Commission on Good Government
violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 8486, which states,
vs. Polygon Investors and Managers,
thus:
Incorporated, et al., G.R. Nos. 167055-56/G.R. No.
170673, March 25, 2010
XXX
XXX XXX
With the dismissal by the COMELEC Second Division of

Given petitioner’s flawed arguments, we hold that the
private respondent’s Notice of Appeal without any
respondent court did not commit any grave abuse of
showing that he had appealed the dismissal to
discretion. Grave abuse of discretion is present when
the COMELEC en banc, the decision of the RTC
there is an arbitrary exercise of power owing from
proclaiming petitioner as the duly elected Vice-Mayor
passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; or a whimsical,
of Sabangan, Mountain Province becomes final and
arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to
executory. Thus, the dismissal of private respondent’s
a shirking from or refusal to perform a positive duty
Notice of Appeal settles absolutely the victory of
enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law.
petitioner and the defeat of private respondent in the
The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross for the
vice-mayoralty race. Considering the foregoing,
act to be held as one made with grave abuse of
the COMELEC Second Division gravely abused its
discretion. We find respondent court’s issuance of the
discretion when it granted private respondent’s petition
assailed orders justified and with no abuse of discretion.
for injunction on September 22, 2009 after the victory of
Its reliance on the provisions of PD 1083 in asserting its
petitioner Bernardez had already become final. To
jurisdiction was sound and
reiterate, the petition for injunction was filed by private
unassailable. Sultan Yahya ”Jerry” M. Tomawis vs.
respondent to enjoin the RTC from executing its decision
Hon Rasad G. Balindong, et al., G.R. No. 182434, March
proclaiming petitioner as Vice-Mayor of the Municipality
5, 2010
of Sabangan due to the pendency of the Notice of
Appeal. Since it has been ruled that the Notice of Appeal
CERTIORARI; GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. was rightfully dismissed and the ruling has become final
and executory, it follows then that the right sought to be
protected and the irreparable injury sought to be
There is grave abuse discretion where the power is
prevented by the private respondent through injunction
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
or prohibition has already been rendered fait accompli.
passion or personal hostility which must be so patent and
Joseph Bernardez vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
gross as to amount to an invasion of positive duty or to a
190382, March 9, 2010
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at
all in contemplation of law. Petitioner contends that
203
CERTIORARI; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or

duress, or any other ground vitiating consent; (f) an
order of execution; (g) a judgment or final order for
As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration should
or against one or more of several parties or in
precede recourse to certiorari in order to give the trial
separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and
court an opportunity to correct the error that it may have
third-party complaints, while the main case is
committed. The said rule is not absolute and may be
pending, unless the court allows an appeal
dispensed with in instances where the filing of a motion
therefrom; or (h) an order dismissing an action without
for reconsideration would serve no useful purpose, such
prejudice. In all the above instances where the judgment
as when the motion for reconsideration would raise the
or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may
same point stated in the motion or where the error is
file an appropriate special civil action for certiorari under
patent for the order is void or where the relief is
Rule 65. In this case, the RTC Order granting the motion
extremely urgent, as in cases where execution had
to dismiss filed by private respondent is a final order
already been ordered where the issue raised is one
because it terminates the proceedings against her, but
purely of law. The Parents-Teachers Association [PTA] of
it falls within exception (g) of the Rule since the case
St. Matthew Academy, et al. vs. The Metropolitan Bank &
involves several defendants, and the complaint for
Trust Company, G.R. No. 176518, March 2, 2010
damages against these defendants is still pending. Since
there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate
CERTIORARI; NATURE OF REMEDY. remedy in law, the remedy of a special civil action
for certiorari is proper as there is a need to promptly
The Court is not impressed. In petitions for certiorari relieve the aggrieved party from the injurious effects of
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioner must show the acts of an inferior court or tribunal. Leah Palma vs.
that respondent tribunal acted with grave abuse of Hon. Danilo P. Galvez, in his capacity as Presiding Judge
discretion. In Angara vs. Fedman Development of Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 24, et al.,
Corporation, the Court held that: “Certiorari under Rule G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010
65 is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in
character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS; MOTION FOR
workshop. It offers only a limited form of review. Its RECONSIDERATION.
principal function is to keep an inferior tribunal within its
jurisdiction. It can be invoked only for an error of
Petitioners contend the Court of Appeals erred when it
jurisdiction, that is, one where the act complained of was
dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus
issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body
despite sufficient allegation in the petition why the
without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
motion for reconsideration would be useless, one of the
of discretion which is tantamount to lack or excess of
exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative
jurisdiction.” Presidential Commission on Good
remedies. Petitioners claim they no longer filed a motion
Government vs. Silangan Investors and Managers,
for reconsideration of the 30 September 2004 order
Inc. et al./Presidential Commission on Good Government
because it was already final and executory on its face as
vs. Polygon Investors and Managers,
the order itself stated that no further pleadings would be
Incorporated, et al., G.R. Nos. 167055-56/G.R. No.
entertained. Petitioners submit that a disposition of
170673, March 25, 2010
controversies through resolution on the merits is
preferred over a peremptory dismissal by reason of a
CERTIORARI; NOT AVAILABLE TO REVIEW FINAL technicality. Respondents maintain that the filing of a
ORDER; EXCEPTION. motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non to
the filing of a petition for certiorari, being the plain and
Private respondent’s claim that the petition for certiorari adequate remedy referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 of
under Rule 65 is a wrong remedy thus the petition should the Rules of Court. Respondents argue that a petition for
be dismissed, is not persuasive. A petition for certiorari certiorari will not prosper unless the administrative
is proper when any tribunal, board or officer exercising agency has been given, through a motion for
judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in reconsideration, a chance to correct the errors imputed
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion to it. Respondents insist the law intends to afford the
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is administrative agency an opportunity to rectify the errors
no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at it may have lapsed into before resort to the courts of
law. There is “grave abuse of discretion” when public justice can be had. At the outset, we must point out that
respondent acts in a capricious or whimsical manner in petitioners’ arguments are a mere rehash of their
the exercise of its judgment as to be equivalent to lack of arguments in the petition for certiorari and mandamus
jurisdiction. Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil filed in the Court of Appeals. We agree with the Court of
Procedure states that an appeal may be taken only from Appeals that petitioners ignored the procedural
a final order that completely disposes of the case; that no requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration and
appeal may be taken from (a) an order denying a motion simply went ahead with the filing of a petition for
for new trial or reconsideration; (b) an order denying a certiorari and mandamus. The appellate court correctly
petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief dismissed the same for prematurity. Pio Delos Reyes,
from judgment; (c) an interlocutory order; (d) an order represented by heirs Fidel Delos Reyes, et al. vs. Hon.
disallowing or dismissing an appeal; (e) an order denying Waldo Q. Flores in his capacity as Senior Deputy
a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession
204
Executive Secretary, Office of the President, et al., G.R. by:

No. 168726, March 5, 2010
TEOFISTA P. TINITIGAN
DISMISSALS; DISMISSAL ON MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING ON SPECIAL AND
President
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.
Tinitigan of respondent Molave Development of course

But the CA seems to have missed the point in the RTC
later asserted that she signed the above receipt because
decision. It will be recalled that petitioner Doña Rosana
Medina’s lawyer would not have released the check to
Realty filed a motion with the RTC to hear and resolve its
her. But this is not a valid ground for claiming vitiation
affirmative defenses. The RTC did so and resolved to
of consent. If she did not want to agree to the
deny the motion. On a petition filed with the CA,
cancellation, she had no business signing the receipt and
however, the latter court directed the RTC to hear and
accepting the check. She could very well have stood her
resolve Doña Rosana Realty’s affirmative defense of good
ground and pressed for complete performance of the
faith in buying Medina’s property. The RTC complied
contract to sell. Having received the P1.3
and, after hearing the evidence of the parties, dismissed
million, Molave Development’s remaining remedy was to
the case, holding that Doña Rosana Realty and its
pursue a claim for the balance of P1 million that it paid
president were buyers of the property in good faith
Medina upon the execution of the contract to
and Molave Development did not have a cause of
sell. Doña Rosana Realty and Development Corp., et al.
action against them. Clearly, the RTC did not dismiss
vs. Molave Development Corp., G.R No. 180523, March
the case on the ground that the complaint did not
26, 2010
state a cause of action, which is an entirely different
matter. Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that the trial court may dismiss a complaint on EXECUTION; EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT FOR
the ground that the claim or demand set forth in the CONVEYANCE OF LAND.
plaintiff’s complaint has been paid, waived, abandoned,
or otherwise extinguished. This ground essentially The petitioner contends that the RTC did not see to it
admits the obligation set out in the complaint but points that the writ of execution be first served on her, and a
out that such obligation has been extinguished, in this demand for her compliance be first made; hence,
case apparently by abandonment after the deed of absolute sale executed by the Branch Clerk of
respondent Molave Development received partial Court to implement the judgment was void. We do not
reimbursement from Medina as a consequence of the agree. The CA found that it was the petitioner who did
cancellation of contract to sell between them. On March not comply with the notice of the sheriff of the
13, 1997, 10 days after it filed its complaint with the implementation of the judgment through the writ of
RTC, Molave Development acknowledged having execution; and that her non-compliance then justified the
received P1.3 million as a consideration for the RTC’s order to the Branch Clerk of Court to execute
cancellation of its contract to sell with Medina. The the deed of absolute sale to implement the final
acknowledgment receipt its president signed reads: judgment rendered in G. R. No. 103577. The fact that
the petitioner and her counsel maneuvered to thwart, or,
ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT at least, to delay the inevitable execution of the
judgment warranted the RTC’s directing the Branch Clerk
of Court execute the deed of absolute sale to implement
This is to acknowledge the receipt of
the judgment. The RTC’s effort to implement the
one (1) Allied Bank Check No.
judgment could not be stymied by the petitioner’s
25111954 dated March 4, 1997 in
deliberate refusal to comply with the judgment. Such
the amount of ONE MILLION THREE
deliberate refusal called for the RTC to order the Branch
HUNDRED THOUSAND
Clerk of Court to execute the deed of absolute sale in
(P1,300,000.00) from Ms. Carmelita
favor of Ramona, which move of the trial court was
Austria Medina as partial
precisely authorized by Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to
reimbursement pursuant to the
wit: ”Section 10. Execution of judgments for specific act.
cancelled Contract to Sell (Doc. No.
— (a) Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other specific
447; page 190; Book 114; Series of
acts; vesting title. — If a judgment directs a party to
1994 Notarial Register of
execute a conveyance of land or personal property, or to
Atty. Delfin R. Supapo, Jr.) entered
deliver deeds or other documents, or to perform any
into between Ms. Medina
other specific act in connection therewith, and the party
and Molave Dev. Corporation over
fails to comply within the time specified, the court may
that parcel of land located
direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient
at Bamban, Tarlac covered
party by some other person appointed by the court and
by TCT No. T-31590.
the act when so done shall have like effect as if done by
the party. If real or personal property is situated within
Makati City. March 13, 1997. the Philippines, the court in lieu of directing a conveyance
thereof may be an order divest the title of any party and
vest it in others, which shall have the force and effect of
MOLAVE DEV. CORPORATION
a conveyance executed in due form of law.”
205
Catalina Balais-Mabanag, assisted by her the suit for collection or upon the filing of the complaint
husband, Eleuterio Mabanag vs. The Register of Deeds in an action for foreclosure of mortgage, pursuant to the
of Quezon City, et al., G.R. No. 153142. March 29, 2010 provision of Rule 68 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
As to extrajudicial foreclosure, such remedy is deemed
elected by the mortgage creditor upon filing of the
FILING FEES; NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION
petition not with any court of justice but with the Office
NOT EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT.
of the Sheriff of the province where the sale is to be
made, in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3135,
Hence, the subject letter of [National Power Corporation] as amended by Act No. 4118.”
for clarification as to its exemption from the payment of
filing fees and court fees. Section 22 of Rule 141 reads:
The argument of the Spouses Torres is misplaced. The
“Sec. 22. Government exempt. – The Republic of the
doctrine found in Bank of America, and in related cases,
Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities are exempt
finds no application to the case at bar, as the filing of a
from paying the legal fees provided in this rule. Local
B.P. Blg. 22 case is not the “collection suit” contemplated
government units and government-owned or controlled
by law and jurisprudence, which bars a mortgagee from
corporations with or without independent charters
later on electing to foreclose the mortgaged property.
are not exempt from paying such fees. “(emphasis
supplied)
XXX XXX
XXX
Section 70 of Republic Act No. 9136 (Electric Power
Industry Reform Act of 2001), on privatization
of NPC assets, expressly states that the NPC “shall It bears stressing that in Que vs. People, this Court
remain as a national government-owned and controlled stated that the clear intention of the framers of B.P. Blg.
corporation.” 22 is to make the mere act of issuing a worthless
check malum prohibitum. In prosecutions for violation of
B.P. Blg. 22 therefore, prejudice or damage is not a pre-
Thus, NPC is not exempt from payment of filing fees.
requisite for conviction. In the later case of People
The non-exemption of NPC is further fortified by the
vs. Nitafan, this Court ruled that the agreement
promulgation on February 11, 2010 of A.M. No. 08-2-01-
surrounding the issuance of the checks need not be first
0, In re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the
looked into since the law has clearly provided that the
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) from
mere issuance of any kind of check, regardless of the
Payment of Legal Fees. In said case, the Court,
intent of the parties, i.e., whether the check is intended
citing Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, stressed that
merely to serve as a guarantee or deposit, but which
the 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress
check is subsequently dishonored, makes the person who
to repeal, alter or supplement rules concerning pleading,
issued the check liable. The intent of the law is to curb
practice, and procedure; and that the power to
the proliferation of worthless checks as a means of
promulgate these rules is no longer shared by the Court
payment of obligations. Spouses Fernando Torres and
with Congress and the Executive, thus:
Irma Torres vs. Amparo Medina, et al., G.R. No. 166730,
March 10, 2010
XXX
XXX XXX
INJUNCTION; NATURE OF REMEDY.
With the foregoing categorical pronouncement of the

In Caneland Sugar Corporation vs. Alon, it was settled
Court, it is clear that NPC can no longer invoke Republic
that injunctive reliefs are preservative remedies for the
Act No. 6395 (NPC Charter), as amended by Presidential
protection of substantive rights and interests. Injunction
Decree No. 938, as its basis for exemption from the
is not a cause of action in itself, but merely a provisional
payment of legal fees. Re: Exemption of the National
remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. When the act sought
Power Corporation from payment of filing/docket fees,
to be enjoined has become fait accompli, the prayer for
A.M. No. 05-10-20-SC, March 10, 2010
provisional remedy should be denied. In Go vs. Looyuko,
the Court ruled that when the events sought to be
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE; REMEDY NOT prevented by injunction or prohibition have already
BARRED BY B.P. BLG. 22 PROSECUTION. happened, nothing more could be enjoined or prohibited.
Indeed, it is a universal principle of law that an injunction
The foregoing findings notwithstanding, the Spouses will not issue to restrain the performance of an act
Torres contend that the election of Medina from sue them already done. This is so for the simple reason that
for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 bars Medina from the remedy nothing more can be done in reference thereto. A writ of
of foreclosure of mortgage. The Spouses Torres, injunction becomes moot and academic after the act
citing Bank of America NT & SA vs. American Realty sought to be enjoined has already been
Corporation (Bank of America), thus argue: ”x x x the consummated. Joseph Bernardez vs. Commission on
remedies available to the mortgage creditor are deemed Elections, G.R. No. 190382, March 9, 2010
alternative and not cumulative. Notably, an election of
one remedy operates as a waiver of the other. For this JUDGMENT; BINDING EFFECT OF SUPREME
purpose, a remedy is deemed chosen upon the fling of COURT’S FINDINGS.
206
It is important to emphasize at this point that in the dated 19 April 1917 bind any other case operating
recent case resolved by this Court En Banc in 2007, under the factual setting the same as or similar to
entitled Manotok Realty, Inc. vs. CLT Realty that at bar. (Emphases supplied.)
Development Corporation (the 2007 Manotok case), as
well as the succeeding resolution in the same case dated
Thus, in the 2009 Manotok case, this Court evaluated the
March 31, 2009 (the 2009 Manotok case), the
evidence engaged in by said Special Division, and
controversy surrounding the Maysilo Estate and the
adopted the latter’s conclusions as to the status of the
question of the existence of another OCT No. 994 have
original title and its subsequent conveyances. This case
been finally laid to rest. All other cases involving said
affirmed the earlier finding that “there is only one OCT
estate and OCT No. 994, such as the case at bar, are
No. 994, the registration date of which had already been
bound by the findings and conclusions set forth in said
decisively settled as 3 May 1917 and not 19 April 1917”
resolutions. As stated earlier, petitioner anchors her
and categorically concluded that “OCT No. 994 which
claim on previous cases decided by this Court which have
reflects the date of 19 April 1917 as its registration date
held that there are two existing OCT No. 994, dated
is null and void.” In the case at bar, petitioner is the last
differently, and the one from which she and her co-
surviving co-plaintiff in Civil Case No. C-424 originally
plaintiffs (in Civil Case No. C-424) derived their rights
filed on May 3, 1965. The records bear several attempts
was dated earlier, hence, was the superior title.
of different individuals to represent her as counsel, a
Regrettably, petitioner’s claim no longer has a leg to
matter that could be attributed to her advanced age and
stand on. As we held in the 2007 Manotok case: “The
potential access to a vast sum of money, should she get
determinative test to resolve whether the prior decision
a favorable decision from this case. It appears, however,
of this Court should be affirmed or set aside is whether or
that the partition and accounting of a portion of
not the titles invoked by the respondents are valid. If
the Maysilo Estate that she and her co-plaintiffs prayed
these titles are sourced from the so-called OCT No. 994
for can no longer prosper because of the conclusive
dated 17 April 1917, then such titles are void or
findings quoted above that the very basis of their claim, a
otherwise should not be recognized by this Court. Since
second, albeit earlier registered, OCT No. 994, does not
the true basic factual predicate concerning OCT No. 994
exist. Fidela R. Angeles vs. The Secretary of Justice,
which is that there is only one such OCT differs from that
et al., G.R. No. 142549, March 9, 2010
expressed in the MWSS and Gonzaga decisions, said
rulings have become virtually functus officio except on
the basis of the “law of the case” doctrine, and can no JUDGMENT; FINALITY OF JUDGMENT.
longer be relied upon as precedents.”
Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable
Specifically, petitioner cannot anymore insist that OCT and unalterable. A final and executory judgment may no
No. 994 allegedly issued on April 19, 1917 validly and longer be modified in any respect, even if the
actually exists, given the following conclusions made by modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be
this Court in the 2007 Manotok case: an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of
court rendering it or by the highest court of the land.
First, there is only one OCT No. 994. As it appears
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and
on the record, that mother title was received for
somewhere, and it is essential to an effective
transcription by the Register of Deeds on 3 May
administration of justice that once a judgment has
1917, and that should be the date which should be
become final, the issue or cause involved therein should
reckoned as the date of registration of the title. It
be laid to rest. Utmost respect and adherence to this
may also be acknowledged, as appears on the title, that
principle must always be maintained by those who wield
OCT No. 994 resulted from the issuance of the decree of
the power of adjudication. Any act which violates it must
registration on [19] April 1917, although such date
be struck down. Jose Cabaral Tiu vs. First Plywood
cannot be considered as the date of the title or the date
Corporation/Jose Cabaral Tiu v. Timber Exports, Inc.
when the title took effect.
Angel Domingo, Country Bankers Ins. Corp.,
Perfecto Mondarte, Jr. and Cesar Dacal, G.R. No.
Second. Any title that traces its source to OCT No. 176123/G.R. No. 185265, March 10, 2010
994 dated [19] April 1917 is void, for such mother
title is inexistent. The fact that
the Dimson and CLT titles made specific reference to an
OCT No. 994 dated [19] April 1917 casts doubt on the
validity of such titles since they refer to Petitioner contends that in Santos III vs. Northwest
an inexistent OCT. x x x. Orient Airlines, the cause of action was based on a
breach of contract while her cause of action arose from
the tortious conduct of the airline personnel and violation
Third. The decisions of this Court in MWSS vs.
of the Civil Code provisions on Human Relations. In
Court of Appeals and Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals
addition, she claims that our pronouncement in Santos
cannot apply to the cases at bar, especially in
III vs. Northwest Orient Airlines that “the allegation of
regard to their recognition of an OCT No. 994 dated
willful misconduct resulting in a tort is insufficient to
19 April 1917, a title which we now acknowledge
exclude the case from the comprehension of the Warsaw
as inexistent. Neither could the conclusions in
Convention,” is more of an obiter dictum rather than
MWSS or Gonzaga with respect to an OCT No. 994
the ratio decidendi. She maintains that the fact that said
207
acts occurred aboard a plane is merely incidental, if not specifically, the issue of whether GG Sportswear was
irrelevant. We disagree with the position taken by the entitled to a refund on the ground that it did not have a
petitioner. Black defines obiter dictum as “an opinion CR/LS at the time the parties entered into the
entirely unnecessary for the decision of the case” and Agreement. G.G. Sportswear Mfg. Corp vs. World Class
thus “are not binding as precedent.” In Santos III vs. Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 182720, March 2, 2010
Northwest Orient Airlines, Augusto Santos III
categorically put in issue the applicability of Article 28(1)
JUDGMENT; FINALITY OF JUDGMENT OR RULING.
of the Warsaw Convention if the action is based on tort.
In the said case, we held that the allegation of willful
misconduct resulting in a tort is insufficient to exclude With this ruling, the Board reversed the Arbiter’s ruling
the case from the realm of the Warsaw Convention. In on this particular issue, expressly stating that “the
fact, our ruling that a cause of action based on tort did absence of the certificate of registration and license to
not bring the case outside the sphere of the Warsaw sell no longer existed at the time of the filing of the
Convention was our ratio decidendi in disposing of the complaint and could no longer be used as basis to
specific issue presented by Augusto Santos III. Clearly, demand rescission.” This ruling became final
the contention of the herein petitioner that the said ruling when GG Sportswear chose not to file an appeal
is an obiter dictum is without with the OP. Thus, even if the Board ultimately awarded
basis. Edna Diago Lhuillier vs. British Airways, G.R. No. a refund to GG Sportswear based entirely on another
171092, March 15, 2010 ground, the Board’s ruling on the non-
rescissible character of the Agreement is binding on the
parties. Consequently, the OP had no jurisdiction to
revert to the Arbiter’s earlier declaration that the
Agreement was void due to World Class’s lack of a
We explained the concept of an obiter dictum CR/LS, a finding that clearly contradicted the Board’s
in Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals by saying: final and executory ruling. G.G. Sportswear Mfg. Corp
vs. World Class Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 182720, March
2, 2010
It has been held that an adjudication on any point within
the issues presented by the case cannot be considered
as obiter dictum, and this rule applies to all pertinent JUDGMENT; REQUIREMENT TO STATE LEGAL AND
questions, although only incidentally involved, which are FACTUAL BASIS.
presented and decided in the regular course of the
consideration of the case, and led up to the final
Finally, Hutama questions the resolution of the CA on its
conclusion, and to any statement as to matter on which
motion for reconsideration on the ground that it denied
the decision is predicated. Accordingly, a point
the same without stating clearly and distinctly the factual
expressly decided does not lose its value as a
and legal basis thereof. In denying petitioner’s motion
precedent because the disposition of the case is, or
for reconsideration, the CA ruled that it found no
might have been, made on some other ground, or
plausible reason to depart from its earlier decision
even though, by reason of other points in the case,
wherein all the issues had been exhaustively passed
the result reached might have been the same if the
upon. That ruling contained a sufficient legal reason or
court had held, on the particular point, otherwise
basis to deny the motion. There was no need for the CA
than it did. A decision which the case could have
to restate the rationale for its decision that the petitioner
turned on is not regarded as obiter dictum merely
wanted reconsidered. Hutama-RSEA/Supermax Phils.,
because, owing to the disposal of the contention, it
J.V. vs. KCD Builders Corporation, represented by its
was necessary to consider another question, nor
can an additional reason in a decision, brought
2010
forward after the case has been disposed of on one
ground, be regarded as dicta. So, also, where a case
presents two (2) or more points, any one of which is JUDGMENT; RES JUDICATA.
sufficient to determine the ultimate issue, but the court
actually decides all such points, the case as an
authoritative precedent as to every point decided, and
none of such points can be regarded as having the status
of a dictum, and one point should not be denied authority The petitioner cannot now insist that the RTC did not
merely because another point was more dwelt on and settle the question of the respondents’ qualifications to
more fully argued and considered, nor does a decision on own land due to non-citizenship. It is fundamental that
one proposition make statements of the court regarding the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter
other propositions dicta. [emphasis supplied.] directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could
have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between
the parties and their successors in interest by title
The Board’s pronouncement in its January 31, 2006 subsequent to the commencement of the action or
decision – that the Agreement could no longer be special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and
rescinded because the CR/LS had already been issued at under the same title and in the same capacity. Thus,
the time the complaint was filed – cannot be considered a in Gabuya v. Layug, this Court had the occasion to hold
mere obiter dictum because it touched upon a matter that a judgment involving the same parties, the same
squarely raised by World Class in its petition for review, facts, and the same issues binds the parties not only as
208
to every matter offered and received to sustain or defeat parties and those in privity with them in law or
their claims or demands, but also as to any other estate. Catalina Balais-Mabanag, assisted by her
admissible matter that might have been offered for that husband, Eleuterio Mabanag vs. The Register of Deeds
purpose and all other matters that could have been of Quezon City, et al., G.R. No. 153142. March 29, 2010
adjudged in that case. Catalina Balais-Mabanag,
assisted by her husband, Eleuterio Mabanag vs. The
JUDGMENT; RES JUDICATA; ABSENCE OF
Register of Deeds of Quezon City, et al., G.R. No.
INCONSISTENCY TEST.
153142. March 29, 2010
This Court has previously employed various tests in

JUDGMENT; RES JUDICATA.
determining whether or not there is identity of causes of
action as to warrant the application of the principle of res
The present recourse has not been the only one taken judicata. One test of identity is the “absence of
by the petitioner and her counsel to assail the inconsistency test” where it is determined whether the
qualification of Ramona to acquire and own the subject judgment sought will be inconsistent with the prior
property. In fact, the Court catalogued judgment. If no inconsistency is shown, the prior
such recourses taken for the petitioner herein in A.C. No. judgment shall not constitute a bar to subsequent
5469, entitled Foronda vs. Guerrero, an administrative actions. Spouses Fernando Torres and Irma Torres vs.
case for disbarment commenced on June 29, 2001 by Amparo Medina, et al., G.R. No. 166730, March 10,
Ricardo A. Foronda (an attorney-in-fact of the 2010
respondents) against Atty. Arnold V. Guerrero, the
attorney of the petitioner, as follows:
JUDGMENT; RES JUDICATA; CONCLUSIVENESS OF
JUDGMENT.
XXX XXX
XXX
It bears stressing that the doctrine of res judicata
actually embraces two different concepts: (1) bar by
All the aforestated recourses have had the uniform result former judgment and (b) conclusiveness of judgment.
of sustaining the right of Ramona to acquire the property, The second concept – conclusiveness of judgment –
which warranted a finding against Atty. Guerrero of states that a fact or question which was in issue in a
resorting to forum shopping, and leading to his former suit and was there judicially passed upon and
suspension from the practice of law for two years. Such determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is
result fully affirms that the petitioner’s objection is now conclusively settled by the judgment therein as far as the
barred by res judicata. For res judicata to bar the parties to that action and persons in privity with them are
institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites concerned and cannot be again litigated in any future
must concur: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) action between such parties or their privies, in the same
it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction on
of the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a either the same or different cause of action, while the
judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be between judgment remains unreversed by proper authority. It has
the first and second actions identity of parties, identity of been held that in order that a judgment in one action can
the subject matter, and identity of cause of action. be conclusive as to a particular matter in another action
between the same parties or their privies, it is essential
that the issue be identical. If a particular point or
XXX XXX
question is in issue in the second action, and the
XXX
judgment will depend on the determination of that
particular point or question, a former judgment between
The doctrine is also known as estoppel per the same parties or their privies will be final and
rem judicatam and involves both cause of action conclusive in the second if that same point or question
estoppel and issue estoppel. The purpose of the doctrine was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit. Identity of
is two-fold – to prevent unnecessary proceedings cause of action is not required, but merely identity of
involving expenses to the parties and wastage of the issues. Based on the foregoing, the validity of the real
court’s time which could be used by others, and to avoid estate mortgage can no longer be attacked, more so
stale litigations as well as to enable the defendant to because the decision in Civil Case No. Q-94-18962 has
know the extent of the claims being made arising out of become final and Entry of Judgment has already been
the same single incident. Under the doctrine of res entered in our books. It therefore goes without saying
judicata, therefore, a final judgment or decree on the that the foreclosure of the mortgage is a right given to
merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is Medina as the same is embodied in the Deed of Real
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all Estate Mortgage, to wit:
later suits and on all points and matters determined in
the previous suit. The foundation principle upon which
That it is further understood that if the MORTGAGOR shall
the doctrine rests is that the parties ought not to be
well and truly perform the obligation above contracted
permitted to litigate the same issue more than once; that
then this Mortgage shall be null and void; otherwise, it
when a right or fact has been judicially tried and
shall remain in full force and effect and may be
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long
foreclosed extrajudicially under Act 3135 as
as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the
amended.
209
Thus, this Court finds no error in the decisions of the Significantly, the Technical Report on Verification Survey
lower court and the appellate court declaring that there by Engineer Robert C. Pangyarihan, which was attached
exists, in fact, res judicata. As succinctly put to and formed part of the records, contained a tax
in FELS Energy, Inc. vs. Province of Batangas, res declaration indicating that the subject property has an
judicata, as a ground for dismissal, is based on two assessed value of P110,220.00. It is basic that the tax
grounds, namely: declaration indicating the assessed value of the property
enjoys the presumption of regularity as it has been
issued by the proper government agency. Under
(1) public policy and necessity, which makes it to the
Republic Act No. 7691, the RTC in fact has jurisdiction
interest of the State that there should be an end to
over the subject matter of the action. Taking into
litigation — republicae ut sit litium; and (2) the hardship
consideration the decision of the MTC proclaiming that
on the individual of being vexed twice for the same cause
the case is one for accion publiciana and the assessed
— nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. A conflicting
value of the property as evidenced by the case records,
doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the
jurisdiction pertains, rightfully so, with the RTC.
will and dereliction of individuals and prefer the
Perforce, the petition should be
regalement of the litigious disposition on the part of
denied. Honorio Bernardo vs. Heirs of Eusebio Villegas,
suitors to the preservation of the public tranquility and
G.R. No. 183357, March 15, 2010
happiness.
Jurisdiction; action for damages under Warsaw

Anent the fourth cause of action in Civil Case No. Q-99-
Convention. Under Article 28(1) of the Warsaw
38781, this Court finds that the Spouses Torres had
Convention, the plaintiff may bring the action for
already raised, in Civil Case No. 94-18962, the fact that
damages before –
eleven (11) counts of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.)
22 violations are pending with Branch 36, Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC), Quezon City. Thus, the RTC is 1. the court where the carrier is domiciled;
correct in its observation that res judicata lies, as the
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) checks
2. the court where the carrier has its principal
referred to in the complaint in Civil Case No. Q-99-38781
place of business;
are the very same documents subject of Civil Case No. Q-
94-18962. Spouses Fernando Torres and Irma Torres vs.
Amparo Medina, et al., G.R. No. 166730, March 10, 2010 3. the court where the carrier has an
establishment by which the contract has been made; or
JUDGMENT; RES JUDICATA; ELEMENTS.
4. the court of the place of destination.
Res judicata literally means “a matter adjudged; a thing
judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled In this case, it is not disputed that respondent is a British
by judgment.” Res judicata lays the rule that an existing corporation domiciled in London, United Kingdom with
final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and London as its principal place of business. Hence, under
without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent the first and second jurisdictional rules, the petitioner
jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is may bring her case before the courts of London in the
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in United Kingdom. In the passenger ticket and baggage
all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial check presented by both the petitioner and respondent, it
tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and appears that the ticket was issued in Rome, Italy.
matters in issue in the first suit. The elements of res Consequently, under the third jurisdictional rule, the
judicata are: petitioner has the option to bring her case before the
courts of Rome in Italy. Finally, both the petitioner and
respondent aver that the place of destination is Rome,
(1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be
Italy, which is properly designated given the routing
final;
presented in the said passenger ticket and baggage
(2) the decision must have been rendered by a court
check. Accordingly, petitioner may bring her action
having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
before the courts of Rome, Italy. We thus find that the
parties;
RTC of Makati correctly ruled that it does not have
(3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the
jurisdiction over the case filed by the
merits; and
petitioner. Edna Diago Lhuillier vs. British Airways, G.R.
(4) there must be as between the first and second action
No. 171092, March 15, 2010
identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.
JURISDICTION; ESTOPPEL.
Spouses Fernando Torres and Irma Torres vs. Amparo
Medina, et al., G.R. No. 166730, March 10, 2010
As already shown, nowhere in the complaint was the
assessed value of the subject property ever mentioned.
JURISDICTION; ACCION PUBLICIANA.
There is no showing on the face of the complaint that the
RTC has jurisdiction exclusive of the MTC. Indeed,
absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed
210
value of the property, it cannot readily be determined petitioners’ complaint (about two years before the
which of the two trial courts had original and exclusive appellate court rendered the assailed decision) would be
jurisdiction over the case. The general rule is that the an exercise in futility and would unjustly burden
jurisdiction of a court may be questioned at any stage of petitioners. The Court, in Valenzuela vs. Court of
the proceedings. Lack of jurisdiction is one of those Appeals, held that as a general rule, if there is a judicial
excepted grounds where the court may dismiss a claim or liquidation of an insolvent bank, all claims against the
a case at any time when it appears from the pleadings or bank should be filed in the liquidation proceeding. The
the evidence on record that any of those grounds exists, Court in Valenzuela, however, after considering the
even if they were not raised in the answer or in a motion circumstances attendant to the case, held that the
to dismiss. The reason is that jurisdiction is conferred by general rule should not be applied if to order the
law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the court aggrieved party to refile or relitigate its case before the
to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the litigation court would be “an exercise in futility.” Among
action. However, estoppel sets in when a party the circumstances the Court considered in that case is
participates in all stages of a case before challenging the the fact that the claimants were poor and the disputed
jurisdiction of the lower court. One cannot belatedly parcel of land was their only property, and the parties’
reject or repudiate its decision after voluntarily claims and defenses were properly ventilated in and
submitting to its jurisdiction, just to secure affirmative considered by the judicial court. In the present case, the
relief against one’s opponent or after failing to obtain Court finds that analogous considerations exist to
such relief. The Court has, time and again, frowned upon warrant the application of Valenzuela.
the undesirable practice of a party submitting a case for Petitioner Restituto was 78 years old at the time the
decision and then accepting the judgment, only if petition was filed in this Court, and his co-petitioner-
favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when wife Erlinda died during the pendency of the case. And,
adverse. Honorio Bernardo vs. Heirs of Eusebio Villegas, except for co-petitioner Corazon, Restituto is a resident
G.R. No. 183357, March 15, 2010 of Ozamis City. To compel him to appear
and relitigate the case in the liquidation court-
Nasugbu RTC when the issues to be raised before it are
the same as those already exhaustively passed upon and
decided by the Balayan RTC would be
Estoppel bars the bank from raising the issue of lack of superfluous. Atty. Restituto G. Cudiamat, et al. vs.
jurisdiction of the Balayan RTC. In Lozon vs. NLRC, the Batangas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. et al., G.R. No.
Court came up with a clear rule on when jurisdiction by 182403, March 9, 2010
estoppel applies and when it does not:
The operation of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction
seemingly depends on whether the lower court actually
In Tijam, the Court held that it is iniquitous and unfair to
had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the
void the trial court’s decision for lack of jurisdiction
case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had
considering that it was raised only after fifteen (15) years
jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from
of tedious litigation, thus:
assailing such jurisdiction, for the same “must exist as a
matter of law, and may not be conferred by the consent
of the parties or by estoppel.” However, if the lower The facts of this case show that from the time the Surety
court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have
decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the Court
the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the
to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on present action by reason of the sum of money involved
appeal, to assume an inconsistent position – that which, according to the law then in force, was within the
the lower court had jurisdiction… (underscoring supplied) original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to
do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in
the court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, it
The ruling was echoed in Metromedia Times Corporation
invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain
vs. Pastorin. In the present case, the Balayan RTC,
affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final
sitting as a court of general jurisdiction, had jurisdiction
adjudication on the merits. It was only after an adverse
over the complaint for quieting of title filed by petitioners
decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it
on August 9, 1999. The Nasugbu RTC, as a liquidation
finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. Were
court, assumed jurisdiction over the claims against the
we to sanction such conduct on its part, We would in
bank only on May 25, 2000, when PDIC’s petition for
effect be declaring as useless all the proceedings had in
assistance in the liquidation was raffled thereat and given
the present case since it was commenced on July 19,
due course. While it is well-settled that lack of
1948 and compel the judgment creditors to go up their
jurisdiction on the subject matter can be raised at any
Calvary once more. The inequity and unfairness of this is
time and is not lost by estoppel by laches, the present
not only patent but revolting.
case is an exception. To compel petitioners to re-file
and relitigate their claims before the Nasugbu RTC when
the parties had already been given the opportunity to The principle of justice and equity as espoused in Tijam
present their respective evidence in a full-blown trial should be applied in this case. The MTC dismissed the
before the Balayan RTC which had, in fact, decided ejectment case upon its ruling that the case is
211
for accion publiciana. It did not assert jurisdiction over JURISDICTION; PROHIBITION AGAINST

the case even if it could have done so based on the INTERFERENCE WITH COURT OF CONCURRENT
assessed value of the property subject of JURISDICTION.
the accion publiciana. And there was no showing,
indeed, not even an allegation, that the MTC was not
Verily, the Manila RTC lacked jurisdiction over the nature
aware of its jurisdictional authority over
of the action filed by FPC. The Pagadian RTC which
an accion publiciana involving property in the amount
rendered the decision and ordered the execution sale
stated in the law. Moreover, petitioner did not bring up
should settle the whole controversy. Pursuant to the
the issue of jurisdictional amount that would have led
principle of judicial stability, the judgment or order of a
the MTC to proceed with the trial of the case. Petitioner
court of competent jurisdiction, Pagadian RTC in this
obviously considered the dismissal to be in his favor.
case, may not be interfered with by any court
When, as a result of such dismissal, respondents brought
of concurrent jurisdiction (i.e., another RTC), for the
the case as accion publiciana before the RTC, petitioner
simple reason that the power to open, modify or vacate
never brought up the issue of jurisdictional amount.
the said judgment or order is not only possessed by but
What petitioner mentioned in his Answer before the RTC
is restricted to the court in which the judgment or order
was the generally phrased allegation that “the Honorable
is rendered or issued. Resultantly, the Manila RTC
Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
Decision of July 16, 2001 is void for lack of jurisdiction.
nature of the action in the above-entitled case.” This
As such, it, as well as all subsequent orders proceeding
general assertion, which lacks any basis, is not sufficient.
therefrom, should have been annulled by the appellate
Clearly, petitioner failed to point out the omission of the
court. A judgment rendered by a court without
assessed value in the complaint. Petitioner actively
jurisdiction is null and void and may be attacked
participated during the trial by adducing evidence and
anytime. It creates no rights and produces no effect. It
filing numerous pleadings, none of which mentioned any
remains a basic fact in law that the choice of the proper
defect in the jurisdiction of the RTC. It was only on
forum is crucial, as the decision of a court or tribunal
appeal before the Court of Appeals, after he obtained an
without jurisdiction is a total nullity. A void judgment for
adverse judgment in the trial court, that petitioner, for
want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. All acts
the first time, came up with the argument that the
performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it
decision is void because there was no allegation in the
have no legal effect. Respecting G.R. No. 185265, the
complaint about the value of the property. Clearly,
Court finds that the action lodged with the Antipolo RTC
petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of
was essentially the same as that filed with the Manila
the RTC.
RTC. The relief sought was also the annulment of
the Pagadian case execution sale. Hence,
We note that the decisions of the RTC and of the Court of the Antipolo RTC was similarly bereft of jurisdiction over
Appeals discussed extensively the merits of the case, the nature of the action. This should have been its basis
which has been pending for nearly ten (10) years. It was for dismissing the complaint. The various branches of
handled by two (2) judges and its records had to be the RTC, having as they do have the same or equal
reconstituted after the fire that gutted the courthouse. If authority and exercising as they do concurrent and
we were to accede to petitioner’s prayer, all the effort, coordinate jurisdiction, should not, cannot and are not
time and expenses of parties who participated in the permitted to intervene with their respective cases, much
litigation would be wasted. Quite obviously, petitioner less with their orders or judgments. A contrary rule
wants a repetition of the process hoping for the would lead to confusion and seriously hamper the
possibility of a reversal of the decision. The Court will administration of justice. Jose Cabaral Tiu vs. First
not countenance such practice. Honorio Bernardo vs. Plywood Corporation/Jose Cabaral Tiu vs. Timber
Heirs of Eusebio Villegas, G.R. No. 183357, March 15, Exports, Inc. Angel Domingo, Country Bankers Ins.
2010 Corp., Perfecto Mondarte, Jr. and Cesar Dacal, G.R. No.
176123/G.R. No. 185265, March 10, 2010
JURISDICTION OVER PERSON; NO VOLUNTARY

APPEARANCE OR SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION.
JURISDICTION; JURISDICTION OVER ISSUE
DETERMINED BY PLEADINGS OR STIPULATION OR
IMPLIED CONSENT. Petitioner argues that respondent has effectively
submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the trial court when
the latter stated in its Comment/Opposition to the Motion
It need not be underlined that jurisdiction over an issue
for Reconsideration that “Defendant [is at a loss] x x x
in a case is determined and conferred by the pleadings
how the plaintiff arrived at her erroneous impression that
filed by the parties, or by their agreement in a pre-trial
it is/was Euro-Philippines Airlines Services, Inc. that has
order or stipulation or, at times by their implied consent
been making a special appearance since x x x British
as by the failure of a party to object to evidence on an
Airways x x x has been clearly specifying in all the
issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided in
pleadings that it has filed with this Honorable Court that
Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. Eugene
it is the one making a special appearance.” In refuting
L. Lim vs. BPI Agriculture Development Bank, G.R. No.
the contention of petitioner, respondent cited La Naval
179230, March 9, 2010
Drug Corporation vs. Court of Appeals where we held
that even if a party “challenges the jurisdiction of the
212
court over his person, as by reason of absence or from the foregoing Sec. 20, Rule 14 of the 1997 Revised
defective service of summons, and he also invokes other Rules on Civil Procedure, petitioner and her sons did not
grounds for the dismissal of the action under Rule 16, he voluntarily appear before the SB constitutive of or
is not deemed to be in estoppel or to have waived his equivalent to service of summons.
objection to the jurisdiction over his person.” This issue
has been squarely passed upon in the recent case
Moreover, the leading La Naval Drug Corp. vs. Court of
of Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, where we reiterated our
Appeals applies to the instant case. Said case elucidates
ruling in La Naval Drug Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
the current view in our jurisdiction that a special
and elucidated thus:
appearance before the court––challenging its jurisdiction
over the person through a motion to dismiss even if
Special Appearance to Question a Court’s Jurisdiction Is the movant invokes other grounds––is not tantamount
Not Voluntary Appearance to estoppel or a waiver by the movant of his objection to
jurisdiction over his person; and such is not constitutive
of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
The second sentence of Sec. 20, Rule 14 of the Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure clearly provides:
Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner and her three
children voluntarily appeared before the SB to cure the
Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance. – The defendant’s
defective substituted services of summons. They are,
voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to
therefore, not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction
service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss
of the SB over their persons nor are they deemed to have
of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the
waived such defense of lack of jurisdiction. Consequently,
person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary
there being no valid substituted services of summons
appearance.
made, the SB did not acquire jurisdiction over the
persons of petitioner and her children. And perforce, the
Thus, a defendant who files a motion to dismiss, assailing proceedings in the subject forfeiture cases, insofar as
the jurisdiction of the court over his person, together petitioner and her three children are concerned, are null
with other grounds raised therein, is not deemed to have and void for lack of jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied)
appeared voluntarily before the court. What the rule on
voluntary appearance – the first sentence of the above-
In this case, the special appearance of the counsel of
quoted rule – means is that the voluntary appearance of
respondent in filing the Motion to Dismiss and other
the defendant in court is without qualification, in which
pleadings before the trial court cannot be deemed to be
case he is deemed to have waived his defense of lack of
voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the said trial
jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of
court. We hence disagree with the contention of the
summons.
petitioner and rule that there was no voluntary
appearance before the trial court that could constitute
The pleadings filed by petitioner in the subject forfeiture estoppel or a waiver of respondent’s objection to
cases, however, do not show that she voluntarily jurisdiction over its person. Edna Diago Lhuillier vs.
appeared without qualification. Petitioner filed the British Airways, G.R. No. 171092, March 15, 2010
following pleadings in Forfeiture I: (a) motion to dismiss;
(b) motion for reconsideration and/or to admit answer;
JURISDICTION OVER PERSON; VOLUNTARY
(c) second motion for reconsideration; (d) motion to
SUBMISSION.
consolidate forfeiture case with plunder case; and (e)
motion to dismiss and/or to quash Forfeiture I. And in
Forfeiture II: (a) motion to dismiss and/or to quash In addition, we agree with petitioner that the RTC had
Forfeiture II; and (b) motion for partial reconsideration. indeed acquired jurisdiction over the person of private
respondent when the latter’s counsel entered his
appearance on private respondent’s behalf, without
The foregoing pleadings, particularly the motions to
qualification and without questioning the propriety of the
dismiss, were filed by petitioner solely for special
service of summons, and even filed two Motions for
appearance with the purpose of challenging the
Extension of Time to File Answer. In effect, private
jurisdiction of the SB over her person and that of her
respondent, through counsel, had already invoked the
three children. Petitioner asserts therein that SB did not
RTC’s jurisdiction over her person by praying that the
acquire jurisdiction over her person and of her three
motions for extension of time to file answer be granted.
children for lack of valid service of summons through
We have held that the filing of motions seeking
improvident substituted service of summons in both
affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for additional
Forfeiture I and Forfeiture II. This stance the petitioner
time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default
never abandoned when she filed her motions for
judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for
reconsideration, even with a prayer to admit their
reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to
attached Answer Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam dated
the jurisdiction of the court. When private respondent
January 22, 2005 setting forth affirmative defenses with
earlier invoked the jurisdiction of the RTC to secure
a claim for damages. And the other subsequent
affirmative relief in her motions for additional time to file
pleadings, likewise, did not abandon her stance and
answer, she voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of
defense of lack of jurisdiction due to improper substituted
the RTC and is thereby estopped from asserting
services of summons in the forfeiture cases. Evidently,
otherwise. Leah Palma vs. Hon. Danilo P. Galvez, in his
213
capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court contained in the cited documents, that OCT No. 994
of Iloilo City, Branch 24, et al., G.R. No. 165273, March dated April 19, 1917, on which petitioner and her co-
10, 2010 plaintiffs in the civil case clearly anchored their rights, did
not exist. Fidela R. Angeles vs. The Secretary of
Justice, et al., G.R. No. 142549, March 9, 2010
MANDAMUS; NOT AVAILABLE IN ABSENCE OF
CLEAR AND COMPLETE RIGHT.
MANDAMUS; WHEN AVAILABLE.
Therefore, we must look into the alleged right of
petitioner and see if compliance with the RTC Order It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel the
is compellable by mandamus; or, in the alternative, find performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not
out if substantial doubt exists to justify public to compel the performance of a discretionary
respondents’ refusal to comply with said Order. Did duty. Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right which is
public respondents have sufficient legal basis to refuse to in substantial dispute or to which a substantial doubt
grant petitioner’s request? In this regard, we find our exists. It is nonetheless likewise available to compel
discussion in Laburada vs. Land Registration Authority action, when refused, in matters involving judgment and
instructive, to wit: discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or
discretion in a particular way or the retraction or reversal
of an action already taken in the exercise of
That the LRA hesitates in issuing a decree of registration
either. Fidela R. Angeles vs. The Secretary of Justice, et
is understandable. Rather than a sign of negligence
al., G.R. No. 142549, March 9, 2010
or nonfeasance in the performance of its duty,
the LRA’s reaction is reasonable, even
imperative. Considering the probable duplication of MOTION TO DISMISS; HYPOTHETICAL ADMISSION
titles over the same parcel of land, such issuance OF MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT.
may contravene the policy and the purpose, and
thereby destroy the integrity, of the Torrens
No other principle in remedial law is more settled than
system of registration.
that when a motion to dismiss is filed, the material
allegations of the complaint are deemed to be
xxxx hypothetically admitted. This hypothetical admission,
according to Viewmaster Construction Corporation
vs. Roxas and Navoa vs. Court of Appeals, extends not
x x x Likewise, the writ of mandamus can be awarded
only to the relevant and material facts well pleaded in the
only when the petitioners’ legal right to the performance
complaint, but also to inferences that may be fairly
of the particular act which is sought to be compelled
deduced from them. Thus, where it appears that the
is clear and complete. Under Rule 65 of the Rules of
allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on
Court, a clear legal right is a right which is indubitably
which the complaint can be maintained, the same should
granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law. If the
not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be
right is clear and the case is meritorious, objections
raised by the defendants. Stated differently, where the
raising merely technical questions will be disregarded.
motion to dismiss is predicated on grounds that are not
But where the right sought to be enforced is in
indubitable, the better policy is to deny the motion
substantial doubt or dispute, as in this case, mandamus
without prejudice to taking such measures as may be
cannot issue. (Emphasis ours.)
proper to assure that the ends of justice may be served.
It is interesting to note at this point that in their bid to
As can be gleaned from the above discussion, the have the case dismissed, petitioners theorize that there
issuance by the LRA officials of a decree of registration is could not have been a contract by which the municipality
not a purely ministerial duty in cases where they find that agreed to be bound, because it was not shown that there
such would result to the double titling of the same parcel had been compliance with the required bidding or that
of land. In the same vein, we find that in this case, the municipal council had approved the contract. The
which involves the issuance of transfer certificates of argument is flawed. By invoking unenforceability under
title, the Register of Deeds cannot be compelled the Statute of Frauds, petitioners are in effect
by mandamus to comply with the RTC Order since there acknowledging the existence of a contract between them
were existing transfer certificates of title covering the and private respondent — only, the said contract cannot
subject parcels of land and there was reason to question be enforced by action for being non-compliant with the
the rights of those requesting for the issuance of legal requisite that it be reduced into writing. Suffice it
the TCTs. Neither could respondent LRA Administrator be to say that while this assertion might be a viable defense
mandated by the Court to require the Register of Deeds against respondent’s claim, it is principally a matter of
to comply with said Order, for we find merit in the evidence that may be properly ventilated at the trial of
explanations of respondent LRA Administrator in his the case on the merits. The Municipality
letter-reply that cites the 1st Indorsement issued by of Hagonoy, Bulacan, represented by the Hon. Felix
respondent Guingona, LRA Circular No. 97-11, and V. Ople, Municipal Mayor, and Felix V. Ople, in his
Senate Committee Report No. 1031, as reasons for his capacity vs. Hon. Simeon P. Dumdum, Jr. in his capacity
refusal to grant petitioner’s request. There was, as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7,
therefore, sufficient basis for public respondents to refuse Cebu City, et al., G.R. No. 168289, March 22, 2010
to comply with the RTC Order, given the finding,
214
MOTION TO DISMISS; UNENFORCEABILITY UNDER aside the order of default was set for hearing, but
STATUTE OF FRAUDS. neither Hutama’s counsel, nor any other representative
of petitioner corporation, appeared. According to the
counsel of Hutama, in his Memorandum, he failed to file
In other words, the Statute of Frauds only lays down the
an answer on time because he went to the province for
method by which the enumerated contracts may be
the Lenten season. He assigned the case to his associate,
proved. But it does not declare them invalid because
but the latter also went to the province. This flimsy
they are not reduced to writing inasmuch as, by law,
excuse deserves scant consideration. Hutama-
contracts are obligatory in whatever form they may have
RSEA/Supermax Phils., J.V.
been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for
their validity are present. The object is to prevent fraud
and perjury in the enforcement of obligations depending,
2010
for evidence thereof, on the unassisted memory of
witnesses by requiring certain enumerated contracts and
transactions to be evidenced by a writing signed by the PARTIES; PRIVATE LITIGANT IS NOT PROPER
party to be charged. The effect of noncompliance with PARTY TO CHALLENGE ADVERSE LITIGANT’S
this requirement is simply that no action can be enforced QUALIFICATION TO ACQUIRE LAND.
under the given contracts. If an action is nevertheless
filed in court, it shall warrant a dismissal under Section
It should also be pointed out that the petitioner was not
1(i), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, unless there has
the proper party to challenge Ramona’s qualifications to
been, among others, total or partial performance of the
acquire land. Under Section 7, Batas Pambansa Blg. 185,
obligation on the part of either party.
the Solicitor General or his representative shall
institute escheat proceedings against its violators.
It has been private respondent’s consistent stand, since Although the law does not categorically state that only
the inception of the instant case that she has entered the Government, through the Solicitor General, may
into a contract with petitioners. As far as she is attack the title of an alien transferee of land, it is
concerned, she has already performed her part of the nonetheless correct to hold that only the Government,
obligation under the agreement by undertaking the through the Solicitor General, has the personality to file a
delivery of the 21 motor vehicles contracted for case challenging the capacity of a person to acquire or to
by Ople in the name of petitioner municipality. This claim own land based on non-citizenship. This limitation is
is well substantiated — at least for the initial purpose of based on the fact that the violation is committed against
setting out a valid cause of action against petitioners — the State, not against any individual; and that in the
by copies of the bills of lading attached to the complaint, event that the transferee is adjudged to be not a Filipino
naming petitioner municipality as consignee of the citizen, the affected property reverts to the State, not to
shipment. Petitioners have not at any time expressly the previous owner or any other individual. Herein, even
denied this allegation and, hence, the same is binding on assuming that Ramona was legally disqualified from
the trial court for the purpose of ruling on the motion to owning the subject property, the decision that voids or
dismiss. In other words, since there exists an indication annuls their right of ownership over the subject land will
by way of allegation that there has been performance of not inure to the benefit of the petitioner. Instead, the
the obligation on the part of respondent, the case is subject property will be escheated in favor of the State in
excluded from the coverage of the rule on dismissals accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 185.
based on unenforceability under the statute of frauds, Catalina Balais-Mabanag, assisted by her
and either party may then enforce its claims against the husband, Eleuterio Mabanag vs. The Register of Deeds
other. The Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan, of Quezon City, et al., G.R. No. 153142. March 29,
represented by the Hon. Felix V. Ople, Municipal Mayor, 2010
and Felix V. Ople, in his capacity vs. Hon. Simeon P.
Dumdum, Jr. in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the
PETITION; MOOTNESS.
Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Cebu City, et al., G.R.
No. 168289, March 22, 2010 .
The Court notes that Sta. Clara repeatedly argued in its
pleadings that the January 26, 2004 MARINA decision
ORDER OF DEFAULT; WHEN WARRANTED.
was superseded by the June 6, 2005 LMRO decision, and
that the old CPC of MV King Frederick was replaced by a
Second, Hutama avers that the CA committed a new CPC issued in accordance with RA 9295 and its
reversible error when it upheld the decision of the RTC, implementing rules. San Pablo herself agreed that the
which was based on the ex-parte evidence presented January 26, 2004 MARINA decision was deemed
by KCD. Allegedly, its constitutional right to due process abandoned when Sta. Clara applied for and obtained a
was violated when the RTC issued an order of default new CPC. There is no dispute then that the January 26,
which resulted in its failure to present evidence. 2004 MARINA decision and the old CPC are now
However, we find that the RTC acted within the confines defunct. The January 26, 2004 MARINA decision and the
of its discretion when it issued the order of default upon old CPC were the subject matter of the petition of San
the motion of KCD when Hutama failed to file an answer Pablo before the CA. The reversal of the decision and the
within the extended period. The RTC did not hastily issue revocation of the CPC were the reliefs sought in that
the order of default. It gave Hutama the opportunity to petition. However, the passage of RA 9295 and the filing
explain its side. On August 22, 2002, the motion to set by Sta. Clara of an application for a new CPC under the
215
new law supervened and rendered the January 26, 2004 as an undesirable alien. In this case, respondent, prior
MARINA decision and old CPC of no consequence. There to his deportation, was recognized as a Filipino citizen.
was no more justiciable controversy for the CA to decide, He manifested his intent to return to the country because
no remedy to grant or deny. The petition before the CA his Filipino wife and children are residing in the
had become purely hypothetical, there being nothing left Philippines. The filing of the petitions before the Court of
to act upon. Although Sta. Clara filed with the CA a Appeals and before this Court showed his intention to
motion for reconsideration of its May 31, 2005 decision prove his Filipino lineage and citizenship, as well as the
without disclosing the foregoing developments, by the error committed by petitioners in causing his deportation
time the CA resolved the motion for reconsideration, it from the country. He was precisely questioning
was already aware of the changes in the situation of the the DOJ’s revocation of his certificate of recognition and
parties: specifically, that Sta. Clara had filed a new his summary deportation by the BI. Therefore, we rule
application under RA 9295 and that the LMRO had issued that respondent’s deportation did not render the present
Sta. Clara a new CPC. More significantly, the case moot. Department of Justice Secretary Raul M.
new CPC issued to Sta. Clara was now subject to the Gonzalez, et al. vs. Michael Alfio Pennisi, G.R. No.
rules implementing RA 9295. Under Rule XV, Sec. 1 169958, March 5, 2010
thereof, a peculiar process of administrative remedy
provides that the MARINA Administrator, and not the CA,
PETITION FOR REVIEW; FINDINGS OF FACT OF
is vested with primary jurisdiction over matters relating
COURT OF APPEALS BINDING ON SUPREME COURT;
to the issuance of a CPC. Under the altered state of
EXCEPTION WHEN COURT OF APPEALS’ FINDINGS
facts, the CA should have refrained from resolving the
ARE CONTRARY TO THOSE OF QUASI-JUDICIAL
pending motions before it and should have declared the
AGENCY.
case mooted by supervening events. Besides, questions
on the validity of the new CPC are cognizable by the
MARINA Administrator and, consonant with the doctrine It is well-settled that this Court is not a trier of facts.
of primary administrative jurisdiction, the CA should have The factual findings of the CA are regarded as final,
referred San Pablo to MARINA for the resolution of her binding and conclusive upon this Court, especially when
challenge to the validity of the new CPC of Sta. Clara. supported by substantial evidence. However, there are
The CA ought to have given due deference to the recognized exceptions to this rule, such as when the
exercise by MARINA of its sound administrative discretion factual findings of the CA are contrary to those of the
in applying its special knowledge, experience and quasi-judicial agency. In this case, the factual findings of
expertise to determine the technical and intricate factual the CA and the DARAB are conflicting; thus, we are
matters relating to the new CPC of Sta. Clara. Sta. Clara compelled to look at the factual milieu of this case and
Shipping Corporation vs. Eugenia T. San Pablo, G.R. No. review the records. The CA had also overlooked certain
169493, March 15, 2010 relevant facts undisputed by the parties, which, if
properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion. Napoleon Magno vs. Gonzalo Francisco and
PETITION; NOT MOOT.
Regina vda, De Lazaro, G.R. No. 168959, March 25,
2010
Petitioners allege that the petition had been rendered
moot because respondent already left the country.
PLEADINGS; ADOPTION OF PLEADING BY
Petitioners cited Lewin vs. The Deportation Board where
COUNSEL.
the Court ruled:
There is one final concern raised by petitioners relative to

x x x. Even if the deportation case is to proceed and even
the denial of their motion for reconsideration. They
if this Court will decide this appeal on the merits, there
complain that it was an error for the Court of Appeals to
would be no practical value or effect of such action
have denied the motion on the ground that the same was
upon Lewin, because he has already left the country.
filed by an unauthorized counsel and, hence, must be
Consequently, the issues involved herein have become
treated as a mere scrap of paper. It can be derived from
moot and academic.
the records that petitioner Ople, in his personal capacity,
filed his Rule 65 petition with the Court of Appeals
However, we agree with respondent that the factual through the representation of the law firm Chan Robles &
circumstances in Lewin are different from the case before Associates. Later on, municipal legal
us. In Lewin, petitioner was an alien who entered the officer Joselito Reyes, counsel for petitioner Ople, in his
country as a temporary visitor, to stay for only 50 days. official capacity and for petitioner municipality, filed with
He prolonged his stay by securing several extensions. the Court of Appeals a Manifestation with Entry of
Before his last extension expired, he voluntarily left the Appearance to the effect that he, as counsel, was
country, upon filing a bond, without any assurance from “adopting all the pleadings filed for and in behalf of
the Deportation Board that he would be admitted to the [Ople’s personal representation] relative to this case.” It
country upon his return. The Court found that he did not appears, however, that after the issuance of the Court of
return to the country, and at the time he was living in Appeals’ decision, only Ople’s personal representation
another country. The Court ruled that Lewin’s voluntary signed the motion for reconsideration. There is no
departure from the country, his long absence, and his showing that the municipal legal officer made the same
status when he entered the country as a temporary manifestation, as he previously did upon the filing of the
visitor rendered academic the question of his deportation petition. From this, the Court of Appeals concluded that
216
it was as if petitioner municipality and petitioner Ople, in corporation. Hutama-RSEA/Supermax Phils., J.V.

his official capacity, had never moved for reconsideration vs. KCD Builders Corporation, represented by its
of the assailed decision, and adverts to the ruling President Celso C. Diokno, G.R. No. 173181, March 3,
in Ramos vs. Court of Appeals and Municipality of Pililla, 2010
Rizal vs. Court of Appeals that only under well-defined
exceptions may a private counsel be engaged in lawsuits
PLEADINGS; DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS NOT
involving a municipality, none of which exceptions
PLEADED DEEMED WAIVED.
obtains in this case. The Court of Appeals is mistaken.
As can be seen from the manner in which the
Manifestation with Entry of Appearance is worded, it is Yet, now, when the final decision of the RTC is already
clear that petitioner municipality’s legal officer was intent being implemented, the petitioner would thwart the
on adopting, for both the municipality and Mayor Ople, execution by assailing the directive of the RTC for the
not only the certiorari petition filed with the Court of Branch Clerk of Court to execute the deed of absolute
Appeals, but also all other pleadings that may be filed sale and by blocking the registration of the deed of
thereafter by Ople’s personal representation, including absolute sale in the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, on
the motion for reconsideration subject of this the ground that Ramona was disqualified from owning
case. XXX XXX land in the Philippines. The petitioner’s move
XXX The Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan, represented was outrightly unwarranted. First: The petitioner did not
by the Hon. Felix V. Ople, Municipal Mayor, and Felix raise any issue against Ramona’s qualifications to own
V. Ople, in his capacity vs. Hon. Simeon P. Dumdum, Jr. land in the Philippines during the trial or, at the latest,
in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial before the finality of the RTC judgment. The petitioner
Court, Branch 7, Cebu City, et al., G.R. No. 168289, was thereby deemed to have waived the objection,
March 22, 2010 pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, to
wit:
SHOPPING; EXECUTION BY PRESIDENT. Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.
— Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
On the other hand, a certification of non-forum shopping
waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or
is a certification under oath by the plaintiff or principal
the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction
party in the complaint or other initiatory pleading,
over the subject matter, that there is another action
asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification
pending between the same parties for the same cause, or
annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith, that
that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by
(a) he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed
statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal
(2a)
or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, In every action, indeed, the parties and their counsel are
a complete statement of the present status thereof; and enjoined to present all available defenses and objections
(c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar in order that the matter in issue can finally be laid to rest
action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall in an appropriate contest before the court. The rule is a
report that fact within five days therefrom to the court wise and tested one, borne by necessity. Without the
wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has rule, there will be no end to a litigation, because the
been filed. It is true that the power of a corporation to dissatisfied litigant may simply raise “new” or additional
sue and be sued is lodged in the board of directors that issues in order to prevent, defeat, or delay the
exercises its corporate powers. However, it is settled – implementation of an already final and executory
and we have so declared in numerous decisions – that judgment. The endlessness of litigation can give rise to
the president of a corporation may sign the verification added costs for the parties, and can surely contribute to
and the certification of non-forum shopping. the unwarranted clogging of court dockets. The prospect
In Ateneo de Naga University vs. Manalo, we held that of a protracted litigation between the parties annuls the
the lone signature of the University President was very rationale of every litigation to attain justice. Verily,
sufficient to fulfill the verification requirement, because there must be an end to litigation. Catalina Balais-
such officer had sufficient knowledge to swear to the Mabanag, assisted by her
truth of the allegations in the husband, Eleuterio Mabanag vs. The Register of Deeds
petition. In People’s Aircargo and Warehousing Co., of Quezon City, et al., G.R. No. 153142. March 29, 2010
Inc. vs. CA, we held that in the absence of a charter or
bylaw provision to the contrary, the president of a PLEADINGS; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DENY UNDER
corporation is presumed to have the authority to act OATH THE GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION;
within the domain of the general objectives of its EXCEPTION.
business and within the scope of his or her usual duties.
Moreover, even if a certain contract or undertaking is
outside the usual powers of the president, the Titan claimed that because Manuel failed to specifically
corporation’s ratification of the contract or undertaking deny the genuineness and due execution of the SPA in
and the acceptance of benefits therefrom make the his Reply, he is deemed to have admitted the veracity of
corporate president’s actions binding on the said document, in accordance with Rule 8, Sections 7 and
217
8, of the Rules of Court. On this point, we fully concur pleading is verified by an affidavit that an affiant has
with the findings of the CA that: read the pleading and that the allegations therein are
true and correct as to his personal knowledge or based
on authentic records. The party does not need to sign the
It is true that the reply filed by Manuel alleging that the
verification. A party’s representative, lawyer, or any
special power of attorney is a forgery was not made
person who personally knows the truth of the facts
under oath. However, the complaint, which was verified
alleged in the pleading may sign the
by Manuel under oath, alleged that the sale of the
verification. Hutama-RSEA/Supermax Phils., J.V.
subject property executed by his wife, Martha, in favor of
Titan was without his knowledge, consent, and approval,
express or implied; and that there is nothing on the face
2010
of the deed of sale that would show that he gave his
consent thereto. In Toribio v. Bidin, it was held that
where the verified complaint alleged that the plaintiff PLEADINGS; VERIFICATION.
never sold, transferred or disposed their share in the
inheritance left by their mother to others, the defendants
Anent private respondent’s allegation that the petition
were placed on adequate notice that they would be called
was not properly verified, we find the same to be devoid
upon during trial to prove the genuineness or due
of merit. The purpose of requiring a verification is to
execution of the disputed deed of sale. While Section 8,
secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition
Rule 8 is mandatory, it is a discovery procedure and must
have been made in good faith, or are true and correct,
be reasonably construed to attain its purpose, and in a
not merely speculative. In this instance, petitioner
way as not to effect a denial of substantial justice. The
attached a verification to her petition although dated
interpretation should be one which assists the parties in
earlier than the filing of her petition. Petitioner explains
obtaining a speedy, inexpensive, and most important, a
that since a draft of the petition and the verification were
just determination of the disputed issues.
earlier sent to her in New York for her signature, the
verification was earlier dated than the petition
Moreover, during the pre-trial, Titan requested for for certiorari filed with us. We accept such explanation.
stipulation that the special power of attorney was signed While Section 1, Rule 65 requires that the petition
by Manuel authorizing his wife to sell the subject for certiorari be verified, this is not an absolute necessity
property, but Manuel refused to admit the genuineness of where the material facts alleged are a matter of record
said special power of attorney and stated that he is and the questions raised are mainly of law. In this case,
presenting an expert witness to prove that his signature the issue raised is purely of law. Leah Palma vs.
in the special power of attorney is a forgery. However, Hon. Danilo P. Galvez, in his capacity as Presiding Judge
Titan did not register any objection x x x. Furthermore, of Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 24, et al.,
Titan did not object to the presentation of G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010
Atty. Desiderio Pagui, who testified as an expert witness,
on his Report finding that the signature on the special
PLEADINGS; VERIFICATION IS FORMAL, NOT
power of attorney was not affixed by Manuel based on his
JURISDICTIONAL, REQUIREMENT.
analysis of the questioned and standard signatures of the
latter, and even cross-examined said witness. Neither did
Titan object to the admission of said Report when it was Likewise, the verification of a pleading is only a formal,
offered in evidence by Manuel on the ground that he is not jurisdictional, requirement. The purpose of requiring
barred from denying his signature on the special power of a verification is to secure an assurance that the
attorney. In fact, Titan admitted the existence of said allegations in the petition are true and correct, not
Report and objected only to the purpose for which it was merely speculative. This requirement is simply a
offered. In Central Surety & Insurance Company vs. C.N. condition affecting the form of pleadings, and non-
Hodges, it was held that where a party acted in complete compliance therewith does not necessarily render the
disregard of or wholly overlooked Section 8, Rule 8 and pleading fatally defective. Spouses Melchor, et al. vs.
did not object to the introduction and admission of Ronald B. Bernal, et al., G.R. No. 169336, March 18,
evidence questioning the genuineness and due execution 2010
of a document, he must be deemed to have waived the
benefits of said Rule. Consequently, Titan is deemed to PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; REQUIREMENT OF
have waived the mantle of protection given [it] by CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE RIGHT.
Section 8, Rule 8.
One of the requisites for the issuance of a writ of

Titan Construction Corporation vs. Manuel A. David, Sr. preliminary injunction is that the applicant must have a
and Martha S. David, G.R. No. 169548, March 15, 2010 right in esse. A right in esse is a clear and unmistakable
right to be protected, one clearly founded on or granted
PLEADINGS; VERIFICATION. by law or is enforceable as a matter of law. The
existence of a right to be protected, and the acts against
which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right
Third, Hutama questions the verification and certification
must be established. The complaint filed by petitioner
on non-forum shopping of KCD, issued by its board of
for injunction with damages seeks to enjoin the
directors, because the same was signed by the latter’s
foreclosure of the mortgages. Petitioner admitted having
president without proof of authority to sign the same. A
218
executed Promissory Note No. 1000045-08. During the We close with the observation that what is involved here
hearing of his application for a writ of preliminary are not only errors of law, but also the errors of a litigant
injunction, the cross-default provision of the note was and his lawyer. As may have been noted,
read to him and he admitted having gone over it before petitioner Tomawis’ counsel veritably filed two (2)
he signed the note. And petitioner admitted that he motions to dismiss, each predicated on the sole issue of
failed to honor the note on maturity. Petitioner alleged in jurisdiction. The first may have been understandable.
his complaint, however, that respondent’s acceleration of But the second motion was something else, interposed as
the maturity of his entire obligation is “in gross bad faith” it was after the CA, by resolution, denied Tomawis’
and in “gross abuse of [his] right” as it “subjected the petition for certiorari for want of jurisdiction on the part
maturity of the loans to its own whims and caprices . . . of the appellate court to review judgments or orders of
not to mention that it [was] done in the midst of this the SDC. The CA stated the observation, however,
present economic crisis . . . .” Respondent’s declaration that Tomawis and his counsel may repair to this Court
that petitioner’s availments under the revolving credit while the Shari’a Appellate Court has yet to be organized.
line and medium term loans were immediately due and Petitioner waited two years after the CA issued its denial
payable was by virtue of the cross-default provision of before filing what virtually turned out to be his second
Promissory Note No. 1000045-08. Respondent’s move to motion to dismiss, coming finally to this Court after the
foreclose the mortgages after petitioner defaulted in his same motion was denied. The Court must express
obligation under the promissory note was thus in disapproval of the cunning effort of Tomawis and his
accordance with said provision which petitioner did not counsel to use procedural rules to the hilt to prolong the
challenge. The trial court thus erred in ordering the final disposition of this case. From Alonso v. Villamor,
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction on the basis almost a century-old decision, the Court has left no doubt
of its finding that “there are legal matters to be looked that it frowns on such unsporting practice. The rule is
into with respect to the application of the acceleration settled that a question of jurisdiction, as here, may be
clause or default provisions in the promissory note.” raised at any time, even on appeal, provided its
application does not result in a mockery of the basic
tenets of fair play. Petitioner’s action at the later stages
By the above-quoted allegations and prayer in
of the proceedings below, doubtless taken upon counsel’s
petitioner’s complaint, however, which complaint, it bears
advice, is less than fair and constitutes censurable
emphasis, is for injunction and damages, as well as from
conduct. Lawyers and litigants must be brought to
the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the
account for their improper conduct, which trenches n the
hearing on petitioner’s application for a writ of
efficient dispensation of justice. Sultan Yahya ”Jerry”
preliminary injunction, petitioner has not laid or
M. Tomawis vs. Hon Rasad G. Balindong, et al., G.R.
established a right in esse to entitle him to the
No. 182434, March 5, 2010
writ. Eugene L. Lim vs. BPI Agriculture Development
Bank, G.R. No. 179230, March 9, 2010
PROCEDURAL RULES; RELAXATION OF RULES ON
SERVICE OF PLEADINGS.
PROCEDURAL RULES; ADHERENCE NECESSARY FOR
ORDERLY AND SPEEDY ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE. XXX XXX XXX Concededly, the respondents did not
strictly follow Rule 13, Sec. 11 on priorities on modes of
service. However, since rules of procedure are mere
Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the
tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, their
adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are
strict and rigid application which would result in
enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While the Court, in
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote
some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of
substantial justice must be avoided. The relaxation of
the rules, this was never intended to forge a bastion for
the rules on service is all the more proper in the present
erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. It is
case, where petitioner had already received his copy of
true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, but it is
the notice of appeal by registered mail, since the Court
equally true that every case must be prosecuted in
has previously ruled that a litigant’s failure to furnish his
accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an
opponent with a copy of his notice of appeal is not a
orderly and speedy administration of justice. The
sufficient cause for dismissing it and that he could simply
procedural shortcut taken by petitioners finds no
have been ordered to furnish appellee with a copy of his
justification either in law or in jurisprudence. It is fatal to
appeal. Atty. Voltaire I. Rovira vs. Heirs of Jose
their cause of action. Accordingly, we rule that the Court
C. Delestre, et al., G.R. No. 160825, March 26, 2010
of Appeals committed no error in dismissing for
G.R. No. 160825, March 26, 2010
prematurity the petition for certiorari and mandamus
filed by petitioners. Pio Delos Reyes, represented by
heirs Fidel Delos Reyes, et al. vs. Hon. Waldo Q. Flores RECORD ON APPEAL; NOT REQUIRED WHERE MAIN
in his capacity as Senior Deputy Executive Secretary, ACTION IS FOR RECOVERY OF OWNERSHIP AND
Office of the President, et al., G.R. No. 168726, March POSSESSION, AND MULTIPLE APPEALS CANNOT BE
5, 2010 TAKEN.
PROCEDURAL RULES; MISUSE. Multiple appeals are allowed in special proceedings, in

actions for partition of property with accounting, in the
special civil actions of eminent domain and foreclosure of
219
mortgage. The rationale behind allowing more than one interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief
appeal in the same case is to enable the rest of the case demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the
to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue defendant from any interest therein, or the property of
is resolved by the court and held to be final. In such a the defendant has been attached within the Philippines,
case, the filing of a record on appeal becomes service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the
indispensable since only a particular incident of the case Philippines by personal service as under section 6; or by
is brought to the appellate court for resolution with the publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such
rest of the proceedings remaining within the jurisdiction places and for such time as the court may order, in which
of the trial court. The main action involved herein, being case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall
a suit for recovery of ownership and possession, is not be sent by registered mail to the last known address of
one where multiple appeals can be taken or are the defendant, or in any other manner the court may
necessary. The choice of asserting a claim for attorney’s deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall
fees in the very action in which the services in question specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than
have been rendered, as done by the petitioner herein, sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant
will not convert a regular case into one falling under the must answer.
category of “other cases of multiple or separate appeals
where the law or these Rules so require.” The main case
The RTC found that since private respondent was abroad
handled by petitioner lawyer has already been decided
at the time of the service of summons, she was a
with finality up to the appeal stage and is already in the
resident who was temporarily out of the country; thus,
execution stage. The trial court has also already resolved
service of summons may be made only by publication.
the incident of attorney’s fees. Hence, there is no reason
We do not agree. In Montefalcon vs. Vasquez, we said
why the original records of the case must remain with the
that because Section 16 of Rule 14 uses the words
trial court. There was also no need for respondents to
“may” and “also,” it is not mandatory. Other methods of
file a record on appeal because the original records could
service of summons allowed under the Rules may also be
already be sent to the appellate court for the resolution
availed of by the serving officer on a defendant-resident
of the appeal on the matter of the attorney’s fees. To
who is temporarily out of the Philippines. Thus, if a
repeat, since the case has not been made out for multiple
resident defendant is temporarily out of the country, any
appeals, a record on appeal is unnecessary to perfect the
of the following modes of service may be resorted to: (1)
appeal. The only requirement to perfect the appeal in
substituted service set forth in section 7 (formerly
the present case is the filing of a notice of appeal in due
Section 8), Rule 14; (2) personal service outside the
time. This the respondents did. . . . Atty. Voltaire
country, with leave of court; (3) service by publication,
I. Rovira vs. Heirs of Jose C. Delestre, et al., G.R. No.
also with leave of court; or (4) in any other manner the
160825, March 26, 2010
court may deem sufficient. Leah Palma vs.
Hon. Danilo P. Galvez, in his capacity as Presiding Judge
SUMMONS; SERVICE ON RESIDENT TEMPORARILY of Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 24, et al.,
OUT OF COUNTRY. G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010
In civil cases, the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the SUMMONS; SUBSTITUTED SERVICE IN SUIT
person of the defendant either by the service of IN PERSONAM AGAINST PHILIPPINE RESIDENT
summons or by the latter’s voluntary appearance and TEMPORARILY OUT OF COUNTRY.
submission to the authority of the former. Private
respondent was a Filipino resident who was temporarily
In Montalban vs. Maximo, we held that substituted
out of the Philippines at the time of the service of
service of summons under the present Section 7, Rule 14
summons; thus, service of summons on her is governed
of the Rules of Court in a suit in personam against
by Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which
residents of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom
provides:
is the normal method of service of summons that will
confer jurisdiction on the court over such defendant. In
Sec. 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. – the same case, we expounded on the rationale in
When an action is commenced against a defendant who providing for substituted service as the normal mode of
ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is service for residents temporarily out of the Philippines.
temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be
also effected out of the Philippines, as under the
x x x A man temporarily absent from this country leaves
preceding section.
a definite place of residence, a dwelling where he lives, a
local base, so to speak, to which any inquiry about him
The preceding section referred to in the above provision may be directed and where he is bound to return. Where
is Section 15, which speaks of extraterritorial service, one temporarily absents himself, he leaves his affairs in
thus: the hands of one who may be reasonably expected to act
in his place and stead; to do all that is necessary to
protect his interests; and to communicate with him from
SEC. 15. Extraterritorial service. When the defendant
time to time any incident of importance that may affect
does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and
him or his business or his affairs. It is usual for such a
the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or
man to leave at his home or with his business associates
relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the
information as to where he may be contacted in the
Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or
220
event a question that affects him crops up. If he does not respondent’s counsel stated that a draft of the answer
do what is expected of him, and a case comes up in court had already been prepared, which would be submitted to
against him, he cannot just raise his voice and say that private respondent, who was in Ireland for her
he is not subject to the processes of our courts. He clarification and/or verification before the Philippine
cannot stop a suit from being filed against him upon a Consulate there. These statements establish the fact
claim that he cannot be summoned at his dwelling house that private respondent had knowledge of the case filed
or residence or his office or regular place of business. against her, and that her husband had told her about the
case as Alfredo even engaged the services of her
counsel. Leah Palma vs. Hon. Danilo P. Galvez, in his
NOT THAT HE CANNOT BE REACHED WITHIN A
capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court
REASONABLE TIME TO ENABLE HIM TO CONTEST A
of Iloilo City, Branch 24, et al., G.R. No. 165273, March
SUIT AGAINST HIM.
10, 2010
There are now advanced facilities of communication.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; NON-
Long distance telephone calls and cablegrams make it
EXTENSION OF 20-DAY PERIOD.
easy for one he left behind to communicate with him.
As to the issue of whether the temporary restraining

Considering that private respondent was temporarily out
order issued by the RTC remained valid even if it was
of the country, the summons and complaint may be
beyond the 20-day period provided under the Rules of
validly served on her through substituted service under
Court, it is settled that under Section 5, Rule 58 of the
Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which reads:
Rules of Court, a judge may issue a temporary
restraining order within a limited life of twenty (20) days
SEC. 7. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable causes, from date of issue. If before the expiration of the twenty
the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time (20)-day period the application for preliminary injunction
as provided in the preceding section, service may be is denied, the temporary restraining order would be
effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the deemed automatically vacated. If no action is taken by
defendant’s residence with some person of suitable age the judge on the application for preliminary injunction
and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the within the said twenty (20) days, the temporary
copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business restraining order would automatically expire on the
with some competent person in charge thereof. 20th day by the sheer force of law, no judicial declaration
to that effect being necessary and the courts having no
We have held that a dwelling, house or residence refers discretion to extend the same. The rule against the non-
to the place where the person named in the summons is extendibility of the twenty (20)-day limited period
living at the time when the service is made, even though of effectivity of a temporary restraining order is absolute
he may be temporarily out of the country at the time. It if issued by a regional trial court. Hence, the RTC
is, thus, the service of the summons intended for the committed error when it ruled that the temporary
defendant that must be left with the person of suitable restraining order it issued on December 2, 2003 was
age and discretion residing in the house of the effective until January 5, 2004, a period that was beyond
defendant. Compliance with the rules regarding the the twenty (20) days allowed under the Rules of
service of summons is as important as the issue of due Court. This does not mean, however, that the
process as that of jurisdiction. Section 7 also designates entire TRO was invalidated. The same remained valid and
the persons with whom copies of the process may be left. in effect, but only within the 20-day period, after which it
The rule presupposes that such a relation of confidence automatically expired. National Electrification
exists between the person with whom the copy is left and Administration vs. Val L. Villanueva, G.R. No. 168203,
the defendant and, therefore, assumes that such person March 9, 2010
will deliver the process to defendant or in some way give
him notice thereof. In this case, the Sheriff’s Return VENUE; NO WAIVER OF IMPROPER VENUE.
stated that private respondent was out of the country;
thus, the service of summons was made at her residence
Respondent also did not do very well, procedurally. When
with her husband, Alfredo P. Agudo, acknowledging
the RTC denied his Motion to Dismiss, respondent could
receipt thereof. Alfredo was presumably of suitable age
have filed a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition
and discretion, who was residing in that place and,
inasmuch as the denial of the motion was done without
therefore, was competent to receive the summons on
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
private respondent’s behalf. Notably, private respondent
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
makes no issue as to the fact that the place where the
However, despite this lapse, it is clear that respondent
summons was served was her residence, though she was
did not waive his objections to the fact of improper
temporarily out of the country at that time, and that
venue, contrary to petitioner’s assertion. Notably, after
Alfredo is her husband. In fact, in the notice of
his motion to dismiss was denied, respondent filed a
appearance and motion for extension of time to file
Motion for Reconsideration to contest such denial. Even
answer submitted by private respondent’s counsel, he
in his Answer Ad Cautelam, respondent stood his ground
confirmed the Sheriff’s Return by stating that private
that the case ought to be dismissed on the basis of
respondent was out of the country and that his service
improper venue. Generosa Almeda Latorre vs. Luis
was engaged by respondent’s husband. In his motion for
Esteban Latorre, G.R. No. 183926, March 29, 2010
another extension of time to file answer, private
221
VENUE; REAL ACTION. that respondent’s claim is validated, be subjected to writs

of execution and garnishment — unless, of course, there
has been a corresponding appropriation provided by
Petitioner filed her complaint with the RTC
law. The Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan, represented
of Muntinlupa City instead of the RTC of Makati City, the
by the Hon. Felix V. Ople, Municipal Mayor, and Felix
latter being the proper venue in this case. Sections 1 and
V. Ople, in his capacity vs. Hon. Simeon P. Dumdum, Jr.
2, Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide an
in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
answer to the issue of venue. Actions affecting title to or
Court, Branch 7, Cebu City, et al., G.R. No. 168289,
possession of real property or an interest therein (real
March 22, 2010
actions) shall be commenced and tried in the proper
court that has territorial jurisdiction over the area where
the real property is situated. On the other hand, all other Special Proceedings
actions (personal actions) shall be commenced and tried
in the proper courts where the plaintiff or any of the
NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS; DEEMED CANCELED
principal plaintiffs resides or where the defendant or any
UPON RECORDING OF PROBATE COURT’S
of the principal defendants resides. The action in the
APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENT.
RTC, other than for Collection, was for the Declaration of
Nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale involving the subject
property, which is located at No. 1366 Caballero Moreover, a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled
St., Dasmariñas Village, Makati City. The venue for such when the annotation is not necessary to protect the title
action is unquestionably the proper court of Makati City, of the party who caused it to be recorded. The
where the real property or part thereof lies, not the RTC compromise agreement did not mention the grant of a
of Muntinlupa City. In this jurisdiction, we adhere to the right of way to respondent. Any agreement other than
principle that the nature of an action is determined by the judicially approved compromise agreement between
the allegations in the Complaint itself, rather than by its the parties was outside the limited jurisdiction of the
title or heading. It is also a settled rule that what probate court. Thus, any other agreement entered into
determines the venue of a case is the primary objective by the petitioner and respondent with regard to a grant
for the filing of the case. In her Complaint, petitioner of a right of way was not within the jurisdiction of the
sought the nullification of the Deed of Absolute Sale on RTC acting as a probate court. Therefore, there was no
the strength of two basic claims that (1) she did not reason for the RTC not to cancel the notice of lis pendens
execute the deed in favor of respondent; and (2) thus, on TCT No. 24475 as respondent had no right which
she still owned one half (½) of the subject property. needed to be protected. Any alleged right arising from
Indubitably, petitioner’s complaint is a real action the “side agreement” on the right of way can be fully
involving the recovery of the subject property on the protected by filing an ordinary action for specific
basis of her co-ownership thereof. Second. The RTC also performance in a court of general jurisdiction. More
committed a procedural blunder when it denied importantly, the order of the probate court approving the
respondent’s motion to dismiss on the ground of compromise had the effect of directing the delivery of the
improper venue. residue of the estate of Lourdes to the persons entitled
thereto under the compromise agreement. As such, it
brought to a close the intestate proceedings and the
The RTC insisted that trial on the merits be conducted
probate court lost jurisdiction over the case, except only
even when it was awfully glaring that the venue was
as regards to the compliance and the fulfillment by the
improperly laid, as pointed out by respondent in his
parties of their respective obligations under the
motion to dismiss. After trial, the RTC eventually
compromise agreement. Having established that the
dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,
proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Lourdes
even as it invoked, as justification, the rules and
came to an end upon the RTC’s promulgation of a
jurisprudence on venue. Despite the conduct of trial, the
decision based on the compromise agreement, Section 4,
RTC failed to adjudicate this case on the merits.
Rule 90 of the Rules of Court provides:
Generosa Almeda Latorre vs. Luis Esteban Latorre, G.R.
No. 183926, March 29, 2010
Sec. 4. Recording the order of partition of estate. –
Certified copies of final orders and judgments of the court
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT; IMPROPER
relating to the real estate or the partition thereof shall be
ISSUANCE AGAINST MUNICIPALITY.
recorded in the registry of deeds of the province where
the property is situated.
With this in mind, the Court holds that the writ of
preliminary attachment must be dissolved and, indeed, it
In line with the recording of the order for the partition of
must not have been issued in the very first place. While
the estate, paragraph 2, Section 77 of Presidential
there is merit in private respondent’s position that she,
Decree (PD) No. 1529 provides:
by affidavit, was able to substantiate the allegation of
fraud in the same way that the fraud attributable to
petitioners was sufficiently alleged in the complaint and, Section 77. Cancellation of Lis Pendens – xxx
hence, the issuance of the writ would have been justified. xxx xxx
Still, the writ of attachment in this case would only prove
to be useless and unnecessary under the premises, since xxx xxx
the property of the municipality may not, in the event
222
At any time after final judgment in favor of the

defendant, or other disposition of the action such as
to terminate finally all rights of the plaintiff in and
ALIBI; EVIDENCE.
to the land and/or buildings involved, in any case in
which a memorandum or notice of lis pendens has been
registered as provided in the preceding section, the Alibi is an inherently weak defense and can easily be
notice of lis pendens shall be deemed cancelled fabricated. The settled jurisprudence is that categorical
upon the registration of a certificate of the clerk of court and consistent positive identification, absent any showing
in which the action or proceeding was pending stating the of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying
manner of disposal thereof. (emphasis supplied) thereon, prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi
which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof,
as in the case at bar, constitute self-serving evidence
Thus, when the September 13, 2000 decision was
undeserving of weight in law. Thus, appellant’s alibi in
recorded in the Registry of Deeds of Rizal pursuant to
this case, more so that it is not corroborated by any
Section 4, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, the notice
witness, cannot prosper over the victim’s positive
of lis pendens inscribed on TCT No. 24475 was deemed
identification. People of the Philippines v. Danilo Paculba,
cancelled by virtue of Section 77 of PD No. 1529. Anita
G.R. No. 183453, March 9, 2010.
Reyes-Menugas vs. Alejandro Aquino Reyes, G.R. No.
174835, March 22, 2010
ARREST; ESTOPPEL.
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE; EFFECT OF PROBATE
COURT’S APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENT. An accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his
arrest if he fails to raise this issue, or to move for the
quashal of the information against him on this ground,
In this instance, the case filed with the RTC was a
before arraignment. Here, the appellant
special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of
was already arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty and
Lourdes. The RTC therefore took cognizance of the case
actively participated in his trial. He raised the issue of
as a probate court. Settled is the rule that a probate
the irregularity of his arrest only during his appeal to the
court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. It acts on
Court of Appeals. He is therefore deemed to have waived
matters pertaining to the estate but never on the rights
such alleged defect by submitting himself to the
to property arising from the contract. It approves
jurisdiction of the court through his counsel-assisted plea
contracts entered into for and on behalf of the estate or
during the arraignment, by actively participating in the
the heirs to it but this is by fiat of the Rules of Court. It
trial, and by not raising the objection before his
is apparent therefore that when the RTC approved the
arraignment. People of the Philippines v. Nelson Palma y
compromise agreement on September 13, 2000, the
Hangad, G.R. No. 189279, March 9, 2010.
settlement of the estate proceeding came to an
end. Anita Reyes-Menugas vs. Alejandro Aquino Reyes,
G.R. No. 174835, March 22, 2010 BAIL PENDING APPEAL.
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE; JUDGMENT BASED ON In an application for bail pending appeal by an appellant
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT IMMEDIATELY sentenced by the trial court to a penalty of imprisonment
EXECUTORY. for more than six years, the discretionary nature of the
grant of bail pending appeal does not mean that bail
should automatically be granted absent any of the
A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by
circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of
making reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or put an
Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. Jose Antonio
end to one already commenced. Once submitted to the
Leviste v. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 189122,
court and stamped with judicial approval, it becomes
March 17, 2010.
more than a mere private contract binding upon the
parties; having the sanction of the court and entered as
its determination of the controversy, it has the force and BAIL PENDING APPEAL.
effect of any judgment. Consequently, a judgment
rendered in accordance with a compromise agreement is The third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 applies to two
immediately executory as there is no appeal from such scenarios where the penalty imposed on the appellant
judgment. When both parties enter into an agreement to applying for bail is imprisonment exceeding six years.
end a pending litigation and request that a decision be The first scenario deals with the circumstances
rendered approving said agreement, such action enumerated in the said paragraph not present. The
constitutes an implied waiver of the right to appeal second scenario contemplates the existence of at least
against the said decision. Anita Reyes-Menugas vs. one of the said circumstances. In the first situation, bail
Alejandro Aquino Reyes, G.R. No. 174835, March 22, is a matter of sound judicial discretion. This means that,
2010 if none of the circumstances mentioned in the third
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, the
appellate court has the discretion to grant or deny bail.
An application for bail pending appeal may be denied
even if the bail-negating circumstances in the third
Criminal Procedure
223
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 are absent. On the The accused’s confession to a bantay
other hand, in the second situation, the appellate court bayan is inadmissible in evidence if the same was done
exercises a more stringent discretion, that is, to carefully without the assistance of his lawyer and without waiver
ascertain whether any of the enumerated circumstances of his right to counsel. People of the Philippines v.
in fact exists. If it so determines, it has no other option Antonio Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010.
except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Thus, a
finding that none of the said circumstances is present will
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION; ADMISSIBILITY.
not automatically result in the grant of bail. Such finding
will simply authorize the court to use the less stringent
sound discretion approach. Jose Antonio Leviste v. Court The Supreme Court held that barangay-based volunteer
of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010. organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the
case of the “bantay bayan,” are recognized by the local
government unit to perform functions relating to the
COMPLAINT; SUFFICIENCY.
preservation of peace and order at the barangay level.
Thus, without ruling on the legality of the actions taken
The test of sufficiency of a complaint is whether or not, by Moises Boy Banting, and the specific scope of duties
assuming the truth of the facts that plaintiff alleges in it, and responsibilities delegated to a “bantay bayan,”
the court can render judgment granting him the judicial particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial
assistance he seeks and judgment would be right only if investigation, any inquiry he makes has the color of a
the facts he alleges constitute a cause of action that state-related function and objective insofar as the
consists of three elements: (1) the plaintiff’s legal right in entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights
the matter; (2) the defendant’s corresponding obligation provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the
to honor or respect such right; and (3) the defendant’s Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is
subsequent violation of the right. Absent any of these, concerned. Therefore, the extrajudicial confession of
the complaint would have failed to state a cause of appellant taken without counsel was inadmissible in
action. Arthur Del Rosario, et al v. Hellenor D. Doanto, evidence. People of the Philippines v. Antonio Lauga,
Jr. et al, G.R. No. 180595, March 5, 2010. G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010.
DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ILLEGAL SEARCH IMPROVIDENT PLEA.

WARRANTS; REMEDY OF A SEPARATE CIVIL
ACTION.
The appellant was not fully apprised of the consequences
of his guilty plea. In fact, as argued by appellant, “the
The proceeding under Rule 126 of the Rules of Court trial court should have informed him that his plea of guilt
does not provide for the filing of counterclaims for would not affect or reduce the imposable penalty, which
damages against those who may have improperly sought is death as he might have erroneously believed that
the issuance of the search warrant. Consequently, the under Article 63, the death penalty, being a single
petitioners had the right to seek damages, if the indivisible penalty, shall be applied by the court
circumstances warranted, by separate civil action for the regardless of any mitigating circumstances that might
wrong inflicted on them by an improperly obtained or have attended the commission of the deed.” Moreover,
enforced search warrant. Arthur Del Rosario, et al v. the trial court judge failed to inform appellant of his right
Hellenor D. Doanto, Jr. et al, G.R. No. 180595, March 5, to adduce evidence despite the guilty plea. With the trial
2010. court’s failure to comply with the guidelines, appellant’s
guilty plea is deemed improvidently made and thus
rendered inefficacious. People of the Philippines v. Oscar
EVIDENCE; CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
Documento, G.R. No. 188706, March 17, 2010.
Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single

IMPROVIDENT PLEA.
eyewitness, if credible, is enough to prove the corpus
delicti and to warrant conviction. Under the rules,
circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) An improvident plea of guilt does not mean that the case
there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from should be remanded to the trial court. This course of
which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the action is appropriate only when the appellant’s guilty plea
combination of all the circumstances is such as to was the sole basis for his conviction. On the other hand,
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In order if the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence
to justify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence, the in finding the accused guilty, the judgment must be
combination of circumstances must be such as to leave sustained. People of the Philippines v. Oscar Documento,
no reasonable doubt in the mind as to the criminal G.R. No. 188706, March 17, 2010.
responsibility of the accused. People of the Philippines v.
Jessie Villegas Murcia, G.R. No. 182460, March 9, 2010.
OMBUDSMAN; AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.
The Deputy Ombudsman is well within his power in
disregarding the recommendation of the prosecutor and
224
proceeding to file the information in court. The discretion issuance of subpoenas, including a subpoena duces
whether a case should be filed or not lies with the tecum, operates under the requirements of
Ombudsman. Thus, given this vast power and authority, reasonableness and relevance. For the production of
he can conduct a preliminary investigation with or documents to be reasonable and for the documents
without the report from COA. The findings in the COA themselves to be relevant, the matter under inquiry
report or the finality or lack of finality of such report is should, in the first place, be one that the Ombudsman
irrelevant to the investigation of the Office of the can legitimately entertain, investigate and rule upon. Re:
Ombudsman in its determination of probable cause. Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of
Thus, the filing of the information against petitioner Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C Office of the
notwithstanding the lack of certification on her cashbook Ombudsman, A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC, March 2, 2010.
examination could not in any manner be said to be
premature much less whimsical or arbitrary. Angelita de
RULE 42 PETITION FOR REVIEW; REQUIREMENT
Guzman v. Emilio Gonzales III, et al, G.R. No. 158104,
THAT PETITION FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS BE
March 26, 2010
ACCOMPANIED BY COPY OF JUDGMENTS OR FINAL
ORDERS OF “BOTH LOWER COURTS.”
OMBUDSMAN; CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.
Petitioner contends that her petition before the Court of
Appeals merits reinstatement since she attached thereto
Criminal complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of RA a carbon original of the RTC decision which affirmed the
3019, based on the legal correctness of the official acts of MTCC’s decision, and which restated verbatim the
Justices of the Supreme Court, cannot prosper and findings of facts of the MTCC. The Supreme Court agreed
should not be entertained. The Constitution provides that with petitioner ruling that while Rule 42, Section 2(d) of
the appropriate recourse against them is to seek their the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that, inter
removal from office if they are guilty of culpable violation alia, the petition for review shall “be accompanied by
of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and clearly legible duplicate original or true copies of the
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. judgments or final orders of both lower courts,” the cited
Only after removal can they be criminally proceeded deficiency in petitioner’s petition for review does not
against for their transgressions. Re: Subpoena Duces make it insufficient in form and substance since it is the
Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. decision of the RTC, not that of the MTCC, which is the
Amante, PIAB-C Office of the Ombudsman, A.M. No. 10- subject of her appeal. What is important is that in her
1-13-SC, March 2, 2010. petition for review, she attached thereto the original copy
of the RTC decision which quoted extensively the findings
of the MTCC, including its discussion on the application of
OMBUDSMAN; VALIDITY OF SUBPOENA DUCES
the law, that were affirmed in toto. Evelyn Barredo vs.
TECUM.
People of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 183467, March
29, 2010.
In light of the Ombudsman’s dismissal order of February
4, 2010 of the criminal complaint, any question relating
RULE 45 PETITION; PROOF OF SERVICE ON
to the legality and propriety of the subpoena duces
SANDIGANBAYAN MANDATORY.
tecum issued by the Ombudsman in connection with said
criminal complaint has been rendered moot and
academic. The subpoena duces tecum merely drew its The Supreme Court denied a Rule 45 petition
life and continued viability from the underlying criminal for petitioner’s failure, among others, to show proof of
complaint, and the complaint’s dismissal – belated service of a copy of the petition on
though it may be – cannot but have the effect of the Sandiganbayan. Proof of service is required under
rendering the need for the subpoena duces tecum Supreme Court Circular No. 19-91 dated August 13,
academic. Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11, 1991, which states: “2. Form and Service of Petition. - A
2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C Office of petition filed under Rule 45, or under Rule 65, or a
the Ombudsman, A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC, March 2, 2010. motion for extension may be denied outright if it is not
clearly legible, or there is no proof of service on the lower
court, tribunal, or office concerned and on the adverse
OMBUDSMAN; AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUBPOENA
party in accordance with Sections 3, 5 and 10 of Rule 13,
DUCES TECUM.
attached to the petition or motion for extension when
filed.” Here, petitioner fatally failed to implead
In the appropriate case, the Office of the Ombudsman the Sandiganbayan and to serve a copy of his petition to
has full authority to issue subpoenas, including subpoena the said court. While the Rules of Court does not require
duces tecum, for compulsory attendance of witnesses that the lower court be impleaded, proof of service of the
and the production of documents and information relating petition on the lower court is mandated. Jurisprudence
to matters under its investigation. The grant of this holds that the utter disregard of the Rules cannot be
authority, however, is not unlimited, as the Ombudsman justified by harking to substantial justice and the policy
must necessarily observe and abide by the terms of the of liberal construction of the Rules. Technical rules of
Constitution and our laws, the Rules of Court and the procedure are not meant to frustrate the ends of justice.
applicable jurisprudence on the issuance, service, validity Rather, they serve to effect the proper and orderly
and efficacy of subpoenas. Under the Rules of Court, the disposition of cases and, thus, effectively prevent the
225
clogging of court dockets. Engr. Ricardo L. Santillano v. should not be consolidated with the case for the
People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 175045-46, March 3, declaration of nullity of a foreclosure sale. The glaring
2010. difference in the nature of the two militates against their
consolidation. The long-standing rule is that proceedings
for the issuance of a writ of possession are ex parte and
non-litigious in nature. The only exemption from this
rule is Active Wood Products Co., Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals where the consolidation of the proceedings for
the issuance of a writ of possession and nullification of
foreclosure proceedings was allowed following the
provisions on consolidation in the Rules of Court.
However, the circumstances in this case are substantially
distinct from that in Active Wood. Therefore, the
exception granted in that case cannot be applied here.
Other proceedings In Active Wood, the petition for writ of possession was
filed before the expiration of the one-year redemption
period while, in this case, the petition for writ of
possession was filed after the one-year redemption
period had lapsed. Moreover, in Active Wood, title to the
CITIZENSHIP PROCEEDINGS; FINALITY AND litigated property had not been consolidated in the name
REVIEW. of the mortgagee. Therefore, in that case, the mortgagee
did not yet have an absolute right over the property.
In De Vera vs. Agloro, we ruled:
Petitioners allege that the DOJ adduced substantial
evidence warranting the revocation of respondent’s
certificate of recognition and the filing of the deportation The possession of land becomes an absolute right of
proceedings against him. Petitioners likewise allege that the purchaser as confirmed owner. The purchaser can
the certificate of recognition did not attain finality as demand possession at any time following the
claimed by respondent. We agree with petitioners that consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance
the issuance of certificate of recognition to respondent to him of a new transfer certificate of title. After the
has not attained finality. In Go v. Ramos, the Court ruled consolidation of title in the buyer’s name for failure of the
that citizenship proceedings are a class of its own and mortgagor to redeem the property, the writ of possession
can be threshed out again and again as the occasion may becomes a matter of right.
demand. Res judicata may be applied in cases of
citizenship only if the following concur: (a) a person’s In another case involving these two parties, Fernandez
citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a and United Overseas Bank Phils. vs. Espinoza, we held:
controversy where said person is a party; (b) the
Solicitor General or his authorized representative took
active part in the resolution thereof; and (c) the finding Upon the expiration of the redemption period, the right of
of citizenship is affirmed by this Court. the purchaser to the possession of the foreclosed
property becomes absolute. The basis of this right to
possession is the purchaser’s ownership of the property.
However, the courts are not precluded from reviewing
the findings of the [Bureau of Immigration]. Judicial
review is permitted if the courts believe that there is In this case, title to the litigated property had already
substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship, been consolidated in the name of respondent, making the
so substantial that there are reasonable grounds for the issuance of a writ of possession a matter of right.
belief that the claim is correct. When the evidence Consequently, the consolidation of the petition for the
submitted by a deportee is conclusive of his citizenship, issuance of a writ of possession with the proceedings for
the right to immediate review should be recognized and nullification of foreclosure would be highly improper.
the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation Otherwise, not only will the very purpose of consolidation
proceedings. Courts may review the actions of the (which is to avoid unnecessary delay) be defeated but
administrative offices authorized to deport aliens and the procedural matter of consolidation will also adversely
reverse their rulings when there is no evidence to sustain affect the substantive right of possession as an incident
the rulings. Department of Justice Secretary Raul M. of ownership. Finally, petitions for the issuance of writs
Gonzalez, et al. vs. Michael Alfio Pennisi, G.R. No. of possession, a land registration proceeding, do not fall
169958, March 5, 2010 within the ambit of the Rules of Court. Thus, the rules on
consolidation should not be applied. Gregorio Espinoza,
in his own personal capacity and as surviving spouse,
CONSOLIDATION; NOT AVAILABLE FOR PETITION and Jo Anne G. Espinoza, herein represented by their
FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF POSSESSION AND attorney-in-fact, Ban Sangil, G.R. No. 175380, March 22,
PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF FORECLOSURE 2010
PROCEEDINGS.
ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS; REVIEW OF DECISIONS

Given the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the AND ORDERS BY SUPREME COURT.
proceedings for the issuance of a writ of possession
226
It is hornbook principle that this Court’s jurisdiction to represented by their attorney-in-fact, Ban Sangil, G.R.
review decisions and orders of electoral tribunals is No. 175380, March 22, 2010
exercised only upon a showing of grave abuse of
discretion committed by the tribunal. Absent such grave
JURISDICTION; APPEAL IN CASE INVOLVING
abuse of discretion, this Court shall not interfere with the
SHARI’A LAW.
electoral tribunal’s exercise of its discretion or
jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion has been defined
in Villarosa vs. House of Representatives Electoral Prefatorily, the Court acknowledges the fact that decades
Tribunal as follows: after the enactment in 1989 of the law creating the
Shari’a Appellate Court and after the Court, per
Resolution of June 8, 1999, authorized its creation, the
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and
Shari’a Appellate Court has yet to be organized with the
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
appointment of a Presiding Justice and two Associate
lack of jurisdiction; or, in other words, where the power
Justices. Until such time that the Shari’a Appellate
is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of
Court shall have been organized, however, appeals
passion or personal hostility. It must be so patent and
or petitions from final orders or decisions of the
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a
[Shari’a District Court] filed with the CA shall be
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at
referred to a Special Division to be organized in any
all in contemplation of law.
of the CA stations preferably composed of Muslim
CA Justices. For cases where only errors or questions of
Petitioner mainly assails the Tribunal’s denial of his pleas law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to this
for an additional period of time within which to make his Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
formal offer of evidence. However, a review of the of the Rules of Court pursuant to Art. VIII, Sec. 5 of the
proceedings will reveal that the HRET acted in accordance Constitution and Sec. 2 of Rule 41 of the Rules. To be
with its rules of procedure and well within its sure, the Court has, on several occasions, passed upon
jurisdiction. Representative Alvin S. Sandoval vs. House and resolved petitions and cases emanating from Shari’a
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, Josephine courts. Among these was one involving the issue of
Veronique R. Lacson-Noel and Hon. Speaker Prospero whether or not grave abuse of discretion attended the
Nograles, G.R. No. 190067, March 9, 2010 denial of a motion to implement a writ of execution. Still
another involved the Shari’a courts’ jurisdiction in
custody and guardianship proceedings, nullity of
EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE; PETITION FOR
marriage and divorce when the parties were both married
ANNULMENT OF FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING;
in civil and Muslim rites, and settlement of estate
NATURE.
proceedings where the deceased was alleged to be not a
Muslim, or where the estate covered properties situated
On the other hand, by its nature, a petition for in different provinces. The instant petition, involving only
nullification or annulment of foreclosure proceedings a question of law on the jurisdiction of the SDC over a
contests the presumed right of ownership of the buyer in complaint for quieting of title, was properly instituted
a foreclosure sale and puts in issue such presumed right before the Court. Sultan Yahya ”Jerry” M. Tomawis vs.
of ownership. Thus, a party scheming to defeat the right Hon Rasad G. Balindong, et al., G.R. No. 182434, March
to a writ of possession of a buyer in a foreclosure sale 5, 2010
who had already consolidated his ownership over the
property subject of the foreclosure sale can simply resort
JURISDICTION; CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF
to the subterfuge of filing a petition for nullification of
SHARIA’A COURT AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN
foreclosure proceedings with motion for consolidation of
CERTAIN CASES.
the petition for issuance of a writ of possession. This we
cannot allow as it will render nugatory the presumed
right of ownership, as well as the right of possession, of a As things stood prior to the effectivity date of BP 129,
buyer in a foreclosure sale, rights which are supposed to the SDC had, by virtue of PD 1083, original jurisdiction,
be implemented in an ex parte petition for issuance of a concurrently with the RTCs and MTCs, over all personal
writ of possession. Besides, the mere fact that the and real actions outside the purview of Art. 143(1)(d) of
“presumed right of ownership is contested and made the PD 1083, in which the parties involved were Muslims,
basis of another action” does not by itself mean that the except those for ejectment. Personal action is one that is
proceedings for issuance of a writ of possession will founded on privity of contracts between the parties; and
become groundless. The presumed right of ownership in which the plaintiff usually seeks the recovery of
and the right of possession should be respected until and personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or
unless another party successfully rebuts that recovery of damages. Real action, on the other hand, is
presumption in an action for nullification of the one anchored on the privity of real estate, where the
foreclosure proceedings. As such, and in connection with plaintiff seeks the recovery of ownership or possession of
the issuance of a writ of possession, the grant of a real property or interest in it. On the other
complaint for nullification of foreclosure proceedings is hand, BP 129, as amended, vests the RTC or the
a resolutory condition, not a suspensive condition. municipal trial court with exclusive original jurisdiction in
Gregorio Espinoza, in his own personal capacity and as all civil actions that involve the title to or possession of
surviving spouse, and Jo Anne G. Espinoza, herein real property, or any interest in it, and the value of the
property subject of the case or the jurisdictional amount,
227
determining whether the case comes within the traditions, beliefs and interests of national cultural
jurisdictional competence of the RTC or communities in the formulation and implementation of
the MTC. Orbeta vs. Orbeta differentiated personal action state policies,” this Code:
from real action in the following wise:
(a) Recognizes the legal system of the
A real action, under Sec. 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, Muslims in the Philippines as part of
is one that affects title to or possession of real property, the law of the land and seeks to
or an interest therein. Such actions should be make Islamic institutions more
commenced and tried in the proper court which has effective;
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property (b) Codifies Muslim personal laws; and
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. All other (c) Provides for an effective
actions are personal and may be commenced and tried administration and enforcement of
where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs Muslim personal laws among
resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal Muslims.
defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident
defendant where he may be found, at the election of the
A reading of the pertinent provisions of BP 129 and PD
plaintiff.
1083 shows that the former, a law of general application
to civil courts, has no application to, and does not repeal,
Civil Case No. 102-97, judging from the averments in the the provisions found in PD 1083, a special law, which
underlying complaint, is basically a suit for recovery of only refers to Shari’a courts. A look at the scope
possession and eventual reconveyance of real property of BP 129 clearly shows that Shari’a courts were not
which, under BP 129, as amended, falls within the included in the reorganization of courts that were
original jurisdiction of either the RTC or MTC. In an formerly organized under RA 296. The pertinent provision
action for reconveyance, all that must be alleged in the in BP 129 states:
complaint are two facts that, admitting them to be true,
would entitle the plaintiff to recover title to the disputed
SECTION 2. Scope. — The reorganization herein
land, namely: (1) that the plaintiff is the owner of the
provided shall include the Court of Appeals, the Court of
land or has possessed the land in the concept of owner;
First Instance, the Circuit Criminal Courts, the Juvenile
and (2) that the defendant has illegally dispossessed the
and Domestic Relations Courts, the Courts of Agrarian
plaintiff of the land. A cursory perusal of private
Relations, the City Courts, the Municipal Courts, and the
respondents’ complaint readily shows that that these
Municipal Circuit Courts.
requisites have been met: they alleged absolute
ownership of the subject parcel of land, and they were
illegally dispossessed of their land by petitioner. The As correctly pointed out by private respondents in their
allegations in the complaint, thus, make a case for an Comment, BP 129 was enacted to reorganize only
action for reconveyance. Given the above perspective, existing civil courts and is a law of general application to
the question that comes to the fore is whether the the judiciary. In contrast, PD 1083 is a special law that
jurisdiction of the RTC or MTC is to the exclusion of only applies to Shari’a courts.
the SDC. Petitioner’s version of the law would effectively
remove the concurrent original jurisdiction granted by In order to give effect to both laws at hand, we must
Art. 143, par. 2(b) of PD 1083 to civil courts and Shari’a continue to recognize the concurrent jurisdiction enjoyed
courts over, among others: by SDCs with that of RTCs under PD 1083. . . . . While
we recognize the concurrent jurisdiction of the SDCs and
All other personal and real actions not mentioned in the RTCs with respect to cases involving only Muslims,
paragraph 1 (d) wherein the parties involved are Muslims the SDC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all actions
except those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, arising from contracts customary to Muslims to the
which shall fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of exclusion of the RTCs, as the exception under PD 1083,
the Municipal Circuit Court. x x x while both courts have concurrent original jurisdiction
over all other personal actions. Said jurisdictional
conferment, found in Art. 143 of PD 1083, is applicable
Petitioner’s interpretation of the law cannot be given
solely when both parties are Muslims and shall not be
serious thought. One must bear in mind that even if
construed to operate to the prejudice of a non-Muslim,
Shari’a courts are considered regular courts, these are
who may be the opposing party against a Muslim.
courts of limited jurisdiction. As we have observed
Sultan Yahya ”Jerry” M. Tomawis vs. Hon Rasad G.
in Rulona-Al Awadhi vs. Astih, the Code of Muslim
Balindong, et al., G.R. No. 182434, March 5, 2010
Personal Laws creating said courts was promulgated to
fulfill “the aspiration of the Filipino Muslims to have their
system of laws enforced in their communities.” It is a JURISDICTION; DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
special law intended for Filipino Muslims, as clearly stated REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB)
in the purpose of PD 1083: WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE ISSUES
INVOLVING IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF
FARMER-BENEFICIARIES UNDER CARP.
ARTICLE 2. Purpose of Code. — Pursuant to Section 11 of
Article XV of the Constitution of the Philippines, which
provides that “The State shall consider the customs,
228
Petitioners argue that the DARAB is not clothed with the The Regional Trial Court (RTC) judges assigned to
power or authority to resolve the issue involving the said courts shall exercise said special jurisdiction in
identification and selection of qualified farmer- addition to the regular jurisdiction of their
beneficiaries since the same is an Agrarian Law respective courts.
Implementation case, thus, an administrative function
falling within the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary.
SEC. 57. Special Jurisdiction. – The Special Agrarian
Petitioners’ argument is well taken.
Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
In Lercana vs. Jalandoni, this Court was categorical in
over all petitions for the determination of just
ruling that the identification and selection of CARP
compensation to landowners, and the prosecution
beneficiaries are matters involving strictly the
of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of
administrative implementation of the CARP, a matter
Court shall apply to all proceedings before the
exclusively cognizable by the Secretary of the
Special Agrarian Courts unless modified by this Act.
Department of Agrarian Reform, and beyond the
jurisdiction of the DARAB. Romanita Concha, et al. vs.
Paulino Rubio, et al., G.R. No. 162446, March 29, 2010 The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all
appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction
within thirty (30) days from submission of the case
JURISDICTION; DETERMINED BY ALLEGATIONS IN
for decision.
COMPLAINT.
The law is clear. A branch of an RTC designated as a

Moreover, the jurisdiction of the court below cannot be
Special Agrarian Court for a province has the original and
made to depend upon defenses set up in the answer, in a
exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the
motion to dismiss, or in a motion for reconsideration, but
determination of just compensation in that province.
only upon the allegations of the complaint. Jurisdiction
In Republic v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled
over the subject matter of a case is determined from the
that Special Agrarian Courts have original and exclusive
allegations of the complaint and the character of the
jurisdiction over two categories of cases: (1) all
relief sought. In the instant case, private respondents’
petitions for the determination of just compensation to
petition in Civil Case No. 102-97 sufficiently alleged the
landowners, and (2) the prosecution of all criminal
concurrent original jurisdiction of
offenses under R.A. 6657. By “special” jurisdiction,
the SDC. Sultan Yahya ”Jerry” M. Tomawis vs.
Special Agrarian Courts exercise power in addition to or
Hon Rasad G. Balindong, et al., G.R. No. 182434, March
over and above the ordinary jurisdiction of the RTC, such
5, 2010
as taking cognizance of suits involving agricultural lands
located outside their regular territorial jurisdiction, so
JURISDICTION; JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL long as they are within the province where they sit as
AGRARIAN COURT OVER JUST COMPENSATION Special Agrarian Courts. R.A. 6657 requires the
CASES UNDER CARL. designation by the Supreme Court before an RTC Branch
can function as a Special Agrarian Court. The Supreme
Court has not designated the single sala courts of RTC,
Branch 64 of Guihulngan City and RTC, Branch 63
of Bayawan City as Special Agrarian Courts.
“Jurisdiction” is the court’s authority to hear and Consequently, they cannot hear just compensation cases
determine a case. The court’s jurisdiction over the just because the lands subject of such cases happen to
nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by be within their territorial jurisdiction.
law. In this case, the law that confers jurisdiction on
Special Agrarian Courts designated by the Supreme Court
Since RTC, Branch 32 of Dumaguete City is the
in every province is Republic Act (R.A.) 6657 or
designated Special Agrarian Court for the province of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
Negros Oriental, it has jurisdiction over all cases for
Sections 56 and 57 are the relevant provisions:
determination of just compensation involving agricultural
lands within that province, regardless of whether or not
SEC. 56. Special Agrarian Court. – The Supreme those properties are outside its regular territorial
Court shall designate at least one (1) branch of the jurisdiction. Land Bank of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court (RTC) within each province to vs. Corazon M. Villegas/Land Bank of the Philippines vs.
act as a Special Agrarian Court. Heirs of Catalino V. Noel, et al., G.R. No. 180384/G.R.
No. 180891, March 26, 2010
The Supreme Court may designate more branches
to constitute such additional Special Agrarian JURISDICTION; SANDIGANBAYAN HAS EXCLUSIVE
Courts as may be necessary to cope with the JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE VALIDITY OF WRITS
number of agrarian cases in each province. In the OF SEQUESTRATION ISSUED BY PCGG.
designation, the Supreme Court shall give
preference to the Regional Trial Courts which have
The task of ascertaining the validity of writs of
been assigned to handle agrarian cases or whose
sequestration issued by the PCGG, when called into
presiding judges were former judges of the defunct
question, is the sole province of the Sandiganbayan, the
Court of Agrarian Relations.
issues involved therein being factual in nature. It is well
229
settled that the Sandiganbayan has full authority to head. Such inconsequential oversight did not render the
decide any and all incidents pertaining to an ill-gotten said petition defective in form. The Parents-Teachers
[wealth] case, including the propriety of the issuance of Association [PTA] of St. Matthew Academy, et al. vs. The
the writs of sequestration. Thus, any question on the Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. 176518,
correctness of the lifting of the sequestration writ March 2, 2010
against Heacock upon its motion, either in Civil Case No.
0002 - had Heacock been allowed to intervene - or in
Civil Case No. 0101, hardly merits further discussion.
SHOPPING; REQUIREMENT OF PROOF OF
The Sandiganbayan’s questioned resolutions lifting the
AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE (CSC).
sequestration writ could be, as it correctly was, decided
independently of what petitioner claims to be the
existence of “other controverted issues that require trial With regard, however, to the certification of non-forum
on the merits before the reliefs prayed for . . . may be shopping, the established rule is that it must be executed
granted.” Presidential Commission on Good Government by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by
vs. H.E. Heacock, Inc. et al., G.R. No. 165878, March counsel. In this case, Atty. Tiu failed to show that he
30, 2010 was specifically authorized by the Chairman to sign the
certification of non-forum shopping, much less file the
petition in his behalf. There is nothing on record to prove
such authority. Atty. Tiu did not even bother to
SHOPPING; LACK OF AUTHORITY TO SIGN NOT
controvert Paler’s allegation of his lack of authority. This
FATAL IN PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF
renders the petition dismissible. Commission on
POSSESSION.
Appointments, represented herein by its Secretary Hon.
Arturo L. Tiu vs. Celso M. Paler, G.R. No. 172623.
Petitioners further claim that the lack of authority to sign March 3, 2010
the certificate on non-forum shopping attached to the
Petition for the Issuance of the Writ of Possession
PLEADINGS; VERIFICATION (CSC).
rendered the same worthless and should be deemed as
non-existent. MBTC asserts otherwise,
citing Spouses Arquiza vs. Court of Appeals where we First, we tackle Atty. Tiu’s authority to file the petition
held that an application for a writ of possession is a mere and sign the verification and certification of non-forum
incident in the registration proceeding which is in shopping. The petitioner in this case is the Commission
substance merely a motion, and therefore does not on Appointments, a government entity created by the
require such a certification. Petitioners’ contention lacks Constitution, and headed by its Chairman. There was no
basis. In Green Asia Construction and Development need for the Chairman himself to sign the
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, where the issue of verification. Its representative, lawyer or any person
validity of the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping was who personally knew the truth of the facts alleged in the
questioned in an application for the issuance of a Writ of petition could sign the verification. Commission on
Possession, we held that: Appointments, represented herein by its Secretary Hon.
Arturo L. Tiu vs. Celso M. Paler, G.R. No. 172623.
March 3, 2010
x x x it bears stressing that a certification on non-
forum shopping is required only in a complaint or a
petition which is an initiatory pleading. In this case, Procedural rules; election cases. In Hofer vs. House of
the subject petition for the issuance of a writ of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, a case that is closely
possession filed by private respondent is not an initiatory analogous to the instant petition, the Court emphasized
pleading. Although private respondent denominated that “[p]rocedural rules in election cases are designed to
its pleading as a petition, it is more properly a achieve not only a correct but also an expeditious
motion. What distinguishes a motion from a petition or determination of the popular will of the electorate.” Thus,
other pleading is not its form or the title given by the the time limit set by the rules is not something to be
party executing it, but its purpose. The purpose of a taken lightly, for it was stressed in the same case that
motion is not to initiate litigation, but to bring up a “the observance of the HRET Rules in conjunction with
matter arising in the progress of the case where the our own Rules of Court, must be taken seriously.”
motion is filed. (Emphasis supplied) Quoting Baltazar vs. Commission of Elections, The Court
reiterated in Hofer that:
It is not necessary to initiate an original action in order
for the purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure of real By their very nature and given the public interest
property to acquire possession. Even if the application involved in the determination of the results of an
for the writ of possession was denominated as a election, the controversies arising from the canvass must
“petition”, it was in substance merely a motion. Indeed, be resolved speedily, otherwise the will of the electorate
any insignificant lapse in the certification on non-forum would be frustrated. And the delay brought about by
shopping filed by the MBTC did not render the writ the tactics resorted to by petitioner is precisely the
irregular. After all, no verification and certification on very evil sought to be prevented by election
non-forum shopping need be attached to the motion. statutes and controlling case law on the matter.
Hence, it is immaterial that the certification on non-forum
shopping in the MBTC’s petition was signed by its branch
230
From the foregoing, it is quite clear that the Tribunal “Assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner’s
acted in the best interest of the electorate, ensuring the appeal was filed out of time, it is within the power of
determination of the latter’s will within a reasonable this Court to temper rigid rules in favor of
time. In sum, there is absolutely nothing in this case substantial justice. While it is desirable that the
that would justify a finding that the HRET gravely abused Rules of Court be faithfully and even meticulously
its discretion by not granting petitioner an extension of observed, courts should not be so strict about
time to present additional evidence and formally offer the procedural lapses that do not really impair the
same. Representative Alvin S. Sandoval vs. House of proper administration of justice. If the rules are
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, Josephine Veronique intended to ensure the orderly conduct of litigation,
R. Lacson-Noel and Hon. Speaker Prospero Nograles, it is because of the higher objective they seek
G.R. No. 190067, March 9, 2010 which is the protection of substantive rights of the
parties. As held by the Court in a number of cases:
xxx
PROCEDURAL RULES; RELAXATION OF PERIOD FOR
APPEAL (CSC). It bears stressing that the case before the CSC involves
the security of tenure of a public
officer sacrosanctly protected by the Constitution. Public
Section 72 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s.
interest requires a resolution of the merits of the appeal
1999, provides for the period of appeal for non-
instead of dismissing the same based on a strained and
disciplinary actions, to wit:
inordinate application of Section 49(a) of
the CSC Revised Rules of Procedure. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 72. When and Where to File. – A decision or
ruling of a department or agency may be appealed within
Constantino-David vs. Pangandaman-Gania likewise
fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof by the party
sustained the CSC when it modified an otherwise final
adversely affected to the Civil Service Regional Office and
and executory resolution and awarded backwages to the
finally, to the Commission Proper within the same period.
respondent, in the interest of justice and fair play. The
Court stated –
Paler’s son received the letter from the Commission
Chairman denying Paler’s motion for reconsideration on
No doubt, the Civil Service Commission was in the
March 18, 2004. Thus, Paler’s had until April 2, 2004
legitimate exercise of its mandate under Sec. 3, Rule I, of
within which to file his appeal with the CSC. It was filed,
the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
however, only on April 5, 2004. Nevertheless,
Civil Service that “[a]dministrative investigations shall be
the CSC entertained the appeal in the interest of
conducted without necessarily adhering strictly to the
substantial justice. We agree with the CSC. We uphold
technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable to
its decision to relax the procedural rules
judicial proceedings.” This authority is consistent with its
because Paler’s appeal was meritorious. This is not the
powers and functions to “[p]rescribe, amend and enforce
first time that the Court has upheld such exercise of
rules and regulations for carrying into effect the
discretion. In Rosales, Jr. v. Mijares involving Section
provisions of the Civil Service Law and other pertinent
49(a) of the CSC Revised Rules of Procedure, the Court
laws” being the central personnel agency of the
ruled:
Government.
On the contention of the petitioner that the appeal of the

Furthermore, there are special circumstances in
respondent to the CSC was made beyond the period
accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play that
therefor under Section 49(a) of the CSC Revised Rules of
warrant such liberal attitude on the part of the CSC and a
Procedure, the CSC correctly ruled that:
compassionate like-minded discernment by this Court. x
xx
Movant claims that Mijares’ appeal was filed way beyond
the reglementary period for filing appeals. He, thus,
When substantial justice dictates it, procedural rules may
contends that the Commission should not have given due
be relaxed in order to arrive at a just disposition of a
course to said appeal.
case. The purpose behind limiting the period of appeal is
to avoid unreasonable delay in the administration of
The Commission need not delve much on the dates justice and to put an end to controversies. A one-day
when Mijares was separated from the service and when delay, as in this case, does not justify denial of the
he assailed his separation. Suffice it to state that the appeal where there is absolutely no indication of intent to
Commission found his appeal meritorious. This delay justice on the part of Paler and the pleading is
being the case, procedural rules need not be meritorious on its face. Commission on Appointments,
strictly observed. This principle was explained by in the represented herein by its Secretary Hon. Arturo
case of Mauna vs. CSC, 232 SCRA 388, where the L. Tiu vs. Celso M. Paler, G.R. No. 172623. March 3,
Supreme Court ruled, to wit: 2010
231
WRIT OF POSSESSION; NATURE. person adversely interested. It is a proceeding where the

relief is granted without requiring an opportunity for the
person against whom the relief is sought to be heard. It
The order for a writ of possession issues as a matter of
does not matter even if the herein petitioners were not
course upon the filing of the proper motion and the
specifically named in the writ of possession nor notified of
approval of the corresponding bond if the redemption
such proceedings. In Sagarbarria vs. Philippine Business
period has not yet lapsed. If the redemption period has
Bank, we rejected therein petitioner’s contention that he
expired, then the filing of the bond is no longer
was denied due process when the trial court issued the
necessary. Any and all questions regarding the regularity
writ of possession without notice. Here in the present
and validity of the sale is left to be determined in a
case, we similarly reject petitioners’ contention that the
subsequent proceeding and such questions may not be
trial court should have conducted a trial prior to issuing
raised as a justification for opposing the issuance of a
the Order denying their motion to intervene. As it is, the
writ of possession. In Santiago vs. Merchants Rural Bank
law does not require that a petition for a writ of
of Talavera, Inc., we defined the nature of a petition for
possession may be granted only after documentary and
a writ of possession:
testimonial evidence shall have been offered to and
admitted by the court. As long as a verified petition
The proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession states the facts sufficient to entitle the petitioner to the
is ex parte and summary in nature. It is a judicial relief requested, the court shall issue the writ prayed for.
proceeding brought for the benefit of one party only and There is no need for petitioners to offer any documentary
without notice by the court to any person adverse of or testimonial evidence for the court to grant the
interest. It is a proceeding wherein relief is granted petition. The Parents-Teachers Association [PTA] of St.
without giving the person against whom the relief is Matthew Academy, et al. vs. The Metropolitan Bank &
sought an opportunity to be heard. Trust Company, G.R. No. 176518, March 2, 2010
By its very nature, an ex parte petition for issuance of a WRIT OF POSSESSION; WHEN EXCEPTION TO
writ of possession is a non-litigious proceeding. It is a ISSUANCE DOES NOT APPLY.
judicial proceeding for the enforcement of one’s right of
possession as purchaser in a foreclosure sale. It is not an
In this case, we find that petitioners cannot be
ordinary suit filed in court, by which one party sues
considered as third parties because they are not claiming
another for the enforcement of a wrong or protection of a
a right adverse to the judgment debtor. Petitioner-
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. Gregorio
teachers and students did not claim ownership of the
Espinoza, in his own personal capacity and as surviving
properties, but merely averred actual “physical
spouse, and Jo Anne G. Espinoza, herein represented by
possession of the subject school premises”. Petitioner-
their attorney-in-fact, Ban Sangil, G.R. No. 175380,
teachers’ possession of the said premises was based on
March 22, 2010
the employment contracts they have with the school. As
regards the petitioner-students, Alcuaz vs. Philippine
WRIT OF POSSESSION; NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS School of Business Administration and Non vs. Dames II
FOR ISSUANCE. characterized the school-student relationship as
contractual in nature. As such, it would be specious to
The petitioners argue that the court below did not conclude that the teachers and students hold the subject
conduct trial for the presentation of evidence to support premises independent of or adverse to SMCA. In fact,
its conclusion that the intervention would have no their interest over the school premises is necessarily
bearing on the issuance and implementation of the writ inferior to that of the school. Besides, their contracts are
of possession, thereby depriving them of due process. with the school and do not attach to the school
Petitioners’ contention is without merit. It is settled that premises. Moreover, the foreclosure of the current
the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty school premises does not prevent the SMCA from
of the court. The purchaser of the foreclosed property, continuing its operations elsewhere. At this point, it is
upon ex parte application and the posting of the required relevant to note that in the Joint Decision dated August
bond, has the right to acquire possession of the 16, 2005, the trial court found that SMCA was not a third
foreclosed property during the 12-month redemption party and was therefore bound by the said writ of
period. This ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession. Consequently, it affirmed the issuance of the
possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is not, strictly writ of possession. MBTC thus correctly argued that
speaking, a “judicial process” as contemplated in Article petitioners did not have superior rights to that
433 of the Civil Code. As a judicial proceeding for the of SMCA over the subject property because their
enforcement of one’s right of possession as purchaser in supposed possession of the same emanated only from
a foreclosure sale, it is not an ordinary suit by which one the latter. Since petitioners’ possession of the subject
party “sues another for the enforcement of a wrong or school premises stemmed from their employment or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a enrollment contracts with the school, as the case may be,
wrong.” In Idolor vs. Court of Appeals, we described the necessarily, their right to possess the subject school
nature of the ex parte petition for issuance premises cannot be adverse to that of the school and of
of possessory writ under Act No. 3135 to be a non- its owners. As such, the petitioners cannot be deemed
litigious proceeding and summary in nature. As “third parties” as contemplated in Act No. 3135, as
an ex parte proceeding, it is brought for the benefit of amended. The Parents-Teachers Association [PTA] of St.
one party only, and without notice to, or consent by any
232
Matthew Academy, et al. vs. The Metropolitan Bank & for the CA to conclude that the Petition for Certiorari was
Trust Company, G.R. No. 176518, March 2, 2010 the wrong remedy in the case where the writ of
possession was issued. Respondent, on the other hand,
avers that certiorari is available only when there is grave
WRIT OF POSSESSION; WHEN ISSUED; PERIOD OF
REDEMPTION.
jurisdiction and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In
As a rule, it is ministerial upon the court to issue a writ the instant case, the respondent argues that the court
of possession after the foreclosure sale and during the merely granted the Writ of Possession in accordance with
period of redemption. Section 7 of Act No. 3135 settled jurisprudence and that the remedy of certiorari
explicitly authorizes the purchaser in a foreclosure sale to does not lie because there is an available remedy which
apply for a writ of possession during the redemption is an appeal. We hold that the CA correctly held that the
period by filing an ex parte motion under oath for that proper remedy is a separate, distinct and independent
purpose “in the registration or cadastral proceedings if suit provided for in Section 8 of Act No. 3135 viz:
the property is registered, or in special proceedings in the
case of property registered under the Mortgage Law” with
SEC. 8. The debtor may, in the proceedings in which
the Regional Trial Court of the province or place where
possession was requested, but not later than thirty days
the real property or any part thereof is situated, in the
after the purchaser was given possession, petition that
case of mortgages duly registered with the Registry of
the sale be set aside and the writ of possession canceled,
Deeds. Upon filing of such motion and the approval of
specifying the damages suffered by him, because the
the corresponding bond, the law also directs in express
mortgage was not violated or the sale was not made in
terms the said court to issue the order for a writ of
accordance with the provisions hereof, and the court shall
possession. However, this rule is not without
take cognizance of this petition in accordance with the
exception. In Barican vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
summary procedure provided for in section one hundred
we held that the obligation of a court to issue
and twelve of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-
an ex parte writ of possession in favor of the purchaser
six; and if it finds the complaint of the debtor justified, it
in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale ceases to be
shall dispose in his favor of all or part of the bond
ministerial once it appears that there is a third party in
furnished by the person who obtained possession. Either
possession of the property who is claiming a right
of the parties may appeal from the order of the judge in
adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor. This ruling was
accordance with section fourteen of Act Numbered Four
reiterated in Policarpio vs. Active Bank where we held
hundred and ninety-six; but the order of possession shall
that:
continue in effect during the pendency of the appeal.
Ordinarily, a purchaser of property in an extrajudicial

In De Gracia vs. San Jose, we held that:
foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the property.
Thus, whenever the purchaser prays for a writ of
possession, the trial court has to issue it as a matter of x x x the order for a writ of possession issues as a matter
course. However, the obligation of the trial court to issue of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the
a writ of possession ceases to be ministerial once it approval of the corresponding bond. No discretion is left
appears that there is a third party in possession of the to the court. And any question regarding the
property claiming a right adverse to that of the regularity and validity of the sale (and the
debtor/mortgagor. Where such third party exists, the consequent cancellation of the writ) is left to be
trial court should conduct a hearing to determine the determined in a subsequent proceeding as outlined
nature of his adverse possession. (Emphasis supplied) in section 8. Such question is not to be raised as a
justification for opposing the issuance of the writ of
possession, since, under the Act, the proceeding for
The Parents-Teachers Association [PTA] of St. Matthew
this is ex parte. (Emphasis supplied)
Academy, et al. vs. The Metropolitan Bank & Trust
Company, G.R. No. 176518, March 2, 2010
Since the writ of possession had already been issued
in LRC Case No. 6438 per Order dated November 29,
2005, the proper remedy is an appeal and not a petition
for certiorari, in accordance with our ruling
WRIT OF POSSESSION; REMEDY TO CHALLENGE; in Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Tan
APPEAL. and Government Service Insurance System vs. Court of
Appeals. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction,
Petitioners assert that Section 8 of Act No. 3135 any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its
specifically refers to “the debtor” as the party who is discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors
required to file a petition for the cancellation of the writ of judgment, correctable by an appeal if the aggrieved
of possession in the same proceeding in which possession party raised factual and legal issues; or a petition for
was requested. As they are not the debtors referred to in review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court if only
the said law, petitioners argue that the filing of a petition questions of law are involved. The Parents-Teachers
for the cancellation of the writ of possession in the same Association [PTA] of St. Matthew Academy, et al. vs. The
proceeding in which possession was requested, does not Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. 176518,
apply to them. Hence, they allege that it was improper March 2, 2010
233
Applying the legal provision to the facts of this case, the

following circumstances tend to prove that Elfledo was
himself the partner of Jimmy and Norberto:
Evidence
1) Cresencia testified that Jose gave Elfledo P50,000.00,
as share in the partnership, on a date that coincided with
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND ORAL EVIDENCE; the payment of the initial capital in the partnership;
WEIGHT ACCORDED. (2) Elfledo ran the affairs of the partnership, wielding
absolute control, power and authority, without any
Furthermore, petitioners failed to adduce any evidence to intervention or opposition whatsoever from any of
show that the real and personal properties acquired and petitioners herein; (3) all of the properties, particularly
registered in the names of Elfledo and respondent formed the nine trucks of the partnership, were registered in the
part of the estate of Jose, having been derived from name of Elfledo; (4) Jimmy testified that Elfledo did not
Jose’s alleged partnership with Jimmy and Norberto. They receive wages or salaries from the partnership, indicating
failed to refute respondent’s claim that Elfledo and that what he actually received were shares of the profits
respondent engaged in other businesses. Edison even of the business; and (5) none of the petitioners, as heirs
admitted that Elfledo also sold Interwood lumber as a of Jose, the alleged partner, demanded periodic
sideline. Petitioners could not offer any credible evidence accounting from Elfledo during his lifetime. As repeatedly
other than their bare assertions. Thus, we apply the stressed in Heirs of Tan Eng Kee, a demand for periodic
basic rule of evidence that between documentary and accounting is evidence of a partnership. Heirs of
oral evidence, the former carries more weight. Heirs of Jose Lim, represented by Elenito Lim vs. Juliet Villa Lim,
Jose Lim, represented by Elenito Lim vs. Juliet Villa Lim, G.R. No. 172690, March 3, 2010
G.R. No. 172690, March 3, 2010
EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF PARTNERSHIP.

EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY.
At this juncture, our ruling in Heirs of Tan Eng Kee vs.
Court of Appeals is enlightening. Therein, we cited Article We agree with petitioners that respondents failed to
1769 of the Civil Code, which provides: present any evidence to show that they owned parts of
the property in dispute. First, in the stipulation of facts
Art. 1769. In determining whether a partnership exists, during the pre-trial conference before the MCTC,
these rules shall apply: respondents admitted that the land was owned by
(1) Except as provided by Article 1825, persons who are Adriano. While both Juanito and Ronald claimed that
not partners as to each other are not partners as to Adriano donated to them their respective portions of the
third persons; property when they got married in 1978 and 1987,
(2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not of itself respectively, they did not present any deed of donation.
establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or As the MCTC stated in its 19 November 2003 Decision,
co-possessors do or do not share any profits made “the transfers cannot be by donation because the law
by the use of the property; requires that for donation to be effective, it must be in a
(3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself public instrument and in this case there is none.”
establish a partnership, whether or not the persons
sharing them have a joint or common right or Second, the tax declaration offered by respondents as
interest in any property from which the returns are evidence only mentioned Adriano as the owner of the
derived; whole property. While tax declarations are not conclusive
(4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a evidence of ownership, they constitute proof of claim of
business is a prima facie evidence that he is a ownership. Respondents did not present any credible
partner in the business, but no such inference shall explanation why the tax declaration was only under the
be drawn if such profits were received in payment: name of Adriano. Third, contrary to Ronald’s claim, the
(a) As a debt by installments or June 1994 deed of mortgageid not clearly show that he
otherwise; was the owner of the property and that petitioners
(b) As wages of an employee or recognized him as such. While Ronald’s name appeared
rent to a landlord; in the body of the deed, the designation as owner of the
(c) As an annuity to a widow or property under his name was crossed-out. It was
representative of a deceased Adriano who signed the deed of mortgage and the
partner; designation as owner of the property appeared under his
(d) As interest on a loan, though name. Fourth, Ronald was present when the deed of sale
the amount of payment vary was executed on 22 September 1994 and he even signed
with the profits of the as one of the witnesses. We find it hard to believe that
business; Ronald and Adriano did not understand the contents of
(e) As the consideration for the the deed when it was written in their local dialect.
sale of a goodwill of a Moreover, it took respondents more than seven years to
business or other property question Adriano’s sale of the whole property to
by installments or otherwise. petitioners. Lastly, respondents claim ownership of the
property based on OCT No. AO-7236. However, a
234
certificate of title is not equivalent to title. PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE; HOW

In Lee Tek Sheng vs. Court of Appeals, we explained: DETERMINED.
By title, the law refers to ownership which is represented Petitioners heavily rely on Jimmy’s testimony. But that
by that document [the Original Certificate of Title or the testimony is just one piece of evidence against
Transfer Certificate of Title]. Petitioner apparently respondent. It must be considered and weighed along
confuses certificate with title. Placing a parcel of land with petitioners’ other evidence vis-à-vis respondent’s
under the mantle of the Torrens system does not mean contrary evidence. In civil cases, the party having the
that ownership thereof can no longer be burden of proof must establish his case by a
disputed. Ownership is different from a certificate of preponderance of evidence. “Preponderance of evidence”
title. The TCT is only the best proof of ownership of a is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence
piece of land. Besides, the certificate cannot always on either side and is usually considered synonymous with
be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership. the term “greater weight of the evidence” or “greater
Mere issuance of the certificate of title in the name of any weight of the credible evidence.” “Preponderance of
person does not foreclose the possibility that the real evidence” is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means
property may be under co-ownership with persons not probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more
named in the certificate or that the registrant may only convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
be a trustee or that other parties may have acquired which is offered in opposition thereto. Rule 133, Section
interest subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of 1 of the Rules of Court provides the guidelines in
title. To repeat, registration is not the equivalent of title, determining preponderance of evidence, thus:
but is only the best evidence thereof. Title as a concept
of ownership should not be confused with the certificate
SECTION I. Preponderance of evidence, how
of title as evidence of such ownership although both are
determined. In civil cases, the party having burden of
interchangeable. (Emphasis supplied)
proof must establish his case by a preponderance of
evidence. In determining where the preponderance or
Spouses Melchor, et al. vs. Ronald B. Bernal, et al., G.R. superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies,
No. 169336, March 18, 2010 the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of
the case, the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the
facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts
to which they testify, the probability or improbability of
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and
also their personal credibility so far as the same may
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also
establish his case by a preponderance of consider the number of witnesses, though the
evidence. Preponderance of evidence is the weight, preponderance is not necessarily with the greater
credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either number.
side, and is usually considered to be synonymous with
the term greater weight of the evidence or greater Heirs of Jose Lim, represented by Elenito Lim vs. Juliet
weight of the credible evidence. Preponderance of Villa Lim, G.R. No. 172690, March 3, 2010
evidence is a phrase that means, in the last analysis,
probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more
PRESUMPTIONS; ENTRIES IN PUBLIC RECORD.
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto. Lim successfully
discharged his burden of proof as the plaintiff. He The memorandum of the DOJ special committee also
established by preponderant evidence that he had a cited only the affidavits of Soliman and Peralta and then
superior right and title to the property. In contrast, the concluded that the evidence presented before the Senate
petitioners did not present any proof of their better title Committees had overcome the presumption that the
other than their copy of the reconstituted certificate of entries in the certificate of live birth
title. Such proof was not enough, because the of Quintos are prima facie evidence of the facts stated
registration of a piece of land under the Torrens system therein. We agree with the Court of Appeals that while
did not create or vest title, such registration not being a the affidavits of Soliman and Peralta might have cast
mode of acquiring ownership. The petitioners need to be doubt on the validity of Quintos’ certificate of live birth,
reminded that a certificate of title is merely an evidence such certificate remains valid unless declared invalid by
of ownership or title over the particular property competent authority. The rule stands that
described therein. Its issuance in favor of a particular “(d)ocuments consisting of entries in public records made
person does not foreclose the possibility that the real in the performance of a duty by a public officer
property may be co-owned with persons not named in are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. x x
the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another x.” We further sustain the Court of Appeals that there
person by the registered owner. Teofisto Oño, et al. vs. could be reasons why the Quintoses and Tomedas were
Vicente N. Lim, G.R. No. 154270, March 9, 2010 not included in the census, such as they could have been
mere transients in the place. As for their absence in the
master’s list of voters, they could have failed to register
themselves as voters. The late registration of Quintos’
235
certificate of live birth was made 10 years after her birth Corporation/Jose Cabaral Tiu vs. Timber Exports, Inc.
and not anytime near the filing of respondent’s petition Angel Domingo, Country Bankers Ins. Corp.,
for recognition as Filipino citizen. As such, it could not be Perfecto Mondarte, Jr. and Cesar Dacal, G.R. No.
presumed that the certificate’s late filing was meant to 176123/G.R. No. 185265, March 10, 2010
use it fraudulently. Finally, the Australian Department of
Immigration and Multicultural Affairs itself attested that
PRESUMPTIONS; REGULARITY OF NOTARIZED
as of 14 July 1999, Quintos has not been granted
DOCUMENTS.
Australian citizenship. Respondent submitted a certified
true copy of Quintos’ Australian certificate of registration
of alien, indicating her nationality as Filipino. These Notarized documents, like the deed in question [i.e.,
pieces of evidence should prevail over the affidavits “Sale and Transfer of Rights over a Portion of a Parcel of
submitted by Soliman and Peralta to the Senate Land”], enjoy the presumption of regularity which can be
Committees. Department of Justice Secretary Raul M. overturned only by clear, convincing and more than
Gonzalez, et al. vs. Michael Alfio Pennisi, G.R. No. merely preponderant evidence. This petitioner failed to
169958, March 5, 2010 discharge. Flordeliza Emilio vs. Bilma Rapal, G.R. No.
181855, March 30, 2010, G.R. No. 181855, March 30,
2010
PRESUMPTIONS; PRESUMPTION OF AUTHENTICITY
AND DUE EXECUTION OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENT
OVERCOME BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDNCE. PRESUMPTION; REGULARITY OF TAX DECLARATION
INDICATING ASSESSED VALUE OF PROPERTY.
It is true that a notarial document is considered evidence
of the facts expressed therein. A notarized document Significantly, the Technical Report on Verification Survey
enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due by Engineer Robert C. Pangyarihan, which was attached
execution and only clear and convincing evidence will to and formed part of the records, contained a tax
overcome such legal presumption. However, such clear declaration indicating that the subject property has an
and convincing evidence is present here. While it is true assessed value of P110,220.00. It is basic that the tax
that the SPA was notarized, it is no less true that there declaration indicating the assessed value of the property
were defects in the notarization which mitigate against a enjoys the presumption of regularity as it has been
finding that the SPA was either genuine or duly executed. issued by the proper government agency. Honorio
Curiously, the details of Manuel’s Community Tax Bernardo vs. Heirs of Eusebio Villegas, G.R. No
Certificate are conspicuously absent, yet Martha’s are
complete. The absence of Manuel’s data supports his
claim that he did not execute the same and that his
signature thereon is a forgery. Moreover, we have
Manuel’s positive testimony that he never signed the Criminal Procedure
SPA, in addition to the expert testimony that the
signature appearing on the SPA was not Manuel’s true ALIBI; EVIDENCE.
signature. Titan Construction Corporation vs. Manuel A.
David, Sr. and Martha S. David, G.R. No. 169548, March
15, 2010 Alibi is an inherently weak defense and can easily be
fabricated. The settled jurisprudence is that categorical
and consistent positive identification, absent any showing
of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying
thereon, prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi
PRESUMPTIONS; REGULARITY IN PERFORMANCE which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof,
OF OFFICIAL FUNCTION. as in the case at bar, constitute self-serving evidence
undeserving of weight in law. Thus, appellant’s alibi in
this case, more so that it is not corroborated by any
The key to resolving the petitions lies in the validity of witness, cannot prosper over the victim’s positive
the Pagadian case execution sale. The presumption of identification. People of the Philippines v. Danilo Paculba,
regularity in the performance of official function here G.R. No. 183453, March 9, 2010.
applies. Conformably, any party alleging irregularities
vitiating an auction sale must come forward with clear
and convincing proof. In G.R. No. 176123, FPC has not ARREST; ESTOPPEL.
discharged its burden of proof. Apart from its bare
allegations, it has not come forward with any evidence, An accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his
let alone a clear and convincing one, of non-compliance arrest if he fails to raise this issue, or to move for the
with the requirement of a minimum of five days prior quashal of the information against him on this ground,
notice of sale of property on execution. Hence, in the before arraignment. Here, the appellant
absence of contrary evidence, the presumption prevails was already arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty and
that the sheriff performed his official duty of posting the actively participated in his trial. He raised the issue of
notices of sale within the reglementary period. In finding the irregularity of his arrest only during his appeal to the
otherwise, the Manila RTC placed the burden of proof on Court of Appeals. He is therefore deemed to have waived
the sheriff without jurisprudential such alleged defect by submitting himself to the
basis. Jose Cabaral Tiu vs. First Plywood
236
jurisdiction of the court through his counsel-assisted plea DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ILLEGAL SEARCH
during the arraignment, by actively participating in the WARRANTS; REMEDY OF A SEPARATE CIVIL
trial, and by not raising the objection before his ACTION.
arraignment. People of the Philippines v. Nelson Palma y
Hangad, G.R. No. 189279, March 9, 2010.
The proceeding under Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
does not provide for the filing of counterclaims for
BAIL PENDING APPEAL. damages against those who may have improperly sought
the issuance of the search warrant. Consequently, the
petitioners had the right to seek damages, if the
In an application for bail pending appeal by an appellant
circumstances warranted, by separate civil action for the
sentenced by the trial court to a penalty of imprisonment
wrong inflicted on them by an improperly obtained or
for more than six years, the discretionary nature of the
enforced search warrant. Arthur Del Rosario, et al v.
grant of bail pending appeal does not mean that bail
Hellenor D. Doanto, Jr. et al, G.R. No. 180595, March 5,
should automatically be granted absent any of the
2010.
circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of
Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. Jose Antonio
Leviste v. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 189122,
March 17, 2010.
EVIDENCE; CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
BAIL PENDING APPEAL.
Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single
The third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 applies to two eyewitness, if credible, is enough to prove the corpus
scenarios where the penalty imposed on the appellant delicti and to warrant conviction. Under the rules,
applying for bail is imprisonment exceeding six years. circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a)
The first scenario deals with the circumstances there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from
enumerated in the said paragraph not present. The which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the
second scenario contemplates the existence of at least combination of all the circumstances is such as to
one of the said circumstances. In the first situation, bail produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In order
is a matter of sound judicial discretion. This means that, to justify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence, the
if none of the circumstances mentioned in the third combination of circumstances must be such as to leave
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, the no reasonable doubt in the mind as to the criminal
appellate court has the discretion to grant or deny bail. responsibility of the accused. People of the Philippines v.
An application for bail pending appeal may be denied Jessie Villegas Murcia, G.R. No. 182460, March 9, 2010.
even if the bail-negating circumstances in the third
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 are absent. On the
other hand, in the second situation, the appellate court
exercises a more stringent discretion, that is, to carefully
ascertain whether any of the enumerated circumstances The accused’s confession to a bantay
in fact exists. If it so determines, it has no other option bayan is inadmissible in evidence if the same was done
except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Thus, a without the assistance of his lawyer and without waiver
finding that none of the said circumstances is present will of his right to counsel. People of the Philippines v.
not automatically result in the grant of bail. Such finding Antonio Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010.
will simply authorize the court to use the less stringent
sound discretion approach. Jose Antonio Leviste v. Court EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION; ADMISSIBILITY.
of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010.
The Supreme Court held that barangay-based volunteer

COMPLAINT; SUFFICIENCY. organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the
case of the “bantay bayan,” are recognized by the local
The test of sufficiency of a complaint is whether or not, government unit to perform functions relating to the
assuming the truth of the facts that plaintiff alleges in it, preservation of peace and order at the barangay level.
the court can render judgment granting him the judicial Thus, without ruling on the legality of the actions taken
assistance he seeks and judgment would be right only if by Moises Boy Banting, and the specific scope of duties
the facts he alleges constitute a cause of action that and responsibilities delegated to a “bantay bayan,”
consists of three elements: (1) the plaintiff’s legal right in particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial
the matter; (2) the defendant’s corresponding obligation investigation, any inquiry he makes has the color of a
to honor or respect such right; and (3) the defendant’s state-related function and objective insofar as the
subsequent violation of the right. Absent any of these, entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights
the complaint would have failed to state a cause of provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the
action. Arthur Del Rosario, et al v. Hellenor D. Doanto, Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is
Jr. et al, G.R. No. 180595, March 5, 2010. concerned. Therefore, the extrajudicial confession of
appellant taken without counsel was inadmissible in
evidence. People of the Philippines v. Antonio Lauga,
G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010.
237
IMPROVIDENT PLEA. corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

Only after removal can they be criminally proceeded
against for their transgressions. Re: Subpoena Duces
The appellant was not fully apprised of the consequences
Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A.
of his guilty plea. In fact, as argued by appellant, “the
Amante, PIAB-C Office of the Ombudsman, A.M. No. 10-
trial court should have informed him that his plea of guilt
1-13-SC, March 2, 2010.
would not affect or reduce the imposable penalty, which
is death as he might have erroneously believed that
under Article 63, the death penalty, being a single OMBUDSMAN; VALIDITY OF SUBPOENA DUCES
indivisible penalty, shall be applied by the court TECUM.
regardless of any mitigating circumstances that might
have attended the commission of the deed.” Moreover,
In light of the Ombudsman’s dismissal order of February
the trial court judge failed to inform appellant of his right
4, 2010 of the criminal complaint, any question relating
to adduce evidence despite the guilty plea. With the trial
to the legality and propriety of the subpoena duces
court’s failure to comply with the guidelines, appellant’s
tecum issued by the Ombudsman in connection with said
guilty plea is deemed improvidently made and thus
criminal complaint has been rendered moot and
rendered inefficacious. People of the Philippines v. Oscar
academic. The subpoena duces tecum merely drew its
Documento, G.R. No. 188706, March 17, 2010.
life and continued viability from the underlying criminal
complaint, and the complaint’s dismissal – belated
though it may be – cannot but have the effect of
rendering the need for the subpoena duces tecum
academic. Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11,
IMPROVIDENT PLEA.
2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C Office of
the Ombudsman, A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC, March 2, 2010.
An improvident plea of guilt does not mean that the case
should be remanded to the trial court. This course of
action is appropriate only when the appellant’s guilty plea
was the sole basis for his conviction. On the other hand,
if the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence OMBUDSMAN; AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUBPOENA
in finding the accused guilty, the judgment must be DUCES TECUM.
sustained. People of the Philippines v. Oscar Documento,
G.R. No. 188706, March 17, 2010.
In the appropriate case, the Office of the Ombudsman
has full authority to issue subpoenas, including subpoena
OMBUDSMAN; AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT duces tecum, for compulsory attendance of witnesses
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. and the production of documents and information relating
to matters under its investigation. The grant of this
authority, however, is not unlimited, as the Ombudsman
The Deputy Ombudsman is well within his power in
must necessarily observe and abide by the terms of the
disregarding the recommendation of the prosecutor and
Constitution and our laws, the Rules of Court and the
proceeding to file the information in court. The discretion
applicable jurisprudence on the issuance, service, validity
whether a case should be filed or not lies with the
and efficacy of subpoenas. Under the Rules of Court, the
Ombudsman. Thus, given this vast power and authority,
issuance of subpoenas, including a subpoena duces
he can conduct a preliminary investigation with or
tecum, operates under the requirements of
without the report from COA. The findings in the COA
reasonableness and relevance. For the production of
report or the finality or lack of finality of such report is
documents to be reasonable and for the documents
irrelevant to the investigation of the Office of the
themselves to be relevant, the matter under inquiry
Ombudsman in its determination of probable cause.
should, in the first place, be one that the Ombudsman
Thus, the filing of the information against petitioner
can legitimately entertain, investigate and rule upon. Re:
notwithstanding the lack of certification on her cashbook
Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of
examination could not in any manner be said to be
Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C Office of the
premature much less whimsical or arbitrary. Angelita de
Ombudsman, A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC, March 2, 2010.
Guzman v. Emilio Gonzales III, et al, G.R. No. 158104,
March 26, 2010
RULE 42 PETITION FOR REVIEW; REQUIREMENT
THAT PETITION FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS BE
OMBUDSMAN; CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST
ACCOMPANIED BY COPY OF JUDGMENTS OR FINAL
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.
ORDERS OF “BOTH LOWER COURTS.”
Criminal complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of RA

Petitioner contends that her petition before the Court of
3019, based on the legal correctness of the official acts of
Appeals merits reinstatement since she attached thereto
Justices of the Supreme Court, cannot prosper and
a carbon original of the RTC decision which affirmed the
should not be entertained. The Constitution provides that
MTCC’s decision, and which restated verbatim the
the appropriate recourse against them is to seek their
findings of facts of the MTCC. The Supreme Court agreed
removal from office if they are guilty of culpable violation
with petitioner ruling that while Rule 42, Section 2(d) of
of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that, inter
238
alia, the petition for review shall “be accompanied by identification of the offender. This is because the inherent
clearly legible duplicate original or true copies of the weakness of alibi as a defense does not operate to relieve
judgments or final orders of both lower courts,” the cited the prosecution of its responsibility to establish the
deficiency in petitioner’s petition for review does not identity of the offender by the same quantum of evidence
make it insufficient in form and substance since it is the required for proving the crime itself. However, a simple
decision of the RTC, not that of the MTCC, which is the scrutiny of the contentions raised by the accused in this
subject of her appeal. What is important is that in her case will reveal that they are specious at best, and not
petition for review, she attached thereto the original copy sufficient to destroy the credibility of his (accused’s)
of the RTC decision which quoted extensively the findings positive identification. People of the Philippines vs.
of the MTCC, including its discussion on the application of Julian Pajes y Ponda, et al, G.R. No. 184179, April 12,
the law, that were affirmed in toto. Evelyn Barredo vs. 2010
People of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 183467, March
29, 2010.
CONSPIRACY; ELEMENTS.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
RULE 45 PETITION; PROOF OF SERVICE ON decide to commit it. When a crime is committed under a
SANDIGANBAYAN MANDATORY. conspiracy, the liability of all conspirators becomes
collective regardless of the extent of their actual
participation in the crime. In other words, the act of one
The Supreme Court denied a Rule 45 petition
becomes the act of all. In determining the existence of
for petitioner’s failure, among others, to show proof of
conspiracy, direct proof of a previous agreement to
service of a copy of the petition on
commit a crime is not necessary. After all, conspiracy
the Sandiganbayan. Proof of service is required under
may be inferred from the mode and manner by which the
Supreme Court Circular No. 19-91 dated August 13,
offense is perpetrated or from the very acts of the
1991, which states: “2. Form and Service of Petition. - A
accused themselves. To support a finding of conspiracy,
petition filed under Rule 45, or under Rule 65, or a
what is merely required is an unmistakable showing that
motion for extension may be denied outright if it is not
the collective acts of the accused before, during and after
clearly legible, or there is no proof of service on the lower
the commission of a felony were all aimed at the same
court, tribunal, or office concerned and on the adverse
object, one performing one part and the other performing
party in accordance with Sections 3, 5 and 10 of Rule 13,
another for the attainment of the same objective; and
attached to the petition or motion for extension when
that their acts, though apparently independent, were in
filed.” Here, petitioner fatally failed to implead
fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of
the Sandiganbayan and to serve a copy of his petition to
personal association, concerted action and concurrence of
the said court. While the Rules of Court does not require
sentiments. People of the Philippines vs.
that the lower court be impleaded, proof of service of the
Julian Pajes y Ponda, et al., G.R. No. 184179, April 12,
petition on the lower court is mandated. Jurisprudence
2010
holds that the utter disregard of the Rules cannot be
justified by harking to substantial justice and the policy
of liberal construction of the Rules. Technical rules of
procedure are not meant to frustrate the ends of justice.
Rather, they serve to effect the proper and orderly
CONSPIRACY; ELEMENTS.
disposition of cases and, thus, effectively prevent the
clogging of court dockets. Engr. Ricardo L. Santillano v.
People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 175045-46, March 3, Accused contends that the mere fact that they boarded
2010. the jeepney at the same time does not mean that they
acted in conspiracy. This contention was
rejected since conspiracy may be deduced from the acts
of the appellants before, during and after the commission
APRIL 2010 CASES
of the crime which are indicative of a joint purpose,
concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments. Here,
Criminal Procedure all three accused boarded the jeepney at the same time;
two sat strategically in front of the victim while the other
sat behind him; two of them drew out their balisongs and
ALIBI.
swung the same at the victim; and all hurriedly alighted
from the jeepney at the same time. Their original and
It is a well-settled principle in law that the defense of principal intention was undoubtedly to stage a robber
alibi is one of the weakest defenses available to an with use of violence. Conspiracy has been established
accused in a criminal case. As it may easily be concocted, and all of them are liable as co-principals regardless of
alibis are invariably viewed with suspicion, and, as a the manner and extent of their participation since the act
general rule, crumbles in light of positive identification of of one is the act of all. The People of the Philippines
the offender by truthful witnesses. Conversely however, vs. Jonjie Esoy, G.R. No. 185849, April 7, 2010
the Supreme Court, in more than one occasion, held that
the defense of alibi may acquire commensurate strength
where the witnesses have made no positive and proper
239
CONSPIRACY; ELEMENTS. accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial

facts and circumstances, which if considered, would
materially affect the result of the case. An accused could
The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and
justifiably be convicted based solely on the credible
purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts constituting
testimony of the victim. People of the Philippines vs.
the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable
Rogelio Asis y Lacson, G.R. No. 179935, April 19, 2010
doubt. Conspiracy can be inferred from and established
by the acts of the accused themselves when said acts
point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and
community of interests. However, in determining whether
conspiracy exists, it is not sufficient that the attack be
EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF TRIAL COURT
joint and simultaneous for simultaneousness does not of
NOT DISTURBED.
itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of
action and purpose which are the bases of the
responsibility of the assailants. What is determinative is The appellate court will generally not disturb the
proof establishing that the accused were animated by one assessment of the trial court on factual matters
and the same purpose. In the instant case, the considering that the latter as a trier of facts, is in a better
prosecution failed to establish all the elements of position to appreciate the same. Further, it is settled that
conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. Rosie Quidet vs. findings of fact of the trial court are accorded greatest
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170289, April 8, 2010 respect by the appellate court absent any abuse of
discretion. There being no abuse of discretion in the
instant case, the Supreme Court affirmed the factual
EVIDENCE; ALIBI.
findings of the trial court. Roño Seguritan y Jara vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 172896, April 19,
The Supreme Court held that a “denial,” if 2010
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is
negative and self-serving evidence, which deserves no
EVIDENCE; MINORITY OF RAPE VICTIM.
weight in law and cannot be given
greater evidentiary value over the testimonies of credible
witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. In the In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the minority
instant case, accused’s denial does not deserve any of the rape victim was satisfactorily established by the
consideration given his (accused) positive identification prosecution. The age of the minor when she was raped
by the victim as her lecherous attacker. People of the by her own father was properly alleged in
Philippines vs. Rogelio Asis y Lacson, G.R. No. 179935, the informations. While the evidence of the prosecution
April 19, 2010 consisted mainly of the victim’s testimony, the Supreme
Court held that the express admission by the accused as
regards the age of the victim was sufficient to establish
EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF RAPE VICTIM.
her (victim’s) minority. People of the Philippines vs.
Rogelio Asis y Lacson, G.R. No. 179935, April 19, 2010
In the review of rape cases, the credibility of the private
complainant is the single most important factor for
consideration. The case of the prosecution stands or falls
on the credibility of the victim. This rule is in accordance
with the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only EVIDENCE; MINORITY OF RAPE VICTIM.
two parties, namely the victim and the accused, are
usually involved. In the instant case, the High Court The guidelines in appreciating the age of the victim,
found no basis to overturn the findings of the Regional either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying
Trial Court. The testimony of the victim was circumstance are: (1) The best evidence to prove the age
straightforward, categorical and spontaneous. The of the offended party is an original or certified true copy
victim’s account of her ordeal resonated with sincerity of the certificate of live birth of such party; (2) In the
and truthfulness and must prevail over general absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic
statements of denial by the accused. People of the documents such as baptismal certificate and school
Philippines vs. Romeo Miranda, G.R. No. 176634, April 5, records which show the date of birth of the victim would
2010 suffice to prove age; (3) If the certificate of live birth or
authentic document is shown to have been lost or
EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS. destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if
clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or a member of
the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is
In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of
qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such
witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party
judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight
pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on
and respect, because the judge has the opportunity to
Evidence shall be sufficient under the following
observe them on the stand and ascertain whether they
circumstances: a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3
are telling the truth or not. The Supreme Court has long
years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she
adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the
is less than 7 years old; b. If the victim is alleged to be
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are
240
below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is case. People of the Philippines vs. Tirso Sace, G.R. No.
that she is less than 12 years old; c. If the victim is 178063, April 5, 2010
alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to
be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. (4.) In
the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic
document or the testimony of the victim’s mother or
relatives concerning the victim’s age, the complainant’s INFORMATION; SUBSTITUTION OF INFORMATION.
testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and
clearly admitted by the accused; (5.) It is the prosecution Contrary to petitioner’s contention, there was no
that has the burden of proving the age of the offended substitution in the instant case. The information dated
party. The failure of the accused to object to the August 17, 2007 charged the same offense, that is,
testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken violation of Sec. 3(e) or R.A. 3019. The use of the
against him; (6.) The trial court should always make a disjunctive term “or” under Sec. 3(e) connotes that either
categorical finding as to the age of the victim. People of act of (i) causing undue injury to any party, including the
the Philippines vs. Rogelio Asis y Lacson, G.R. No. Government or (ii) giving any private party unwarranted
179935. April 19, 2010 benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of
one’s function qualifies as a violation of Sec. 3(e). This
does not indicate that each mode constitutes a distinct
offense, but rather, that an accused may be charged
under either mode or under both. Thus, petitioner’s
EVIDENCE; RAPE.
reliance on Teehankee vs. Madayag is not applicable
there being no substitution of information there being no
The Supreme Court reiterated its previous rulings that in change in the nature of the offense
prosecuting rape cases, the eloquent testimony of the charged. Quintin Saludaga, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, 4th
victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her Division, et al, G.R. No. 184537, April 23, 2010
non-virgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth
of her charges. People of the Philippines
OMBUDSMAN; PROBABLE CAUSE.
vs. Crizaldo Pacheco y Villanueva, G.R. No. 187742,
April 20, 2010
The Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a
criminal case, given its facts and circumstances, should
EVIDENCE; RAPE.
be filed or not. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith
should he find it to be insufficient in form and substance,
Accused contend that AAA was never sexually abused or should he find it otherwise, to continue with the
because the medico-legal findings showed that there inquiry; or he may proceed with the investigation if, in
were no signs of swelling on her vagina when she was his view, the complaint is in due and proper form and
examined. However, the Court stated that the lack of substance. In the present case, the Office of the
lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. A Ombudsman did not find probable cause that would
freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of warrant the filing of Information against
rape. Even the fact that the hymen of the victim is still respondents. Roberto B. Kalao vs. Office of the
intact does not rule out rape since research show that the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 158189, April 23, 2010
hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus. In any
case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not
OMBUDSMAN; PROBABLE CAUSE.
necessary. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance
of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the
female organ. People of the Philippines Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal
vs. Romulo Garcia, G. R. No. 177740, April 5, 2010 information, has been defined as such facts as are
sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime
has been committed and that respondents are probably
EVIDENCE RAPE; PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE
guilty thereof. The determination of its existence lies
DOUBT.
within the discretion of the prosecuting officers after
conducting a preliminary investigation upon complaint of
Appellant claimed that the fact that he was wearing a an offended party. Probable cause is meant such set of
bloodstained shirt did not mean that he committed the facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
crime charged. He alleges that if he was guilty, he would discrete and prudent man to believe that the offense
have not have helped in searching for AAA’s body. charged in the information, or any offense included
However, his conviction was upheld by the High Court therein, has been committed by the person sought to be
stating that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable arrested. Unless it is shown that the questioned acts
doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree of were done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of
proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce judgment evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of
absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required. discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the
Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove Supreme Court will not interfere in the findings
the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt for in of probable cause determined by
the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may the Ombudsman. Roberto B. Kalao vs. Office of the
resort to adducing circumstantial evidence, as in this Ombudsman, G.R. No. 158189, April 23, 2010
241
TRIAL; DUE PROCESS.
The accused contends that he was deprived of his

constitutional right to an impartial tribunal, quoting SELECTED SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN
extensively the sarcastic remarks that the trial court REMEDIAL LAW
made during the hearing. However, the Supreme Court
stated that although the trial judge might have made
APRIL 2010-MARCH 2011
improper remarks and comments, the same did not
amount to a denial of his right to due process or his right
to an impartial trial. A perusal of the transcript as a
whole would show that the remarks do not reflect any
partiality on the trial court. The remarks were not made April 2010
out of context. Most probably, the trial judge was peeved
at the strategy adopted by the accused. The trial judge
cannot be faulted for having made those remarks, Civil Procedure
notwithstanding the sarcastic tone it impressed. Sarcasm
alone cannot lead us to conclude that the judge had Actions; action for injunction.
taken the side of the prosecution. People of the
Philippines vs. Benancio Mortera, G.R. No. 188104, April
23, 2010 As a rule, actions for injunction and damages lie within
the jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (BP 129), otherwise known
WITNESSES; CREDIBILITY. as the “Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,” as
amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7691. An action for
As a rule, findings of the trial court on the credibility of injunction is a suit which has for its purpose
witnesses and of their testimonies are accorded great the enjoinment of the defendant, perpetually or for a
respect, unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts particular time, from the commission or continuance of a
and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially specific act, or his compulsion to continue performance of
affect the result of the case. In criminal cases, the a particular act. It has an independent existence, and is
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to distinct from the ancillary remedy of preliminary
the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion injunction which cannot exist except only as a part or an
thereon deserves much weight and respect, because the incident of an independent action or proceeding. In an
judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary
stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. injunction, prohibitory or mandatory, may
This deference to the trial court’s appreciation of the issue. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority
facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with vs. Merlino E. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 160270, April
the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets 23, 2010.
the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict
the accused. This is especially true when the factual Appeal; argument raised for first time on appeal.
findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate
court. The rule finds an even more stringent application
where said findings are sustained by the Court of Petitioner had, of course, endeavored to establish that
Appeals. People of the Philippines vs. respondent’s predecessors-in-interest had served him a
Emeldo ”Pamentolan” Obina, et al, G.R. No. 186540, demand to vacate the subject parcel as early as 31 July
April 14, 2010 1996. Correctly brushed aside by the Court of Appeals
on the ground, among others, that respondent had no
participation in its preparation, we find said demand
letter of little or no use to petitioner’s cause in view of its
non-presentation before the MeTC. However, much as it
may now be expedient for petitioner to anchor his cause
thereon, said demand letter was first introduced in the
record only as an attachment to his reply to respondent’s
comment to the motion for reconsideration of the 14 July
2005 order issued by the RTC. The rule is settled,
however, that points of law, theories, issues and
arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court
will not be and ought not to be considered by a reviewing
court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal. Basic consideration of due process impels this
rule. Hubert Nuñez vs. SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions,
Inc., G.R. No. 180542, April 12, 2010.
__________________
* Sourced from http://lexoterica.wordpress.com by

Carlos Roberto Z. Lopez
242
Therefore, when petitioner filed her petition for review

with the appellate court on May 15, 2007, the same was
well within the extended period for the filing
thereof. Alma B. Russel vs. Teofista Ebasan, et al., G.R.
No. 184542, April 23, 2010.
Appeal; computation of period where last day is
Sunday or legal holiday.
Petitioner’s petition for review (under Rule 42) and

Appeal; dismissal of appeal for technical defects in
motion for reconsideration before the appellate court
service and form of brief.
were filed well within the reglementary period for the
filing thereof. It must be noted that petitioner received
her copy of the RTC decision on April 13, 2007. Following We agree that the CA had the discretion to dismiss
the Rules of Court, she had 15 days or until April 28, petitioners’ appeal. The discretion, however, must be a
2007 to file her petition for review before the CA. Section sound one, to be exercised in accordance with the tenets
1 of Rule 42 provides: of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances
obtaining in each case. Here, we find that the failure to
serve a copy of the appellant’s brief to two of the adverse
Sec. 1. How appeal taken; time for filing.—A party
parties was a mere oversight, constituting excusable
desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial
neglect. A litigant’s failure to furnish his opponent with a
Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
copy of his appeal brief does not suffice to warrant
may file a verified petition for review with the Court of
dismissal of that appeal. In such an instance, all that is
Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said
needed is for the court to order the litigant to furnish his
court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees,
opponent with a copy of his brief. Anent the failure to
depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and
append a copy of the assailed judgment, instead of
furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party
dismissing the appeal on that basis, it is more in keeping
with a copy of the petition. The petition shall be filed and
with equity to simply require the appellants to
served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
immediately submit a copy of the Decision of the lower
decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of
court rather than punish litigants for the reckless
petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in
inattention of their lawyers. The purpose of a subject
due time after judgment. Upon proper motion and the
index in an appellant’s/appellee’s brief obviates the court
payment of the full amount of the docket and other
to thumb through a possibly lengthy brief page after
lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration
page to locate whatever else needs to be found and
of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may
considered, such as arguments and citations. In the case
grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within
at bar, notably, the appeal brief submitted to the CA
which to file the petition for review. No further extension
consists only of 17 pages which the appellate court may
shall be granted except for the most compelling reason
easily peruse to apprise it of what the case is all about
and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.
and of the relief sought. Thus, the belated submission of
the subject index may be considered excusable. Our
On April 20, 2007, petitioner filed before the CA, via discussion in Philippine Coconut Authority v. Corona
registered mail, her motion for extension of time to file International, Inc. is apropos:
the petition for review. She pleaded in her motion that
she be granted an additional 15 days, counted from the
x x x the purpose of the brief is to present the court in
expiry of the reglementary period. Petitioner likewise
coherent and concise form the point and questions in
attached to her motion postal money orders representing
controversy, and by fair argument on the facts and law of
the docket fees.
the case, to assist the court in arriving at a just and
proper conclusion. A haphazard and pellmell presentation
Fifteen days from April 28, 2007 would be May 13, 2007. will not do for the brief should be so prepared as to
This was, however, a Sunday. May 14, 2007, the minimize the labor of the court in examination of the
following day, was a legal holiday—the holding of the record upon which the appeal is heard and determined. It
national and local elections. Section 1 of Rule 22 states: is certainly, ‘the vehicle of counsel to convey to the court
the essential facts of his client’s case, a statement of the
Sec. 1. How to compute time.—In computing any period questions of law involved, the law he should have
of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order applied, and the application he desires of it by the court’.
of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the There should be an honest compliance with the
act or event from which the designated period of time requirements regarding contents of appellant’s brief, and
begins to run is to be excluded and the date of among which is that it should contain “a subject index of
performance included. If the last day of the period, as the matter in the brief with a digest of the argument and
thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal page references.”
holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall
not run until the next working day. We do not disagree with the appellate court’s above
exposition. The requirements laid down in Section 13,
Rule 43 are intended to aid the appellate court in arriving
at a just and proper conclusion of the case. However, we
243
are of the opinion that despite its deficiencies petitioner’s Appeal; findings of fact of lower courts generally
appellant’s brief is sufficient in form and substance as to binding on Supreme Court; exceptions.
apprise the appellate court of the essential facts and
nature of the case as well as the issues raised and the
It is a well-recognized principle that factual findings of
laws necessary for the disposition of the same.
the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect by
this Court, more so when they are affirmed by the
This case involves voluminous records meriting a review appellate court. However, the rule is not without
on the merits by the CA. Otherwise, the efforts of the exceptions, such as: (1) when the conclusion is a finding
petitioners to protect their collateral in their judicial grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, and
battle will lead to naught once they lose their remedy of conjectures; (2) the inferences made are manifestly
an appeal just because of procedural niceties. Adherence mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; and (4)
to legal technicalities allows individual error to be the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or
suffered in order that justice in the maximum may be premised on the absence of evidence on record.
preserved. Nonetheless, “we should indeed welcome,” as Especially in criminal cases where the accused stands to
Judge Learned Hand once wrote, “any efforts that help lose his liberty by virtue of his conviction, the Court must
disentangle us from the archaisms that still impede our be satisfied that the factual findings and conclusions of
pursuit of truth”. Our ruling in Aguam v. Court of the lower courts leading to his conviction must satisfy the
Appeals also bears recalling: standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Anthony
L. Ng vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 173905,
April 23, 2010.
Every party litigant must be afforded the amplest
opportunity for the proper and just determination of his
cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities. Appeal; findings of fact of trial court.
Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is
frowned upon where the policy of the court is to
The issue of whether or not the accused acted in self-
encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the
defense is undoubtedly a question of fact, and it is well
rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid,
entrenched in jurisprudence that findings of fact of the
technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help
trial court command great weight and respect unless
secure, not override substantial justice. It is a far better
patent inconsistencies are ignored or where the
and more prudent course of action for the court to
conclusions reached are clearly unsupported by
excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review
evidence. In the present case, we find no cogent reason
of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather
to disturb the decision of the trial court, as modified by
than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a
the CA. In debunking his claim, we quote with approval
the ruling of the CA.
delay, if not a miscarriage of justice. Trinidad
Go, et al. vs. Vicente Velez Chavez, et al., G.R. No. In the instant case, accused-appellant claims that there
182341, April 23, 2010. was unlawful aggression on the part Robelyn Rojas when
the latter allegedly hit him with a spray gun. However,
except this self-serving statement, no other evidence was
Appeal; findings of fact of lower courts.
presented to prove that indeed he was hit by Robelyn.
Accused-appellant failed to show where he was hit and
However, a question involving the regularity of what injuries he sustained, if any. Moreover, his own
notarization as well as the due execution of the subject defense witness Roden Macasantos did not see him being
sworn statement of Basilisa would require an inquiry into hit by a spray gun. On the contrary, the prosecution has
the appreciation of evidence by the trial court. It is not clearly shown that before Robelyn was stabbed, the two
the function of this Court to review, examine and even discussed with each other and accused-appellant
evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence even shook hands with him. Moreover, if indeed it was
presented. A question of fact would arise in such event. true that Robelyn was carrying a spray gun and tried to
Settled is the rule that questions of fact cannot be raised hit him, accused-appellant, while he was in a supine
in an appeal via certiorari before the Supreme Court and position, could have easily just flaunted his knife to scare
are not proper for its consideration. The rationale behind his alleged attackers away. On the other hand, even if we
this doctrine is that a review of the findings of fact of the assume to be true that he was in a supine position when
trial courts and the appellate tribunal is not a function he thrust the knife at his attacker, it is however
this Court normally undertakes. The Court will not weigh impossible that the back of Robelyn would be hit, unless
the evidence all over again unless there is a showing that the latter could also fell (sic) on his back, which is again
the findings of the lower courts are totally devoid of far from reality. In a myriad of cases, it has been ruled
support or are clearly erroneous so as to constitute that the location, number or seriousness of the stab or
serious abuse of discretion. Although there are hack wounds inflicted on the victim are
recognized exceptions to this rule, none exists in the important indicia which may disprove accused’s plea of
present case to justify a departure therefrom. Alejandra self defense. In the instant case, it is clear that the
S. Lazaro, et al. vs. Modesta Agustin, et al., G.R. No. victim was stabbed at the back negating any indication
152364, April 15, 2010. that accused-appellant acted in self defense.
244
The People of the Philippines with the SAC. It is only in the present petition for review
vs. Benancio Mortera y Belarmino, G.R. No. 188104, that petitioners raised the alleged existence of a
April 23, 2010. consummated sale between the DAR and petitioners.
Appeal; hierarchy of courts. The argument that a consummated sale between the
DAR and petitioners existed upon petitioners’ acceptance
of the valuation made in the RARAD’s decision of 29
The first refers to the petitioners’ breach of the
March 2000 is an issue being raised for the first time.
hierarchy of courts by coming directly to the Court to
Section 15, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Court provides
appeal the assailed issuances of the RTC via petition for
that the appellant “may include in his assignment of
review on certiorari. They should not have done so,
errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in
bypassing a review by the Court of Appeals (CA),
the court below and which is within the issues framed by
because the hierarchy of courts is essential to the
the parties.” A perusal of the questions raised in the SAC
efficient functioning of the courts and to the orderly
and the CA shows that the issue on the existence of a
administration of justice. Their non-observance of the
consummated sale between the DAR and petitioners was
hierarchy of courts has forthwith enlarged the docket of
not among the issues therein. Hence, this issue is being
the Court by one more case, which, though it may not
raised for the first time on appeal. It is a fundamental
seem burdensome to the layman, is one case too much
rule that this Court will not resolve issues that were not
to the Court, which has to devote time and effort in
properly brought and ventilated in the lower courts.
poring over the papers submitted herein, only to discover
Questions raised on appeal must be within the issues
in the end that a review should have first been made by
framed by the parties and, consequently, issues not
the CA. The time and effort could have been dedicated to
raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time
other cases of importance and impact on the lives and
on appeal. An issue, which was neither averred in the
rights of others. The hierarchy of courts is not to be
complaint nor raised during the trial in the lower courts,
lightly regarded by litigants. The CA stands between the
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because it
RTC and the Court, and its establishment has been
would be offensive to the basic rule of fair play and
precisely to take over much of the work that used to be
justice, and would be violative of the constitutional right
done by the Court. Historically, the CA has been of the
to due process of the other party. Heirs of
greatest help to the Court in synthesizing the facts,
Lorenzo Vidad and Carmen Vidad, et al. vs. Land Bank
issues, and rulings in an orderly and intelligible manner
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166461, April 30, 2010.
and in identifying errors that ordinarily might escape
detection. The Court has thus been freed to better
discharge its constitutional duties and perform its most
important work, which, in the words of Dean Vicente
G. Sinco, “is less concerned with the decision of cases
Appeal; issue raised for first time on appeal;
that begin and end with the transient rights and
question of fact outside scope of Rule 45 appeal.
obligations of particular individuals but is more
intertwined with the direction of national policies,
momentous economic and social problems, the We note at the outset that the objection on the
delimitation of governmental authority and its impact delineation of the scope and extent of the excess areas
upon fundamental rights.” The need to elevate the of TCT No. 722 came too late in the day; it is an issue
matter first to the CA is also underscored by the reality that the Hacienda admits to have raised for the first time
that determining whether the petitioners were real when it sought reconsideration of the CA decision. We
parties in interest entitled to bring this appeal against the significantly note, too, that this issue involves a question
denial by the RTC of the OSG’s motion for the issuance of of fact whose determination is improper in a Rule 45
a writ of execution was a mixed question of fact and law. proceeding before this Court. Hacienda Bigaa, Inc.
As such, the CA was in the better position to review and vs. Epifanio V. Chavez, et al., G.R. No. 174160, April 20,
to determine. In that regard, the petitioners violate 2010.
Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
which demands that an appeal by petition for review Appeal; notice of appeal; computation of period to
on certiorari be limited to questions of law. Francisco file.
Alonso, et al. vs. Cebu Country Club, Inc., et al., G.R.
No. 188471, April 20, 2010.
As regards the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the
appeal of PCI Leasing was filed out of time, the same was
Appeal; issue raised for first time on appeal. in concurrence with the findings of the RTC that the
Notice of Appeal was filed one day late. On this matter,
In its petition for review with the CA, petitioners never we hold that the conclusion of the RTC that PCI Leasing
put as an issue the alleged existence of a consummated belatedly filed its appeal was correct, but the premise
sale between the DAR and the petitioners under RA 6657. therefor was evidently mistaken. In accordance with
What petitioners questioned was SAC’s jurisdiction over Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an ordinary
determination of just compensation cases involving lands appeal of a judgment by the RTC shall be taken within
covered by RA 6657. Furthermore, petitioners insist fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final
that LBP has no legal personality to institute a case for order appealed from. Said period shall be interrupted by
determination of just compensation against landowners a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration.
245
In Neypes v. Court of Appeals, the Court had the pleading, which does not toll the period within which an
occasion to clarify the rule regarding the period within appeal may be taken, to wit:
which an appeal may be taken should a motion for new
trial or reconsideration be filed. Thus:
SEC. 5. Second motion for new trial. – A motion for
new trial shall include all grounds then available and
To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules those not so included shall be deemed waived. A second
and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their motion for new trial, based on a ground not existing nor
cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh available when the first motion was made, may be filed
period of 15 days within which to file the notice of within the time herein provided excluding the time during
appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from which the first motion had been pending.
receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new
trial or motion for reconsideration.
No party shall be allowed a second motion for
reconsideration of a judgment or final order.
Henceforth, this “fresh period rule” shall also apply to (Emphasis ours.)
Rule 40 governing appeals from the Municipal Trial
Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions
As PCI Leasing was not able to file the Notice of Appeal
for review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of
within the reglementary period allowed therefor, the RTC
Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies
Order dated October 13, 2000, dismissing Civil Case No.
to the Court of Appeals and Rule 45 governing appeals by
Q-00-40010, should be deemed final and
certiorari to the Supreme Court. The new rule aims to
executory. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Antonio C.
regiment or make the appeal period uniform, to be
Milan, et al., G.R. No. 151215, April 5, 2010.
counted from receipt of the order denying the
motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration
(whether full or partial) or any final order or
resolution.
Appeal; notice of appeal; requirements.
xxxx
The Court of Appeals concluded that the Notice of Appeal
To recapitulate, a party litigant may either file his notice involved pure questions of law on the basis of the
of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the Regional statement therein that the Order dated October 13,
Trial Court’s decision or file it within 15 days from receipt 2000, the Resolution dated January 4, 2001 and the
of the order (the “final order”) denying his motion for Resolution dated April 6, 2001 of the RTC would be
new trial or motion for reconsideration. Obviously, the appealed to the Court of Appeals on the ground that the
new 15-day period may be availed of only if either same were “contrary to the applicable laws and
motion is filed; otherwise, the decision becomes final and jurisprudence on the matter.” The Court of Appeals was
executory after the lapse of the original appeal period of the opinion that it would not have jurisdiction over the
provided in Rule 41, Section 3. (Emphases ours.) intended appeal since the same should be raised to the
Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
In the case at bar, PCI Leasing filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the RTC Order dated October 13,
2000, which dismissed Civil Case No. Q-00-40010. We hold that the Court of Appeals was unreasonably
On January 4, 2001, the RTC rendered a Resolution, hasty in inferring its lack of jurisdiction over the intended
denying the Motion for Reconsideration. Said Resolution appeal of PCI Leasing. The above-stated conclusion of
was received by PCI Leasing on January 17, 2001. the Court of Appeals was simply uncalled for,
Therefore, PCI Leasing should have filed its Notice of notwithstanding the said statement in the Notice of
Appeal within 15 days from January 17, 2001 or until Appeal. Under Rule 41, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, a
February 1, 2001. PCI Leasing actually filed its Notice of notice of appeal is only required to indicate (a) the
Appeal on May 11, 2001 or 114 days after receipt of the parties to the appeal, (b) the final judgment or order or
Resolution denying its Motion for Reconsideration. part thereof appealed from, (c) the court to which the
appeal is being taken, and (d) the material dates showing
the timeliness of the appeal. In usual court practice, a
Contrary to the findings of the RTC, the period within
notice of appeal would consist of one or two pages. Only
which to file the Notice of Appeal should not be reckoned
after the specific issues and arguments of PCI Leasing
from May 3, 2001, the date of receipt of the RTC
are laid out in detail before the Court of Appeals in the
Resolution dated April 6, 2001, which denied
appropriate substantive pleading can it make a
the Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration of PCI Leasing.
conclusion as to whether or not the issues raised therein
The aforesaid Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration was
involved pure questions of law. PCI Leasing and Finance,
already the second attempt on the part of PCI Leasing to
Inc. vs. Antonio C. Milan, et al., G.R. No. 151215, April
seek a reconsideration of the RTC Order dated October
5, 2010.
13, 2000, dismissing Civil Case No. Q-00-40010. It is,
thus, in the nature of a second motion for
reconsideration. Under Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of
Court, such motion for reconsideration is a prohibited
246
Appeal; requirement to attach pleadings filed We must stress that cases should be determined on the
below; substantial compliance. merits, after all parties have been given full opportunity
to ventilate their causes and defenses, rather than on
technicalities or procedural imperfections. In that way,
We dwell first with the procedural issues before the main
the ends of justice would be served better. Rules of
controversy. Respondents contend that the instant
procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the
petition is dismissible on the ground that NHA failed to
decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending
attach pleadings filed in the RTC and the Court of Appeals
in court. A strict and rigid application of rules, resulting in
as required under Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court which partly provides:
substantial justice, must be avoided. In fact, Section 6 of
Rule 1 states that the Rules shall be liberally construed in
SEC. 4. Contents of petition. order to promote their objective of ensuring the just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
— The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with proceeding.
the original copy intended for the court being indicated as
such by the petitioner, and shall x x x (d) be National Housing Authority vs. Augusto Basa, Jr.,
accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a Luz Basa and Eduardo S. Basa, G.R. No. 149121, April
certified true copy of the judgment or final order or 20, 2010.
resolution certified by the clerk of court of the
court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies
thereof, and such material portions of the record as
would support the petition; x x x.
Certiorari; available where denial of motion to
dismiss is with grave abuse of discretion.
In its petition, NHA attached the February 24, 2000
Decision, the November 27, 2000 Amended Decision, and
the July 19, 2001 Resolution all of the Court of Appeals; Anent respondents’ claim that the RTC Order denying a
copies of the transfer certificates of title of the disputed motion to dismiss is a mere interlocutory order, thus,
properties; and the June 13, 1994 Order of the Quezon not appealable and may not be a subject of a petition
City RTC ordering the reconstitution of the said titles. for certiorari filed by the petitioner before the CA, the
This Court finds that NHA substantially complied with the same is also not meritorious. While indeed, the general
requirements under Section 4 of Rule 45. The same rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be
conclusion was arrived at by this Court in Development questioned in a special civil action for certiorari, which is
Bank of the Philippines v. Family Foods Manufacturing not intended to correct every controversial interlocutory
Co., Ltd. when it was faced with the same procedural ruling, and that the appropriate recourse is to file an
objection, thus: answer and to interpose as defenses the objections
raised in the motion, to proceed to trial, and, in case of
an adverse decision, to elevate the entire case by appeal
As held by this Court in Air Philippines Corporation v.
in due course, this rule is not absolute. Even when
Zamora:
appeal is available and is the proper remedy, the
Supreme Court has allowed a writ of certiorari (1) where
[E]ven if a document is relevant and pertinent to the the appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate
petition, it need not be appended if it is shown that the remedy; (2) where the orders were also issued either in
contents thereof can also [be] found in another document excess of or without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
already attached to the petition. Thus, if the material discretion; (3) for certain special considerations, as public
allegations in a position paper are summarized in a welfare or public policy; (4) where in criminal actions, the
questioned judgment, it will suffice that only a certified court rejects rebuttal evidence for the prosecution as, in
true copy of the judgment is attached. case of acquittal, there could be no remedy; (5) where
the order is a patent nullity; and (6) where the decision
Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of in the certiorari case will avoid future litigations. In this
the case record may still be given due course or case, we find that the RTC committed grave abuse of
reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon showing that discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it failed
petitioner later submitted the documents required, or to consider the lack of proof of authority of
that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the respondent Neri to file the action on behalf of the
case be decided on the merits. corporation as we have discussed above. Republic of the
Philippines vs. Coalbrine International
Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 161838, April 7, 2010.
Nevertheless, even if the pleadings and other supporting
documents were not attached to the petition, the
dismissal is unwarranted because the CA records Certiorari; grave abuse of discretion.
containing the promissory notes and the real estate and
chattel mortgages were elevated to this Court. Without a Finally, we note that the instant petition was filed under
doubt, we have sufficient basis to actually and completely Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
dispose of the case. amended, which requires the existence of grave abuse of
discretion. Grave abuse of discretion exists where an act
247
of a court or tribunal is performed with a capricious or XXX XXX
whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of XXX XXX
jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent
and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty
As the petitioners now raise before this Court the
or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law,
same errors of judgment already raised before and
or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the
resolved by the CA, the dismissal of the present certiorari
power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner
petition is in order for being the wrong remedy. Errors of
by reason of passion or personal hostility. No such grave
judgment committed by the CA are reviewable by this
abuse of discretion exists in this case to warrant issuance
Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Mediserv, Inc. vs.
of the Rules of Court. Erroneous findings and conclusion
Court of Appeals (Special Former
do not render the appellate court vulnerable to the
13th Division), et al., G.R. No. 161368, April 5, 2010.
corrective writ of certiorari. Nemesio Goco, et al. vs.
Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 157449,
April 6, 2010.
Certiorari; nature of remedy; available to correct Certiorari; not available against dismissal order
only errors of jurisdiction. from which appeal can be taken.
The petitioners have twice erroneously availed of the Since an order of dismissal by the trial court is a final
remedy of a certiorari petition, first, before the CA order from which an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 can
against the RTC order dismissing its complaint for be taken, the petitioners should have taken this avenue
annulment of title, and second, before the Court against against the RTC order of September 7, 1999 instead of
the CA’s decision thereon. Time and again, we have resorting to a petition for certiorari before the CA.
discussed the nature of a certiorari petition – it is Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 is unequivocal in
intended to correct only errors of jurisdiction where directing the dismissal of an inappropriate mode of
the court or tribunal has acted with grave abuse of appeal:
discretion. A writ of certiorari cannot be used for any
other purpose; it cannot be used to resolve questions or
4. Erroneous Appeals – An appeal taken to either the
issues beyond its competence such as errors of
Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or
judgment. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by
inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.
the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the
parties, its conclusions anchored on the said findings, and
its conclusions of law. But rather than dismissing outright the petition, the CA,
“in the interest of justice,” decided to treat it as an
appeal filed under Rule 41 and consider the errors raised
The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance
by the petitioners. As it turned out, however, the CA still
of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose
ruled for the petition’s dismissal because it found that
of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment
petitioners’ did not have any cause of action against
of the lower court on the basis either of the law or the
respondent Catlys and were not the real parties in
facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal soundness of
interest. Nemesio Goco, et al. vs. Honorable Court of
the decision. Even if the findings of the court are
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 157449, April 6, 2010.
incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case,
such correction is normally beyond the province
of certiorari. Where the error is not one of
jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact – a
mistake of judgment – appeal is the remedy. Certiorari; unavailing where appeal period has
[Emphasis supplied.] lapsed; exceptions.
In the two certiorari petitions the petitioners filed before Petitioners are questioning a final decision of the CA by
the CA and before the Court, they assailed rulings of the resorting to Rule 65, when their remedy should be based
lower courts by claiming that the findings and conclusions on Rule 45. This case would normally have been
of these courts were merely speculative and based on dismissed outright for failure of the petitioners to adopt
misapprehension of facts. These assigned errors, the proper remedy. While ordinarily, certiorari is
however, constitute an attack on the correctness or unavailing where the appeal period has lapsed, there are
soundness of the decision assailed and does not at all exceptions. Among them are (a) when public welfare
affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue such decision. and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when
In other words, they amount to no more than errors of the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) when the
judgment correctible by an appeal, not by a writ writs issued are null and void; or (d) when the
of certiorari that will issue only when there is no appeal, questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of
or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the judicial authority. In the present case, the CA’s act of
ordinary course of law. dismissing petitioners’ petition for certiorari and in finding
the RTC’s Decision already final and executory in its
entirety, despite the filing by the petitioners of a Notice
248
of Appeal within 15 days from their receipt of the (c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the
February 7, 2001 RTC Order amending the said RTC process or proceedings of a court not constituting direct
Decision is an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. contempt under Section 1 of this rule;
Hence, in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it
wise to overlook the procedural
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly,
technicalities. Associated Anglo-American Tobacco
to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of
Corporation, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
justice;
167237, April 23, 2010.
xxx
Contempt.
When the TRO issued by the RTC was served upon

Respondents filed a case for indirect contempt against
the SBMA officers on 13 June 2002, there was already an
Augusto L. Canlas, Atty. Francisco A. Abella, Jr., and
existing warrant of seizure and detention (dated 22 May
Atty. Rizal V. Katalbas, Jr. for allegedly defying
2002) issued by the BOC against the subject rice
the TRO issued by the RTC in connection with the
shipment. Thus, as far as the SBMA officers were
complaint for injunction and damages previously filed by
concerned, exclusive jurisdiction over the subject
respondents. Contempt constitutes disobedience to the
shipment remained with the BOC, and the RTC had no
court by setting up an opposition to its authority, justice
jurisdiction over cases involving said shipment.
and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or
Consequently, the SBMA officers refused to comply with
disobedience of the court’s orders but such conduct as
the TRO issued by the RTC. Considering the foregoing
tends to bring the authority of the court and the
circumstances, we believe that the SBMA officers may be
administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to
considered to have acted in good faith when they refused
impede the due administration of justice. There are two
to follow the TRO issued by the RTC. The SBMA officers’
kinds of contempt punishable by law: direct contempt
refusal to follow the court order was not contumacious
and indirect contempt. Direct contempt is committed
but due to the honest belief that jurisdiction over the
when a person is guilty of misbehavior in the presence of
subject shipment remained with the BOC because of the
or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the
existing warrant of seizure and detention against said
proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward
shipment. Accordingly, these SBMA officers should not
the court, offensive personalities toward others, or
be held accountable for their acts which were done in
refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to
good faith and not without legal basis. Thus, we hold
subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully
that the RTC Order dated 21 November 2002 which found
required to do so. Indirect contempt or constructive
the SBMA officers guilty of indirect contempt for not
contempt is that which is committed out of the presence
complying with the RTC’s TRO should be
of the court. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority
invalidated. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority
vs. Merlino E. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 160270, April
vs. Merlino E. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 160270, April
23, 2010
23, 2010.
Contempt; indirect contempt.
Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Civil

Dismissals; dismissal due to plaintiff’s fault.
Procedure includes, among the grounds for filing a case
for indirect contempt, the following:
Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court is the applicable
rule in the instant case, which provision reads:
Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge
and hearing. –
Sec. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no
justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date
After charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity
of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the
given to the accused to be heard by himself or counsel, a
complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable
person guilty of any of the following acts may be
length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any
punished for contempt:
order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon
motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion,
xxx without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate
action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ,
adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared
process, order, judgment or command of a court, or
by the court.
injunction granted by a court or judge, x x x
Gomez v. Alcantara explains that

“[t]he aforequoted provision enumerates the instances
249
when a complaint may be dismissed due to the plaintiff’s for Reconsideration thereof. While trial courts have the
fault: (1) if he fails to appear on the date for the discretion to impose sanctions on counsels or litigants for
presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint; tardiness or absence at hearings, such sanctions should
(2) if he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable be proportionate to the offense and should still conform
length of time; or (3) if he fails to comply with the Rules to the dictates of justice and fair play.
or any order of the court. The dismissal of a case for
failure to prosecute has the effect of adjudication on the
Likewise, only a period of one month has passed
merits, and is necessarily understood to be with prejudice
since PCI Leasing was ordered by the RTC to actively
to the filing of another action, unless otherwise provided
pursue its case, up to the time when Civil Case No. Q-00-
in the order of dismissal. Stated differently, the general
40010 was actually dismissed. It does not escape this
rule is that dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is
Court’s notice that PCI Leasing failed to successfully
to be regarded as an adjudication on the merits and with
prosecute the case for several months due to the
prejudice to the filing of another action, and the only
difficulties it encountered in locating respondents, who
exception is when the order of dismissal expressly
appeared to have a propensity for changing addresses
contains a qualification that the dismissal is without
and refusing to accept court processes. Under these
prejudice.” Furthermore, in Marahay v. Melicor, we
circumstances, the delay in the trial court proceedings
pronounced that “[w]hile a court can dismiss a case on
was not entirely the fault of PCI Leasing. Verily, it can
the ground of non prosequitur, the real test for the
hardly be said that PCI Leasing engaged in a pattern or
exercise of such power is whether, under the
scheme to delay the disposition of Civil Case No. Q-00-
circumstances, plaintiff is chargeable with want of due
40010 or committed a wanton failure to observe the
diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable
mandatory requirement of the rules. On this
promptitude. In the absence of a pattern or scheme to
score, Calalang v. Court of Appeals underscores that
delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to
“[u]nless a party’s conduct is so negligent, irresponsible,
observe the mandatory requirement of the rules on the
contumacious, or dilatory as to provide substantial
part of the plaintiff, as in the case at bar, courts should
grounds for dismissal for non-appearance, the courts
decide to dispense with rather than wield their authority
should consider lesser sanctions which would still amount
to dismiss.” Guided by the foregoing principles, we find
into achieving the desired end.” PCI Leasing and Finance,
that the RTC grievously erred in dismissing Civil Case No.
Inc. vs. Antonio C. Milan, et al., G.R. No. 151215, April
Q-00-40010.
5, 2010.
According to the RTC Order dated October 13, 2000, the

trial court dismissed the case filed by PCI Leasing in view
of the absence of the latter’s counsel at the hearing
scheduled for that day. PCI Leasing had also been Ejectment; nature of action; summary action to
directed, on July 13, 2000, to “take the necessary steps protect right to possession without involvement of
to actively prosecute [its] case, otherwise, the same shall title.
be dismissed.” To our mind, the above circumstances do
not constitute sufficient bases to warrant the conclusion Petitioner is, finally, out on a limb in faulting the Court of
that PCI Leasing had lost interest in prosecuting Civil Appeals with failure to apply the first paragraph of Article
Case No. Q-00-40010. 1676 of the Civil Code of the Philippines in relation to the
lease he claims to have concluded with one Maria
In its Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated Ysabel Potenciano Padilla Sylianteng. In the absence of
October 13, 2000, PCI Leasing explained that its counsel proof of his lessor’s title or respondent’s prior knowledge
merely came late during the hearing scheduled for the of said contract of lease, petitioner’s harping over the
said date, arriving at the time when Judge Domingo- same provision simply amounts to an implied admission
Regala was already dictating the order of dismissal. that the premises occupied by him lie within the metes
Said hearing was not even for the presentation of the and bounds of the subject parcel. Even then, the
evidence in chief of PCI Leasing, where the latter’s resolution of said issue is clearly inappropriate since
presence would be indispensable, but merely for the ejectment cases are summary actions intended to
issuance of Alias Summons. Incidentally, the Motion for provide an expeditious manner for protecting possession
Issuance of Alias Summons filed by PCI Leasing is non- or right to possession without involvement of title.
litigious in nature, which does not require a hearing Moreover, if a defendant’s mere assertion of ownership in
under the Rules, as the same could have been acted an ejectment case will not oust the MeTC of its summary
upon by the RTC without prejudicing the rights of the jurisdiction, we fail to see why it should be any different
respondents. All facts necessary for the determination of in this case where petitioner merely alleged his lessor’s
the motion are already specified therein or a matter of supposed title over the subject
record and there was yet no adverse party to dispute the parcel. Hubert Nuñez vs. SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions,
same as the court had not even acquired jurisdiction over Inc., G.R. No. 180542, April 12, 2010.
the person of the respondents. It was serious error on
the part of the trial court to have denied the first motion Execution; execution of judgment for specific acts;
for issuance of alias summons for want of notice of removal of improvements. In addition, Rule 39, Section
hearing. It was also not mandatory for the trial court to 10, paragraphs (c) and (d), of the Rules of Court
set the second motion for hearing. Despite this, the RTC provides the procedure for execution of judgments for
still dismissed the case and eventually denied the Motion specific acts, as follows:
250
SECTION 10. Execution of judgments for specific act.- of the writ of execution failed to state good reasons for
the issuance of the writ. The RTC mistakenly deemed
that the execution should issue as a matter of right
x x x x
because it had held that part of its September 14, 2001
Decision had become final and executory. As previously
(c) Delivery or restitution of real property. – The officer discussed, the said proposition is erroneous because the
shall demand of the person against whom the judgment Decision in the present case is not properly severable.
for the delivery or restitution of real property is rendered
and all persons claiming rights under him to peaceably
Furthermore, the motion for partial execution was filed
vacate the property within the three (3) working days,
only on August 22, 2001, more than four months after
and restore possession thereof to the judgment obligee;
the appeal was perfected. “In appeals by notice of
otherwise, the officer shall oust all such persons
appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon
therefrom with the assistance, if necessary, of
the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the
appropriate peace officers, and employing such means as
expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.”
may be reasonably necessary to retake possession, and
Each party only has at most 15 days from their receipt of
place the judgment obligee in possession of such
the final order to appeal it. Thus, when respondents filed
property. Any costs, damages, rents or profits awarded
their motion for partial execution the RTC no longer had
by the judgment shall be satisfied in the same manner as
jurisdiction over the case and it no longer had jurisdiction
a judgment for money.
to act on the said motion for partial execution. Aside
from the fact that the appeal was filed on time and
(d) Removal of improvements on property subject of should thus not have been dismissed in the assailed May
execution. - When the property subject of execution 9, 2002 Order, the said Order, which also resolved the
contains improvements constructed or planted by the motion for partial execution, fell short of the
judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not requirements of Section 2, Rule 39, as previously
destroy, demolish or remove said improvements, discussed. Where the order of execution is not in
except upon special order of the court, issued upon conformity with the rules, the same is null and void.
motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing and Therefore, the CA erred in not nullifying the May 9, 2002
after the former has failed to remove the same within a Order. Associated Anglo-American Tobacco
reasonable time fixed by the court. (Emphasis supplied) Corporation, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
167237, April 23, 2010.
In Buñag v. Court of Appeals, we explained that a
judgment for the delivery or restitution of property is Extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage; burden of
essentially an order to place the prevailing party in party alleging defect in publication and notice.
possession of the property. If the defendant refuses to
surrender possession of the property to the prevailing
As regards respondents’ allegation on the defect in the
party, the sheriff or other proper officer should oust him.
publication and notice requirements of the extrajudicial
No express order to this effect needs to be stated in the
foreclosure sale, the same is unavailing. The rule is that
decision; nor is a categorical statement needed in the
it is the mortgagor who alleges absence of a requisite
decision that in such event the sheriff or other proper
who has the burden of establishing such fact. This is so
officer shall have the authority to remove the
because foreclosure proceedings have in their favor the
improvements on the property if the defendant fails to do
presumption of regularity and the burden of evidence to
so within a reasonable period of time. The removal of
rebut the same is on the party who questions it. Here,
the improvements on the land under these circumstances
except for their bare allegations, respondents failed to
is deemed read into the decision, subject only to the
present any evidence to support them. In
issuance of a special order by the court for the removal
addition, NHA stated in its Comment to Motion for Leave
of the improvements. Narciso Tumibay, et al. vs. Sps.
of Court to Intervene that it had complied with the
Yolanda T. Sora, et al., G.R. No. 152016, April 13, 2010.
publication of the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale in the Manila
Times in the latter’s issues dated July 14, 21 and 28,
Execution; execution pending appeal. 1990. It also claimed that an Affidavit of Publication of
said newspaper was attached as Annex “B” in the said
Petitioners received their copy of the February 7, 2001 comment. NHA also said that respondents had been
Order on February 20, 2001. They timely filed a notice of furnished with a copy of the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale as
appeal on March 6, 2001, or after 14 days. The appeal shown at the bottom portion of said notice. From all
was duly perfected. When an appeal had been duly these, it would tend to show that respondents’ aspersion
perfected, execution of the judgment, whether wholly or of non-compliance with the requirements of foreclosure
partially, was not a matter of right, but of discretion sale is a futile attempt to salvage its statutory right to
provided good reasons therefor existed. The compelling redeem their foreclosed properties, which right had long
grounds for the issuance of the writ must be stated in a been lost by inaction. National Housing Authority vs.
special order after due hearing. Aside from the existence Augusto Basa, Jr., Luz Basa and Eduardo S. Basa, G.R.
of good reasons, the rules also require that the motion No. 149121, April 20, 2010.
for partial execution should have been filed while the trial
court still had jurisdiction over the case. In the present Extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage; publication
case, the RTC’s May 9, 2002 Order granting the issuance requirement; burden of proof.
251
It is settled that for the purpose of extrajudicial admitted as part of petitioner’s evidence, it would not
foreclosure of mortgage, the party alleging non- support petitioner’s case as it does not clearly prove
compliance with the requisite publication has the burden petitioner’s compliance with the publication
of proving the same. In this case, respondents presented requirement. Philippine Savings Bank vs. Spouses
the testimony of a newsstand owner to prove Dionisio Geronimo, et al., G.R. No. 170241, April 19,
that Ang Pinoy is not a newspaper of general circulation. 2010.
However, this particular evidence is unreliable, as the
same witness testified that he sells newspapers in
Extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage; publication
Quezon City, not in Caloocan City, and that he is
requirement; strict compliance.
unaware of Ang Pinoy newspaper simply because he is
not selling the same and he had not heard of it. His
testimony states: Once again, the Court stresses the importance of the
notice requirement, as enunciated in Metropolitan Bank
and Trust Company, Inc. v. Peñafiel, thus:
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
The object of a notice of sale is to inform the public of
the nature and condition of the property to be sold, and
Notwithstanding, petitioner could have easily produced
of the time, place and terms of the sale. Notices are
the affidavit of publication and other competent evidence
given for the purpose of securing bidders and to prevent
(such as the published notices) to refute respondents’
a sacrifice [sale] of the property. The goal of the notice
claim of lack of publication of the notice of sale.
requirement is to achieve a “reasonably wide publicity” of
In Spouses Pulido v. Court of Appeals, the Court held:
the auction sale. This is why publication in a newspaper
of general circulation is required. The Court has
While it may be true that the party alleging non- previously taken judicial notice of the “far-reaching
compliance with the requisite publication has the burden effects” of publishing the notice of sale in a newspaper of
of proof, still negative allegations need not be proved general circulation.
even if essential to one’s cause of action or defense if
they constitute a denial of the existence of a document
In addition, the Court reminds mortgagees of their duty
the custody of which belongs to the other party.
to comply faithfully with the statutory requirements of
foreclosure. In Metropolitan Bank v. Wong, the Court
In relation to the evidentiary weight of the affidavit of declared:
publication, the Court ruled in China Banking Corporation
v. Spouses Martir that the affidavit of publication
While the law recognizes the right of a bank to foreclose
executed by the account executive of the newspaper
a mortgage upon the mortgagor’s failure to pay his
is prima facie proof that the newspaper is generally
obligation, it is imperative that such right be exercised
circulated in the place where the properties are located.
according to its clear mandate. Each and every
In the present case, the Affidavit of Publication or Exhibit
requirement of the law must be complied with, lest, the
“8,” although formally offered by petitioner, was excluded
valid exercise of the right would end. It must be
by the trial court for being hearsay. Petitioner never
remembered that the exercise of a right ends when the
challenged the exclusion of the affidavit of publication.
right disappears, and it disappears when it is abused
Instead, petitioner relies solely on the testimony of
especially to the prejudice of others.
Deputy Sheriff Alberto Castillo to prove compliance with
the publication requirement under Section 3 of Act No.
3135. However, there is nothing in such testimony to In sum, petitioner failed to establish its compliance with
clearly and convincingly prove that petitioner complied the publication requirement under Section 3 of Act No.
with the mandatory requirement of publication. When 3135. Consequently, the questioned extrajudicial
Sheriff Castillo was asked how he knew that the notice of foreclosure of real estate mortgage and sale are
sale was published, he simply replied that “during the void. Philippine Savings Bank vs. Spouses Dionisio
auction sale the mortgagee bank presented the affidavit Geronimo, et al., G.R. No. 170241, April 19, 2010.
of publication.” Evidently, such an answer does not
suffice to establish petitioner’s claim of compliance with Extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage; registration
the statutory requirement of publication. On the contrary, of sheriff’s certificate of sale; substantial
Sheriff Castillo’s testimony reveals that he had no compliance.
personal knowledge of the actual publication of the notice
of sale, much less the extent of the circulation
of Ang Pinoy. Moreover, the Court notes that Ang Pinoy Indeed, the prevailing rule is that there is effective
is a newspaper of general circulation printed and registration once the registrant has fulfilled all that is
published in Manila, not in Caloocan City where the needed of him for purposes of entry and annotation, so
mortgaged property is located, as indicated in the that what is left to be accomplished lies solely on the
excluded Affidavit of Publication. This is contrary to the register of deeds. The Court thus once held:
requirement under Section 3 of Act No. 3135 pertaining
to the publication of the notice of sale in a newspaper of Current doctrine thus seems to be that entry alone
general circulation in the city where the property is produces the effect of registration, whether the
situated. Hence, even if the Affidavit of Publication was transaction entered is a voluntary or an involuntary one,
252
so long as the registrant has complied with all that is Extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage; writ of
required of him for purposes of entry and annotation, and possession.
nothing more remains to be done but a duty incumbent
solely on the register of deeds.
Considering that the foreclosure sale and its subsequent
registration with the Register of Deeds were done validly,
In the case under consideration, NHA presented the there is no reason for the non-issuance of the writ of
sheriff’s certificate of sale to the Register of Deeds and possession. A writ of possession is an order directing the
the same was entered as Entry No. 2873 and said entry sheriff to place a person in possession of a real or
was further annotated in the owner’s transfer certificate personal property, such as when a property
of title. A year later and after the mortgagors did not is extrajudicially foreclosed. Section 7 of Act No. 3135
redeem the said properties, respondents filed with the provides for the rule in the issuance of the writ of
Register of Deeds an Affidavit of Consolidation of possession involving extrajudicial foreclosure sales of real
Ownership after which the same instrument was estate mortgage, to wit:
presumably entered into in the day book as the same
was annotated in the owner’s duplicate copy. Just like
Sec. 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this
in DBP, Levin, Potenciano and Autocorp, NHA followed
Act, the purchaser may petition the [Regional Trial Court]
the procedure in order to have its sheriff’s certificate of
of the province or place where the property or any part
sale annotated in the transfer certificates of title. There
thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof during
would be, therefore, no reason not to apply the ruling in
the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount
said cases to this one. It was not NHA’s fault that the
equivalent to the use of the property for a period of
certificate of sale was not annotated on the transfer
twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be
certificates of title which were supposed to be in the
shown that the sale was made without violating the
custody of the Registrar, since the same were burned.
mortgage or without complying with the requirements of
Neither could NHA be blamed for the fact that there were
this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and
no reconstituted titles available during the time of
filed in the form of an ex parte motion in the registration
inscription as it had taken the necessary steps in having
or cadastral proceedings if the property is registered, or
the same reconstituted as early as July 15,
in special proceedings in the case of property registered
1988. NHA did everything within its power to assert its
under the Mortgage Law or under section one hundred
right.
and ninety-four of the Administrative Code, or of any
other real property encumbered with a mortgage duly
While it may be true that, in DBP, the Court ruled that “in registered in the office of any register of deeds in
the particular situation here obtaining, annotation of the accordance with any existing law, and in each case the
disputed entry on the reconstituted originals of the clerk of the court shall, upon the filing of such petition,
certificates of title to which it refers is entirely proper and collect the fees specified in paragraph eleven of section
justified,” this does not mean, as respondents insist, that one hundred and fourteen of Act Numbered Four Hundred
the ruling therein applies exclusively to the factual milieu and ninety-six, as amended by Act Numbered Twenty-
and the issue obtaining in said case, and not to similar eight hundred and sixty-six, and the court shall, upon
cases. There is nothing in the subject declaration that approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession
categorically states its pro hac vice character. For in issue, addressed to the sheriff of the province in which
truth, what the said statement really conveys is that the the property is situated, who shall execute said order
current doctrine that entry in the primary book produces immediately.
the effect of registration can be applied in the situation
obtaining in that case since the registrant therein
This provision of law authorizes the purchaser in a
complied with all that was required of it, hence, it was
foreclosure sale to apply for a writ of possession during
fairly reasonable that its acts be given the effect of
the redemption period by filing an ex parte motion under
registration, just as the Court did in the past cases. In
oath for that purpose in the corresponding registration
fact the Court there continued with this pronouncement:
or cadastral proceeding in the case of property with
Torrens title. Upon the filing of such motion and the
To hold said entry ineffective, as does the appealed approval of the corresponding bond, the law also in
resolution, amounts to declaring that it did not, and does express terms directs the court to issue the order for a
not, protect the registrant (DBP) from claims arising, or writ of possession. The time-honored precept is that
transactions made, thereafter which are adverse to or in after the consolidation of titles in the buyer’s name, for
derogation of the rights created or conveyed by the failure of the mortgagor to redeem, the writ of
transaction thus entered. That, surely, is a result that is possession becomes a matter of right. Its issuance to a
neither just nor can, by any reasonable interpretation of purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is merely a
Section 56 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 be asserted ministerial function. The writ of possession issues as a
as warranted by its terms. matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and
the approval of the corresponding bond. The judge
issuing the writ following these express provisions of law
National Housing Authority vs. Augusto Basa, Jr.,
neither exercises his official discretion nor judgment. As
Luz Basa and Eduardo S. Basa, G.R. No. 149121, April
such, the court granting the writ cannot be charged with
20, 2010.
having acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion. To accentuate the writ’s ministerial character,
253
the Court disallowed injunction to prohibit its issuance year period within which to bring an action for forcible
despite a pending action for annulment of mortgage or entry is generally counted from the date of actual entry
the foreclosure itself. National Housing Authority vs. on the land, except that when the entry is through
Augusto Basa, Jr., Luz Basa and Eduardo S. Basa, G.R. stealth, the one-year period is counted from the time the
No. 149121, April 20, 2010. plaintiff learned thereof. Even prescinding from the fact
that the parties had admitted the MeTC’s jurisdiction, our
perusal of the record shows that respondent’s 9 January
Forcible entry; element of prior possession.
2004 amended complaint was able to make out a cause
of action for forcible entry against petitioner. As the
Then as now, petitioner argues that, aside from the registered owner of the subject parcel, respondent
admission in the complaint that the subject parcel was distinctly alleged that, by its representatives and thru its
left idle and unguarded, respondent’s claim of prior predecessors-in-interest, it had been in possession of the
possession is clearly negated by the fact that he had subject parcel and had exercised over the same all
been in occupancy thereof since 1999. While prior attributes of ownership, including the payment of realty
physical possession is, admittedly, an indispensable taxes and other expenses; that an ocular inspection
requirement in forcible entry cases, the dearth of merit in conducted in October 2003 revealed that petitioner and
petitioner’s position is, however, evident from the his co-defendants have succeeded in occupying the
principle that possession can be acquired not only by property by means of stealth and strategy; and, that its
material occupation, but also by the fact that a thing is subsequent demands to vacate had been unheeded by
subject to the action of one’s will or by the proper acts said interlopers. Considering that the test for
and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. determining the sufficiency of the allegations in the
Because possession can also be acquired by juridical acts complaint is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the
to which the law gives the force of acts of court can render a valid judgment in accordance with the
possession, e.g., donations, succession, execution and prayer of the plaintiff, we find that the Court of Appeals
registration of public instruments, inscription correctly ruled that the MeTC had jurisdiction over the
of possessory information titles and the like, it has been case. Hubert Nuñez vs. SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions,
held that one need not have actual or physical occupation Inc., G.R. No. 180542, April 12, 2010.
of every square inch of the property at all times to be
considered in possession. In this case, the subject parcel
Forcible Entry; question of ownership may be
was acquired by respondent by virtue of the 4 June 1999
resolved by court to determine issue of prior
Deed of Assignment executed in its favor by the
possession.
Spouses Ong Tiko and Emerenciana Sylianteng.
Although it did not immediately put the same to active
use, respondent appears to have additionally caused the Thus, to our mind, the only real questions appropriate for
property to be registered in its name as of 27 February resolution at this stage of the case are: (1) Do
2002 and to have paid the real property taxes due the TCTs of Hacienda Bigaa have probative value in
thereon alongside the sundry expenses incidental determining the issues of ownership and possession of
thereto. Viewed in the light of the foregoing juridical the disputed lots? (2) Is Chavez – as successor-in-
acts, it consequently did not matter that, by the time interest of government lessee or
respondent conducted its ocular inspection in October fishpond permittee Zoila de Chavez – entitled to
2003, petitioner had already been occupying the land possession of these lots? In these lights, the resolution
since 1999. Ordinarily reckoned from the date of actual of this case hinges on the question of better title – who,
entry on the land, the one year period is counted from between the petitioner and the respondent, has the
the time the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the better right of possession of the disputed lots. Are these
dispossession when, as here, the same had been effected issues misplaced in a forcible entry case? To answer this,
by means of stealth. Hubert Nuñez vs. SLTEAS Phoenix we hark back to the origins of the present case – a
Solutions, Inc., G.R. No. 180542, April 12, 2010. complaint for forcible entry that
the MTC of Calatagan, Batangas dismissed. Both the RTC
and the CA subsequently affirmed this dismissal. As a
Forcible entry; elements of cause of action.
forcible entry suit, the threshold question presented is:
was the prior possession of the then plaintiff (now
The rule is no different in actions for forcible entry where petitioner) Hacienda Bigaa over the disputed lots
the following requisites are essential for the MeTC’s sufficiently established to give it cause for the ejectment
acquisition of jurisdiction over the case, viz.: (a) the of then defendant (now respondent) Epifanio Chavez?
plaintiffs must allege their prior physical possession of We recall in this regard that the MTC issued a pre-trial
the property; (b) they must assert that they were order identifying the issues of (1) who has the better
deprived of possession either by force, intimidation, right of possession; and (2) res judicata. On the issue of
threat, strategy or stealth; and, (c) the action must be possession, the MTC found the need to determine the
filed within one (1) year from the time the owners or question of title or ownership in passing upon the
legal possessors learned of their deprivation of the question of possession after Chavez raised the issue of
physical possession of the property. As it is not essential ownership at that level. As a general rule in forcible
that the complaint should expressly employ the language entry cases, ownership or title is inconsequential; the
of the law, it is considered a sufficient compliance of the primordial issue is possession de facto and not
requirement where the facts are set up showing that possession de jure. The court, however, may tackle the
dispossession took place under said conditions. The one- issue of ownership or title, if raised, if this issue is
254
indispensable in resolving the issue of possession. Since which therefore makes only the changes reviewable on
Chavez raised the question of ownership or title in his appeal. They both cite Esquivel v. Alegre which states:
answer, the issue of ownership became a material
consideration in the lower court’s inquiry into the
There is a difference between an amended judgment and
character, nature and extent of the parties’ claimed
a supplemental judgment. In an amended and clarified
possession. The MTC tackled the issue of prior
judgment, the lower court makes a thorough study of the
possession by taking judicial notice of our factual
original judgment and renders the amended and clarified
determination in De los Angeles that Zobel of
judgment only after considering all the factual and legal
Hacienda Calatagan – Hacienda Bigaa’s predecessor-in-
issues. The amended and clarified decision is an entirely
interest – had ousted Zoila de Chavez – Chavez’s
new decision which supersedes the original decision.
predecessor-in-interest – from the lots she occupied as a
Following the court’s differentiation of a supplemental
holder of government-issued fishpond permits.
pleading from an amending pleading, it can be said that a
The MTC in this regard held –
supplemental decision does not take the place or
extinguish the existence of the original. As its very name
[T]he court holds that the land now in litigation forms denotes, it only serves to bolster or adds something to
part of the public dominion which properly belongs to the the primary decision. A supplement exists side by side
State. Suffice it to say that when [respondent Chavez] with the original. It does not replace that which it
entered and occupied the [premises] on April 29, 1996, it supplements.
was in representation of the State being the
successor-in-interest of Zoila de Chavez, a
In the present case, the dispositive portion of the
government fishpond permittee and/or lessee. It should
February 7, 2001 Order was crafted in such a way that it
be recounted that Zoila de Chavez was in actual
initially evades a categorical classification into either of
physical possession of the land until she was
the situations as described in the above-cited case.
ousted by Enrique Zobel by bulldozing and
Hence, we further take into consideration that what
flattening the area. (Emphasis supplied.)
plaintiffs filed was merely a Partial Motion for
Reconsideration. It is clear they were seeking a partial
Zoila de Chavez’s ouster from the premises became the change in the original Decision. It follows that there
basis of the MTC’s conclusion that she had prior were some parts of the Decision that they sought to
possession as she could not have been ousted from the remain unchanged. The RTC, thus made a study of only a
premises had she not been in prior possession. This portion of its original Decision and then amended the
point was reiterated in the present petition by Chavez pertinent portion. The RTC Decision was indeed, only
who died pending the resolution of this case and has partially amended. The February 7, 2001 Order cannot
been substituted by his brother, Santiago V. Chavez. The be considered as a supplemental Decision because it
respondent’s comment before us states: cannot exist side by side with the original pertinent
portion on overage, damages and attorney’s fees. The
former replaced and superceded the
XXX XXX
latter. Associated Anglo-American Tobacco
XXX XXX
Corporation, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
167237, April 23, 2010.
This argument on the direct issue of prior possession is
separate from the issue of ownership that Chavez raised
Judgments; finality of judgments; relaxation of
as an issue determinative of possession. The issue of
rule.
ownership shifts our determination to who, between the
parties, has title and the concomitant right of possession
to the disputed lots. Hacienda Bigaa, Inc. vs. Epifanio V. Social Security System v. Isip reiterates the well-
Chavez, et al., G.R. No. 174160, April 20, 2010. established doctrine regarding finality of judgments,
thus:
Judgments; “Amended judgment” distinguished
from “Supplemental judgment.” A judgment becomes “final and executory” by operation
of law. Finality becomes a fact when
the reglementary period to appeal lapses and no appeal
Both parties agree that the February 7, 2001 Order
is perfected within such period. As a consequence, no
increased the monetary awards in the Decision,
court (not even this Court) can exercise appellate
specifically, the amount of overage from P23,820.16
jurisdiction to review a case or modify a decision that has
to P843,383.11 and the award of moral and exemplary
became final.
damages and attorney’s fees from P50,000.00
to P2,000,000.00. They however, differ on whether
these changes constituted an amendment of the Decision When a final judgment is executory, it becomes
or merely provided a supplement to the Decision. immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be
Petitioners argue that the change constituted a modified in any respect either by the court which
substantial amendment, which therefore makes the rendered it or even by this Court. The doctrine is
entire case reviewable on appeal, while respondents founded on considerations of public policy and sound
argue that the Order merely supplements the Decision practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments
must become final at some definite point in time.
255
The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final Respondent also argues that Ang Ladlad made
judgment has a two-fold purpose: (1) to avoid delay in untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged that
the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to it had nationwide existence through its members and
make orderly the discharge of judicial business and (2) to affiliate organizations. The COMELEC claims that upon
put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of verification by its field personnel, it was shown that “save
occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. for a few isolated places in the country, petitioner does
Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. The rights and not exist in almost all provinces in the country.” This
obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense argument that “petitioner made untruthful statements in
for an indefinite period of time. its petition when it alleged its national existence” is a
new one; previously, the COMELEC claimed that
petitioner was “not being truthful when it said that it or
Notwithstanding the doctrine on immutability of final
any of its nominees/party-list representatives have not
judgments, the Court finds, after a through review of the
violated or failed to comply with laws, rules, or
records, that compelling circumstances are extant in this
regulations relating to the elections.” Nowhere was this
case, which clearly warrant the exercise of our equity
ground for denial of petitioner’s accreditation mentioned
jurisdiction. Relevantly, Barnes v. Padilla states an
or even alluded to in the Assailed Resolutions. This, in
exception to the rule on the finality of judgments in this
itself, is quite curious, considering that the reports of
wise:
petitioner’s alleged non-existence were already available
to the COMELEC prior to the issuance of the First Assailed
However, this Court has relaxed this rule in order to Resolution. At best, this is irregular procedure; at worst,
serve substantial justice considering (a) matters of life, a belated afterthought, a change in respondent’s theory,
liberty, honor or property, (b) the existence of special or and a serious violation of petitioner’s right to procedural
compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d) due process. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on
a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence Elections, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010.
of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (e) a
lack of any showing that the review sought is merely
Judgments; not confined to what appears on face
frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be
of the decision.
unjustly prejudiced thereby.
We are not persuaded by the petitioners’ argument that,

Invariably, rules of procedure should be viewed as mere
since the RTC decision to reconvey to respondents the
tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.
subject property did not expressly order the removal of
Their strict and rigid application, which would result in
improvements thereon, the RTC cannot, by order, reach
these improvements and accordingly act to enforce its
substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the
decision. As a general rule, the writ of execution should
Rules of Court reflects this principle. The power to
conform to the dispositive portion of the decision to be
suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and
executed; an execution is void if it is in excess of and
compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself
beyond the original judgment or award. The settled
had already declared to be final.
general principle is that a writ of execution must conform
strictly to every essential particular of the judgment
In the instant case, the crux of the controversy involves promulgated, and may not vary the terms of the
the property of PCI Leasing, i.e., the sum of money judgment it seeks to enforce, nor may it go beyond the
supposedly owed to it by the respondents. To our mind, terms of the judgment sought to be executed.
it will not serve the ends of substantial justice if the Nonetheless, we have held that a judgment is not
RTC’s dismissal of the case with prejudice on pure confined to what appears on the face of the decision, but
technicalities would be perfunctorily upheld by appellate extends as well to those necessarily included therein or
courts likewise on solely procedural grounds, unless the necessary thereto. Thus, in Perez v. Evite, where the
procedural lapses committed were so gross, negligent, ownership of a parcel of land was decreed in the
tainted with bad faith or tantamount to abuse or misuse judgment, the delivery of possession of the land was
of court processes. In this instance, PCI Leasing would be considered included in the decision where the defeated
left without any judicial recourse to collect the amount party’s claim to possession was based solely on his claim
of P2,327,833.33 it loaned to the of ownership. In Baluyut v. Guiao, we stressed that this
respondents. Corollarily, if PCI Leasing would be forever rule fully conforms with Rule 39, Section 47, paragraph
barred from collecting the aforesaid amount, respondent (c) of the Rules of Court that provides:
Antonio stands to be unjustly enriched at the expense
of PCI Leasing. Thus, in order to obviate the occurrence
SECTION 47. Effect of judgments or final orders.
of the above-mentioned scenario, the Court finds it
— The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a
necessary to subject to judicial review the RTC Order
court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce
dated October 13, 2000, dismissing Civil Case No. Q-00-
the judgment or final order, may be as follows:
40010. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Antonio C.
Milan, et al., G.R. No. 151215, April 5, 2010.
x x x x
Judgments; ground not cited in challenged
judgment. (c) In any other litigation between the same parties or
their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have
256
been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which be taken in conjunction with each other. Together, these
appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or two issuances form one integrated amended decision.
which was actually and necessarily included Hence, an appeal from the February 7, 2001 RTC Order
therein or necessary thereto. (Emphasis supplied.) must be deemed to be an appeal from the whole
Narciso Tumibay, et al. vs. Sps. Yolanda integrated amended Decision. Associated Anglo-
T. Sora, et al., G.R. No. 152016, April 13, 2010. American Tobacco Corporation, et al. vs. Court of
Appeals, et al.,G.R. No. 167237, April 23, 2010.
Judgment; partial amended judgment; effect on
appeal. Judgments; res judicata; conclusiveness of
judgment.
Now what is the effect of this partial amendment? Is the
subject RTC Decision divisible, such that a portion may As framed above, the case before us inevitably brings to
be considered already final and unappealable while memory the antecedent decided cases touching on the
another portion may be considered as not yet final ownership of the vast tract of land
and unappealable? To answer this question we draw in Calatagan, Batangas, covered by Transfer Certificate
some light from some provisions of the Rules of Court of Title (TCT) No. 722 in the name/s of Ayala y Cia,
that permit divisions, to wit: Alfonso Zobel, Jacobo Zobel and Enrique Zobel and/or
Hacienda Calatagan – the predecessors-in-interest of
petitioner Hacienda Bigaa. We ruled in the antecedent
Rule 37, Sec. 7. Partial new trial or reconsideration.- If
cases of Dizon, Ayala y Cia, and De los Angeles, that:
the grounds for a motion under this Rule appear to the
(1) all expanded subdivision titles issued in the name of
court to affect the issues as to only a part, or less than
Ayala y Cia, the Zobels and/or
all of the matter in controversy, or only one, or less than
Hacienda Calatagan covering areas beyond the true
all, of the parties to it, the court may order a new trial or
extent of TCT No. 722 are null and void because they
grant reconsideration as to such issues if severable
cover areas belonging to the public domain; (2) Ayala y
without interfering with the judgment or final order upon
Cia and the Zobels of Hacienda Calatagan are
the rest. (Italics and emphasis supplied)
mere usurpers of these public domain areas; and that
(3) these areas must revert to the
Rule 36, Sec. 5. Separate judgments.-When more than Republic. Significantly, we declared
one claim for relief is presented in an action, the court, at in De los Angeles that the Republic, as the rightful
any stage, upon a determination of the issues owner of the expanded areas – portions of the
material to a particular claim and all counterclaims public domain – has the right to place its lessees
arising out of the transaction or occurrence which and permittees (among them Zoila de Chavez) in
is the subject matter of the claim, may render a possession of the fishpond lots whose ownership
separate judgment disposing of such claim. The and possession were in issue in the case.
judgment shall terminate the action with respect to the
claim so disposed of and the action shall proceed as to
These antecedent cases lay to rest the issues of
the remaining claims.
ownership and of possession as an attribute thereof,
which we both ruled to be in favor of the Republic and its
It can be seen that when matters, issues or claims can lessees or permittees. The present case is a stark
properly and conveniently be separately resolved, then repetition of scenarios in these cases. The protagonists
division is permitted, otherwise it is not. We see no remain virtually the same – with petitioner
hindrance in applying this thesis to the current situation. Hacienda Bigaa taking the place of its predecessors-in-
In the present case, the matter of the release of the interest Ayala y Cia and/or the Zobels of
mortgaged property is material and intertwined with the Hacienda Calatagan, and respondent Epifanio V. Chavez
issue of the amount of overage as well as the issue on taking the place of his predecessor-in-
the amount of damages. It is difficult to separate these interest Zoila de Chavez whose possession was
matters because a determination of the correct amount under bona fide authority from the Republic. Considering
of overage would require the examination and that in this case the disputed lots are among those
computation of the entire account of deliveries and litigated in the antecedent cases and the issues of
payments. Necessarily, upon re-examination of the ownership and possession are again in issue, the
subject account during an appeal, the possibility of principle of res judicata inevitably must be considered
finding a shortage instead of an overage is present. And and applied, if warranted.
dependent on the result of the re-examination of the
entire account is the determination of the correctness of
The doctrine of res judicata is set forth in Section 47 of
either the foreclosure or release of the mortgaged
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which in its relevant part
property. It follows that the ruling on the amount of
reads:
damages and attorney’s fees, if any, may also be
affected by a re-examination of the entire account.
Sec. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. — The effect
of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the
As the disposition of some inter-related issues in the
Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the
original RTC Decision were materially amended by the
judgment or final order, may be as follows:
February 7, 2001 RTC Order, these two issuances must
257
x x x x binding effect and enforceability of that earlier dictum

can no longer be re-litigated in a later case since the
issue has already been resolved and finally laid to rest in
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with
the earlier case. Hacienda Bigaa, Inc. vs. Epifanio V.
respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other
Chavez, et al.,G.R. No. 174160, April 20, 2010.
matter that could have been raised in relation thereto,
conclusive between the parties and their successors in
interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the
action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing
and under the same title and in the same capacity; and
Judgments; res judicata; conclusiveness of
judgment.
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or
their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have
This case and the antecedent cases all involve the issue
been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which
of ownership or better right of possession. In Ayala
appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which
y Cia, we affirmed an RTC decision that decreed:
was actually and necessarily included therein or
necessary thereto.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
This provision comprehends two distinct concepts of res
judicata: (1) bar by former judgment and (a) Declaring as null and void Transfer Certificate of Title
(2) conclusiveness of judgment. Under the first No. T-9550 (or Exhibit “24”) of the Register of Deeds of
concept, res judicata absolutely bars any subsequent the Province of Batangas and other subdivision titles
action when the following requisites concur: (a) the issued in favor of Ayala y Cia and;or
former judgment or order was final; (b) it adjudged the Hacienda de Calatagan over the areas outside its private
pertinent issue or issues on their merits; (c) it was land covered by TCT No. 722, which, including the lots in
rendered by a court that had jurisdiction over the subject T-9550 (lots 360, 362, 363 and 182) are hereby reverted
matter and the parties; and (d) between the first and the to public dominion. (Emphasis supplied, italics in the
second actions, there was identity of parties, of subject original.)
matter, and of causes of action. Where no identity of
causes of action but only identity of issues exists, res Consequently, lots and their titles derived from the
judicata comes under the second concept – i.e., under Ayala’s and the Zobels’ TCT No. 722 not shown to be
conclusiveness of judgment. Under this concept, the rule within the original coverage of this title are conclusively
bars the re-litigation of particular facts or issues involving public domain areas and their titles will be struck down
the same parties even if raised under different claims or as nullities. Thus, De los Angeles effectively annulled the
causes of action. Conclusiveness of judgment finds subdivision titles disputed in the case for being among
application when a fact or question has been squarely put the “other subdivision titles” declared void for covering
in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former public domain areas, and ordered their reversion to the
suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The fact or Republic. De los Angeles recognized, too, the right of
question settled by final judgment or order binds the the Republic’s lessees and public
parties to that action (and persons in privity with them or fishpond permittees (among them Zoila de Chavez,
their successors-in-interest), and continues to bind them mother and predecessor-in-interest of Chavez) to
while the judgment or order remains standing possess the fishpond lots in question because they
and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or derive their right of possession from the Republic –
petition; the conclusively settled fact or question the rightful owner of these lots.
furthermore cannot again be litigated in any future or
other action between the same parties or their privies
and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other We reject, based on these discussions,
court of concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for Hacienda Bigaa’s position that there could be no res
a different cause of action. Thus, only the identities judicata in this case because the present suit is for
of parties and issues are required for the operation of the forcible entry while the antecedent cases adverted were
principle of conclusiveness of judgment. based on different causes of action – i.e., quieting of
title, annulment of titles and accion reinvindicatoria.
For, res judicata, under the concept of conclusiveness of
While conclusiveness of judgment does not have the judgment, operates even if no absolute identity of causes
same barring effect as that of a bar by former judgment of action exists. Res judicata, in its conclusiveness of
that proscribes subsequent actions, the former judgment concept, merely requires identity of issues. We
nonetheless estops the parties from raising in a later case thus agree with the uniform view of the lower courts –
the issues or points that were raised and controverted, the MTC, RTC and the CA – on the application of res
and were determinative of the ruling in the earlier case. judicata to the present case. Hacienda Bigaa, Inc.
In other words, the dictum laid down in the earlier final vs. Epifanio V. Chavez, et al., G.R. No. 174160, April 20,
judgment or order becomes conclusive and continues to 2010.
be binding between the same parties, their privies and
successors-in-interest, as long as the facts on which that
judgment was predicated continue to be the facts of the Judgments; stare decisis.
case or incident before the court in a later case; the
258
What is more, in Autocorp Group v. Court of Appeals, the Section 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. The
pertinent DBP ruling was applied, thereby demonstrating motion shall be served at least ten (10) days before the
that the said ruling in DBP may be applied to other cases time specified for the hearing. The adverse party may
with similar factual and legal issues, viz: serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions at
least three (3) days before the hearing. After the
hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith
Petitioners contend that the aforecited case of DBP is not
if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions and
apropos to the case at bar. Allegedly, in DBP, the bank
admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of
not only paid the registration fees but also presented the
damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material
owner’s duplicate certificate of title. We find no merit in
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
petitioner’s posture x x x.
as a matter of law.
xxxx
As can be deduced from the above provisions, summary
judgment is a procedural devise resorted to in order to
Like in DBP v. Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, avoid long drawn out litigations and useless delays.
the instrument involved in the case at bar, is a sheriff’s When the pleadings on file show that there are no
certificate of sale, We hold now, as we held therein, that genuine issues of facts to be tried, the Rules of Court
the registrant is under no necessity to present the allows a party to obtain immediate relief by way of
owner’s duplicates of the certificates of title affected, for summary judgment. That is, when the facts are not in
purposes of primary entry, as the transaction sought to dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case
be recorded is an involuntary transaction. summarily by applying the law to the material facts.
Conversely, where the pleadings tender a genuine issue,
xxxx summary judgment is not proper. A genuine issue is
such fact which requires the presentation of evidence as
distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false
x x x Such entry is equivalent to registration. Injunction claim.
would not lie anymore, as the act sought to be enjoined
had already become a fait accompli or an accomplished
act. Here, we find the existence of genuine issues which
removes the case from the coverage of summary
judgment. The variance in the allegations of the parties
Moreover, respondents’ stand on the non-applicability of in their pleadings is evident. Petitioner anchors his
the DBP case to other cases, absent any statement complaint for sum of money and/or judicial foreclosure
thereof to such effect, contravenes the principle of stare on the alleged real estate mortgage over the subject
decisis which urges that courts are to apply principles property allegedly entered into by Comandante in behalf
declared in prior decisions that are substantially similar to of her parents to secure payment of a loan amounting
a pending case. National Housing Authority vs. to P1,118,228.00. To support this claim, petitioner
Augusto Basa, Jr., Luz Basa and Eduardo S. Basa, G.R. attached to his complaint (1) the SPA alleged to have
No. 149121, April 20, 2010. been executed by the Diazes; (2) the Real Estate
Mortgage Contract pertaining to the amount
Judgments; summary judgment; improper when of P1,118,228.00; and, (3) a Promissory
there is genuine issue as to material facts. Note. Comandante, in her Answer to petitioner’s
Amended Complaint, assailed the validity and due
execution of the abovementioned documents. She
Rule 35 of the Rules of Court provides for summary asserted that the same were not duly, knowingly and
judgment, the pertinent provisions of which are the validly executed by her and that it was petitioner who
following: prepared all of them. Also, although she admitted owing
petitioner, same was not an absolute admission as she
Section 1. Summary Judgment for claimant. A party limited herself to an obligation amounting only
seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross- to P600,000.00 inclusive of charges and interests. She
claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time likewise claimed that such obligation is her personal
after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, obligation and not of her parents. The Diazes, for their
move with supporting affidavits, depositions or part, also denied that they executed the SPA authorizing
admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all their daughter to mortgage their property to petitioner as
or any part thereof. well as having any obligation to the latter.
Section 2. Summary Judgment for the defending Clearly, there are genuine issues in this case which
party. A party against whom a claim, counterclaim or require the presentation of evidence. For one, it is
cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought necessary to ascertain in a full blown trial the validity and
may, at any time, move with supporting affidavits, due execution of the SPA, the Real Estate Mortgage and
depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his the Promissory Notes because the determination of the
favor as to all or any part thereof. following equally significant questions depends on them,
to wit: (1) Are the Diazes obligated to petitioner or is the
obligation a purely personal obligation of Comandante?
259
and, (2) Is the sum of P1,118,228.00 as shown in the Since we have limited the issues to the damages claimed
Real Estate Mortgage and the Promissory Note, the by the parties, summary judgment has been properly
amount which is really due the petitioner? rendered in this case. Manuel Bungcayao, Sr., et al. vs.
Fort Ilocandia Property Holdings and Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 170483, April 19, 2010.
To stress, trial courts have limited authority to render
summary judgments and may do so only when there is
clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When
the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or
contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot
Judgments; true intent and meaning obtained by
take the place of trial. From the foregoing, it is apparent
reading decision in its entirety.
that the trial court should have refrained from issuing the
summary judgment but instead proceeded to conduct a
full blown trial of the case. In view of this, the present We find that the petitioners misread the ruling
case should be remanded to the trial court for further in Nazareno v. Court of Appeals when they understood
proceedings and proper disposition according to the the ruling to mean that in all cases, a declaration of
rudiments of a regular trial on the merits and not through ownership does not include a declaration of the right to
an abbreviated termination of the case by summary possession. What Nazareno actually holds is that
judgment. Atty. Pedro M. Ferrer vs. Spouses adjudication of ownership would include the delivery of
Alfredo Diaz, et al., G.R. No. 165300, April 23, 2010. possession if the defeated party has not shown any right
to possess the land independently of his rejected claim of
ownership. This ruling, as understood in its correct
sense, fully applies to the present case, as there is no
allegation, much less any proof, that the petitioners have
Judgments; summary judgment; when proper. any right to possess the improvements on the land
independently of their claim of ownership of the subject
property. Thus, the respondents have full right to
Section 1, Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
possession of the subject property. We remind the
provides:
petitioners that we do not allow the piecemeal
interpretation of our Decision as a means to advance
Section 1. Summary Judgment for claimant. - A party one’s case. To get the true intent and meaning of a
seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross- decision, no specific portion thereof should be isolated
claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time and read in this context; the decision must be considered
after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, in its entirety. Read in this manner, the respondents’
move with supporting affidavits, depositions or right to possession of the subject property fully
admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all follows. Narciso Tumibay, et al. vs. Sps. Yolanda
or any part thereof. T. Sora, et al., G.R. No. 152016, April 13, 2010.
Summary judgment has been explained as follows: Jurisdiction; court acquires no jurisdiction over
permissive counterclaim for non-payment of docket
Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in fees.
order to avoid long drawn out litigations and useless
delays. When the pleadings on file show that there are The rule in permissive counterclaim is that for the trial
no genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules allow a court to acquire jurisdiction, the counterclaimant is bound
party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary to pay the prescribed docket fees. Any decision rendered
judgment, that is, when the facts are not in dispute, the without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck
court is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying down at any time, even on appeal before this Court. In
the law to the material facts. Conversely, where the this case, respondent did not dispute the non-payment of
pleadings tender a genuine issue, summary judgment is docket fees. Respondent only insisted that its claims
not proper. A “genuine issue” is such issue of fact which were all compulsory counterclaims. As such, the
requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished judgment by the trial court in relation to the second
from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. Section counterclaim is considered null and void without
3 of the said rule provides two (2) requisites for prejudice to a separate action which respondent may file
summary judgment to be proper: (1) there must be no against petitioner. Manuel Bungcayao, Sr., et al. vs.
genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the Fort Ilocandia Property Holdings and Development
amount of damages; and (2) the party presenting the Corporation, G.R. No. 170483, April 19, 2010.
motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment is
Jurisdiction; Court of Appeals has certiorari and
permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any
appellate jurisdiction over adjudications of National
material fact and a moving party is entitled to a
Water Resources Board.
judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment is
proper if, while the pleadings on their face appear to
raise issues, the affidavits, depositions, and admissions Since the appellate court has exclusive appellate
presented by the moving party show that such issues are jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies under Rule 43 of
not genuine. the Rules of Court, petitions for writs of certiorari,
260
prohibition or mandamus against the acts and omissions XXX XXX
of quasi-judicial agencies, like petitioner, should be filed XXX XXX
with it. This is what Rule 65 of the Rules imposes for
procedural uniformity. The only exception to this
While Section 9 (3) of BP 129 and Section 1 of Rule 43 of
instruction is when the law or the Rules itself directs
the Rules of Court does not list petitioner as “among” the
otherwise, as cited in Section 4, Rule 65. The appellate
quasi-judicial agencies whose final judgments, orders,
court’s construction that Article 89 of PD 1067, which
resolutions or awards are appealable to the appellate
reads:
court, it is non sequitur to hold that the Court of Appeals
has no appellate jurisdiction over petitioner’s judgments,
ART. 89. The decisions of the [NWRB] on water orders, resolutions or awards. It is settled that the list of
rights controversies may be appealed to the [RTC] of quasi-judicial agencies specifically mentioned in Rule 43
the province where the subject matter of the controversy is not meant to be exclusive. The employment of the
is situated within fifteen (15) days from the date the word “among” clearly instructs so.
party appealing receives a copy of the decision, on any of
the following grounds: (1) grave abuse of discretion;
BF Northwest Homeowners Association v. Intermediate
(2) question of law; and (3) questions of fact and law
Appellate Court, a 1987 case cited by the appellate court
(emphasis and underscoring supplied),
to support its ruling that RTCs have jurisdiction over
judgments, orders, resolutions or awards of petitioner, is
is such an exception, is erroneous. Article 89 of PD no longer controlling in light of the definitive instruction
1067 had long been rendered inoperative by the of Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court.
passage of BP 129. Aside from delineating the
jurisdictions of the Court of Appeals and the RTCs,
XXX XXX
Section 47 of BP 129 repealed or modified:
XXX XXX
x x x. [t]he provisions of Republic Act No. 296, otherwise

In fine, certiorari and appellate jurisdiction over
known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, of
adjudications of petitioner properly belongs to the
Republic Act No. 5179, as amended, of the Rules of
Court of Appeals. National Water Resources Board
Court, and of all other statutes, letters of
(NWRB) vs. A.L. Ang Network, Inc., G.R. No. 186450,
instructions and general orders or parts thereof,
April 14, 2010.
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act x x x.
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Jurisdiction; determined by allegations of the
complaint.
The general repealing clause under Section 47
“predicates the intended repeal under the condition that
a substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior Designed to provide an expeditious means of protecting
acts.” actual possession or the right to possession of the
property involved, there can be no gainsaying the fact
that ejectment cases fall within the original and exclusive
In enacting BP 129, the Batasang Pambansa was
jurisdiction of first level courts by express provision of
presumed to have knowledge of the provision of Article
Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, in relation to
89 of P.D. No. 1067 and to have intended to change it.
Sec. 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In
The legislative intent to repeal Article 89 is clear and
addition to being conferred by law, however, a court’s
manifest given the scope and purpose of BP 129, one of
jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
which is to provide a homogeneous procedure for the
allegations of the complaint and the character of the
review of adjudications of quasi-judicial entities to the
relief sought, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is
Court of Appeals. More importantly, what Article 89 of
entitled to recover all or some of the claims asserted
PD 1067 conferred to the RTC was the power of review
therein. In much the same way that it cannot be made
on appeal the decisions of petitioner. It appears that the
to depend on the exclusive characterization of the case
appellate court gave significant consideration to the
by one of the parties, jurisdiction cannot be made to
ground of “grave abuse of discretion” to thus hold that
depend upon the defenses set up in the answer, in a
the RTC has certiorari jurisdiction over petitioner’s
motion to dismiss or in a motion for reconsideration.
decisions. A reading of said Article 89 shows, however,
Hubert Nuñez vs. SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions, Inc., G.R.
that it only made “grave abuse of discretion” as another
No. 180542, April 12, 2010.
ground to invoke in an ordinary appeal to the RTC.
Indeed, the provision was unique to the Water Code at
the time of its application in 1976. The issuance Jurisdiction; enumeration of quasi-judicial agencies
of BP 129, specifically Section 9 (Jurisdiction of the Court in Rule 43 is not exclusive.
of Appeals, then known as Intermediate Appellate Court),
and the subsequent formulation of the Rules, clarified While Section 9 (3) of BP 129 and Section 1 of Rule 43 of
and delineated the appellate and certiorari jurisdictions of the Rules of Court does not list petitioner as “among” the
the Court of Appeals over adjudications of quasi-judicial quasi-judicial agencies whose final judgments, orders,
bodies. Grave abuse of discretion may be invoked before resolutions or awards are appealable to the appellate
the appellate court as a ground for an error of court, it is non sequitur to hold that the Court of Appeals
jurisdiction.
261
has no appellate jurisdiction over petitioner’s judgments, value of the real property does not exceed
orders, resolutions or awards. It is settled that the list of the aforestated amounts. Accordingly, the jurisdictional
quasi-judicial agencies specifically mentioned in Rule 43 element is the assessed value of the property.
is not meant to be exclusive. The employment of the
word “among” clearly instructs so. National Water
Assessed value is understood to be “the worth or value of
Resources Board (NWRB) vs. A.L. Ang Network,
property established by taxing authorities on the basis of
Inc., G.R. No. 186450, April 14, 2010.
which the tax rate is applied. Commonly, however, it
does not represent the true or market value of the
Jurisdiction; lack of jurisdiction may be raised at property.”
any stage of proceedings; void judgment.
The appellate court correctly ruled that even if the
The general rule is that dismissal of a case for lack of complaint filed with the RTC involves a question of
jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the ownership, the MTC still has jurisdiction because the
proceedings since jurisdiction is conferred by law. The assessed value of the whole lot as stated in Tax
lack of jurisdiction affects the very authority of the court Declaration No. 09-0742 is P4,890. The MTC cannot be
to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the deprived of jurisdiction over an ejectment case based
action; otherwise, the inevitable consequence would merely on the assertion of ownership over the litigated
make the court’s decision a “lawless” thing. Since the property, and the underlying reason for this rule is to
RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaint filed, all the prevent any party from trifling with the summary nature
proceedings as well as the Decision of 17 June 2002 are of an ejectment suit. Sps. Joselina Alcantara and
void. The complaint should perforce be Antonio Alcantara, et al. vs. Brigida L. Nido, as attorney-
dismissed. Sps. Joselina Alcantara and in-fact of Revelen Srivastava, G.R. No. 165133, April 19,
Antonio Alcantara, et al. vs. Brigida L. Nido, as attorney- 2010.
in-fact of Revelen Srivastava, G.R. No. 165133, April 19,
2010.
Motions; motion for issuance of alias summons is
non-litigious in nature.
Jurisdiction; MTC jurisdiction over ejectment case.
Incidentally, the Motion for Issuance of Alias Summons
Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended filed by PCI Leasing is non-litigious in nature, which does
by Republic Act No. 7691 provides: not require a hearing under the Rules, as the same could
have been acted upon by the RTC without prejudicing the
rights of the respondents. All facts necessary for the
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
determination of the motion are already specified therein
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
or a matter of record and there was yet no adverse party
Civil Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
to dispute the same as the court had not even acquired
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
jurisdiction over the person of the respondents. It was
serious error on the part of the trial court to have denied
xxx the first motion for issuance of alias summons for want of
notice of hearing. It was also not mandatory for the trial
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which court to set the second motion for hearing. PCI Leasing
involve title to, possession of, real property, or any and Finance, Inc. vs. Antonio C. Milan, et al., G.R. No.
interest therein where the assessed value of the property 151215, April 5, 2010.
or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, Parties; action for reversion of public land can be
where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty instituted only by State.
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
In her Comment, private respondent asserts that
expenses and costs: x x x
petitioners have no personality to question the validity of
the sales patent and the original certificate of title issued
In Geonzon Vda. de Barrera v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi, in her name. She maintains that only the government,
the Court explained: through the [Office of the Solicitor General], may file an
action for reversion on the ground of fraud, deceit, or
Before the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. misrepresentation. As to the second issue, private
7691, the plenary action of accion publiciana was to be respondent claims that petitioners’ annulment suit has
brought before the regional trial court. With the prescribed pursuant to Section of Presidential Decree No.
modifications introduced by R.A. No. 7691 in 1994, the 1529. At the outset, we must point out that petitioners’
jurisdiction of the first level courts has been expanded to complaint questioning the validity of the sales patent and
include jurisdiction over other real actions where the the original certificate of title over Lot No. 47 is, in
assessed value does not exceed P20,000, P50,000 where reality, a reversion suit. The objective of an action for
the action is filed in Metro Manila. The first level courts reversion of public land is the cancellation of the
thus have exclusive original jurisdiction over accion certificate of title and the resulting reversion of the land
publiciana and accion reivindicatoria where the assessed covered by the title to the State. This is why an action for
262
reversion is oftentimes designated as an annulment suit interests of the plaintiffs and the other members of the
or a cancellation suit. class they seek to represent are diametrically opposed,
the class suit will not prosper. It is worth mentioning
that a Manifestation of Desistance, to which the
Coming now to the first issue, Section 101 of the Public
previously mentioned Affidavit of Desistance was
Land Act clearly states:
attached, was filed by the President of the National
Printing Office Workers Association (NAPOWA). The said
SEC. 101. All actions for the reversion to the Government manifestation expressed NAPOWA’s opposition to the
of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon filing of the instant petition in any court. Even if we take
shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer into account the contention of petitioners’ counsel that
acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the NAPOWA President had no legal standing to file such
the Republic of the Philippines. manifestation, the said pleading is a clear indication that
there is a divergence of opinions and views among the
Even assuming that private respondent indeed acquired members of the class sought to be represented, and not
title to Lot No. 47 in bad faith, only the State can all are in favor of filing the present suit. There is here an
institute reversion proceedings, pursuant to Section 101 apparent conflict between petitioners’ interests and those
of the Public Land Act and our ruling in Alvarico v. Sola. of the persons whom they claim to represent. Since it
Private persons may not bring an action for reversion or cannot be said that petitioners sufficiently represent the
any action which would have the effect of canceling a interests of the entire class, the instant case cannot be
land patent and the corresponding certificate of title properly treated as a class suit. Atty.
issued on the basis of the patent, such that the land Sylvia Banda, et al. vs.. Eduardo R. Ermita, et al., G.R.
covered thereby will again form part of the public No. 166620, April 20, 2010.
domain. Only the OSG or the officer acting in his stead
may do so. Since the title originated from a grant by the Parties; class suit; requisites.
government, its cancellation is a matter between
the grantor and the grantee. Similarly, in Urquiaga v.
Before proceeding to resolve the substantive issues, the
CA, this Court held that there is no need to pass upon
Court must first delve into a procedural matter. Since
any allegation of actual fraud in the acquisition of a title
petitioners instituted this case as a class suit, the Court,
based on a sales patent. Private persons have no right or
thus, must first determine if the petition indeed qualifies
interest over land considered public at the time the sales
as one. In Board of Optometry v. Colet, we held that
application was filed. They have no personality to
“[c]ourts must exercise utmost caution before allowing a
question the validity of the title. We further stated that
class suit, which is the exception to the requirement
granting, for the sake of argument, that fraud was
of joinder of all indispensable parties. For while no
committed in obtaining the title, it is the State, in a
difficulty may arise if the decision secured is favorable to
reversion case, which is the proper party to file the
the plaintiffs, a quandary would result if the decision
necessary action.
were otherwise as those who were deemed impleaded by
their self-appointed representatives would certainly claim
In this case, it is clear that Lot No. 47 was public land denial of due process.” Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of
when Andrada filed the sales patent application. Any Court defines a class suit, as follows:
subsequent action questioning the validity of the award
of sales patent on the ground of fraud, deceit, or
Sec. 12. Class suit. – When the subject matter of the
misrepresentation should thus be initiated by the State.
controversy is one of common or general interest to
The State has not done so and thus, we have to uphold
many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join
the validity and regularity of the sales patent as well as
all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to
the corresponding original certificate of title issued based
be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully
on the patent. Vicente Cawis, etc., et al. vs. Hon.
protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend
Antonio Cerilles, et al., G.R. No. 170207, April 19, 2010.
for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the
right to intervene to protect his individual interest.
Parties; class suit; adequacy of representation.
From the foregoing definition, the requisites of a class
Indeed, in MVRS Publications, Inc. v. suit are: 1) the subject matter of controversy is one of
Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., we common or general interest to many persons; 2) the
observed that an element of a class suit or representative parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable
suit is the adequacy of representation. In to bring them all to court; and 3) the parties bringing the
determining the question of fair and adequate class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of
representation of members of a class, the court must the class and can fully protect the interests of all
consider (a) whether the interest of the named party is concerned. In Mathay v. The Consolidated Bank and
coextensive with the interest of the other members of the Trust Company, the Court held that:
class; (b) the proportion of those made a party, as it so
bears, to the total membership of the class; and (c) any
An action does not become a class suit merely because it
other factor bearing on the ability of the named party to
is designated as such in the pleadings. Whether the suit
speak for the rest of the class. Previously, we held
is or is not a class suit depends upon the attending facts,
in Ibañes v. Roman Catholic Church that where the
and the complaint, or other pleading initiating the
263
class action should allege the existence of the the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these
necessary facts, to wit, the existence of a subject matter Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in
of common interest, and the existence of a class and the the name of the real party-in-interest.
number of persons in the alleged class in order that the
court might be enabled to determine whether the members of the class are so numerous
as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court, to contrast the number And “interest,” within the meaning of the rule, means
appearing on the record with the number in the class and to determine whether claimants material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected
on record adequately represent the class and the subject matter of general or common by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the
interest. (Emphases ours.) question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Cases
construing the real party-in-interest provision can be
more easily understood if it is borne in mind that the true
Here, the petition failed to state the number of [National meaning of real party-in-interest may be summarized as
Printing Office] employees who would be affected by the follows: An action shall be prosecuted in the name of the
assailed Executive Order and who were allegedly party who, by the substantive law, has the right sought
represented by petitioners. It was the Solicitor General, to be enforced. The RTC based its conclusion that
as counsel for respondents, who pointed out that there respondent Neri had a cause of action against petitioner
were about 549 employees in the NPO. The 67 on the allegations in the complaint. The CA, however, did
petitioners undeniably comprised a small fraction of not rule on the matter despite the fact that it was raised
the NPO employees whom they claimed to represent. in petitioner’s petition for certiorari filed before it and
Subsequently, 32 of the original petitioners executed an merely said that there was no necessity to discuss such
Affidavit of Desistance, while one signed a letter denying issue after deciding the other grounds raised in the
ever signing the petition, ostensibly reducing the number petition. We find the RTC in error. A reading of the
of petitioners to 34. We note that counsel for the allegations in the complaint shows that the acts
petitioners challenged the validity of the desistance or complained of and said to have been committed by
withdrawal of some of the petitioners and insinuated that petitioner against respondents have solely affected the
such desistance was due to pressure from people “close hotel’s operations where respondent Neri was the hotel’s
to the seat of power.” Still, even if we were to disregard Managing Director and whose interest in the suit was
the affidavit of desistance filed by some of the incidental. Thus, we find that respondent Neri has no
petitioners, it is highly doubtful that a sufficient, cause of action against petitioner. Consequently, the
representative number of NPO employees have instituted plaintiff in this case would only be
this purported class suit. A perusal of the petition itself respondent Coalbrine. Republic of the Philippines
would show that of the 67 petitioners who signed the vs. Coalbrine International Philippines, et al., G.R. No.
Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, only 20 161838, April 7, 2010.
petitioners were in fact mentioned in the jurat as having
duly subscribed the petition before the notary public. In
Parties; real parties in interest.
other words, only 20 petitioners effectively instituted the
present case. Atty. Sylvia Banda, et al. vs.. Eduardo
R. Ermita, et al., G.R. No. 166620, April 20, 2010. In G.R. No. 130876, the Court found that the petitioners
did not validly acquire ownership of Lot No. 727-D-2, and
declared that Lot No. 727 D-2 legally belonged to the
Parties; personality to file petition.
Government, thus:
As to respondents’ claim that petitioner Republic of the

XXX XXX
Philippines was not a party to the civil case subject of this
XXX XXX
petition since Administrator Quindoza was the sole
defendant therein and, thus, has no personality to file
this petition, their claim is not persuasive. Notably, The pronouncement in G.R. No. 130876 renders beyond
Administrator Quindoza was sued for damages for certain dispute that the non-execution of the judgment would
acts that he allegedly committed while he was the Zone not adversely affect the petitioners, who now hold no
Administrator of the Bataan Export Processing Zone. right whatsoever in Lot No. 727-D-2. Otherwise put, they
Therefore, the complaint is in the nature of suit against are not the proper parties to assail the questioned orders
the State, and the Republic has the personality to file the of the RTC, because they stand to derive nothing from
petition. Republic of the Philippines the execution of the judgment against Cebu Country
vs. Coalbrine International Philippines, et al., G.R. No. Club. Every action must be prosecuted or defended in
161838, April 7, 2010. the name of the real party in interest, unless otherwise
authorized by law or the rules. A real party in interest is
one who stands to be benefited or injured by the
Parties; real parties in interest. Notably,
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
respondent Neri signed the verification/certification as
the suit. “Interest” within the meaning of the rule means
one of the plaintiffs. However, we find that
material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected
respondent Neri is not a real party-in- interest. Section
by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the
2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
question involved, or a mere incidental interest. The rule
refers to a real or present substantial interest, as
SEC. 2. Parties-in interest. – A real party-in-interest is distinguished from a mere expectancy; or from a future,
the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. One
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of having no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the
264
jurisdiction of the court as a party-plaintiff in an action. government may institute an action to recover ownership
Thus, an appeal, like this one, is an action to be of a public land.
prosecuted by a party in interest before a higher court. In
order for the appeal to prosper, the litigant must of
x x x x
necessity continue to hold a real or present substantial
interest that entitles him to the avails of the suit on
appeal. If he does not, the appeal, as to him, is an Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, every
exercise in futility. So it is with the petitioners! action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of
the real party in interest. It further defines a “real party
in interest” as one who stands to be benefited or injured
In contrast, the Government, being the legal owner of Lot
by the judgment in the suit. x x x The interest of the
No. 727-D-2, is the only party adversely affected by the
party must be personal and not one based on a
denial, and is the proper party entitled to assail the
desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some
denial. However, its manifest desistance from the
third and unrelated party.
execution of the decision effectively barred any challenge
against the denial, for its non-appeal rendered the denial
final and immutable. Francisco Alonso, et al. vs. Cebu Clearly, a suit filed by a person who is not a party
Country Club, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 188471, April 20, in interest must be dismissed. Thus, in Lucas
2010. v. Durian, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a
Complaint filed by a party who alleged that the patent
was obtained by fraudulent means and, consequently,
prayed for the annulment of said patent and the
cancellation of a certificate of title. The Court declared
Parties; real party in interest in action for that the proper party to bring the action was the
annulment of certificates of title. Section 2, Rule 3 of government, to which the property would revert.
the Rules of Court states: Likewise affirming the dismissal of a Complaint for
failure to state a cause of action, the Court
in Nebrada v. Heirs of Alivio noted that the plaintiff,
Sec. 2. Parties in interest. – A real party in interest is the
being a mere homestead applicant, was not the real
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
party in interest to institute an action for reconveyance.
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these
Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in x x x x
the name of the real party in interest.
Verily, the Court stressed that “if the suit is not brought
This provision has two requirements: 1) to institute an in the name of or against the real party in interest, a
action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the
and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the complaint states no cause of action.” [Emphasis
real party in interest. Interest within the meaning of the supplied.]
Rules of Court means material interest or an interest in
issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the
The petitioners demand the annulment of
case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the
respondent Catlys’ titles because they allege that these
question involved. One having no material interest to
included portions belonging to the Municipality
protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the
of Calapan. This allegation is a clear recognition of the
plaintiff in an action. When the plaintiff is not the real
Municipality’s superior interest over the lot. In instituting
party in interest, the case is dismissible on the ground of
the action for annulment of respondent Catlys’ titles,
lack of cause of action. An action for annulment of
what the petitioners are asserting is a right that is not
certificates of title to property into the issue of
personal to them, but to that of the local government.
ownership of the land covered by a Torrens title
That they are lessees who were granted by the
and the relief generally prayed for by the plaintiff is
Municipality of Calapan the option to purchase the portion
to be declared as the land’s true owner. The real
they occupy does not suffice to constitute as parties with
party in interest in such action therefore is the
material interest to commence the action.
person claiming title or ownership adverse to that
Nemesio Goco, et al. vs. Honorable Court of
of the registered owner. The case of Tankiko v. Cezar
has illustrated for us the application of this principle in
the following manner:
It is evident that respondents are not the real

parties in interest. Because they admit that they
are not the owners of the land but mere applicants
for sales patents thereon, it is daylight clear that Parties; standing, relaxation of rule.
the land is public in character and that it should
revert to the State. This being the case, Section 101 of
the Public Land Act categorically declares that only the The respondents likewise allege that the petitioners had
failed to show that they had sustained, or is in danger of
265
sustaining any substantial injury as a result of the

implementation of Republic Act No. 9716. The
respondents, therefore, conclude that the petitioners lack
Pleadings; certification of non-forum shopping.
the required legal standing to question the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9716. This Court has
paved the way away from procedural debates when The Court has consistently held that the requirement
confronted with issues that, by reason of constitutional regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not
importance, need a direct focus of the arguments on their jurisdictional. Such requirement is simply a condition
content and substance. The Supreme Court has, on affecting the form of the pleading, non-compliance with
more than one occasion, tempered the application of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally
procedural rules, as well as relaxed the requirement defective. Verification is simply intended to secure an
of locus standi whenever confronted with an important assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true
issue of overreaching significance to society. and correct, and not the product of the imagination or a
matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in
good faith. The court may order the correction of the
Hence, in Del Mar v. Philippine Amusement and
pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading
Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR)
although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances
and Jaworski v. PAGCOR, this Court sanctioned
are such that strict compliance with the rules may be
momentary deviation from the principle of the hierarchy
dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may
of courts, and took original cognizance of cases raising
thereby be served. On the other hand, the lack of
issues of paramount public importance.
certification against non-forum shopping is generally not
The Jaworski case ratiocinates:
curable by mere amendment of the complaint, but shall
be a cause for the dismissal of the case without
Granting arguendo that the present action cannot be prejudice. The same rule applies to certifications against
properly treated as a petition for prohibition, the non-forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a
transcendental importance of the issues involved in corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that said
this case warrants that we set aside the technical signatory is authorized to file the complaint on behalf of
defects and take primary jurisdiction over the the corporation. In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Flight
petition at bar. One cannot deny that the issues raised Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines
herein have potentially pervasive influence on the social (FASAP), we ruled that only individuals vested with
and moral well being of this nation, specially the youth; authority by a valid board resolution may sign the
hence, their proper and just determination is an certificate of non-forum shopping on behalf of a
imperative need. This is in accordance with the well- corporation. We also required that proof of such authority
entrenched principle that rules of procedure are not must be attached. Failure to provide a certificate of non-
inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but to forum shopping is sufficient ground to dismiss the
facilitate and promote the administration of justice. petition. Likewise, the petition is subject to dismissal if a
Their strict and rigid application, which would certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of
result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather signatory’s authority. While there were instances where
than promote substantial justice, must always be we have allowed the filing of a certificate against non-
eschewed. (Emphasis supplied) forum shopping by someone on behalf of a corporation
without the accompanying proof of authority at the time
of its filing, we did so on the basis of a special
Anent the locus standi requirement, this Court has
circumstance or compelling reason. Moreover, there was
already uniformly ruled
a subsequent compliance by the submission of the proof
in Kilosbayan v. Guingona, Tatad v. Executive
of authority attesting to the fact that the person who
Secretary, Chavez v. Public Estates Authority
signed the certification was duly authorized.
and Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, just
to name a few, that absence of direct injury on the part
of the party seeking judicial review may be excused when XXX XXX
the latter is able to craft an issue of transcendental XXX XXX
importance. In Lim v. Executive Secretary, this Court
held that in cases of transcendental importance, the
In the present case, the RTC, in denying petitioner’s
cases must be settled promptly and definitely, and so,
motion to dismiss the complaint when the latter raised
the standing requirements may be relaxed. This liberal
respondent Neri’s lack of authority to sign the
stance has been echoed in the more recent decision
certification, found that respondent Neri testified that she
on Chavez v. Gonzales.
was the Managing Director of the Bataan Hilltop Hotel
which was being leased by respondent Coalbrine, and
Given the weight of the issue raised in the instant that she was authorized by the Corporate Secretary to
petition, the foregoing principles must apply. The beaten file the case. Notably, while the matter of lack of
path must be taken. We go directly to the determination authority was raised by petitioner in its petition
of whether or not a population of 250,000 is an for certiorari filed with the CA, it chose not to tackle the
indispensable constitutional requirement for the creation issue after disposing of the other issues raised therein.
of a new legislative district in a
province. Senator Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III and
We cannot agree with the RTC’s reasoning and find the
Mayor Jesse Robredo, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010.
certification signed by respondent Neri to be defective.
266
The authority of respondent Neri to file the complaint in Pleadings; certification of non-forum shopping;
the RTC had not been proven. First, the certification substantial compliance through subsequent
against non-forum shopping did not even contain a submission.
statement that she was authorized by the corporate
secretary to file the case on behalf of Coalbrine as she
Unquestionably, there is sufficient jurisprudential basis to
claimed. More importantly, while she testified that she
hold that Landheights has substantially complied with the
was authorized by the corporate secretary, there was no
verification and certification requirements. We have held
showing that there was a valid board resolution
in a catena of cases with similar factual circumstances
authorizing the corporate secretary to file the action, and
that there is substantial compliance with the Rules of
to authorize respondent Neri to file the action. In fact,
Court when there is a belated submission or filing of the
such proof of authority had not been submitted even
secretary’s certificate through a motion for
belatedly to show subsequent compliance. Thus, there
reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ decision
was no reason for the relaxation of the rule. Republic of
dismissing the petition for certiorari.
the Philippines vs. Coalbrine International
In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo, this Court
Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 161838, April 7, 2010.
acknowledged that it has relaxed, under justifiable
circumstances, the rule requiring the submission of these
certifications and has applied the rule of substantial
compliance under justifiable circumstances with respect
to the contents of the certification. It also conceded that
Pleadings; certification on non-forum shopping.
if this Court has allowed the belated filing of the
certification against forum shopping for compelling
The second violation concerns the omission of a sworn reasons in previous rulings, with more reason should it
certification against forum shopping from the petition for sanction the timely submission of such certification
review on certiorari. Section 4, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules though the proof of the signatory’s authority was
of Civil Procedure requires that the petition for review submitted thereafter. The Court is aware of the necessity
should contain, among others, the sworn certification on for a certification of non-forum shopping in filing petitions
the undertakings provided in the last paragraph of for certiorari as this is required under Section 1, Rule 65,
Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Civil
viz: Procedure, as amended. When the petitioner is a
corporation, the certification should obviously be
Section 2. xxx executed by a natural person to whom the power to
execute such certification has been validly conferred by
the corporate board of directors and/or duly authorized
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition officers and agents. Generally, the petition is subject to
a certification under oath that he has not theretofore dismissal if a certification was submitted unaccompanied
commenced any other action involving the same issues in by proof of the signatory’s authority. However, we must
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different make a distinction between non-compliance with the
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there requirements for certificate of non-forum shopping and
is such other action or proceeding, he must state the verification and substantial compliance with the
status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that requirements as provided in the Rules of Court. The
a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification on
before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the justification that such act constitutes substantial
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or compliance. In Roadway Express, Inc. v. CA, the Court
agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid allowed the filing of the certification fourteen (14) days
courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) before the dismissal of the petition. In Uy v. Land Bank
days therefrom. (n) of the Philippines, the Court reinstated a petition on the
ground of substantial compliance even though the
Only petitioner Tomas V. Alonso has executed and signed verification and certification were submitted only after
the sworn certification against forum shopping attached the petition had already been originally dismissed.
to the petition. Although neither of his co-petitioners – In Havtor Management Phils. Inc. v. NLRC, we
Mercedes V. Alonso and Asuncion V. Alonso – has joined acknowledged substantial compliance when the lacking
the certification, Tomas did not present any written secretary’s certificate was submitted by the petitioners as
express authorization in his favor authorizing him to sign an attachment to the motion for reconsideration seeking
the certification in their behalf. The signing of the reversal of the original decision dismissing the petition for
certification by only one of the petitioners could not be its earlier failure to submit such requirement. In the
presumed to reflect the personal knowledge by his co- present case, Landheights rectified its failure to submit
petitioners of the filing or non-filing of any similar action proof of Mr. Dickson Tan’s authority to sign the
or claim. Hence, the failure of Mercedes and Asuncion to verification/certification on non-forum shopping on its
sign and execute the certification along with Tomas behalf when the required document was subsequently
warranted the dismissal of their petition. Francisco submitted to the Court of Appeals. The admission of
Alonso, et al. vs. Cebu Country Club, Inc., et al., G.R. these documents, and consequently, the reinstatement of
No. 188471, April 20, 2010. the petition itself, is in line with the cases we have cited.
In such circumstances, we deem it more in accord with
substantive justice that the case be decided on the
267
merits. Mediserv, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (Special suffered any damage even if Manuel, Jr. entered into an
Former 13th Division), et al., G.R. No. 161368, April 5, agreement with respondent since the agreement was null
2010. and void.
Respondent filed three counterclaims. The first was for

recovery of the P400,000 given to Manuel, Jr.; the
second was for recovery of possession of the subject
Pleadings; compulsory counterclaim distinguished
property; and the third was for damages. The first
from permissive counterclaim.
counterclaim was rendered moot with the issuance of the
6 November 2003 Order confirming the agreement of the
A compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money or any parties to cancel the Deed of Assignment, Release,
relief, which a defending party may have against an Waiver and Quitclaim and to return the P400,000 to
opposing party, which at the time of suit arises out of, or respondent. Respondent waived and renounced the third
is necessarily connected with, the same transaction or counterclaim for damages. The only counterclaim that
occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s remained was for the recovery of possession of the
complaint. It is compulsory in the sense that it is within subject property. While this counterclaim was an
the jurisdiction of the court, does not require for its offshoot of the same basic controversy between the
adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the parties, it is very clear that it will not be barred if not set
court cannot acquire jurisdiction, and will be barred in the up in the answer to the complaint in the same case.
future if not set up in the answer to the complaint in the Respondent’s second counterclaim, contrary to the
same case. Any other counterclaim is permissive. The findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, is
Court has ruled that the compelling test only a permissive counterclaim. It is not a compulsory
of compulsoriness characterizes a counterclaim as counterclaim. It is capable of proceeding independently
compulsory if there should exist a logical relationship of the main case. Manuel Bungcayao, Sr., et al. vs.
between the main claim and the counterclaim. The Court Fort Ilocandia Property Holdings and Development
further ruled that there exists such a relationship when Corporation, G.R. No. 170483, April 19, 2010.
conducting separate trials of the respective claims of the
parties would entail substantial duplication of time and
Pleadings; explanation for service by registered mail;
effort by the parties and the court; when the multiple
when omission excused. As to the CA’s dismissal of the
claims involve the same factual and legal issues; or when
petition for review on the ground that petitioner failed to
the claims are offshoots of the same basic controversy
attach a written explanation for non-personal filing, the
between the parties. The criteria to determine whether
Court finds the same improper. Iligan City, where
the counterclaim is compulsory or permissive are as
petitioner resides and where her counsel holds office,
follows:
and Cagayan de Oro City, where the concerned division
of the CA is stationed, are separated by a considerable
(a) Are issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by distance. The CA, in the exercise of its discretion, should
the counterclaim largely the same? have realized that it was indeed impracticable for
petitioner to personally file the petition for review
(b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on in Cagayan De Oro City. Given the obvious time, effort
defendant’s claim, absent the compulsory rule? and expense that would have been spent in the personal
filing of the pleadings in this case, the written
explanation why service had not been done personally, as
(c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute required by Section 11 of Rule 13, may be considered as
plaintiff’s claim as well as defendant’s counterclaim? superfluous. Alma B. Russel
vs. Teofista Ebasan, et al.,G.R. No. 184542, April 23,
(d) Is there any logical relations between the claim and 2010.
the counterclaim?
A positive answer to all four questions would indicate that

the counterclaim is compulsory. Pleadings; filing by registered mail; date of mailing
considered date of filing.
In this case, the only issue in the complaint is whether
Manuel, Jr. is authorized to sign the Deed of Assignment, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise filed
Release, Waiver and Quitclaim in favor of respondent on time. She received a copy of the June 18, 2007 CA
without petitioner’s express approval and authority. In Resolution on July 18, 2007. Under Section 1 of Rule 52,
an Order dated 6 November 2003, the trial court she had 15 days from notice, or until August 2, 2007, to
confirmed the agreement of the parties to cancel the file a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed by
Deed of Assignment, Release, Waiver and Quitclaim and registered mail her motion for reconsideration on July 27,
the return of P400,000 to respondent. The only claim 2007. The fact of mailing on the said date is proven by
that remained was the claim for damages against the registry return receipt, the affidavit of service, and
respondent. The trial court resolved this issue by holding the certification of the Office of the Postmaster
that any damage suffered by Manuel, Jr. was personal to of Iligan City. Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court
him. The trial court ruled that petitioner could not have provides that if a pleading is filed by registered mail, then
268
the date of mailing shall be considered as the date of The General Manager of NHA verified the petition as
filing. It does not matter when the court actually follows:
receives the mailed pleading. Thus, in this case, as the
pleading was filed by registered mail on July 27, 2007,
3. I have read the allegations contained therein and that
within the reglementary period, it is inconsequential that
the same are true and correct to the best of my own
the CA actually received the motion in October of that
personal knowledge.
year. Alma B. Russel vs. Teofista Ebasan, et al., G.R.
No. 184542, April 23, 2010.
A reading of the above verification reveals nothing
objectionable about it. The affiant confirmed that he had
Pleadings; verification; defective verification
read the allegations in the petition which were true and
excused.
correct based on his personal knowledge. The addition of
the words “to the best” before the phrase “of my
Relative to the defective verification, the Court excuses personal knowledge” did not violate the requirement
the same. The purpose of the verification is to secure an under Section 4 of Rule 7, it being sufficient that
assurance that the allegations in the petition have been the affiant declared that the allegations in the petition are
made in good faith, or are true and correct and not true and correct based on his personal
merely speculative. The requirement is simply a condition knowledge. National Housing Authority vs.
affecting the form of pleadings and non-compliance Augusto Basa, Jr., Luz Basa and Eduardo S. Basa, G.R.
therewith is neither jurisdictional nor does it render the No. 149121, April 20, 2010.
pleading fatally defective. Here, the perceived defect is
excusable and does not justify a dismissal of the petition.
In any case, petitioner, in her subsequent pleading,
submitted a corrected verification. The same degree of
liberality should apply to petitioner’s failure to attach a Pleadings; verification and certification of non-
copy of the complaint and answer filed before forum shopping; substantial compliance by
the MTCC in her petition for review. After all, petitioner subsequent submission.
substantially complied with the requirement when she
filed her amended petition. Alma B. Russel Under Rule 46, Section 3, paragraph 3 of the 1997 Rules
vs. Teofista Ebasan, et al., G.R. No. 184542, April 23, of Civil Procedure, as amended, petitions for certiorari
2010. must be verified and accompanied by a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping. The primary
Pleadings; verification; substantial compliance. question that has to be resolved in this case is whether
the verification and certification of non-forum shopping,
erroneously signed by counsel, may be cured by
Contrary to respondents’ assertion, NHA’s verification
subsequent compliance. Generally, subsequent
conforms to the rule. Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of
compliance with the requirement of a certification of non-
Court states:
forum shopping does not excuse a party from failure to
comply in the first instance. A certification of the
SEC. 4. Verification. – Except when otherwise specifically plaintiff’s counsel will not suffice for the reason that it is
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under the petitioner, and not the counsel, who is in the best
oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. position to know whether he actually filed or caused the
filing of a petition. A certification against forum shopping
signed by counsel is a defective certification that is
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has
equivalent to non-compliance with the requirement and
read the pleading and that the allegations therein are
constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition.
true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on
However, there are instances when we treated
authentic records.
compliance with the rule with relative liberality, especially
when there are circumstances or compelling reasons
A pleading required to be verified which contains a making the strict application of the rule clearly
verification based on “information and belief,” or upon unjustified. In the case of Far Eastern Shipping
“knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a proper Company v. Court of Appeals, while we said that, strictly,
verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. a certification against forum shopping by counsel is a
defective certification, the verification, signed by
The reason for requiring verification in the petition is to petitioner’s counsel in said case, is substantial
secure an assurance that the allegations of a pleading are compliance inasmuch as it served the purpose of the
true and correct; are not speculative or merely imagined; Rules of informing the Court of the pendency of another
and have been made in good faith. To achieve this action or proceeding involving the same issues. We then
purpose, the verification of a pleading is made through explained that procedural rules are instruments in the
an affidavit or sworn statement confirming that speedy and efficient administration of justice which
the affiant has read the pleading whose allegations are should be used to achieve such end and not to derail it.
true and correct of the affiant’s personal knowledge or In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals, we categorically stated
based on authentic records. that while the petition was flawed as the certification of
non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not
by the party, such procedural lapse may be overlooked in
269
the interest of substantial justice. Finally, the Court has technicalities. We held in Ong Lim Sing, Jr. v. FEB
also on occasion held that the party need not sign the Leasing and Finance Corporation that:
verification; a party’s representative, lawyer or any
person who personally knows the truth of the facts
Courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules of
alleged in the pleading may sign the verification.
even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty
to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to
Here, the verification and certification of non-forum litigation and the parties’ right to due process. In
shopping was signed by petitioner’s counsel. Upon numerous cases, this Court has allowed liberal
receipt of the resolution of the Court of Appeals construction of the rules when to do so would serve the
dismissing her petition for non-compliance with the rules, demands of substantial justice and equity. Trinidad
petitioner submitted, together with her motion for Go, et al. vs. Vicente Velez Chavez, et al., G.R. No.
reconsideration, a verification and certification signed by 182341, April 23, 2010.
her in compliance with the said rule. We deem this to be
sufficient compliance especially in view of the merits of
Procedural rules; liberal construction.
the case, which may be considered as a special
circumstance or a compelling reason that would justify
tempering the hard consequence of the procedural It is settled that liberal construction of the rules may be
requirement on non-forum shopping. Krizia Katrina Ty- invoked in situations where there may be some excusable
De Zuzuarregui vs. The formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the
Hon. Joselito C. Villanueva, et al., G.R. No. 183788, same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and
April 5, 2010. connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance
with the rules. After all, rules of procedure are not to be
applied in a very rigid, technical sense; they are used
only to help secure substantial justice. Mediserv, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals (Special Former
Procedural rules; abuse of judicial process. 13th Division), et al. G.R. No. 161368, April 5, 2010.
We lament that the petitioners, by instituting the present Procedural rules; liberal application.
petition, has effectively delayed the full execution of the
final and executory RTC judgment. In doing so, they
In sum, the Court finds that the CA erred in dismissing
deprived the winning respondents of the fruits of the
petitioner’s appeal. The appellate court should have been
judgment, and made a mockery of the RTC judgment
more prudent in computing the reglementary period for
that has stood scrutiny all the way to our level. We have
the filing of petitions. The CA could have been more
always frowned upon any scheme to
liberal in the application of the Rules considering that, in
prolong litigations and we view the present dispute as an
this case, the MTCC and the RTC arrived at conflicting
unwarranted effort to avoid the implementation of a
rulings, necessitating a thorough review of the merits of
judgment painstakingly arrived at. We cannot
the case. This is in keeping with the principle that rules of
countenance, and in fact, condemn this kind of abuse of
procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the
judicial process. Thus, we deem it fit to impose treble
attainment of justice and that strict and rigid application
costs against the petitioners. Narciso Tumibay, et al.
of rules which would result in technicalities that tend to
vs. Sps. Yolanda T. Sora, et al., G.R. No. 152016, April
frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must
13, 2010.
always be avoided. It is a far better and wiser course of
action for the Court to excuse a technical lapse and
afford the parties a conscientious review of the case in
order to attain the ends of justice, rather than dispose of
it on a technicality and cause grave injustice to the
Procedural rules; liberal application.
parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of
cases which actually results in more delay, if not in an
Facing up to all these objections and admitting the outright miscarriage of justice. Alma B. Russel
mistakes committed, the Gos beseech liberality in the vs. Teofista Ebasan, et al.,G.R. No. 184542, April 23,
application of the rules. Even if clearly their counsel 2010.
committed a number of palpable mistakes which, as a
general rule should bind the client, we shall grant the
Temporary restraining order.
petition in the interest of justice. Our rules of procedure
are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of cases
and permit the prompt disposition of unmeritorious cases Until the propriety of granting an injunction, temporary
which clog the court dockets and do little more than or perpetual, is determined, the court (i.e., the RTC in
waste the courts’ time. These technical and procedural this case) may issue a temporary restraining order.
rules, however, are intended to ensure, rather than A TRO is an interlocutory order or writ issued by the
suppress, substantial justice. A deviation from their rigid court as a restraint on the defendant until the propriety
enforcement may thus be allowed, as petitioners should of granting an injunction can be determined, thus going
be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of no further in its operation than to preserve the
their case, rather than lose their property on mere status quo until that determination. A TRO is not
intended to operate as an injunction pendente lite, and
270
should not in effect determine the issues involved before to notice the “malicious,” “sadistic” and “adversarial”
the parties can have their day in court. Subic Bay manner of questioning by the trial judge of the accused
Metropolitan Authority therein, including their defense witness. In Opida, the
vs. Merlino E. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 160270, April accused never admitted the commission of the crime,
23, 2010. and so the burden of proof remained with the
prosecution. The People of the Philippines
vs. Benancio Mortera y Belarmino, G.R. No. 188104,
Trial; requirement of impartial judge.
April 23, 2010.
Citing the foregoing as basis, the accused argues that

Judge Jesus Carbon, Jr. displayed his hostility towards
him and condemned him even before the defense could
rest its presentation of evidence. By saying that he was Other Proceedings
“just making a story,” the judge already concluded his
guilt during trial. The Court is not unaware of the case
Actions; forum shopping in agrarian case.
of Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, where it was written:
Petitioners also submit that LBP is guilty of forum

The Court has acknowledged the right of a trial judge to
shopping because after LBP invoked the jurisdiction of
question witnesses with a view to satisfying his mind
the SAC of Santiago City, Isabela, and obtained a
upon any material point which presents itself during the
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), LBP filed a petition
trial of a case over which he presides. But not only
for certiorari with the DARAB (DSCA No. 0213) to
should his examination be limited to
prevent the execution of the Order of the RARAD.
asking clarificatory questions, the right should be
The DARAB eventually issued a TRO, and later, a writ of
sparingly and judiciously used; for the rule is that the
preliminary injunction, directed against the
court should stay out of it as much as possible, neither
implementation of the RARAD’s decision. Petitioners’
interfering nor intervening in the conduct of trial… hardly
argument is mislaid.
in fact can one avoid the impression that
the Sandiganbayan had allied itself with, or to be more
precise, had taken the cudgels for the prosecution in In Canuto, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
proving the case against Tabuena and Peralta…. The we held that forum shopping is manifest whenever a
“cold neutrality of an impartial judge” requirement of due party “repetitively avail[s] of several judicial remedies in
process was certainly denied Tabuena and Peralta when different courts, simultaneously or successively, all
the court, with its overzealousness, assumed the dual substantially founded on the same transactions and the
role of magistrate and advocate… A substantial portion of same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising
the TSN was incorporated in the majority opinion not to substantially the same issues either pending in, or
focus on “numbers” alone, but more importantly to show already resolved adversely by, some other court.” It has
that the court questions were in the interest of the also been defined as “an act of a party against whom an
prosecution and which thus depart from the common adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum of
standard of fairness and impartiality. (emphasis added) seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in
another forum, other than by appeal or the special civil
action of certiorari, or the institution of two or more
The situation in the case at bench is, however, different.
actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on
As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals,
the supposition that one or the other court would make a
although the trial judge might have made improper
favorable disposition.” Considered a pernicious evil, it
remarks and comments, it did not amount to a denial of
adversely affects the efficient administration of justice
his right to due process or his right to an impartial trial.
since it clogs the court dockets, unduly burdens the
Upon perusal of the transcript as a whole, it cannot be
financial and human resources of the judiciary, and trifles
said that the remarks were reflective of his partiality.
with and mocks judicial processes. In Veluz v. Court of
They were not out of context. Not only did the accused
Appeals, we held:
mislead the court by initially invoking a negative defense
only to claim otherwise during trial, he was also not
candid to his own lawyer, who was kept in the dark as to There is forum shopping when, in the two or more cases
his intended defense. The accused having admitted the pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of
killing, a reverse order of trial could have proceeded. As action and relief sought. Forum shopping exists where
it turned out, the prosecution undertook to discharge the the elements of litis pendentia are present or when a
burden of proving his guilt, when the burden of proof to final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in
establish that the killing was justified should have been the other. For litis pendentia to exist, the following
his. Most probably, the trial judge was peeved at the requisites must be present:
strategy he adopted. The trial judge cannot be faulted
for having made those remarks, notwithstanding the 1. Identity of parties, or at least such parties as those
sarcastic tone impressed upon it. The sarcasm alone representing the same interests in both actions;
cannot lead us to conclude that the trial judge “had taken
the cudgels for the prosecution. The invocation of Opida
fails to persuade us either. The facts therein are not at 2. Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the
all fours with the case at bench. In Opida, we did not fail reliefs being founded on the same facts;
271
3. Identity with respect to the two preceding particulars b) That there is a grave abuse of discretion on the part
in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be of the Adjudicator; or
rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party
is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other
c) That the order, resolution or decision is obtained
case.
through fraud or coercion.
Reviewing the facts of this case, the SAC, after hearing

xxxx
the parties regarding the propriety of issuing
the injunctive writ against the execution of the RARAD’s
decision, found that it had no jurisdiction to resolve the Section 5. Requisites and Perfection of the Appeal.
matter. Hence, LBP filed a petition for certiorari with
the DARAB (DSCA No. 0213) seeking the issuance of a) The Notice of Appeal shall be filed within
a TRO and preliminary injunction. It is thus seen that the reglementary period as provided for in Section 1 of
there is no forum shopping because the SAC had no this Rule. It shall state the date when the appellant
jurisdiction on the issuance of an injunctive writ against received the order or judgment appealed from and the
the RARAD’s decision. As the SAC had no jurisdiction proof of service of the notice to the adverse party; and
over such matter, any ruling it renders is void and of no
legal effect. Thus, LBP’s act of filing the petition for
certiorari with the DARAB, which has the correct b) An appeal fee of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) shall
jurisdiction for the remedy sought, does not amount to be paid by the appellant within the reglementary period
forum shopping. Heirs of Lorenzo Vidad and to the DAR Cashier where the Office of the Adjudicators is
Carmen Vidad, et al. vs. Land Bank of the situated. x x x
Philippines, G.R. No. 166461, April 30, 2010.
Non-compliance with the above-mentioned requisites
shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
Both Notices of Appeal stated that the petitioners were

appealing the decision “on the grounds of questions of
fact and of law,” which we find sufficient statement of the
Appeal; notice of appeal; substantial compliance in ground for appeal under Section 2(a), Rule XIII of
agrarian case. the DARAB Rules. While the notices omitted to state that
“the decision would cause grave and irreparable damage
Guided by the foregoing principles, we find that the and injury to the appellant,” we find such punctilious
Notices of Appeal substantially complied with all that is fidelity to the language of the DARAB Rules unnecessary.
required under the 1994 DARAB Rules. The following Surely by appealing the Decision of the Regional
provisions are instructive in making this conclusion: Adjudicator, the petitioners were already manifesting that
they will be damaged by the assailed decision. Requiring
a literal application of the rules when its purpose has
Rule XIII
already been served is oppressive superfluity. It must be
APPEALS
stressed that the purpose of the notice of appeal is not to
detail one’s objections regarding the appealed decision;
Section 1. Appeal to the Board. a) An appeal may be that is the purpose of the appellants’ memorandum. In
taken from an order, resolution or decision of the the context of a DARAB case, the notice of appeal serves
Adjudicator to the Board by either of the parties or both, only to inform the tribunal or officer that rendered the
orally or in writing, within a period of fifteen (15) days appealed decision (i.e., the Regional Adjudicator) of
from the receipt of the order, resolution or decision the timeliness of the appeal and of the general reason for
appealed from, and serving a copy thereof on the the appeal, and to prepare the records thereof for
adverse party, if the appeal is in writing. transmission to the appellate body (i.e., the DARAB).
Petitioners’ Notices of Appeal contain everything that is
necessary to serve these purposes. Another important
b) An oral appeal shall be reduced into writing by the
consideration is the fact that petitioners were obviously
Adjudicator to be signed by the appellant, and a copy
not assisted by counsel in the filing of the Notices of
thereof shall be served upon the adverse party within ten
Appeal. Only the parties were signatories thereto;
(10) days from the taking of the oral appeal.
Atty. Mena’s signature was missing, which gives credence
to petitioners’ assertion that they had already terminated
Section 2. Grounds. The aggrieved party may appeal to the services of their counsel at that time. Their new
the Board from a final order, resolution or decision of the counsel, Atty. Dauphine B. Go, DAR-Legal Counsel,
Adjudicator on any of the following grounds: entered her appearance only on March 13, 2003, or
several days after the Notices of Appeal were filed. The
a) That errors in the findings of fact or conclusions of Regional Adjudicator is also correct when she ruled that
laws were committed which, if not corrected, would cause she has no power to determine if the appeal is frivolous
grave and irreparable damage and injury to the and intended merely for delay. Such matters are for the
appellant; appellate body to determine after it has studied the
appellant’s brief or the appeal memorandum. The body
272
which rendered the appealed decision should not pass Board, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
upon the question of whether the appeal was taken 165155, April 13, 2010.
manifestly for delay because such determination belongs
to the appellate body. For the lower body to do so would
Election case; forum shopping.
constitute a review of its own judgment and a mockery of
the appellate process. This principle is applicable to
agrarian disputes by virtue of Section 8, Rule XIII of Forum shopping is the institution of two (2) or more suits
the DARAB Rules which states that the Board (not the in different courts, either simultaneously or successively,
Regional Adjudicator) has the power to impose in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related
reasonable penalties, including fine or censure, on parties causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the
who file frivolous or dilatory appeals. The implication is same reliefs. There is forum shopping when as a result
that since the Board is the one which has the power to of an adverse decision in one (1) forum, or in anticipation
punish, it is also the one which has the power to decide if thereof, a party seeks favorable opinion in another forum
there has been a violation. The Regional Adjudicator has through means other than appeal or certiorari. Under
no such power. She must allow the appeal if it is timely paragraph 2, Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
and compliant with the reglementary requirements. It Procedure, as amended, if the acts of the party or his
has been held that when an appeal is filed on time, the counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
approval of a notice of appeal is a ministerial duty of the shopping, the same shall be ground for summary
court or tribunal which rendered the decision. Regional dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, et al. vs. Court of contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
In determining whether a party violated the rule against
Certiorari; exhaustion of administrative remedies in forum shopping, the most important factor to ask is
agrarian case. whether the elements of litis pendencia are present, or
whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res
judicata in another. For the principle of res judicata to
At this juncture, we must point out that while
apply, the following elements must be present: (1) the
respondents bewail petitioners’ lack of strict adherence to
judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2)
procedural rules, they also failed to observe some rules.
the decision must have been rendered by a court having
It is evident from the records that respondents filed two
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3)
motions for reconsideration after the August 5, 2003
the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the
Order of the Regional Adjudicator. This is prohibited
merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and
under Section 12, Rule VIII of DARAB Rules, which
second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and
provides that only one motion for reconsideration shall be
cause of action. In the present case, the second element
allowed. Moreover, respondents failed to exhaust
is wanting.
administrative remedies when they filed their petition
for certiorari before the CA, instead of the Board.
The DARAB Rules state that: Under Section 5(c), Rule 3 of the Comelec Rules of
Procedure, any motion to reconsider a decision,
resolution, order or ruling of a division shall be resolved
Rule XIV Judicial Review
by the Commission en banc except motions on
interlocutory orders of the division which shall be
Section 1. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals. resolved by the division which issued the order. When
the COMELEC, Second Division issued the September 4,
2009 Order, the appeal of respondent’s election protest
Any decision, order, resolution, award or ruling of the
was still pending resolution by the COMELEC en banc.
Board on any agrarian dispute or on any matter
Clearly, the September 4, 2009 Order of the COMELEC,
pertaining to the application, implementation,
Second Division granting execution pending resolution of
enforcement, interpretation of agrarian reform laws or
the motion for reconsideration is in the nature of an
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, may be
interlocutory order – one which does not dispose of the
brought within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy
case completely but leaves something to be decided
thereof, to the Court of Appeals by certiorari.
upon. Therefore, in accordance with the Comelec Rules
of Procedure, any motion to reconsider such interlocutory
An aggrieved party can only resort to judicial review after order of the division shall be resolved by the division
it has invoked the authority of the Board. Judicial review which issued it. Otherwise stated, the Extremely Urgent
is not provided for orders, rulings, and decisions of Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner to question
adjudicators. It is stated in Section 1, Rule II that the the September 4, 2009 Order issued by the COMELEC,
Board has primary and exclusive, original and appellate Second Division had to be resolved also by the Second
jurisdiction over agrarian disputes involving agrarian laws Division, not by the COMELEC en banc. Since
and their implementing rules and regulations. If the COMELEC en banc had no jurisdiction over
respondents were strict adherents to procedural rules, petitioner’s Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration,
they should have followed Section 2(b) of Rule XIII which its January 20, 2010 Resolution does not amount to res
provides for an appeal to the Board on the ground judicata in relation to the present petition.
of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
adjudicator. Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication
273
Notably, in the certificate of forum shopping Motion for Execution Pending Motion for Reconsideration
of Saludaga’s Petition before us, he disclosed that an does not satisfy the criteria in A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC. We
Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the shall tackle each objection separately.
September 4, 2009 Order is also pending before
the COMELEC en banc. Even then, the mere filing of a
On August 4, 2009,
separate case, as in the original action for certiorari and
the COMELEC promulgated COMELEC Resolution No.
prohibition filed by petitioner in G.R. No. 189431, after
8654 for the purpose of adopting rules on the payment
filing a responsive pleading in the other case, does not
of COMELEC appeal fees and on the disposition of
necessarily constitute forum shopping. To reiterate,
motions for reconsideration of decisions, resolutions and
there is forum shopping when as a result of an adverse
orders on election protest cases, appeal cases and special
decision in one (1) forum, or in anticipation thereof, a
relief cases of a division to conform to our ruling
party seeks favorable opinion in another forum through
in Aguilar v. COMELEC and Insoy.
means other than appeal or certiorari. Clearly, there is
no forum shopping in this case to warrant an outright
dismissal of the petition in G.R. No. 189431. Mayor Item 6 of Comelec Resolution No. 8654 provides:
Quintin B. Saludaga vs. Commission on
Elections, et al., G.R. Nos. 189431 & 191120, April 7, 6. If a motion for the execution of the decision or
2010. resolution of the Division is filed prior to the filing of a
Motion for Reconsideration, or within two days after the
Election case; motion for execution pending resolution of filing of the Motion for Reconsideration and the case was
motion for reconsideration. On May 3, 2007, the not yet certified to or elevated to the Commission
Supreme Court promulgated A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC or en banc, the Division may, at its own discretion:
the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the
Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay a. Certify and elevate the case, together with the Motion
Officials. Section 11(a), Rule 14 of said rules sets the for Execution as part of the records of the case, to the
criteria for execution pending appeal as follows: Commission En Banc within the two day period as
prescribed in Section 5, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court.
SEC. 11. Execution pending appeal. – On motion of
the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party, the b. Stay for a period of not more than ten (10) days from
court, while still in possession of the original records, the filing of the Motion for Execution, the elevation of
may, at its discretion, order the execution of the decision the case to the Commission En Banc, in order to resolve
in an election contest before the expiration of the period said Motion for Execution. Upon the expiration of the ten-
to appeal, subject to the following rules: day period, the Division shall immediately certify and
elevate the case, together with all the records, to the
(a) There must be a motion by the prevailing party with Commission En Banc for appropriate action. (Emphasis
three-day notice to the adverse party. Execution pending supplied).
appeal shall not issue without prior notice and hearing.
There must be good reasons for the execution pending Prior to the filing of a motion for reconsideration of a
appeal. The court, in a special order, must state the good decision or resolution issued by a division of
or special reasons justifying the execution pending the COMELEC or during the pendency of such motion for
appeal. Such reasons must: reconsideration but before the case is certified or
elevated to the COMELEC en banc, the motion for
(1) constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency execution may be acted upon by the division that issued
that will outweigh the injury or damage should the losing the decision or resolution. Under Item 6(a), a division of
party secure a reversal of the judgment on appeal; and the COMELEC may choose to elevate both the main
action and the motion for execution to
the COMELEC en banc. Item 6(b), on the other hand,
(2) be manifest, in the decision sought to be executed,
contemplates a situation where the division decides to
that the defeat of the protestee or the victory of the
rule on the motion for the execution of its decision or
protestant has been clearly established.
resolution. In the latter, the division may defer the
elevation of the case to the Commission en banc in order
By analogy, this standard is also applicable in the grant to resolve the motion. After the lapse of ten (10) days
of execution pending resolution of the motion for from the filing of the motion for execution, however, the
reconsideration of a decision, resolution, order or ruling division shall immediately certify and elevate the case,
of a division of the COMELEC. together with all the records – including the motion for
execution – to the Commission en banc for appropriate
action. This describes the second scenario when
Petitioner assails the September 4, 2009 Order for three
the COMELEC en banc may rule on a motion for
(3) reasons. First, the Second Division of
execution pending the resolution of the motion for
the COMELEC failed to certify and elevate the records of
reconsideration of a decision or resolution of a division.
the case upon the lapse of ten (10) days in accordance
In the case at hand, respondent filed a motion for
with Item 6(b) of Comelec Resolution No. 8654. Second,
execution of the Resolution dated August 12, 2009 on
the September 4, 2009 Order was signed by the
August 13, 2009. Thus, the Second Division
Presiding Commissioner alone. Lastly, respondent’s
274
of COMELEC had only until August 23, 2009 to resolve however, shall be referred to the Division/En Banc
the same. In the Order dated September 4, 2009, for clearance. (Emphasis supplied.)
Presiding Commissioner Ferrer, acting for the Second
Division, justifies the delay in the resolution of the
An order resolving a motion for execution is one (1) such
motion for execution by saying that it was in the interest
order of substance that requires more than the lone
of fair play that he required petitioner to file a comment.
imprimatur of the Division Chairman. This is so because
The Presiding Commissioner posits that the 10-day
execution pending resolution of the motion for
period is reckoned from the day the Second Division
reconsideration may issue only upon good or special
received petitioner’s comment on September 1, 2009.
reasons contained in a special order. To reiterate, such
reasons must: (1) constitute superior circumstances
We cannot agree. In accordance with the express demanding urgency that will outweigh the injury or
provision of the law, the ten (10) days within which a damage should the losing party secure a reversal of the
division of the COMELEC may suspend elevating the case judgment on appeal; and (2) be manifest, in the decision
to the Commission en banc is to be counted from the sought to be executed, that the defeat of the protestee or
filing of the motion for execution. The language of the the victory of the protestant had been clearly
law is clear, plain and too simple to invite a different established. These stringent requirements demand more
interpretation. Moreover, nowhere than a cursory evaluation of a motion for execution
in COMELEC Resolution No. 8654 does it say that a pending reconsideration. Hence, the need to refer such
comment is required, much less, indispensable before the order for clearance by the Division or
division may rule on a motion for execution. ter the the COMELEC en banc, as the case may be.
lapse of the 10-day period, the only power (and duty)
that a division has is to certify and elevate the case,
This amendment is reflected in Item
together with all the records, to the Commission en banc,
6, COMELEC Resolution No. 8654 which identifies
for appropriate action. Hence, upon the lapse of the 10-
the division as the one (1) in possession of the discretion
day period or after August 23, 2009, the Second Division
to either: (1) certify and elevate the case, together with
no longer had jurisdiction to rule on respondent’s motion
the motion for execution, to the Commission en banc
for execution. Having done so, the September 4, 2009
within the two-day period prescribed in Section 5, Rule
Order is void for having been issued by the COMELEC,
19 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, or (2) stay, for a
Second Division without jurisdiction.
period of not more than ten (10) days from the filing of a
motion for execution, the elevation of the case to the
Indeed, even if said Order was promulgated within 10 Commission en banc, in order to resolve said motion.
days from the filing of the motion for execution, it would Alternatively, upon the expiration of the 10-day period,
still be void because Presiding Commissioner Ferrer alone the decision may immediately certify and elevate the
signed it. justify the Presiding Commissioner’s action, case, together with all the records, to the
public respondent COMELEC invokes Section 6 (d), Rule 2 Commission en banc for appropriate action. e discretion
of the Comelec Rules of Procedure which provides, to allow execution pending reconsideration belongs to the
division that rendered the assailed decision, order or
resolution, or the COMELEC en banc, as the case may be
SEC. 6. Powers and Duties of the Presiding
– not to the Presiding Commissioner. To be sure, a writ
Commissioner.-The powers and duties of the Presiding
of execution pending resolution of the motion for
Commissioner of a Division when discharging its
reconsideration of a decision of the division is not granted
functions in cases pending before the Division shall be as
as a matter of right such that its issuance becomes a
follows:
ministerial duty that may be dispensed even just by the
Presiding Commissioner. Mayor Quintin B. Saludaga vs.
xxxx Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. Nos. 189431 &
191120, April 7, 2010.
(d) To sign interlocutory resolutions, orders or rulings
and temporary restraining orders in cases already Election case; questions of fact addressed to COMELEC.
assigned to the Division; Finally, in his Verified Motion for Reconsideration,
petitioner raised factual issues, specifically, on the
x x x x. appreciation of votes and the discrepancy in the number
of votes credited to each candidate in four (4) precincts.
However, the appreciation of contested ballots and
However, this provision has been qualified by the election documents involves a question of fact best left to
amendment introduced by the Commission en banc as the determination of the COMELEC, a specialized agency
reflected in the Excerpts of its regular en banc meeting tasked with the supervision of elections all over the
held on December 5, 1996. The relevant portion of the country. After all, it is the constitutional commission
Excerpts reads: vested with the exclusive original jurisdiction over
election contests involving regional, provincial and city
3) The ponente in the preceding two paragraphs shall officials, as well as appellate jurisdiction over election
prepare interlocutory orders for signature of the protests involving elective municipal and barangay
Chairman or Division Chairman. Orders of substance, officials. Hence, we deem it proper to remand this case
to the COMELEC en banc, in order that it may resolve
275
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Resolution agrarian reform law is an administrative matter the
dated August 12, 2009 on the merits. Mayor Quintin primary jurisdiction over which has been lodged with the
B. Saludaga vs. Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. DAR Secretary. Moreover, the issue of authenticity is
Nos. 189431 & 191120, April 7, 2010. entirely factual. Since this was never raised below, we
have no basis on record to rule on the authenticity of the
exemption order. Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Jurisdiction; exemption from CARL is matter within
Board, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
primary jurisdiction of DAR Secretary. Petitioners also
165155, April 13, 2010.
raise for the first time in the entire proceedings of this
case that respondents had presented to the Regional
Adjudicator an entirely spurious and fabricated DAR Jurisdiction; remand to Court of Appeals to receive
Order exempting respondents’ landholdings from the evidence and determine just compensation. In Land
coverage of CARP. It will be recalled that the Regional Bank of the Philippines v. Spouses Banal, we remanded
Adjudicator’s decision below is based on the assumption the case to the SAC for further reception of evidence
that respondents’ landholdings are exempt from CARP because the trial court based its valuation upon a
coverage, hence the obligation on the part of petitioners different formula and did not conduct any hearing for the
to pay lease rentals. Petitioners maintain that they only reception of evidence. The mandatory application of the
discovered the spurious nature of the exemption order aforementioned guidelines in determining just
during the pendency of their appeal to this Court. They compensation has been reiterated recently in Land Bank
presented several certificates from various DAR offices of the Philippines v. Lim and Land Bank of the Philippines
stating that the latter have no record of the said v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz, where we also ordered the
exemption order in favor of respondents. If such remand of the cases to the SAC for the determination of
exemption order is indeed fabricated, their possession just compensation strictly in accordance with the
of CLTs and EPs should be respected, thus they should be applicable DAR regulations. Thus, the remand of the
held under no obligation to pay rentals to respondents. case is necessary for the parties to present their
Thus, they seek the nullification of the exemption order evidence, as we are not a trier of facts.
on the ground that it is counterfeit. On the other hand,
respondents assert that the validity of the exemption
Considering, however, that the land was acquired in 1989
order had already been settled in the annulment case
and the only surviving petitioner is now an octogenarian
filed by petitioners against respondents in 1994,
and is in need of urgent medical attention, we find these
docketed as DARAB Case No. 602-B-94. They likewise
special circumstances justifying in the acceleration of the
maintain that the issue involves factual matters which
final disposition of this case. This Court deems it
are not within the province of the Supreme Court.
best pro hac vice to commission the CA as its agent to
receive and evaluate the evidence of the parties. The
DARAB Case No. 602-B ’94 is a complaint for annulment CA’s mandate is to ascertain the just compensation due
of the regional director’s order, which granted in accordance with this Decision, applying Section 17 of
respondents’ petition for the exemption of their RA 6557 and applicable DAR regulations. As explained
landholdings from the coverage of the CARP. In that in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Gallego, Jr., the
case, petitioners assailed the validity of the order on the remand of cases before this Court to the CA for the
ground that they were not given an opportunity to reception of further evidence is not a novel procedure. It
present controverting evidence and that the title of is sanctioned by Section 6, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
petitioners to the land was not registered within the In fact, the Court availed of this procedure in quite a few
period prescribed by law. Their complaint was dismissed cases. Heirs of Lorenzo Vidad and Carmen Vidad, et al.
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The provincial vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166461, April
adjudicator, as later affirmed by the DARAB and the CA, 30, 2010.
ruled that only the Agrarian Reform Secretary has
appellate jurisdiction over the exemption orders issued
Jurisdiction; seizure and forfeiture proceedings
by a regional director. Petitioners filed a petition for
within exclusive original jurisdiction of Bureau of
review before this Court but it was not timely filed.
Customs.
Hence, a resolution was issued where the case was
deemed closed and terminated. Entry of judgment was
made on September 6, 2002. Petitioner alleges that the RTC of Olongapo City has no
jurisdiction over the action for injunction and damages
filed by respondents on 11 June 2002 as said action is
Contrary to respondents’ arguments, there was never
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
any ruling regarding the validity or authenticity of the
the BOC pursuant to Section 602 of Republic Act No.
exemption order. What was ruled upon, and became
1937, otherwise known as the “Tariff and Customs Code
final, was that the exemption order cannot be reviewed
of the Philippines,” as amended. Section 602 provides,
by the provincial adjudicator or DARAB since exclusive
thus:
appellate jurisdiction rests in the Office of the DAR
Secretary. Thus, it appears that petitioners’ right to
question the authenticity of the exemption order in the Sec. 602. Functions of the Bureau.- The general duties,
proper forum has not yet been foreclosed. The instant powers and jurisdiction of the bureau shall include:
case, however, is not the proper place to bring the issue
of authenticity. Exemption from the comprehensive xxx
276
g. Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over seizure The procedure for the determination of just compensation
and forfeiture cases under the tariff and customs laws. under RA 6657, as summarized by this Court in Land
Bank of the Philippines v. Spouses Banal, commences
with LBP determining the value of the lands under the
Petitioner contends that the imported 2,000 bags of rice
land reform program. Using LBP’s valuation, the DAR
were in the actual physical control and possession of
makes an offer to the landowner through a notice sent to
the BOC as early as 25 October 2001, by virtue of
the landowner, pursuant to Section 16(a) of RA 6657. In
the BOC Subic Port Hold Order of even date, and of
case the landowner rejects the offer, the DAR adjudicator
the BOC Warrant of Seizure and Detention dated 22 May
conducts a summary administrative proceeding to
2002. As such, the BOC had acquired exclusive original
determine the compensation for the land by requiring the
jurisdiction over the subject shipment, to the exclusion of
landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to
the RTC. We agree with petitioner.
submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land.
A party who disagrees with the decision of the DAR
It is well settled that the Collector of Customs has adjudicator may bring the matter to the RTC designated
exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture as a Special Agrarian Court for final determination of just
proceedings, and regular courts cannot interfere with his compensation.
exercise thereof or stifle or put it at naught. The
Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and forfeiture
Contrary to petitioners’ argument,
proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB do not exercise concurrent
determine all questions touching on the seizure and
jurisdiction with the SAC in just compensation cases. The
forfeiture of dutiable goods. Regional trial courts are
determination of just compensation is judicial in nature.
devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity or
The original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SAC in just
regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted
compensation cases is not a novel issue. This has been
by the BOC and to enjoin or otherwise interfere with
extensively discussed in Land Bank of the Philippines
these proceedings. Regional trial courts are precluded
v. Belista, to wit:
from assuming cognizance over such matters even
through petitions for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus.. Verily, the rule is that from the moment XXX XXX
imported goods are actually in the possession or control XXX XXX
of the Customs authorities, even if no warrant for seizure
or detention had previously been issued by the Collector
We do not agree with petitioners’ submission that the
of Customs in connection with the seizure and forfeiture
SAC erred in assuming jurisdiction over the petition for
proceedings, the BOC acquires exclusive jurisdiction over
determination of just compensation filed by LBP after
such imported goods for the purpose of enforcing the
the RARAD rendered its 29 March 2000 decision. In Land
customs laws, subject to appeal to the Court of Tax
Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, we had the
Appeals whose decisions are appealable to this Court. As
occasion to rule that the SAC acquired jurisdiction over
we have clarified in Commissioner of Customs
the action for the determination of just compensation
v. Makasiar, the rule that RTCs have no review powers
even during the pendency of the DARAB proceedings, for
over such proceedings is anchored upon the policy of
the following reason:
placing no unnecessary hindrance on the government’s
drive, not only to prevent smuggling and other frauds
upon Customs, but more importantly, to render effective It is clear from Sec. 57 that the RTC, sitting as a Special
and efficient the collection of import and export duties Agrarian Court, has “original and exclusive jurisdiction
due the State, which enables the government to carry over all petitions for the determination of just
out the functions it has been instituted to compensation to landowners.” This “original
perform. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and excusive” jurisdiction of the RTC would be
vs. Merlino E. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 160270, April undermined if the DAR would vest in administrative
23, 2010. officials original jurisdiction in compensation cases and
make the RTC an appellate court for the review of
administrative decisions. Thus, although the new rules
Jurisdiction; Special Agrarian Court has original
speak of directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to
and exclusive jurisdiction over just compensation
the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear
cases under CARL.
from Sec. 57 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction
to determine such cases is in the RTCs. Any effort to
Petitioners insist that the RARAD, in exercising quasi- transfer such jurisdiction to the adjudicators and to
judicial powers, has concurrent jurisdiction with the convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into an
[Special Agrarian Court] in just compensation cases. appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to Sec. 57 and
Hence, the RARAD’s decision, being a final determination therefore would be void. Thus, direct resort to the SAC
of the appraisal of just compensation by the DARAB, by private respondent is valid.
should be appealed to this Court and not the SAC. For its
part, LBP insists that the RARAD/DARAB decision is
In fact, RA 6657 does not make DAR’s valuation
merely a preliminary valuation, since the courts have the
absolutely binding as the amount payable by LBP. A
ultimate power to decide the question on just
reading of Section 18 of RA 6657 shows that the courts,
compensation.
and not the DAR, make the final determination of just
compensation. It is well-settled that the DAR’s land
277
valuation is only preliminary and is not, by any means, landowner, the DAR and LBP agree on the amount of just
final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other compensation. The DAR proceedings are but preliminary,
interested party. The courts will still have the right to and becomes final only when the parties have all agreed
review with finality the determination in the exercise of to the amount of just compensation fixed by the DAR.
what is admittedly a judicial function. However, should a party disagree with the amount fixed
by DAR, then the jurisdiction of the SAC may be invoked
for the purpose.
It must be emphasized that the taking of property under
RA 6657 is an exercise of the State’s power of eminent
domain. The valuation of property or determination of There is likewise no merit in petitioners’ allegation
just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is that LBP lacks locus standi to file a case with the SAC,
essentially a judicial function which is vested with the separate and independent from the DAR. In Heirs
courts and not with administrative agencies. When the of Roque F. Tabuena v. Land Bank of the Philippines, we
parties cannot agree on the amount of just ruled that the LBP is an indispensable party in
compensation, only the exercise of judicial power can expropriation proceedings under RA 6657, and thus, has
settle the dispute with binding effect on the winning and the legal personality to question the determination of just
losing parties. On the other hand, the determination of compensation, independent of the DAR:
just compensation in the RARAD/DARAB requires the
voluntary agreement of the parties. Unless the parties
LBP is an agency created primarily to provide financial
agree, there is no settlement of the dispute before
support in all phases of agrarian reform pursuant to
the RARAD/DARAB, except if the aggrieved party fails to
Section 74 of Republic Act (RA) No. 3844 and Section 64
file a petition for just compensation on time before the
of RA No. 6657. It is vested with the primary
RTC. LBP thus correctly filed a petition for determination
responsibility and authority in the valuation and
of just compensation with the SAC, which has the original
compensation of covered landholdings to carry out the
and exclusive jurisdiction in just compensation cases
full implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program. It
under RA 6657. DAR’s valuation, being preliminary in
may agree with the DAR and the land owner as to the
nature, could not have attained finality, as it is only the
amount of just compensation to be paid to the latter and
courts that can resolve the issue on just compensation.
may also disagree with them and bring the matter to
Consequently, the SAC properly took cognizance of LBP’s
court for judicial determination.
petition for determination of just compensation. Heirs of
Lorenzo Vidad and Carmen Vidad, et al. vs. Land Bank
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166461, April 30, 2010. Once an expropriation proceeding for the acquisition of
private agricultural lands is commenced by the DAR, the
indispensable role of LBP begins, which clearly shows that
Parties; Land Bank of the Philippines has
there would never be a judicial determination of just
personality to file agrarian case before Special
compensation absent respondent LBP’s participation.
Agrarian Court.
Logically, it follows that respondent is an indispensable
party in an action for the determination of just
Petitioners submit that LBP has no legal personality and compensation in cases arising from agrarian reform
has no cause of action to institute the agrarian case program; as such, it can file an appeal independently of
before the SAC. Petitioners argue that LBP cannot on its DAR.
own, separate and independent of DAR, file an original
action for determination of just compensation against
Hence, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. AMS Farming
the RARAD and petitioners, because it is a usurpation of
Corporation, we ruled that LBP is a real party-in-interest
the exclusive authority of DAR to initiate and prosecute
which could file its own appeal in agrarian reform cases,
expropriation proceedings. Petitioners thus insist that in
to wit:
land acquisition cases, the only real parties-in-interest
are the landowners and the government, the latter acting
through the DAR. We do not agree. XXX XXX
XXX XXX
Section 18 of RA 6657 states:
It is thus beyond question that LBP has the legal
personality to file the petition for determination of just
Sec. 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. —
compensation with the SAC. Heirs of Lorenzo Vidad and
The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount
Carmen Vidad, et al. vs. Land Bank of the
as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR
Philippines,G.R. No. 166461, April 30, 2010.
and the LBP x x x, or as may be finally determined by the
court as the just compensation for the land.
Parties; real party in interest in agrarian case.
This provision clearly states that there should be a
consensus among the landowner, the DAR, and Respondents claim, and the CA has ruled, that the March
the LBP on the amount of just compensation. 5, 2003 Notice of Appeal (filed by the second group) was
Therefore, LBP is not merely a nominal party in the a “forgery” and thus void, because it bore signatures
determination of just compensation. RA 6657 above the names of the deceased Avelino and Pedro,
directs LBP to pay the DAR’s land valuation only if the which were obviously not written by the decedents
278
themselves. First of all, we have to point out that the Rule I

confusion in this case was brought about by respondents
themselves when they included in their complaint two
General Provisions
defendants who were already dead. Instead
of impleading the decedent’s heirs and current occupants
of the landholding, respondents filed their complaint Section 2. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally
against the decedents, contrary to the following provision construed to carry out the objectives of the agrarian
of the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure: reform program and to promote just, expeditious, and
inexpensive adjudication and settlement of agrarian
cases, disputes or controversies.
RULE V
xxx
PARTIES, CAPTION AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
Section 3. Technical Rules Not Applicable. The

SECTION 1. Parties in Interest. Every agrarian case
Board and its Regional and Provincial Adjudicators shall
must be initiated and defended in the name of the real
not be bound by technical rules of procedure and
party in interest. x x x
evidence as prescribed in the Rules of Court, but shall
proceed to hear and decide all agrarian cases, disputes or
A real party in interest is defined as “the party who controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of a suit.” The real in accordance with justice and equity.
parties in interest, at the time the complaint was filed,
were no longer the decedents Avelino and Pedro, but
Rule VIII
rather their respective heirs who are entitled to succeed
to their rights (whether as agricultural lessees or as
farmers-beneficiaries) under our agrarian laws. They are Proceedings before the Adjudicators and the Board
the ones who, as heirs of the decedents and actual tillers,
stand to be removed from the landholding and made to Section 1. Nature of Proceedings. The proceedings
pay back rentals to respondents if the complaint is before the Board or its Adjudicators shall be non-litigious
sustained. Since respondents failed to correct their error in nature. Subject to the essential requirements of due
(they did not amend the erroneous caption of their process, the technicalities of law and procedure and the
complaint to include the real parties-in-interest), they rules governing the admissibility and sufficiency of
cannot be insulated from the confusion which it evidence obtained in the courts of law shall not apply.
engendered in the proceedings below. But at any rate,
notwithstanding the erroneous caption and the absence
of a formal substitution of parties, jurisdiction was Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, et al. vs.
acquired over the heirs of Avelino and Pedro who Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 165155, April 13,
voluntarily participated in the proceedings below. This 2010.
Court has ruled that formal substitution of parties is not
necessary when the heirs themselves voluntarily
appeared, participated, and presented evidence during
the proceedings. Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. Evidence
165155, April 13, 2010.
Procedural rules; liberal construction in agrarian

cases. Best Evidence Rule; when not applicable.
There is nothing sacred about the forms of pleadings or Petitioner Nissan insists that no judgment can properly
processes, their sole purpose being to facilitate the be rendered against it, as respondent United failed,
application of justice to the rival claims of contending during the trial of the case, to offer in evidence the
parties. Hence, pleadings as well as procedural rules service contract upon which it based its claim for sum of
should be construed liberally. Dismissal of appeals purely money and damages. As a result, the decisions of the
on technical grounds is frowned upon because rules of lower courts were mere postulations. Nissan asserts that
procedure should not be applied to override substantial the resolution of this case calls for the application of the
justice. Courts must proceed with caution so as not to best evidence rule.
deprive a party of statutory appeal; they must ensure
that all litigants are granted the amplest opportunity for
Nissan’s reliance on the best evidence rule is misplaced.
the proper and just ventilation of their causes, free from
The best evidence rule is the rule which requires the
technical constraints. If the foregoing tenets are followed
highest grade of evidence to prove a disputed fact.
in a civil case, their application is made more imperative
However, the same applies only when the contents of a
in an agrarian case where the rules themselves provide
document are the subject of the inquiry. In this case, the
for liberal construction, thus:
contents of the service contract between Nissan and
279
United have not been put in issue. Neither United nor Burden of proof.
Nissan disputes the contents of the service contract; as
in fact, both parties quoted and relied on the same
Hacienda Bigaa contends that the rulings in the
provision of the contract (paragraph 17) to support their
antecedent cases on the nullity of its subdivision titles
respective claims and defenses. Thus, the best evidence
should not apply to the present case because the titles
rule finds no application here. The real issue in this case
– TCT Nos. 44695 and 56120 – have not been specifically
is whether or not Nissan committed a breach of contract,
declared void by court order and must be given probative
thereby entitling United to damages in the amount
value. It likewise posits that Chavez failed to introduce
equivalent to 30 days’ service. We rule in the
evidence before the MTC that the land subject matter of
affirmative.
the suit is the same land covered by the decision of the
Supreme Court in the antecedent cases. We reject this
At the heart of the controversy is paragraph 17 of the contention in light of our holding in the Ayala y Cia
service contract, which reads: and De los Angeles cases that apart from those expressly
litigated and annulled, all “other subdivision titles” over
the excess areas of Hacienda Calatagan must be nullified
However, violations committed by either party on the
for covering unregisterable lands of the public domain
provisions of this Contract shall be sufficient ground for
that must revert to the Republic. To reiterate, lots and
the termination of this contract, without the necessity of
their titles derived from the Ayala’s and
prior notice, otherwise a thirty (30) days prior written
the Zobels’ TCT No. 722 not shown to be within the
notice shall be observed.
original coverage of this title are conclusively
public domain areas and their titles will be struck
Nissan argues that the failure of United’s security guards down as nullities. What could have saved
to report for duty on two occasions, without justifiable Hacienda Bigaa, as successor-in-interest of
cause, constitutes a violation of the provisions of the the Ayalas and the Zobels, is competent evidence that
service contract, sufficient to entitle Nissan to terminate the subdivision titles in its possession do not fall within
the same without the necessity of a 30-day prior notice. the excess areas of TCT No. 722 that are null and void
We hold otherwise. because they are lands of the public domain.
As the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Piñas City stated in Hacienda Bigaa however failed to discharge this
its decision, Nissan did not adduce any evidence to burden. Therefore, the Court of Appeals, citing Ayala
substantiate its claim that the terms of the contract were y Cia and De los Angeles, correctly held that –
violated by United. What Nissan failed to do is to point
out or indicate the specific provisions of the service
x x x [S]uffice it to state that as heretofore shown, the
contract which were violated by United as a result of the
Supreme Court took cognizance of the fact
latter’s lapses in security. In so failing, Nissan’s act of
that Zoila de Chavez’s fishpond permit is within the
unilaterally terminating the contract constitutes a breach
land covered by the cited decision. Moreover, the
thereof, entitling United to collect actual
Supreme Court has shifted the burden of proof in this
damages. Nissan North Edsa Operating Under the name
regard to Zobel or Ayala y Cia when it declared that,
Motor Carriage, Inc. vs. United Philippine Scout, G.R. No.
“Clearly, the burden of proof lies on
179470, April 20, 2010.
respondent Zobel and other transferees to show
that his subdivision titles are not among the
“Admission against interest” distinguished from unlawful expanded subdivision titles declared null
“Declaration against interest.” At the outset, it bears to and void by the said 1965 judgment.” (Emphasis
point out that it is wrong for petitioners to argue supplied.)
that Basilisa’s alleged sworn statement is a declaration
against interest. It is not a declaration against interest.
Hacienda Bigaa, Inc. vs. Epifanio V. Chavez, et al., G.R.
Instead, it is an admission against interest. Indeed,
No. 174160, April 20, 2010.
there is a vital distinction between admissions against
interest and declarations against interest. Admissions
against interest are those made by a party to a litigation Burden of proof; party must prove allegations.
or by one in privity with or identified in legal interest with
such party, and are admissible whether or not
A similar dearth of merit may be said of the exceptions
the declarant is available as a witness. Declarations
petitioner continues to take against the MeTC’s reliance
against interest are those made by a person who is
on the survey plan prepared by Geodetic Engineer Joseph
neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit, are
Padilla to the effect that that the premises occupied by
secondary evidence, and constitute an exception to the
petitioner lies within the metes and bounds of
hearsay rule. They are admissible only when
respondent’s property. As mere allegation is not
the declarant is unavailable as a witness. In the present
evidence, the rule is settled that plaintiff has the burden
case, since Basilisa is respondents’ predecessor-in-
of proving the material allegations of the complaint which
interest and is, thus, in privity with the latter’s legal
are denied by the defendant, and the defendant has the
interest, the former’s sworn statement, if proven genuine
burden of proving the material allegations in his case
and duly executed, should be considered as an admission
where he sets up a new matter. Given the parties’ failure
against interest. Alejandra S. Lazaro, et al. vs. Modesta
to make good on their agreement to cause a survey of
Agustin, et al., G.R. No. 152364, April 15, 2010.
280
the property thru an impartial surveyor from the Office of kind of records. Parenthetically, consider a borrower who
the City Assessor or City Engineer, respondent’s takes out a loan of P10,000.00 from a bank and executes
submission of said report was evidently for the purpose a promissory note providing for interests, charges, and
discharging the onus of proving petitioner’s penalties and an undertaking to pay the loan in 10
encroachment on the subject parcel, as alleged in the monthly installments of P1,000.00. If he pays the first
complaint. As the party asserting the contrary five months installments but defaults in the rest, how will
proposition, petitioner cannot expediently disparage the the bank prove in court that the debtor still owes
admissibility and probative value of said survey plan to it P5,000.00 plus interest? The bank will of course
compensate for his failure to prove his own present the promissory note to establish the scope of the
assertions. Hubert Nuñez vs. SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions, debtor’s primary obligations and a computation of
Inc., G.R. No. 180542, April 12, 2010. interests, charges, and penalties based on its terms. It
must then show by the entries in its record how much it
had actually been paid. This will in turn establish how
Burden of proof on party making allegation.
much the borrower still owes it. The bank does not have
to present all the receipts of payment it issued to all its
This brings us to the second ground raised in the petition clients during the entire year, thousands of them, merely
– that Executive Order No. 378, in allowing government to establish the fact that only five of them, rather than
agencies to secure their printing requirements from the ten, pertains to the borrower. The original documents
private sector and in limiting the budget of the NPO to its need not be presented in evidence when it is numerous,
income, will purportedly lead to the gradual abolition of cannot be examined in court without great loss of time,
the NPO and the loss of security of tenure of its present and the fact sought to be established from them is only
employees. In other words, petitioners avow that the the general result. Monet and the Tagles can of course
reorganization of the NPO under Executive Order No. 378 dispute the bank’s billing statements by proof that the
is tainted with bad faith. The basic evidentiary rule is bank had exaggerated what was owed it and that Monet
that he who asserts a fact or the affirmative of an issue had made more payments than were reflected in those
has the burden of proving it. A careful review of the statements. They can do this by presenting evidence of
records will show that petitioners utterly failed to those greater payments. Notably, Monet and
substantiate their claim. They failed to allege, much less the Tagles have consistently avoided stating in their
prove, sufficient facts to show that the limitation of letters to the bank how much they still owed it. But,
the NPO’s budget to its own income would indeed lead to ultimately, it is as much their obligation to prove this
the abolition of the position, or removal from office, of disputed point if they deny the bank’s statements of their
any employee. Neither did petitioners present any shred loan accounts. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Monet’s
of proof of their assertion that the changes in the Export and Manufacturing Corp., et al., G.R. No.
functions of the NPO were for political considerations that 184971, April 19, 2010.
had nothing to do with improving the efficiency of, or
encouraging operational economy in, the said
Notarized document; effect and purpose of
agency. Atty. Sylvia Banda, et al. vs.. Eduardo
notarization.
R. Ermita, et al., G.R. No. 166620, April 20, 2010.
The Court further agrees with the ruling of the RTC that:
Entries in the course of business.
The testimony of [the notary public] Atty.

The CA of course places no value on the Consolidated
Angel Respicio did not suffice to rebut the evidence of
Billing Statement that Land Bank would have adduced in
the appellees considering his admission that the affidavit
evidence had the RTC granted its motion for
was already thumbmarked when presented to him by one
reconsideration and reopened the hearing. Apparently,
who claimed to be Basilisa Santos and whom, the witness
both courts believe that Land Bank needed to present in
said he did not know personally. Further, what makes the
evidence all original documents evidencing every
documents suspect is the fact that it was subscribed on
transaction between Land Bank and Monet to prove the
the same date as the financial statement of Alejandra
current status of the latter’s loan accounts. But a bank
Santos.
statement, properly authenticated by a competent bank
officer, can serve as evidence of the status of those
accounts and what Monet and the Tagles still owe the It may not be amiss to point out, at this juncture, that
bank. Under Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the principal function of a notary public is to authenticate
entries prepared in the regular course of business documents. When a notary public certifies to the due
are prima facie evidence of the truth of what they state. execution and delivery of a document under his hand and
The billing statement reconciles the transaction entries seal, he gives the document the force of evidence.
entered in the bank records in the regular course of Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to be
business and shows the net result of such transactions. acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the
Entries in the course of business are accorded unusual solemnity which should surround the execution and
reliability because their regularity and continuity are delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to
calculated to discipline record keepers in the habit of be given without further proof of their execution and
precision. If the entries are financial, the records are delivery. A notarial document is by law entitled to full
routinely balanced and audited. In actual experience, the faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative
whole of the business world function in reliance of such agencies and the public at large must be able to rely
281
upon the acknowledgment executed before a notary appellate courts were unanimous in giving credence to
public and appended to a private instrument. Hence, a the testimonies of these witnesses. The Court has
notary public must discharge his powers and duties, repeatedly held that it will not interfere with the trial
which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy court’s determination of the credibility of witnesses,
and fidelity. A notary public should not notarize a unless there appears on record some fact or
document unless the persons who signed the same are circumstance of weight and influence which has been
the very same persons who executed and personally overlooked or the significance of which has been
appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth misinterpreted. The reason for this is that the trial court
of what are stated therein. In the instant case, the was in a better position to do so, because it heard the
notary public should have exercised utmost diligence in witnesses testify before it and had every opportunity to
ascertaining the true identity of the person executing the observe their demeanor and deportment on the witness
said sworn statement. However, the notary public did not stand. Considering the foregoing, the Court finds no
comply with this requirement. He simply relied on the reason to reverse the rulings of the MTCC, the RTC and
affirmative answers of the person appearing before him the CA. Although the questioned sworn statement is a
attesting that she was Basilisa Santos; that the contents public document having in its favor the presumption of
of the sworn statement are true; and that regularity, such presumption was adequately refuted by
the thumbmark appearing on the said document was competent witnesses. Alejandra S. Lazaro, et al. vs.
hers. However, this would not suffice. He could have Modesta Agustin, et al., G.R. No. 152364, April 15,
further asked the person who appeared before him to 2010.
produce any identification to prove that she was
indeed Basilisa Santos, considering that the said person
Presumptions; regularity in the performance of
was not personally known to him, and that
official duty.
the thumbmark appearing on the document sought to be
notarized was not affixed in his presence. But he did not.
Thus, the lower courts did not commit any error in not Petitioner’s invocation of the presumption of regularity in
giving evidentiary weight to the subject sworn the performance of official duty on the part of Sheriff
statement. Alejandra S. Lazaro, et al. vs. Modesta Castillo is misplaced. While posting the notice of sale is
Agustin, et al., G.R. No. 152364, April 15, 2010. part of a sheriff’s official functions, the actual publication
of the notice of sale cannot be considered as such, since
this concerns the publisher’s business. Simply put, the
Notarized document; presumption of regularity
sheriff is incompetent to prove that the notice of sale was
may be rebutted.
actually published in a newspaper of general circulation.
The Court further notes that the Notice of Extra-Judicial
Settled is the rule that generally, a notarized document Sale, prepared and posted by Sheriff Castillo, does not
carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with indicate the newspaper where such notice would be
respect to its due execution, and documents published. The space provided where the name of the
acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor newspaper should be was left blank, with only the dates
the presumption of regularity. However, this of publication clearly written. This omission raises
presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by serious doubts as to whether there was indeed
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Moreover, publication of the notice of sale. Philippine Savings Bank
not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule vs. Spouses Dionisio Geronimo, et al., G.R. No. 170241,
on authentication. Thus, an affidavit does not April 19, 2010.
automatically become a public document just because it
contains a notarial jurat. The presumptions that attach
Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
to notarized documents can be affirmed only so long as it
is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular.
While petitioner admits to his civil liability to Asiatrust, he
nevertheless does not have criminal liability. It is a well-
Petitioners rely heavily on the presumption of regularity
established principle that person is presumed innocent
accorded by law to notarized documents. While indeed, a
until proved guilty. To overcome the presumption, his
notarized document enjoys this presumption, the fact
guilt must be shown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
that a deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity
Thus, we held in People v. Mariano that while the
of its contents. As earlier discussed, the presumption is
principle does not connote absolute certainty, it means
not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and
the degree of proof which produces moral certainty in an
convincing evidence to the contrary. The presumption
unprejudiced mind of the culpability of the accused.
cannot be made to apply to the present case because the
Such proof should convince and satisfy the reason and
regularity in the execution of the sworn statement was
conscience of those who are to act upon it that the
challenged in the proceedings below where
accused is in fact guilty. The prosecution, in this instant
its prima facie validity was overthrown by the highly
case, failed to rebut the constitutional innocence of
questionable circumstances under which it was
petitioner and thus the latter should be
supposedly executed, as well as the testimonies of
acquitted. Anthony L. Ng vs. People of the
witnesses who testified on the improbability of execution
Philippines, G.R. No. 173905, April 23, 2010.
of the sworn statement, as well as on the physical
condition of the signatory, at the time the questioned
document was supposedly executed. The trial and Proof of public or official record kept in foreign
country; general power of attorney.
282
On 25 March 1994, Revelen executed a General Power of Records show that on December 13, 2004, the trial
Attorney constituting respondent as her attorney-in-fact court rendered a Decision finding that petitioner can
and authorizing her to enter into any and all contracts execute judgment on the additional attorney’s fees but
and agreements on Revelen’s behalf. The General Power only up to the extent of P1,000,000.00, not the entire
of Attorney was notarized by Larry A. Reid, Notary Public amount of P20,000,000.00 as prayed for in his petition.
in California, U.S.A. Unfortunately, the General Power of Petitioner received a copy of the assailed decision on
Attorney presented as “Exhibit C” in the RTC cannot also December 22, 2004. Petitioner moved for
be the basis of respondent’s written authority to sell the reconsideration on December 29, 2004, but the same
lot. Section 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides: was denied in the trial court’s Order dated March 1,
2005. Petitioner received a copy of the challenged order
on March 7, 2005. On March 17, 2005, instead of
Sec. 25. Proof of public or official record. — An
appealing the assailed decision and order of the trial
official record or an entry therein, when admissible for
court to the Court of Appeals via a notice of appeal under
any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication
Section 2(a) of Rule 41 of the Rules, petitioner filed a
thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the
petition for review on certiorari directly with this Court,
legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
stating that the trial court acted with grave abuse of
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines,
discretion amounting to an excess of jurisdiction, and
with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the
that there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and
office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country,
adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law.
the certificate may be made by a secretary of embassy or
This is a procedural misstep. Although denominated as
legation consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, petitioner,
agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
in questioning the decision and order of the trial court
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the
which were rendered in the exercise of its original
record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
jurisdiction, should have taken the appeal to the Court of
Appeals within fifteen (15) days from notice of the trial
In Teoco v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, court’s March 1, 2005 Order, i.e., within 15 days counted
quoting Lopez v. Court of Appeals, we explained: from March 7, 2005 (date of receipt of the appealed
order), or until March 22, 2005, by filing a notice of
From the foregoing provision, when the special power of appeal with the trial court which rendered the decision
attorney is executed and acknowledged before a notary and order appealed from and serving copies thereof upon
public or other competent official in a foreign country, it the adverse party pursuant to Sections 2(a) and 3 of Rule
cannot be admitted in evidence unless it is certified as 41. Clearly, when petitioner sought to assail the decision
such in accordance with the foregoing provision of the and order of the trial court, an appeal to the Court of
rules by a secretary of embassy or legation, consul Appeals was the adequate remedy which he should have
general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any availed of, instead of filing a petition directly with this
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed Court. Hicoblo M. Catly (deceased), subtituted by his
in the foreign country in which the record is kept of said wife, Lourdes A. Catly vs. William Navarro, et al., G.R.
public document and authenticated by the seal of his No. 167239, May 5, 2010
office. A city judge-notary who notarized the document,
as in this case, cannot issue such certification. Appeal; failure to properly indicate appealing party;
ground for dismissal.
Since the General Power of Attorney was executed and
acknowledged in the United States of America, it cannot With respect to the first case against Marcelina, we
be admitted in evidence unless it is certified as such in resolve to dismiss the appeal of Felisa. Section 5 of Rule
accordance with the Rules of Court by an officer in the 45 provides that the failure of the petitioner to comply,
foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the United among others, with the contents of the petition for
States of America. Hence, this document has no review on certiorari shall be sufficient ground for the
probative value. Sps. Joselina Alcantara and dismissal thereof. Section 4 of the same rule mandates,
Antonio Alcantara, et al. vs. Brigida L. Nido, as attorney- among others, that the petition should state the full
in-fact of Revelen Srivastava, G.R. No. 165133, April 19, name of the appealing party as the petitioner. In this
2010. case, Felisa indicated in the caption as well as in the
parties portion of the petition that she is the landowner.
Even in the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping, Felisa attested that she is the petitioner in the
instant case. However, it appears in the PARAD records
MAY 2010 CASES that the owners of the subject 14,000-square meter
agricultural land are Rosa R. Pajarito (Pajarito), Elvira
A. Madolora (Madolora)
and Anastacia F. Lagado (Lagado). Felisa is only the
representative of the said landowners with respect to the
Appeal; direct appeal to Supreme Court from trial first case against Marcelina. Thus, for failure of Felisa to
court decision improper. indicate the appealing party with respect to the said case,
the appeal must perforce be dismissed. However, such
failure does not affect the appeal on the other three
283
cases as Felisa is the owner/co-owner of the landholdings review the evidence presented by the parties, despite the
subject of said three cases. Felisa Ferrer vs. CA’s finding that the trial court committed no error in
Domingo Carganillo, et al., G.R. No. 170956, May 12, appreciating the evidence presented during the trial.
2010 This goes against the rule that this Court is not a trier of
facts. “Such questions as whether certain items of
evidence should be accorded probative value or weight,
Appeal; findings of fact of Court of Appeals
or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the
conclusive upon Supreme Court.
proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing
and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are
Indeed, as the appellate court held, in order to write finis without doubt questions of fact.” Questions like these
to the case, the fair market value of the property must are not reviewable by this Court which, as a rule,
be determined on the basis of the existing records, confines its review of cases decided by the CA only to
instead of still remanding the case to the trial court. questions of law, which may be resolved without having
“Fair market value” has acquired a settled meaning in law to re-examine the probative value of the evidence
and jurisprudence. It is the price at which a property presented. We find no compelling reason to deviate from
may be sold by a seller who is not compelled to sell and the foregoing rule and disturb the trial and appellate
bought by a buyer who is not compelled to buy, taking courts’ factual finding that the existence of an oral
into consideration all uses to which the property is partition was not proven. Our examination of the records
adapted and might in reason be applied. The criterion indicates that, contrary to petitioners’ contention, the
established by the statute contemplates a hypothetical lower courts’ conclusion was justified. Heirs
sale. Given this yardstick, the Court found no cogent of Pacres vs. Heirs of Ygoña, G.R. No. 174719, May 5,
reason to disturb the factual finding of the appellate court 2010
that the proper valuation of the property is P13,000 per
square meter as of January 26, 1999. As it correctly
Appeal; proper mode of appeal from decision of
explained, the value was arrived at through the market
Regional Trial Court acting as Special Agrarian
data approach, which is based on sales and listings of
Court is petition for review under Rule 42, not
comparable property registered within the vicinity; and
ordinary appeal under Rule 41. Landbank admitted in
that the property was classified as raw land because
its Memorandum that the issue had already been settled
there were yet no houses and facilities like electricity,
in Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon. In ruling that
water and others at the time of the exercise of the
a petition for review and not an ordinary appeal is the
option. The rule is well-established that if there is no
proper mode of appeal from the decision of the RTC-SAC
showing of error in the appreciation of facts by the
in cases involving the determination of just
appellate court as in the present case, the Court treats it
compensation, the Court said:
as conclusive. Public Estates Authority now Philippine
Proclamation Authority vs. Estate of Jesus
S. Yujuico, et al., G.R. No. 181847, May 5, 2010 The reason why it is permissible to adopt a petition for
review when appealing cases decided by the Special
Agrarian Courts in eminent domain cases is the need for
Appeal; findings of fact of lower courts conclusive
absolute dispatch in the determination of just
upon Supreme Court.
compensation. Just compensation means not only paying
the correct amount but also paying for the land within a
The existence of malice, ill will or bad faith is a factual reasonable time from its acquisition. Without prompt
matter. As a rule, findings of fact of the trial court, when payment, compensation cannot be considered “just” for
affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive on this the property owner is made to suffer the consequences of
Court. We see no compelling reason to reverse the being immediately deprived of his land while being made
findings of the RTC and the CA that respondents acted in to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the
bad faith and in utter disregard of the rights amount necessary to cope with his loss. Such objective
of Cordero under the exclusive distributorship is more in keeping with the nature of a petition for
agreement. Allan C. Go, doing business under the name review.
and style of “ACG Express Liner” vs. Mortimer
F. Cordero/Mortimer F. Cordero vs. Allan C. Go, doing
Unlike an ordinary appeal, a petition for review dispenses
business under the name and style of “ACG Express
with the filing of a notice of appeal or completion of
Liner”, et al., G.R. No. 164703/G.R. No. 164747, May 4,
records as requisites before any pleading is submitted. A
2010
petition for review hastens the award of fair recompense
to deprived landowners for the government-acquired
Appeal; findings of fact of lower courts conclusive property, an end not foreseeable in an ordinary appeal.
upon Supreme Court. xxx
Both the trial and appellate courts dismissed petitioners’ On March 20, 2003, the Court issued an En Banc
complaint on the ground that they had failed to prove the Resolution to address the status of pending cases which
existence of an oral partition. Petitioners now insist that had been appealed through a notice of appeal:
the two courts overlooked facts and circumstances that
are allegedly of much weight and will alter the decision if
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration dated
properly considered. Petitioners would have the Court
October 16, 2002 and the supplement to the motion for
284
reconsideration dated November 11, 2002 are partially Hon. Francisco G. Mendiola, et al., G.R. No. 181068,
granted. While we clarify that the Decision of this Court May 4, 2010
dated September 10, 2002 stands, our ruling therein that
a petition for review is the correct mode of appeal from
Certiorari; requirement of motion for
decisions of Special Agrarian Courts shall apply only to
reconsideration.
cases appealed after the finality of this Resolution .
[emphasis supplied]
The petition should be dismissed outright. Firstly, no
motion for reconsideration was filed before petitioner
As earlier stated, Landbank filed its notice of appeal on
filed this petition under Rule 65. Certiorari is not a
August 18, 1998. Pursuant to the ruling that De Leon
defense against the unfavorable consequences of a
can be applied prospectively from March 20, 2003, the
failure to file the required motion for reconsideration.
appeal of Landbank, filed prior to that date, could be
Petitioner may not designate to itself the determination
positively acted upon. Accordingly, the subject CA
of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or
resolutions should be set aside and Landbank should be
not. The plain and adequate remedy referred to in
allowed to elevate the matter to it via Rule 42 of the
Section 1 of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the
Rules of Court furnishing a copy to the heirs of Luz
assailed decision. The purpose of this requirement is to
Rodriguez at their address of record. Land Bank of the
enable the court or agency to rectify its mistakes without
Philippines vs. Luz L. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 148892, May 6,
the intervention of a higher court. To dispense with the
2010
requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration,
petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and valid
reason for doing so. In this case, the petitioner
failed. Thus, petitioner should have first interposed a
motion for reconsideration. People’s Air Cargo, et al. vs.
Certiorari; improper remedy where appeal is
Hon. Francisco G. Mendiola, et al., G.R. No. 181068,
available.
May 4, 2010
Even if the petition will be treated as a petition

Contempt; indirect contempt.
for certiorari under Rule 65, the same should be
dismissed. In Madrigal Transport, Inc.
v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation, which has been often Even if this Court ignores the mentioned procedural
cited in subsequent cases, the Court declared that where lapses, still the petition fails on the merits. There was no
appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
for certiorari will not be entertained. Remedies of appeal jurisdiction on the part of public respondent in issuing the
(including petitions for review) and certiorari are assailed order. Public respondent had sufficient basis for
mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. not giving due attention to the Urgent Motion to Cite for
Hence, certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an Contempt. Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
appeal, especially if one’s own negligence or error in prescribes the procedure for the institution of
one’s choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. proceedings for indirect contempt, viz:
One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no
available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate
“Sec. 4. How proceedings commenced. – Proceedings for
remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not
indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the
prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of
court against which the contempt was committed by an
discretion. Hicoblo M. Catly (deceased), subtituted by
order or any other formal charge requiring the
his wife, Lourdes A. Catly vs. William Navarro, et al.,
respondent to show cause why he should not be punished
G.R. No. 167239, May 5, 2010
for contempt.
Certiorari; nature of remedy.

In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be
commenced by a verified petition with supporting
Thirdly, the petitioner considers this petition as a petition particulars and certified true copies of documents or
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and yet petitioner papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with
insists (somehow to justify direct resort to this Court) the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil
that the petition involves a PURE QUESTION OF LAW, actions in the court concerned. If the contempt charges
presenting the lone issue of “[w]hether or not respondent arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in
Judge’s admission of petitioner’s amended complaint can the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact
validly moot its indirect contempt suit against private but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided
respondent and its responsible officers.” Petitioner is separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the
confusing this Court. Rule 65 does not deal with pure consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal
questions of law. It involves grave abuse of discretion action for joint hearing and decision.”
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and this
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
In this case, petitioner filed a mere motion in the same
jurisdiction should be alleged and proved. In this regard,
civil case. People’s Air Cargo, et al. vs. Hon. Francisco
petitioner failed again. People’s Air Cargo, et al. vs.
G. Mendiola, et al., G.R. No. 181068, May 4, 2010
285
Grave abuse of discretion; facial objection test. commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not
correct[a]ble through the original civil action
of certiorari.”
The respondents next argue that the petition’s cited
grounds are mere errors of law and do not constitute
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance
jurisdiction. This objection can be read as a facial of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose
objection to the petition or as a substantive one that of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of
goes into the merits of the petition. We will discuss the lower court — on the basis either of the law or
under the present topic the facial objection, as it is a the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal
threshold issue that determines whether we shall proceed soundness of the decision. Even if the findings of the
to consider the case or simply dismiss the petition court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the
outright. A facial objection is meritorious if, expressly case, such correction is normally beyond the province
and on the face of the petition, what is evident as cited of certiorari. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction,
grounds are erroneous applications of the law rather than but of an error of law or fact — a mistake of judgment —
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of appeal is the remedy. [Emphasis supplied.]
jurisdiction. After due consideration, we conclude
that the petition passes the facial objection test.
The most obvious ground cited in the petition that,
In Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings
if properly established, would constitute grave abuse of
Corporation, the Court, through former Chief
discretion is the alleged unwarranted action of
Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, gave a very succinct
the en banc in acting on the registration of the NP-
exposition of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
NPC when the COMELEC’s own Rules of Procedure
or excess of jurisdiction in relation to errors of law. The
provides that registration is under the jurisdiction of the
Court then said:
Division at the first instance. This alleged error is more
than an error of law. If this cited ground is correct, then
A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction the en banc acted without legal authority and thereby
of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion committed a jurisdictional transgression; its action,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ being ultra vires, would be a nullity.
cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is
limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of
Another allegation of an ultra vires act is that
its jurisdiction.
the COMELEC, by appropriate resolution, ordered that
August 17, 2009 be the cut-off date for the registration
xxxx of parties, and yet approved the registration of NP-
NPC long after this cut-off date had passed without any
valid justification or reason for suspending the rule. For
“Without jurisdiction” means that the court acted with
the en banc to so act was not a mere error of law. The
absolute lack of authority. There is “excess of
grant of registration was an act outside mandatory legal
jurisdiction” when the court transcends its power or acts
parameters and was therefore done when
without any statutory authority. “Grave abuse of
the COMELEC no longer had the authority to act on it. In
discretion” implies such capricious and whimsical exercise
this sense, it is a proper allegation of grave abuse of
of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of
discretion under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
jurisdiction; in other words, power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion,
prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so In our view, these jurisdictional challenges to the
patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a en banc Resolution, if established, constitute
positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the ultra vires acts that would render the Resolution
duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. void. Liberal Party, vs. Commission on Elections, et al.,
G.R. No. 191771, May 6, 2010
Between an appeal and a petition for certiorari, there are
substantial distinctions which shall be explained below.
As to the Purpose. Certiorari is a remedy designed for the Judgments; judicially approved compromise
correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of agreement constitutes res judicata upon the
judgment. In Pure Foods Corporation v. NLRC, we parties.
explained the simple reason for the rule in this light:
The present case turns on the pivot of the option to
“When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error purchase provided in the Compromise Agreement which,
committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the having been judicially affirmed, constitutes res judicata
jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. upon the parties.
If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive
it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would
A compromise agreement intended to resolve a matter
be a void judgment. This cannot be allowed. The
already under litigation is a judicial compromise. Having
administration of justice would not survive such a rule.
judicial mandate and entered as its determination of the
Consequently, an error of judgment that the court may
286
controversy, such judicial compromise has the force and Lourdes A. Catly vs. William Navarror, et al., G.R. No.
effect of a judgment. It transcends its identity as a mere 167239, May 5, 2010
contract between the parties, as it becomes a judgment
that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules
Jurisdiction; submission to jurisdiction by voluntary
of Court. Thus, a compromise agreement that has
appearance and request for affirmative relief.
been made and duly approved by the court attains the
effect and authority of res judicata, although no
execution may be issued unless the agreement receives We find no error committed by the trial court in
the approval of the court where the litigation is pending overruling Robinson’s objection over the improper resort
and compliance with the terms of the agreement is to summons by publication upon a foreign national like
decreed. him and in an action in personam, notwithstanding that
he raised it in a special appearance specifically raising the
issue of lack of jurisdiction over his person. Courts
To simply say that, by the earlier-quoted term of the
acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of
Compromise Agreement respecting petitioner’s evaluation
the complaint, while jurisdiction over the defendants in a
of the land subject of the option to purchase on the basis
civil case is acquired either through the service of
of its fair market value on the date of the exercise of the
summons upon them in the manner required by law or
option, petitioner has the exclusive prerogative to
through their voluntary appearance in court and their
determine the purchase price of the subject land is a very
submission to its authority. A party who makes a special
myopic interpretation. The proper interpretation of the
appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said
stipulation is that petitioner is given the right to
court based on the ground of invalid service of summons
determine the price of the subject land, provided it
is not deemed to have submitted himself to the
can substantiate that the same is its fair market value
jurisdiction of the court. In this case, however, although
as of the date of the exercise of the option. The
the Motion to Dismiss filed by Robinson specifically stated
term “fair market value” in the stipulation cannot be
as one (1) of the grounds the lack of “personal
ignored without running afoul of the intent of the
jurisdiction,” it must be noted that he had earlier filed a
parties. It not being disputed that respondents exercised
Motion for Time to file an appropriate responsive pleading
the option to purchase on January 26, 1999, the
even beyond the time provided in the summons by
valuation should thus be based on the fair market value
publication. Such motion did not state that it was a
of the property on the said date. Public Estates Authority
conditional appearance entered to question the regularity
now Philippine Proclamation Authority vs. Estate of Jesus
of the service of summons, but an appearance submitting
S. Yujuico, et al., G.R. No. 181847, May 5, 2010 .
to the jurisdiction of the court by acknowledging the
summons by publication issued by the court and praying
Jurisdiction; hierarchy of courts. for additional time to file a responsive pleading.
Consequently, Robinson having acknowledged the
summons by publication and also having invoked the
Secondly, the petition violates the principle of hierarchy
jurisdiction of the trial court to secure affirmative relief in
of courts. The assailed Order is an order from the RTC
his motion for additional time, he effectively submitted
of Pasay. This petition should have been filed with the
voluntarily to the trial court’s jurisdiction. He is now
Court of Appeals, after the filing of a Motion for
estopped from asserting otherwise, even before this
Reconsideration. People’s Air Cargo, et al. vs. Hon.
Court. Allan C. Go, doing business under the name and
Francisco G. Mendiola, et al., G.R. No. 181068, May 4,
style of “ACG Express Liner” vs. Mortimer
2010
F. Cordero/Mortimer F. Cordero vs. Allan C. Go, doing
business under the name and style of “ACG Express
Jurisdiction; hierarchy of courts; exception. Liner”, et al., G.R. No. 164703/G.R. No. 164747, May 4,
2010
On the contrary, the direct recourse to this Court as an
exception to the rule on hierarchy of courts has been Litis pendentia; requisites.
recognized because it was dictated by public welfare and
the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the
Petitioner contends that the CA erred when it refused to
broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of
apply the principle of litis pendentia notwithstanding the
were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was
similarities in the circumstances of the plaintiffs, the
considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.
identities of the defendants and the similarities in some
Considering the merits of the present case, the Court
of the antecedent issues in the Bacolod Case, the
sees the need to relax the iron clad policy of strict
Hector Lacson Case and Ramon Monfort Case. The
observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts and, thus,
requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of
takes cognizance over the case. The trial court, in its
parties, or at least, such as representing the same
Decisions dated December 1, 2004 and December 13,
interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights
2004 (per Presiding Judge Raul Bautista Villanueva),
asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on
erred in motu proprio modifying the Separate Judgment
the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases,
dated July 22, 1997 (per Presiding
such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is
Judge Florentino M. Alumbres) by reducing the
successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.
entitlement of petitioner’s additional attorney’s fees
The underlying principle of litis pendentia is the theory
from P20,000,000.00 to P1,000,000.00.
that a party is not allowed to vex another more than once
Hicoblo M. Catly (deceased), subtituted by his wife,
287
regarding the same subject matter and for the same more or less similarly situated as the plaintiffs in the
cause of action. This theory is founded on the public Hector Lacson Case and Ramon Monfort Case, the CA
policy that the same subject matter should not be the was correct when it ruled that there was no identity of
subject of controversy in courts more than once, in order causes of action and issues as it cannot be said that
that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for exactly the same evidence are needed to prove the
the sake of the stability of the rights and status of causes of action in all three cases. Thus, in
persons. The CA was correct when it opined that: the Bacolod Case, the evidence needed to prove that
petitioner undervalued fifteen sugar export sales of
respondents’ export sugar production for the crop
Our perusal of the record reveals that forum shopping
years 1979-1980 and 1980-1981 is not the same
cannot, indeed, be attributed to the appellants. While it
evidence needed in the Hector Lacson Case to prove the
may be readily conceded that the plaintiffs in the instant
over-charging of trading costs for respondents’ export
case are more or less similarly situated as the plaintiffs in
sugar production for the crop years 1981-1982
the cases previously filed and that the defendants, or at
and 1982-1983, underpayment resulting from the
least the interest they represent, are basically the
petitioner’s use of an erroneous peso-dollar exchange
same, the fact remains that there is no identity of causes
rate and reimbursement for amounts alleged to have
of action and issues in the cases so far filed against the
been wrongfully withheld by the latter. The same holds
latter. The instant suit, as may be gleaned from the
true for the Ramon Monfort Case where the same
complaint, concerns the supposed undervaluation by
significantly pertained to different shipments and were
the appellees of fifteen (15) sugar export sales of the
coursed not thru the Traders Royal Bank, but thru the
appellants’ export sugar production for the crop
Republic Planters Bank. The Court of Appeals, therefore,
years 1979-1980 and 1980-1981 (pp. 3-32, Orig.
did not abuse its discretion in finding that
Rec.). In contrast, Civil Case No. 4301, entitled
no litis pendentia existed in the case at bar. Roberto S.
“Hector Lacson, et al. vs. National Sugar Trading
Benedicto, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
Corporation, et al.” concerns the overcharging of
141508, May 5, 2010
trading costs for the plaintiffs’ export sugar production
for the crop years 1981-1982 and 1982-1983,
underpayment resulting from the defendants’ use of an Mandamus; any citizen can be real party-in-interest
erroneous peso-dollar exchange rate and reimbursement where petition anchored on people’s right to
for amounts alleged to have been wrongfully withheld by information on matters of public concern.
the latter (pp. 163-171, ibid.) On the other hand, Civil
Case No. 88-46368 entitled “Ramon Monfort, et al. vs.
In order that a petition for mandamus may be given due
Philippine Sugar Commission, et al.” concerned the
course, it must be instituted by a party aggrieved by the
deficiency due the plaintiffs therein from sugar export
alleged inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board, or
sales for which a lower exchange rate was allegedly used
person, which unlawfully excludes said party from the
by the defendants, the recovery, among others, of
enjoyment of a legal right. However, if the petition is
excessive trading costs charged, unauthorized
anchored on the people’s right to information on matters
deductions, damages, premiums and other sums
of public concern, any citizen can be the real party in
supposedly still due from the defendants, as well as a
interest. The requirement of personal interest is satisfied
detailed accounting of the sales of the export sugar
by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and
produced by the plaintiffs therein. While the amended
therefore, part of the general public which possesses the
complaint filed in the case also sought to claim
right. There is no need to show any special interest in
differentials for three (3) under-valued/under-
the result. It is sufficient that petitioners are citizens and,
declared NASUTRA export sales from the crop
as such, are interested in the faithful execution of the
year 1980-1981 harvest, the same significantly
laws. The petitioners in this case are Teofisto Guingona,
pertained to different shipments and were coursed not
Jr., Bishop Leo A. Soriano, Jr., Quintin S. Doromal, Fe
through appellee Traders’ Royal Bank but through the
Maria Arriola, Isagani R. Serrano, and Engr.
Republic Planters Bank (pp. 246-271, ibid). The variance
Rodolfo Lozada. All are Filipino citizens. They are thus
in the subject matters of the instant case and the
clothed with personality to institute this special civil
aforesaid cases are even conceded in the brief filed
action for mandamus. Teofisto Guingona, Jr. et al. vs.
by appellee Roberto Benedicto (pp. 153-155, Rollo).
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 191846, May 6, 2010
The test to determine identity of causes of action is to

Mandamus; available to compel disclosure of
ascertain whether the same evidence necessary to
information on matters of public concern.
sustain the second cause of action is sufficient to
authorize a recovery in the first, even if the forms or the
nature of the two (2) actions are different from each It is not enough, however, that the information
other. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, petitioners seek in a writ of mandamus is a matter of
the two (2) actions are considered the same within the public concern. For mandamus to lie in a given case, the
rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the information must not be among the species exempted by
subsequent action; otherwise, it is not. This method has law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee.
been considered the most accurate test as to whether a In this case, respondent Comelec failed to cite any
former judgment is a bar in subsequent proceedings provision of law exempting the information sought by
between the same parties. It has even been designated petitioners from the coverage of the government’s
as infallible. While the plaintiffs in the Bacolod Case are constitutional duty to disclose fully information of public
288
concern. Respondent’s claim that there is no proof a known as the Omnibus Election Code; Section 5(e) of
request has been made for the release of the public Republic Act No. 6713 otherwise known as the Code of
records mentioned in the petition is belied by its Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
allegation in its own Comment that this matter has Employees; Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9184 otherwise
already been addressed in the recent case known as the Government Procurement Reform Act;
of Roque v. Comelec. Quoting the Court’s ruling in that Sections 1, 11, and 12 of Republic Act No. 9369
case on the issue of disclosure of the source code, otherwise known as An Act Amending Republic Act No.
respondent unwittingly admits a prior request for 8436; and Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9525 otherwise
disclosure: known as An Act Appropriating P11 Billion as
Supplemental Appropriations for an Automated Election
System. Respondent Comelec cannot shirk its
The fact that a source code review is not expressly
constitutional duty to disclose fully to the public complete
included in the Comelec schedule of activities is not an
details of all information relating to its preparations for
indication, as petitioners suggest, that Comelec will not
the 10 May 2010 elections without violating the
implement such review. Comelec, in its Comment on the
Constitution and relevant laws. No less than the
Motion for Reconsideration, manifests its intention to
Constitution mandates it to enforce and administer
make available and open the source code to all political
election laws. The Comelec chairman and the six
and interested parties, but under a controlled
commissioners are beholden and accountable to the
environment to obviate replication and tampering of the
people they have sworn to serve. This Court, as the last
source code.
bulwark of democracy in this country, will spare nothing
in its constitutionally granted powers to ensure that the
Petitioners in Roque v. Comelec in fact fundamental right of the people to information on
pressed Comelec for a source code review. To this day, matters of public concern, especially on matters that
however, Comelec has yet to disclose the source code as directly affect our democratic processes, is fully
mandated by law. In any case, considering the lack of guaranteed, protected, and
material time, the Court in the exercise of its equity implemented. Teofisto Guingona, Jr. et al. vs.
jurisdiction may even dispense with the requirement of Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 191846, May 6, 2010
proof of a prior demand in this case. The Court may, and
given the alarming developments of late in the run-up to
Motion to dismiss; order of denial interlocutory.
the 10 May 2010 elections, should compel Comelec to
disclose fully the complete details of its preparations.
In Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, the Court It is the position of petitioner that the CA erred when it
stressed that the constitutional duty to disclose chose not to dismiss the case based on the “other
information of public concern may be compelled by grounds” petitioner had earlier raised in its motion to
mandamus, to wit: dismiss. More specifically, petitioner claims that the
grounds of lack of cause of action, res judicata, payment
and prescription warrant the dismissal of the complaint.
Thus, while the manner of examining public records may
The same deserves scant consideration. It bears to
be subject to reasonable regulation by the government
stress that the RTC, in its June 5, 1996 Order, did not
agency in custody thereof, the duty to disclose the
also consider the other grounds now raised by petitioner,
information of public concern, and to afford access
to wit:
to public records cannot be discretionary on the part
of said agencies. Certainly, its performance cannot be
made contingent upon the discretion of such agencies. In view of the sufficiency of the grounds for dismissal
Otherwise, the enjoyment of the constitutional right may discussed above, the other grounds invoked by the
be rendered nugatory by any whimsical exercise of defendants in their Motion to Dismiss, which do not
agency discretion. The constitutional duty, not being appear to be indubitable without additional
discretionary, its performance may be compelled by evidence need not be considered.
a writ of mandamus in a proper case. (Emphasis
supplied)
While petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss was granted by the
RTC in its June 5, 1996 Order, the same Order, however,
XXX XXX effectively denied the other grounds raised by petitioner
XXX XXX as the same did not appear to be indubitable without
additional evidence. It is a settled rule that an Order
denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and,
In sum, petitioners’ prayer to compel Comelec to explain
therefore, not appealable, nor can it be subject of a
fully its preparations for the coming 10 May 2010
petition for review on certiorari. Such order may only be
elections finds overwhelming support in the Constitution,
reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from
specifically under Section 7 of Article III and Section 28
the judgment after trial. The ordinary procedure to be
of Article II on the people’s right to information and the
followed in that event is to file an answer, go to trial, and
State’s corresponding duty of full public disclosure of all
if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal
transactions involving public interest; the jurisprudential
from the final judgment. While the rule refers to
doctrines laid down in Valmonte v. Belmonte,
instances when a motion to dismiss is completely denied,
Jr., Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, and
this Court finds no reason not to apply the same in
Akbayan Citizens Action Party v. Aquino; as well as
instances when some of the grounds raised in a motion
Section 52(j) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 otherwise
289
to dismiss are denied by the lower court. The “other give Landicho and Tecson their respective “commission,”
grounds” now raised by petitioner were not before the CA or “cuts” from his own commission.
because the same were not put in issue by respondents Respondents Landicho and Tecson failed to refute the
when they chose to assail the RTC’s Order to dismiss the evidence submitted by Cordero consisting of receipts
complaint. This is understandable especially since the signed by them. Said amounts were apart from the
“other grounds” were not made the basis of the RTC’s earlier expenses shouldered by Cordero for Landicho’s
Order. Procedurally then, the proper remedy of airline tickets, transportation, food and hotel
petitioner, should he choose to reassert the “other accommodations for the trip to Australia. Allan C. Go,
grounds,” is to interpose the same as defenses in his doing business under the name and style of
answer and not to put them in issue in this “ACG Express Liner” vs. Mortimer F. Cordero/Mortimer
appeal. Roberto S. Benedicto, et al. vs. Court of F. Cordero vs. Allan C. Go, doing business under the
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 141508, May 5, 2010 name and style of “ACG Express Liner”, et al., G.R. No.
164703/G.R. No. 164747, May 4, 2010
Parties; real party-in-interest.
First, on the issue of whether the case had been filed by

the real party-in-interest as required by Section 2, Rule 3 Parties; real parties-in-interest.
of the Rules of Court, which defines such party as the
one (1) to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
We do not likewise find the failure to
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. The
formally implead the NP-NPC a sufficient reason to
purposes of this provision are: 1) to prevent the
dismiss the petition outright. Without any finally
prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title
confirmed registration in the coalition’s favor, NP-
or interest in the case; 2) to require that the actual party
NPC does not legally exist as a coalition with a
entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action;
personality separate and distinct from the component NP
3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and 4) to discourage
and NPC parties. We find it sufficient that the NP
litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to
and the NPC have separately been impleaded; as of
sound public policy. A case is dismissible for lack of
the moment, they are the real parties-in-interest as they
personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the
are the parties truly interested in legally establishing the
real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state
existence of their coalition. Again, we find no resulting
a cause of action.
harm or prejudice in the omission to implead NP-NPC, as
the component parties have voiced out the concerns the
On this issue, we agree with the CA in ruling that it coalition would have raised had it been impleaded as a
was Cordero and not Pamana who is the exclusive separate and properly existing personality. Liberal Party
distributor of AFFA in the Philippines as shown by the vs. Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 191771,
Certification dated June 1, 1997 issued by Tony May 6, 2010
Robinson. Petitioner Go mentions the following
documents also signed by respondent Robinson which
Petitions; prematurity.
state that “Pamana Marketing Corporation represented by
Mr. Mortimer F. Cordero” was actually the exclusive
distributor: (1) letter dated 1 June 1997; (2) certification Is the present petition premature, since its object
dated 5 August 1997; and (3) letter dated 5 August 1997 is to foreclose a ruling on the unsettled NP-
addressed to petitioner Cordero concerning NPC accreditation issue? This is another threshold
“commissions to be paid to Pamana Marketing issue, raised this time by the OSG, and we rule that
Corporation.” Such apparent inconsistency in the OSG’s objection has no merit.
naming AFFA’s exclusive distributor in the Philippines is
of no moment. For all intents and purposes, Robinson The root of the present petition is the NP-NPC petition
and AFFA dealt only with Cordero who alone made before the COMELEC for registration as a coalition and
decisions in the performance of the exclusive accreditation as the dominant minority party. While
distributorship, as with other clients to whom he had the en banc claimed that it had jurisdiction over the
similarly offered AFFA’s fast ferry vessels. Moreover, the registration of coalitions and in fact decreed the NP-NPC’s
stipulated commissions from each progress payments registration, it strangely did not rule on the accreditation
made by Go were directly paid by Robinson to Cordero. aspect of the petition.
Respondents Landicho and Tecson were only too aware
of Cordero’s authority as the person who was appointed
and acted as exclusive distributor of AFFA, which can be The registration of a coalition and the accreditation of a
gleaned from their act of immediately furnishing him with dominant minority party are two separate matters that
copies of bank transmittals everytime Go remits payment are substantively distinct from each other. Registration
to Robinson, who in turn transfers a portion of funds is the act that bestows juridical personality for purposes
received to the bank account of Cordero in the Philippines of our election laws; accreditation, on the other hand,
as his commission. Out of these partial payments of his relates to the privileged participation that our election
commission, Cordero would still laws grant to qualified registered parties. Section 2(5),
290
Article IX-C of the Constitution and Rule 32 of Petitioner contends that respondents are guilty of forum
the COMELEC Rules regulate the registration of political shopping because they failed to disclose, at the time of
parties, organizations or coalitions of political parties. the filing of the Bacolod Case, the fact that some of the
Accreditation as a dominant party is governed respondents had earlier commenced a similar action
by COMELEC Resolution No. 8752, Section 1 of which in Pasig. Petitioner claims that respondents should have
states that the petition for accreditation shall be filed with informed the RTC of Bacolod of the commencement and
the Clerk of the Commission who shall docket it as subsequent withdrawal of the Pasig Case in the certificate
an SPP (DM) case, in the manner that the NP- of non-forum shopping. Petitioner insists that even if
NPC petition before the COMELEC was docketed. While the Pasig Case was subsequently withdrawn, the same
the registration of political parties is a special proceeding still constituted a “commenced action,” which is required
clearly assigned to a Division for handling under to be disclosed under the rules of forum shopping.
the COMELEC Rules, no similar clear-cut rule is available Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
for a petition for accreditation as a dominant party. We provides that:
thus make no statement on this point, as it is not a
matter in issue. Under the circumstances of the present
SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. – The
case where the registration was handled at the en banc,
plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the
action at the COMELEC ended upon
complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim
the en banc’s issuance of the assailed Resolution; under
for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
Rule 13, Section 1(d) of the COMELEC Rules, a motion for
simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not
reconsideration of an en banc ruling is a prohibited
theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim
pleading, except in election offense cases. Any request
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-
for accreditation that may be filed is conceptually a
judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no
separate matter for the COMELEC to handle. Thus, after
such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there
the en banc issued the assailed Resolution resolving the
is such other pending action or claim, a complete
NP-NPC’s application for registration as a coalition,
statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he
the COMELEC’s part in the registration process was
should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or
brought to a close, rendering the Resolution ripe for
claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that
review by this Court. The present petition has openly
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein
stated its objective of forestalling the accreditation of the
his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been
respondent NP-NPC; the petition expressly and frontally
filed.
sought the issuance of a writ of prohibition and
restraining order to prevent the COMELEC from
accrediting a coalition that is not registered as a party. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall
The combination of a petition for certiorari and for not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or
prohibition under the circumstances of the present case other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
is fully justified, as the registration and the accreditation dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
that the petition covers are linked with and in fact provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission
sequentially follow one another. Accreditation can only be of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the
granted to a registered political party, organization or undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of
coalition; stated otherwise, a registration must first take court, without prejudice to the corresponding
place before a request for accreditation can be made. administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the
Once registration has been carried out, accreditation is party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and
the next natural step to follow. Where the registration is deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for
flawed for having been attended by grave abuse of summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute
discretion, as alleged in the petition, the filing of a direct contempt as well as a cause for administrative
petition for prohibition with a prayer for a preliminary sanctions.
injunction can only be expected as a logical remedial
move; otherwise, accreditation, unless restrained, will A perusal of the records shows that, with the exception of
follow. Thus, from the point of view of prohibition, there additional party-plaintiffs, the Pasig Case actually has a
is absolutely no prematurity as its avowed intent is in fact strong resemblance to the Bacolod Case.
to forestall an event – the accreditation – that according The Pasig Case, however, was dismissed upon the
to the assailed Resolution shall soon take place. From instance of the plaintiffs even before the Bacolod Case
the point of view of the petition for certiorari was filed. The RTC Order allowing the dismissal of the
questioning the registration made, no prematurity issue complaint in the Pasig Case is hereunder reproduced, to
is involved as the nullification of a past and accomplished wit:
act is prayed for. From these perspectives,
the OSG objection based on prematurity is shown
to be completely groundless. Liberal Party vs. xxxx
Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 191771, May
6, 2010 On November 14, 1995, A Notice of Dismissal was filed
by plaintiffs thru counsel, Attys. Ricardo G. Nepomuceno,
Pleadings; certification of non-forum shopping. Jr. and Epifanio Sedigo, Jr., pursuant to Section 1, Rule
17 of the Rules of Court.
291
According to the said Rule, plaintiff may, at any In Roxas v. Court of Appeals, this Court had on occasion
time before service of answer, dismiss an action by ruled that when a complaint is dismissed without
filing a notice of dismissal. prejudice at the instance of the plaintiff, pursuant to
there is no need to state in the certificate of non-forum
Records show that no answer has yet been filed by
shopping in a subsequent re-filed complaint the fact of
defendants.
the prior filing and dismissal of the former complaint,
thus:
Being in conformity to the Rules, the same is hereby
granted.
Considering that the complaint in Civil Case No. 97-
0523 was dismissed without prejudice by virtue of
WHEREFORE, herein complaint is hereby DISMISSED the plaintiff’s (herein petitioner’s) Notice of
and without prejudice to the re-filing thereof. Dismissal dated November 20, 1997 filed pursuant
to Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Notify parties and counsel of this Order. Procedure, there is no need to state in the
certificate of non-forum shopping in Civil Case No.
97-0608 about the prior filing and dismissal of Civil
SO ORDERED. Case No. 97-0523. In Gabionza v. Court of Appeals, we
ruled that it is scarcely necessary to add that Circular No.
The essence of forum shopping is the filing by a party 28-91 (now Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in Procedure) must be so interpreted and applied as to
one forum, seeking another and possibly favorable achieve the purposes projected by the Supreme Court
opinion in another suit other than by appeal or special when it promulgated that Circular. Circular No. 28-91
civil action for certiorari; the act of filing of multiple suits was designed to serve as an instrument to promote and
involving the same parties for the same cause of action, facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should
either simultaneously or successively for the purpose of not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to
obtaining a favorable judgment. Forum shopping exists subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the
where the elements of litis pendentia are present or goal of all rules or procedure – which is to achieve
where a final judgment in one case will amount to res substantial justice as expeditiously as possible. The fact
judicata in the action under consideration. that the Circular requires that it be strictly complied with
merely underscores its mandatory nature in that it
cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether
There is no dispute that the dismissal of the complaint in disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial
the Pasig case, upon notice of the plaintiffs therein, was compliance with its provisions under justifiable
sanctioned by Section 1, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of circumstances.
Court. Quite clearly, the Order declared that the
dismissal of the complaint was without prejudice to the
re-filing thereof. Moreover, even if the same were tested Thus, an omission in the certificate of non-forum
under the rules on litis pendentia and res judicata, the shopping about any event that would not constitute res
danger of conflicting decisions cannot be present, since judicata and litis pendencia as in the case at bar, is not
the Pasig case was dismissed even before a responsive fatal as to merit the dismissal and nullification of the
pleading was filed by petitioner. Since a party resorts to entire proceedings considering that the evils sought to be
forum shopping in order to increase his chances of prevented by the said certificate are not present. It is in
obtaining a favorable decision or action, it has been held this light that we ruled in Maricalum Mining Corp. v.
that a party cannot be said to have sought to improve his National Labor Relations Commission that a liberal
chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action where interpretation of Supreme Court Circular No. 04-94 on
no unfavorable decision has even been rendered against non-forum shopping would be more in keeping with the
him in any of the cases he has brought before the objectives of procedural rules which is to “secure a just,
courts. Roberto S. Benedicto, et al. vs. Court of speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 141508, May 5, 2010 proceeding.”
Roberto S. Benedicto, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,

G.R. No. 141508, May 5, 2010
Pleadings; certification of non-forum shopping
While the RTC may have been of the opinion that

the Pasig Case was nevertheless “commenced” and, Procedural rules; liberal application.
therefore, the same should have been stated by
respondents in their certification of non-forum shopping Verily, in numerous occasions, this Court has relaxed the
in the Bacolod case, this Court does not share the same rigid application of the rules to afford the parties the
view. opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits.
This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases
should be decided only after giving all parties the chance
292
to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and representation at the scene of electoral action, and
procedural imperfection should thus not serve as basis of translate in no small measure to transparency and to the
decisions. Technicalities should never be used to defeat election’s credibility. Thus, our focus is on the core
the substantive rights of the other party. Every party- issues that confront us and the parties, by-passing the
litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the technical and procedural questions raised that do not
proper and just determination of his cause, free from the anyway affect the integrity of the petition before us or
constraints of technicalities. In that way, the ends of prejudice the parties involved, and concentrating as well
justice would be better served. For, indeed, the general on the issues that would resolve the case soonest so that
objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of the parties involved and the COMELEC can move on to
justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing their assigned time-sensitive roles and tasks in the
always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to coming elections. We note that while the respondents
promote the administration of justice. In the case at bar, placed in issue defects in the attachments to the petition,
considering that the same involves the various claims of their objection is a formal one as they do not deny the
371 respondents, this Court finds that justice and equity existence and basic correctness of these attachments.
are best served by allowing respondents to prove their We see no resulting harm or prejudice therefore if we
case on the merits rather than denying them their day in overrule the objection raised, given the weight of
court on a strict application of the rules. Roberto S. the counterbalancing factors we considered above.
Benedicto, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. Liberal Party vs. Commission on Elections, et al., G.R.
141508, May 5, 2010 No. 191771, May 6, 2010
Procedural rules; liberal application; importance of Other proceedings

questions raised.
We have indicated many times in the past that a primary

factor in considering technical and procedural objections
Extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage; writ of
is the nature of the issues involved. We have been strict
possession.
when the issues are solely confined to the parties’ private
interests and carry no massive ripple effects directly
affecting the public, but have viewed with liberality the It is settled that questions regarding the validity of a
technical and procedural threshold issues raised when mortgage or its foreclosure as well as the sale of the
grave public interests are involved. Our liberality has property covered by the mortgage cannot be raised as
even gone beyond the purely technical and procedural ground to deny the issuance of a writ of possession. Any
where Court intervention has become imperative. Thus, such questions must be determined in a subsequent
we have recognized exceptions to the threshold issues of proceeding as in fact, herein respondents commenced an
ripeness and mootness of the petitions before us, as well action for Annulment of Certificate of Sale, Promissory
as questions on locus standi. We have also brushed aside Note and Deed of Mortgage. Parenthetically, the
procedural technicalities where the issues raised, because court a quo denied the issuance of the writ as it credited
of the paramount public interest involved and their respondents’ opposition to petitioner’s petition for the
gravity, novelty or weight as precedents deserve the issuance of a writ of possession, which opposition it
Court’s attention and active intervention. We see every synthesized as follows:
reason to be liberal in the present case in view of
interests involved which are indisputably important to the On the other hand, the mortgagors[-respondents herein]
coming electoral exercise now fast approaching. The contend that the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings
registration of political parties, their accreditation as conducted by the Notary Public over the mortgaged
dominant parties, and the benefits these recognitions properties of the mortgagors suffered jurisdictional
provide – particularly, the on-line real time electronic infirmities; that the jurisdictional infirmities consisted of
transmission of election results from the Board of Election the fact that the requirement of posting the notices of the
Inspectors (BEI) through the Precinct Count Optical Scan sale for not less that twenty (20) days in at least three
(PCOS) machines; the immediate access to official (3) public places in the city where the property is
election results; the per diems from the government that situated was not complied with; that the notice of auction
watchers of accredited parties enjoy; and the sale did not mention with preciseness and particularity
representation at the printing, storage and distribution of the kind of improvement on the mortgaged property,
ballots that the dominant-party status brings – constitute which consist of a three-storey building; that the bank
distinct advantages to any party and its candidates, if (petitioner herein) and the Notary Public colluded to
only in terms of the ready information enabling them to deprive the prospective bidders interested in the
react faster to developing situations. The value of these properties from participating in the public auction sale
advantages exponentially rises in an election under an since they were deprived of knowing the real status of
automated system whose effectiveness and reliability, the subject properties; that the mortgaged properties
even at this late stage, are question marks to some. To were auctioned for a price grossly disproportionate and
the public, the proper registration and the accreditation morally shocking as compared to the real value of the
of dominant parties are evidence of equitable party same properties; that the petitioner also violated the
293
provisions of Supreme Court Administrative Order section fourteen of Act Numbered Four hundred and
No. 3, governing the procedure of extrajudicial ninety-six; but the order of possession shall continue in
foreclosure, x x x. (underscoring supplied) effect during the pendency of the appeal. (underscoring
supplied)
By crediting respondents’ opposition, Branch 77 of the
court a quo pre-empted its co-equal branch, Branch 221, Planters Development Bank vs. James and Anthony Ng,
to which jurisdiction over respondents’ annulment G.R. No. 187556, May 5, 2010
petition was laid, from determining the merits of
respondents’ claim-basis of said petition.
HLURB; authority to issue cease and desist order
(CDO). Respecting GSIS’s argument that PD No. 385
Section 33 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides: prohibits the issuance of a [Cease and Desist Order], the
pertinent provisions of the decree read:
SEC. 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration
of redemption period; by whom executed or given. – If Section 1. It shall be mandatory for government
no redemption be made within one (1) year from the financial institutions, after the lapse of sixty (60)
date of the registration of the certificate of sale, the days from the issuance of this Decree, to foreclose
purchaser is entitled to a conveyance and possession of the collaterals and/or securities for any loan,
the property; x x x credit, accommodation, and/or guarantees granted
by them whenever the arrearages on such account,
including accrued interest and other charges, amount to
Upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the
at least twenty percent (20%) of the total outstanding
purchaser or redemptioner shall be substituted to
obligations, including interest and other charges, as
and acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim of
appearing in the books of account and/or related records
the judgment obligor to the property as of the time
of the financial institution concerned. This shall be
of the levy. (underscoring supplied)
without prejudice to the exercise by the government
financial institutions of such rights and/or remedies
Since respondents failed to redeem the mortgage within available to them under their respective contracts with
the reglementary period, entitlement to the writ of their debtors, including the right to foreclose on loans,
possession becomes a matter of right and the issuance credits, accommodations and/or guarantees on which
thereof is merely a ministerial function. The judge to the arrearages are less than twenty percent (20%).
whom an application for a writ of possession is filed need
not look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner
Section 2. No restraining order, temporary or permanent
of its foreclosure. Until the foreclosure sale is annulled,
injunction shall be issued by the court against any
the issuance of the writ of possession is ministerial. In
government financial institution in any action taken by
fact, even during the period of redemption, the purchaser
such institution in compliance with the mandatory
is entitled as of right to a writ of possession provided a
foreclosure provided in Section 1 hereof , whether
bond is posted to indemnify the debtor in case the
such restraining order, temporary or permanent
foreclosure sale is shown to have been conducted without
injunction is sought by the borrower(s) or any third party
complying with the requirements of the law. More so
or parties, except after due hearing in which it is
when, as in the present case, the redemption period has
established by the borrower and admitted by the
expired and ownership is vested in the purchaser. The
government financial institution concerned that twenty
defaulting mortgagor is not without any expedient
percent (20%) of the outstanding arrearages has been
remedy, however. For under Section 8 of Act 3135, as
paid after the filing of foreclosure proceedings.
amended by Act 4118, it can file with the court which
issues the writ of possession a petition for cancellation of
the writ within 30 days after the purchaser-mortgagee In case a restraining order or injunction is issued, the
was given possession. So Section 8 of Rule 39 provides: borrower shall nevertheless be legally obligated to
liquidate the remaining balance of
the arrearages outstanding as of the time of foreclosure,
SECTION 8. The debtor may, in the proceedings in
plus interest and other charges, on every succeeding
which possession was requested, but not later than
thirtieth (30th) day after the issuance of such restraining
thirty days after the purchaser was given
order or injunction until the entire arrearages have been
possession, petition that the sale be set aside and
liquidated. These shall be in addition to the payment of
the writ of possession cancelled, specifying the
amortization currently maturing. The restraining order or
damages suffered by him, because the mortgage was not
injunction shall automatically be dissolved should the
violated or the sale was not made in accordance with the
borrower fail to make any of the above-mentioned
provisions hereof, and the court shall take cognizance of
payments on due dates, and no restraining order or
this petition in accordance with the summary procedure
injunction shall be issued thereafter. This shall be without
provided for in section one hundred and twelve of Act
prejudice to the exercise by the government financial
Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six; and if it finds the
institutions of such rights and/or remedies available to
complaint of the debtor justified, it shall dispose in his
them under their respective charters and their respective
favor of all or part of the bond furnished by the person
contracts with their debtors, nor should this provision be
who obtained possession. Either of the parties may
construed as restricting the government financial
appeal from the order of the judge in accordance with
institutions concerned from approving, solely at its own
294
discretion, any restructuring, recapitalization, or any of power necessary to carry out its functions has been
other arrangement that would place the entire account held to be an adequate source of authority to delegate a
on a current basis, provided, however, that at least particular function, unless, by express provision of the
twenty percent (20%) of the arrearages outstanding at Act or by implication, it has been withheld. The present
the time of the foreclosure is paid. composition of the Board of Commissioners, wherein five
out of its nine members sit in ex-officio capacity while the
remaining four serve as full time commissioners,
All restraining orders and injunctions existing as of the
practicality necessitates the establishment of a procedure
date of this Decree on foreclosure proceedings filed by
whereby a case on appeal may be decided by members
said government financial institutions shall be considered
of a division. Since the 2004 HLURB Rules of Procedure
lifted unless finally resolved by the court within sixty (60)
provides that a motion for reconsideration shall be
days from date hereof. (underscoring supplied)
assigned to the Division from which the decision, order or
ruling originated, the questioned cognizance by
The act subject of the CDO was the intended the HLURB Second Division of GSIS’s motion for
consolidation by the GSIS of ownership of the reconsideration is in order. Government Service
condominium unit, not the mandatory foreclosure of the Insurance System vs. Board of Commissioners
mortgage. At any rate, the second paragraph of the (2nd Division), et al., G.R. No. 180062, May 5, 2010
above-quoted Section 2 of PD No. 385 in fact recognizes
the eventuality that an injunction may be issued against
a government financial institution, hence, it obliges the
borrower to liquidate the arrearages due in order to
safeguard the interests of the government financial Evidence
institution-lender.
Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction of the HLURB to regulate

the real estate business is broad enough to include
Burden of proof; agricultural lessor has burden to
jurisdiction over a complaint for annulment of foreclosure
show existence of lawful cause to eject agricultural
sale and mortgage and the grant of incidental reliefs such
lessee.
as a CDO. Even Presidential Decree No. 957, “The
Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree,”
authorizes the HLURB as successor of the National We reiterate that the petitioner, as agricultural lessor,
Housing Authority to issue CDOs in relevant cases, viz: has the burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful
cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee. In
support of her allegations, Felisa presented the
SECTION 16. Cease and Desist Order. — Whenever it
Investigation Report of MARO Legal Officer Estimada and
shall appear to the Authority that any person is engaged
an affidavit of a resident of the barangay where both the
or about to engage in any act or practice which
original leaseholder Isabelo and the
constitutes or will constitute a violation of the provisions
alleged sublessee, Soledad, reside. The full text of the
of this Decree, or of any rule or regulation thereunder, it
Investigation Report with respect to his factual findings
may, upon due notice and hearing as provided in Section
on the case against Soledad is as follows:
13 hereof, issue a cease and desist order to enjoin such
act or practices.
In the dispute against Soledad Agustin, the lawful tenant
was Isabelo Ramirez and not Soledad Agustin. In the
Government Service Insurance System vs. Board of
conference/mediation that was conducted it was
Commissioners (2nd Division), et al., G.R. No. 180062,
discovered that the cultivator and possessor of the land is
May 5, 2010
actually Isabelo Ramirez. This is also being covered by
an Agricultural leasehold Contract.
The findings of fact as expressed above are not relevant

HLURB; jurisdiction of Division of HLURB Board of and material to the question of sublease which the
Commissioners to entertain motion for petitioner alleges.
reconsideration or appeal.
On the other hand, the affidavit of Gano reads as follows:
GSIS’s motion for reconsideration having been denied by
the appellate court by Resolution of October 10, 2007,
xxxx
the present petition for review was filed. GSIS argues in
the main that the HLURB Revised Rules of Procedure did
not vest authority in the Board’s Second Division to That I know for a fact that the above-described
entertain appeals. The Court is not persuaded. Section 5 parcel of land was being cultivated formerly by the
of E.O. No. 648 specifically mandates the HLURB Board of late, Isabelo Ramirez, a resident
Commissioners to adopt rules of procedure for the of Brgy. Amistad, Tayug, Pangasinan, Philippines;
conduct of its business and perform such functions
necessary for the effective discharge thereof. Such grant
295
That I also have the knowledge that prior to the death of We disagree with the findings of fact of the CA and the
said Isabelo Ramirez, the same mortgaged his tenancy agencies below. The confluence of evidence shows
rights and possession to Soledad Agustin and in fact, that Felisa has clearly and convincingly established her
said Soledad Agustin is at present cultivating and in allegation that Domingo subleased his landholding to
possession of the above-described landholding; Sergio, to wit:
That to the best of my knowledge, the transfer of a) The investigation conducted by MARO Legal
tenancy rights and possession from Isabelo Ramirez Officer Estimada shows that Domingo admitted that the
to Soledad Agustin by way of mortgage was made cultivation and possession of the subject landholding was
without the knowledge and consent of the owners subleased to Sergio as he was then applying for work
thereof; abroad.
That I know of the above facts because being a resident b) In her complaint, Felisa stressed that in one of her
of the same barangay with the former tenant and the visits to the subject landholding prior to the filing of the
present tenant of the said landholding, it is of common said complaint, she discovered that Sergio,
knowledge in our community that Soledad Agustin is the sublessee, was in actual possession and cultivation of
presently cultivating the same landholding and that she the landholding in question. Petitioner further contended
acquired such tenancy rights from its former tenant by that Domingo subleased the said agricultural leasehold to
way of mortgage; Sergio for the amount of P15,000.00.
xxxx c) The Katulagan or Agreement establishes that indeed

Domingo was indebted to Sergio in the amount
of P15,000.00.
In contrast to the Carganillo case above, the evidence
presented by Felisa with respect to Soledad is
uncorroborated and unsubstantial. Hence, we rule d) The affidavit of Clarion, a resident of the municipality
that Felisa has not discharged her burden of establishing where the subject landholding lies, further corroborates
her claim of sublease. Felisa Ferrer vs. the said facts when she narrated the series of events
Domingo Carganillo, et al., G.R. No. 170956, May 12, leading up to Sergio’s possession of said agricultural
2010 land:
xxxx
That I know for a fact that the above-described parcel of

land was under cultivation by one
RICARDO PADILLO of Brgy. Amistad, Tayug, Pangasinan,
formerly, but when the same went abroad, he transferred
his tenancy right to DOMINGO CARGANILLO, who in the
Extrajudicial admissions. year 1995 mortgaged his tenancy rights to
SERGIO CARGANILLO, his own brother;
Petitioners’ assertion of partition of Lot No. 9 is further
belied by their predecessor-in-interest’s previous That at present, the said parcel of land is under the
assertion of co-ownership over the same lot in the legal cultivation of said SERGIO CARGANILLO;
redemption case filed 10 years before. The allegations
therein, sworn to as truth by Mario and Veñaranda,
xxxx
described Lot No. 9 as a parcel of land that is co-owned
by the Pacres siblings pro indiviso. It was further alleged
that Ygoña bought the undivided shares of Rodrigo, Domingo did not even affirm or deny in his answer
Francisco, Margarita, and Simplicia. The statements in that Estimada conducted an investigation and during
the legal redemption case are extrajudicial such investigation, he admitted that he subleased subject
admissions, [Extrajudicial admissions are those made out landholding. It is totally against our human nature to
of court, or in a judicial proceeding other than the one just remain reticent and say nothing in the face of false
under consideration. Francisco, Evidence, 2nd Ed. (1994), accusations. The natural instinct of man impels him to
p. 33.] which were not disputed by petitioners. These resist an unfounded imputation. Hence, silence in such
admissions may be given in evidence against them. At cases is almost always construed as implied admission of
the very least, the polarity of their previous admissions the truth thereof. Likewise, the attestations
and their present theory makes the latter highly of BARC Chairman Costales and Barangay Kagawad
suspect. Heirs of Pacres vs. Heirs of Ygoña, G.R. No. Frago that Domingo never violated his agreement
174719, May 5, 2010 with Felisa or any provision of the Land Reform Code, are
conclusions of law bereft of any factual basis. Time and
again, we have held that general statements, which are
Fact of subleasing proven by clear and convincing
mere conclusions of law and not factual proof, are
evidence in agrarian reform case.
unavailing and do not suffice. Felisa Ferrer vs.
296
Domingo Carganillo, et al., G.R. No. 170956, May 12, there can be, between the parties and their successors in
2010 interest, no evidence of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement.” While the Rule
admits of exception, no such exception was pleaded,
much less proved, by petitioners.
New evidence; cannot be submitted with

The Parol Evidence Rule applies to “the parties and their
supplemental motion for reconsideration in
successors in interest.” Conversely, it has no application
agrarian reform case.
to a stranger to a contract. For purposes of
the Parol Evidence Rule, a person who claims to be the
On March 24, 2004, Felisa filed a Supplemental Motion beneficiary of an alleged stipulation pour autrui in a
for Reconsideration with Manifestation with the DARAB, contract (such as petitioners) may be considered a party
allegedly as an expanded discussion on what she averred to that contract. It has been held that a third party who
in her Motion for Reconsideration. We note though that avails himself of a stipulation pour autrui under a
aside from amplifying her arguments, petitioner likewise contract becomes a party to that contract. This is why
attached and referred to new pieces of evidence in the under Article 1311, a beneficiary of a
form of: (1) affidavit of Rudy O. Tubiera dated stipulation pour autrui is required to communicate his
September 14, 2001; (2) affidavit of Liberato Cabigas; acceptance to the obligor before its revocation.
(3) affidavit of Alberto A. Millan dated July 26, 2002 and Moreover, to preclude the application of Parol Evidence
(4) survey plan. Rule, it must be shown that “at least one of the parties to
the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written
Section 12, Rule VIII of the 1994 DARAB New Rules of instrument in question and does not base a claim on the
Procedures provide that “only one motion for instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument
reconsideration shall be allowed a party which shall be or the relation established thereby.” A beneficiary of a
based on the ground that: (a) the findings of facts in stipulation pour autrui obviously bases his claim on the
the said decision, order or resolution are not contract. He therefore cannot claim to be a stranger to
supported by substantial evidence, or (b) the the contract and resist the application of
conclusions stated therein are against the law and the Parol Evidence Rule.
jurisprudence”. As expressed by the Rule, the office of
the Motion for Reconsideration is not for the reception of Thus, even assuming that the alleged oral undertakings
new evidence. Hence, when Felisa submitted new pieces invoked by petitioners may be deemed
of evidence in her Supplemental Motion for stipulations pour autrui, still petitioners’ claim cannot
Reconsideration, she went beyond the stated purpose of prosper, because they are barred from proving them by
the Motion for Reconsideration. In which case, we rule oral evidence under the Parol Evidence Rule. Heirs
that the new evidence presented by Felisa in the of Pacres vs. Heirs of Ygoña, G.R. No. 174719, May 5,
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration with 2010
Manifestation to the DARAB cannot be
admitted. Felisa Ferrer vs. Domingo Carganillo, et al.,
Question of law; definition
G.R. No. 170956, May 12, 2010
. Also, even if this Court treats this petition as a Petition

Parol Evidence Rule.
under Rule 45, it is not convinced that this case involves
a pure question of law. A question of law exists when
In the first place, under Article 1311 of the Civil Code, there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a
contracts take effect only between the parties, their certain state of facts. This is not so in the case at bar. It
assigns and heirs (subject to exceptions not applicable bears stressing too that the basis of the petitioner for its
here). Thus, only a party to the contract can maintain an Urgent Motion to Cite for Contempt is yet to be
action to enforce the obligations arising under said determined in a full-blown trial by the public respondent.
contract. Consequently, petitioners, not being parties to All told, there was no grave abuse of discretion
the contracts of sale between Ygoña and the petitioners’ amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
siblings, cannot sue for the enforcement of the supposed public respondent in issuing the assailed July 16, 2008
obligations arising from said contracts. It is true that Order. People’s Air Cargo, et al. vs. Hon. Francisco
third parties may seek enforcement of a contract under G. Mendiola, et al., G.R. No. 181068, May 4, 2010
the second paragraph of Article 1311, which provides
that “if a contract should contain some stipulation in
Technical rules of evidence not applicable in
favor of a third person, he may demand its fulfillment.”
agrarian reform case.
This refers to stipulations pour autrui, or stipulations for
the benefit of third parties. However, the written
contracts of sale in this case contain no such stipulation The DARAB held that the Katulagan is inadmissible in
in favor of the petitioners. While petitioners claim that evidence because it was not formally offered before
there was an oral stipulation, it cannot be proven under the PARAD, citing our ruling in People v. Mongado. On
the Parol Evidence Rule. Under this Rule, “[w]hen the appeal, however, the CA considered the Katulagan, but
terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is found the same to be a mere promissory note tending to
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and prove indebtedness and not as an evidence of mortgage.
297
We cannot subscribe with the reasoning of the DARAB. technical rules of procedure and evidence in the Rules of
The Rules of Court, particularly the Revised Rules on Court nor shall the latter apply even in
Evidence, are specifically applicable to judicial a suppletory manner. Thus, we find that
proceedings, to wit: the DARAB erred in holding the Katulagan as inadmissible
since it was not formally offered and admitted.
Moreover, reliance on our ruling in People
Section 1. Evidence defined. – Evidence is the means,
v. Mongado, i.e., that “[t]he court shall consider no
sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
evidence which has not been formally offered,” is
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
misplaced. We simply cannot find any legal basis for
the DARAB to cite our ruling in a criminal case; the
Sec. 2. Scope. – The rules of evidence shall be the same fundamental rule found in Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
in all courts and in all trials and hearings except as does not find any application in this agrarian
otherwise provided by law or these rules. (Emphasis case. Felisa Ferrer vs. Domingo Carganillo, et al., G.R.
supplied) No. 170956, May 12, 2010
In quasi judicial proceedings, the said rules shall not

apply except “by analogy or in a suppletory character and
whenever practicable and convenient”. In the instant
case, the then prevailing DARAB Rules of Procedures
JUNE 2010 CASES
provide that:
Civil Procedure
Section 2. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally
construed to carry out the objectives of agrarian reform
and to promote just, expeditious and inexpensive Annulment of judgment; direct recourse to this
adjudication and settlement of agrarian cases, disputes remedy not allowed if other appropriate remedies
or controversies. are available.
xxxx Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court impose

the conditions for the availment of the remedy of
annulment of judgment, viz.:
Section 3. Technical Rules Not Applicable. The Board
and its Regional and Provincial Adjudicators shall not be
bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence as Section 1. Coverage.- This Rule shall govern the
prescribed in the Rules of Court, but shall proceed to annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final
hear and decide all agrarian cases, disputes or orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial
controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial,
all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies
in accordance with justice and equity. are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
a) If and when a case comes up for adjudication wherein Section 2. Groundsfor annulment. – The annulment
there is no applicable provision under these rules, the may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and
procedural law and jurisprudence generally applicable to lack of jurisdiction.
agrarian disputes shall be applied;
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed
b) The Adjudication Board (Board), and its Regional of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new
Agrarian Reform Adjudicators (RARADs) and Provincial trial or petition for relief.
Agrarian Reform Adjudicators (PARADs) hereinafter
referred to as Adjudicators, shall have the authority to
Section 1, Rule 47 provides that it does not allow a direct
adopt any appropriate measure or procedure in any given
recourse to a petition for annulment of judgment if other
situation or matter not covered by these Rules. All such
appropriate remedies are available, such as a petition for
special measures or procedures and the situations to
new trial, appeal or a petition for relief. If petitioner fails
which they have been applied must be reported to the
to avail of these remedies without sufficient justification,
Board; and
she cannot resort to the action for annulment of
judgment under Rule 47, for otherwise, she would benefit
c) The provisions of the Rules of Court shall not apply from her inaction or negligence.
even in a suppletory character unless adopted herein or
by resolution of the Board. However, due process of the
We found no reversible error committed by the CA in
law shall be observed and followed in all instances.
dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment. The
(Emphasis supplied)
Spouses Arcenas were declared non-suited for failure to
appear at the pre-trial conference of Civil Case No. 072-
The DARAB Rules of Procedures explicitly provides that 07-2002 on November 11, 2003, and respondent bank
the Agrarian Reform Adjudicators are not bound by was allowed to present evidence on its counterclaim on
298
January 8, 2004. Such Order was received by the Civil Case Nos. V-006-01-2002 and V-072-07-2002,
secretary of petitioner’s counsel on November 17, 2003. which were both pending in the same court, and the
Petitioner did not move to set aside the RTC’s order of parties had to come up with a settlement for the hearing
non-suit. While petitioner’s counsel claimed that he only of Civil Case No. V-006-01-2002 scheduled on December
learned of such Order of non-suit on December 4, 2003, 4, 2004, petitioner’s counsel then asked for the
yet no motion to lift the order of non-suit was filed. postponement of the scheduled November 11, 2003
Notably, from December 4, 2003 to the scheduled hearing set for the pre-trial conference of Civil Case No.
hearing on January 8, 2004, petitioner did not take any V-072-07-2002 one day before the said date, because of
remedial action to lift the order of non-suit when she had conflict of schedule and since he had in mind the
the opportunity to do so. In fact, petitioner and her December 4, 2003 deadline to submit the settlement.
counsel did not also appear on the scheduled January 8, Notably, petitioner’s counsel admitted that the date set
2004 hearing wherein respondent bank presented for the submission of settlement in Civil Case No. V-072-
evidence on its counterclaim and submitted the case for 07-2002 was indeed November 11, 2003; and that his
decision. It was only on January 14, 2004 when failure to attend the hearings and to file a motion for
petitioner and her husband filed a pleading captioned as reconsideration of the declaration of petitioner as non-
Manifestation and Motion, wherein they prayed for the suited was because of his mistaken belief that respondent
reconsideration of the Orders dated November 11, 2003 bank was earnestly seeking a settlement. There was
and January 8, 2004 and for further pre-trial conference. nothing in the Manifestation and Motion which alluded the
The RTC denied such Manifestation and Motion in its commission of extrinsic fraud to respondent bank’s
Order dated March 9, 2004, as the same was filed counsel. Moreover, since petitioner claimed that there
beyond the reglementary period, and such Order was was extrinsic fraud committed by respondent bank’s
received by petitioner on March 12, 2004. Petitioner counsel, she could have filed a petition for relief under
then filed with the CA a Petition for annulment of order of Rule 38 within the period provided for by the Rules of
non-suit under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court on the Court, but she did not. Section 2, Rule 47 clearly states
ground of extrinsic fraud. The CA denied the petition as that extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground for
petitioner failed to avail of the appropriate remedies annulment of order if it was availed of, or could have
provided by the Rules to which we agree. been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for
relief. Thus, extrinsic fraud is effectively barred if it could
have been raised as a ground in an available remedial
XXX
measure. Spouses Oscar Arcenas and Dolores Arcenas
XXX XXX
vs. Queen City Development Bank and Court of Appeals
(Nineteenth Division), G.R. No. 166819, June 16, 2010
Petitioner tries to justify her failure to avail of the
appropriate remedies on a promise of settlement.
Annulment of order of non-suit; no forum shopping
However, such promise was not an excuse for petitioner’s
where petitioner also files notice of appeal
counsel not to lift the order of non-suit and to file a
pertaining to decision on the merits.
petition for relief. Petitioner’s claim that she was present
when respondent bank’s counsel moved for the issuance
of the order of non-suit against her was not proven by Finally, we find no merit in respondent bank’s claim that
any evidence. There was indeed a failure to show, to our petitioner committed forum shopping. The issue brought
satisfaction, that petitioner could not have availed of the before us is whether the CA correctly dismissed
ordinary and appropriate remedies under the Rules. petitioner’s petition for annulment of the Order dated
Thus, she cannot resort to the remedy under Rule 47 of November 11, 2003 declaring her non-suited for failure
the Rules; otherwise, she would benefit from her inaction to appear at the pre-trial conference of Civil Case No. V-
or negligence. Spouses Oscar Arcenas and Dolores 072-07-2002. On the other hand, petitioner’s Notice of
Arcenas vs. Queen City Development Bank and Court of Appeal in Civil Case Nos. V-006-01-2002 and V-072-07-
Appeals (Nineteenth Division), G.R. No. 166819, June 16, 2002 pertained to the decision of the RTC rendered on
2010. the merits. Spouses Oscar Arcenas and Dolores Arcenas
vs. Queen City Development Bank and Court of Appeals
(Nineteenth Division), G.R. No. 166819, June 16, 2010
Annulment of judgment; extrinsic fraud.
Appeals; effect of failure to appeal.

Petitioner argues that when respondent bank’s counsel
moved for the issuance of the Order of non-suit against
her and her husband during the November 11, 2003 In its Memorandum, SPI prays that petitioners be
hearing, extrinsic fraud was committed on them since ordered to pay 3% interest monthly as stipulated in the
respondent bank’s counsel concealed from the RTC that Contract for Lease, plus attorney’s fees. However, as SPI
there was a gentleman’s agreement for the settlement of did not appeal the RTC Decision before the appellate
the subject civil cases. We are not persuaded. It bears court, we cannot act on the same. It is well-settled that
stressing that when petitioner’s counsel filed the a party who has not appealed from a Decision cannot
Manifestation and Motion asking for reconsideration of seek any relief other than what is provided in the
the Order declaring the Spouses Arcenas non-suited, the judgment appealed from. SPI did not appeal, thus it
reason stated was honest mistake or excusable cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative
negligence. To show such mistake, he explained that relief other than those granted in the Decision of the
since there was a pending negotiation for settlement in court below. It can only advance any argument that it
299
may deem necessary to defeat petitioners’ claim or to which they are based, are premised on the absence of
uphold the Decision that is being disputed, and it can evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.
assign errors in its brief if such is required to strengthen None of the foregoing exceptions which would warrant a
the views expressed by the court a quo. These assigned reversal of the assailed decision obtains in this instance.
errors, in turn, may be considered by the appellate court St. Joseph’s College, Sr., Josephini Ambatali, SFIC,
solely to maintain the appealed decision on other and Rosalinda Tabugo vs. Jayson Miranda,
grounds, but not for the purpose of reversing or represented by his father, Rodolfo S. Miranda, G.R.
modifying the judgment in SPI’s favor and giving it other No. 182353, June 29, 2010
reliefs.
We find on record that SPI’s counsel, with the

concurrence of its Vice President, withdrew his
Appeals; “Fresh period rule” in “Neypes v. Court of
appearance on November 24, 2000. The RTC granted
Appeals” not applicable to administrative appeal
said withdrawal in its Order dated January 5, 2001.
from DENR regional office to DENR Secretary.
Subsequently, the case was decided by the RTC and
appealed by the petitioners to the CA. In due time, the
CA rendered judgment on the same and petitioners filed The issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the
this Petition for Review on Certiorari. SPI did not “fresh period rule” laid down in Neypes applies to
interpose an appeal from the RTC Decision nor from the petitioner’s case, i.e., that he had a fresh period of 15
CA Decision. After more than six years, on September days to appeal RD Sampulna’s October 16, 2007 Order to
13, 2007, a new law firm entered its appearance as the DENR Secretary, counted from her notice on
counsel of SPI. SPI now claims that it was not able to September 12, 2007 of the RD’s Order of September 6,
appeal the Decision of the RTC and subsequently of the 2007 denying her motion for reconsideration of the
CA which failed to impose 3% monthly interest as decision. The “fresh period rule” in Neypes declares:
provided in the Contract of Lease because it never
received said Decisions, considering that its counsel has To standardize the appeal periods provided in the
migrated to another country and that petitioners misled Rulesand to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal
the courts about SPI’s address. We are not persuaded. their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh
SPI failed to exercise due diligence in keeping itself period of 15 days within which to file the notice of
updated on the developments of the case. That its appealin the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of
erstwhile counsel has not communicated for a long period the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion
of time and has migrated abroad, should have cautioned for reconsideration.
it that something was amiss with the case. By that time,
SPI should have initiated moves to locate its counsel or
to inquire from the court on the progress of the case. It Henceforth, this “fresh period rule”
should have ensured that its address on record with the shallalsoapplytoRule40 governing appeals from the
court is updated and current. Thus, it has been equally Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts;
stressed that litigants represented by counsel should not Rule42 on petitions for review from the Regional Trial
expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and Courts to the Court of Appeals; Rule43 on appeals from
await the outcome of the case. Instead, they should give quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals; and
the necessary assistance to their counsel and exercise Rule45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme
due diligence to monitor the status of the case for what is Court. The new rule aims to regiment or make the
at stake is ultimately their interest. Selwyn F. Lao, et al. appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the
vs. Special Plans, Inc., G.R. No. 164791, June 29, 2010 order denying the motion for new trial, motion for
reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order
or resolution.
Appeals; factual findings of trial court.
x x x. This pronouncement is not inconsistent with

Jurisprudence dictates that factual findings of the trial Rule41, Section3oftheRules which states that the
court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of
are accorded the highest degree of respect and are judgment or final order appealed from. The use of the
considered conclusive between the parties. A review of disjunctive word “or” signifies disassociation and
such findings by this Court is not warranted except for independence of one thing from another. It should, as a
highly meritorious circumstances when: (1) the findings rule, be construed in the sense in which it ordinarily
of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, implies. Hence, the use of “or” in the above provision
surmises or conjectures; (2) a lower court’s inference supposes that the notice of appeal may be filed within 15
from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or days from notice of judgment or within 15 days from
impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion in the notice of the “final order,” which we already determined
appreciation of facts; (4) the findings of the appellate to refer to the x x x order denying the motion for a new
court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice trial or reconsideration.
certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will
justify a different conclusion; (5) there is a
misappreciation of facts; (6) the findings of fact are Neither does this new rule run counter to the spirit of
conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on Section39ofBP129 which shortened the appeal period
from 30 days to 15 days to hasten the disposition of
300
cases. The original period of appeal x x x remains and It is settled that an appeal must be perfected within the
the requirement for strict compliance still applies.The reglementary period provided by law; otherwise, the
fresh period of 15 days becomes significant only when a decision becomes final and executory. Before the
party opts to file a motion for reconsideration. In this Supreme Court, a petition for review on certiorari under
manner, the trial court which rendered the assailed Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
decision is given another opportunity to review the case amended, must be filed within fifteen (15) days from
and, in the process, minimize and/or rectify any error of notice of the judgment or final order or resolution
judgment. While we aim to resolve cases with dispatch appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion
and to have judgments of courts become final at some for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after
definite time, we likewise aspire to deliver justice fairly. notice of the judgment. Even then, review is not a
matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and may
be granted only when there are special and important
In this case, the new period of 15 days eradicates the
reasons therefor. In the case at bar, the Docket Division
confusion as to when the 15-day appeal period should be
of the OSG received a copy of the CA decision on
counted–from receipt of notice of judgment x x x or from
November 7, 2007. It was not until February 1, 2008 or
receipt of notice of “final order” appealed from x x x.
almost three (3) months however, that the OSG, for
petitioner, filed a petition for review on certiorari with
To recapitulate, a party litigant may either file his notice this Court. The OSG pleads for understanding
of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the Regional considering the scarcity of its lawyers and the
Trial Court’s decision or file it within 15 days from receipt inadvertence of the temporarily-designated OIC of
of the order (the “final order”) denying his motion for Division XV in overlooking that the CA decision was
new trial or motion for reconsideration. Obviously, the adverse to PEZA.
new 15-day period may be availed of only if either
motion is filed; otherwise, the decision becomes final and
While the Court realizes the OSG’s difficulty in having
executory after the lapse of the original appeal period
only three (3) lawyers working full time on its cases, the
provided in Rule 41, Section 3. (emphasis and
OSG could have easily asked for an extension of time
underscoring supplied; italics in the original)
within which to file the petition. More importantly, as the
government agency tasked to represent the government
XXX XXX XXX in litigations, the OSG should perform its duty with
promptness and utmost diligence. However, upon careful
As reflected in the above-quoted portion of the decision consideration of the merits of this case, the Court is
in Neypes, the “fresh period rule” shall apply to Rule40 inclined to overlook this procedural lapse in the interest
(appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional of substantial justice. Although a party is bound by the
Trial Courts); Rule41 (appeals from the Regional Trial acts of its counsel, including the latter’s mistakes and
Courts to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court); negligence, a departure from this rule is warranted where
Rule42 (appeals from the Regional Trial Courts to the such mistake or neglect would result in serious injustice
Court of Appeals); Rule43 (appeals from quasi-judicial to the client. Indeed, procedural rules may be relaxed
agencies to the Court of Appeals); and Rule45 (appeals for persuasive reasons to relieve a litigant of an injustice
by certiorari to the Supreme Court). Obviously, these not commensurate with his failure to comply with the
Rules cover judicial proceedings under the 1997 Rules of prescribed procedure. More so, when to allow the
Civil Procedure. assailed decision to go unchecked would set a precedent
that will sanction a violation of substantive law. Such is
the situation in this case. Philippine Economic Zone
Petitioner’s present case is administrative in nature Authority, represented herein by Dir. Gen. Lilia B. De
involving an appeal from the decision or order of the Lima vs. Joseph Jude Carantes and all the other heirs of
DENR regional office to the DENR Secretary. Such appeal Maximino Carantes, G.R. No. 181274. June 23, 2010
is indeed governed by Section 1 of Administrative Order
No. 87, Series of 1990. As earlier quoted, Section 1
clearly provides that if the motion for reconsideration is Appeals; Rule 45 petition may raise only questions
denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal “during the of law.
remainder of the period of appeal, reckoned from receipt
of the resolution of denial;” whereas if the decision is At the outset, we note that this recourse is a petition for
reversed, the adverse party has a fresh 15-day period to review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
perfect his appeal. Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules of Under Section 1 of the Rule, such a petition shall raise
Court, as clarified in Neypes, being inconsistent with only questions of law which must be distinctly alleged in
Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 87, Series of 1990, the appropriate pleading. In a case involving a question
it may not apply to the case of petitioner whose motion of law, the resolution of the issue must rest solely on
for reconsideration was denied. Julieta Panolino vs. what the law provides for a given set of facts drawn from
Josephine L. Tajala, G.R. No. 183616, June 29, 2010 the evidence presented. Stated differently, there should
be nothing in dispute as to the state of facts; the issue to
Appeals; late filing excused in interest of be resolved is merely the correctness of the conclusion
substantial justice. drawn from the said facts. Once it is clear that the issue
invites a review of the probative value of the evidence
presented, the question posed is one of fact. If the query
301
requires a reevaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or BertuldoHinog v. Melicor, citing People v. Cuaresma, this
the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances Court made the following pronouncements:
and their relation to each other, then the issue is
necessarily factual. A perusal of the assignment of errors
This Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari
and the discussion set forth by MSCI would readily show
is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court with Regional
that the petition seeks a review of all the evidence
Trial Courts and with the Court of Appeals. This
presented before the RTC and reviewed by the CA;
concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken
therefore, the issue is factual. Accordingly, the petition
as according to parties seeking any of the writs an
should be dismissed outright, especially considering that
absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to
the very same factual circumstances in this petition have
which application therefor will be directed. There is after
already been ruled upon by the CA. Makati Sports Club,
all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative
Inc. vs. Cecile H. Cheng, et al., G.R. No. 178523, June
of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general
16, 2010
determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the
extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial
Appeals; withdrawal of appeal. hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the
issuance of extraordinary writs against first level
(“inferior”) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial
Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of
provides:
Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s
original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed
Sec. 3. Withdrawal of appeal. – An appeal may be only when there are special and important reasons
withdrawn as of right at any time before the filing of therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
appellee’s brief. Thereafter, the withdrawal may be This is [an] established policy. It is a policy necessary to
allowed in the discretion of the court. (underscoring prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and
supplied) attention which are better devoted to those matters
within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further
At the time petitioner moved to withdraw her appeal, over-crowding of the Court’s docket. (Emphasis
respondents had not yet filed their brief, hence, the grant supplied.)
thereof by the appellate court was in order. Nelly
Bautista vs. Seraph Management Group, Inc., G.R. No. The rationale for this rule is two-fold: (a) it would be an
174039, June 29, 2010 imposition upon the precious time of this Court; and (b)
it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended
or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some
instances had to be remanded or referred to the lower
court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure,
Certiorari; grave abuse of discretion. or as better equipped to resolve the issues because this
Court is not a trier of facts. This Court thus reaffirms the
A special civil action for certiorari, under Rule 65, is an judicial policy that it will not entertain direct resort to it
independent action based on the specific grounds therein unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the
provided and will lie only if there is no appeal or any appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling
other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of
course of law. A petition for certiorari will prosper only if serious implications, justify the availment of the
grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the
“Grave abuse of discretion,” under Rule 65, has a specific exercise of its primary jurisdiction. Exceptional and
meaning. It is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power compelling circumstances were held present in the
due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the following cases: (a) Chavez v. Romulo, on citizens’ right
whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that to bear arms; (b) Government of [the] United States of
amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive America v. Hon. Purganan, on bail in extradition
duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of proceedings; (c) Commission on Elections v. Judge
law. For an act to be struck down as having been done Quijano-Padilla, on government contract involving
with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion modernization and computerization of voters’ registration
must be patent and gross. Such is not the case here. list; (d) Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Hon. Sec. Zamora,
Rudolfo I. Beluso vs. Commission on Elections, et al., on status and existence of a public office; and (e) Hon.
G.R. No. 180711. June 22, 2010 Fortich v. Hon. Corona, on the so-called “Win-Win
Resolution” of the Office of the President which modified
the approval of the conversion to agro-industrial area.
Certiorari; hierarchy of courts.
In the case at bench, petitioner failed to specifically

Primarily, although this Court, the Court of Appeals and and sufficiently set forth special and important
the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to reasons to justify direct recourse to this Court and
issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo why this Court should give due course to this
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such petitionin the first instance, hereby failing to fulfill the
concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted conditions set forth in Heirs of BertuldoHinog v. Melicor.
freedom of choice of court forum. In Heirs of
302
The present petition should have been initially filed in the orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case,
Court of Appealsin strict observance of the doctrine on i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings
the hierarchy of courts. Failure to do so is sufficient involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition for
cause for the dismissal of this petition. Chamber of Real review, which would be but a continuation of the
Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. vs. The Secretary appellate process over the original case. On the other
of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 183409, June 18, 2010 hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an
independent action based on the specific ground therein
provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of
Certiorari; nature and requisites.
as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary
appeal, including that to be taken under Rule 45. x
The special civil action for certiorari is intended for xx
the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave
One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no
jurisdiction. Its principal office is only to keep the
available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate
inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or
remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not
to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of
prosper, even if the ground therefore is grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
discretion. Accordingly, when a party adopts an improper
The essential requisites for a Petition for Certiorari under
remedy, his petition may be dismissed outright.
Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a
Pertinent, therefore, to a resolution of the case at bar is a
board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
determination of whether or not an appeal or any plain,
functions; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer has acted
speedy and adequate remedy was still available to
without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
petitioners, the absence of which would warrant
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
petitioners’ decision to seek refuge under Rule 65 of the
and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and
Rules of Court. A perusal of the records will show that
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the
January 4, 2005 CA Decision, which was, however,
Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of denied by the CA via a Resolution dated March 18, 2005.
jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general As manifested by petitioners, they received a copy of the
power of a tribunal, board or officer, is not authorized March 18, 2005 CA Resolution on March 28, 2005. Thus,
and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, from March 28, 2005, petitioners had 15 days, or until
because the conditions which alone authorize the April 12, 2005, to appeal the CA Resolution under Rule
exercise of the general power in respect of it are 45. Clearly, petitioners had an available appeal under
wanting. Without jurisdiction means lack or want of Rule 45 which, under the circumstances, was the plain,
legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a speedy and adequate remedy. However, petitioners
cause or causes, considered either in general or with instead chose to file a special civil action for certiorari,
reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power under Rule 65, on April 18, 2005, which was 6 days after
to exercise authority. Grave abuse of the reglementary period under Rule 45 had expired. The
discretionimplies such capricious and whimsical exercise fact that the petitioners used the Rule 65 modality as a
of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in substitute for a lost appeal is made plainly manifest by:
other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary a) its filing the said petition 6 days after the expiration of
manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal the 15-day reglementary period for filing a Rule 45
hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount appeal; and b) its petition which makes specious
to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to allegations of “grave abuse of discretion.” But it asserts
perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in that the CA erred (1) when it declared that the
contemplation of law. Chamber of Real Estate and petitioners failed in their undertakings to provide
Builders Associations, Inc. vs. The Secretary of Agrarian drainage in accordance with the requirements of the
Reform, G.R. No. 183409, June 18, 2010 MOA; (2) when it declared that petitioners are solely
culpable for the lack of an environmental compliance
Certiorari; not a substitute for lost appeal. certificate, when it awarded temperate damages; and (3)
when it ordered the automatic forfeiture of the
performance bond. These are mere errors of judgment
Prefatorily, the Court notes that petitioners filed a special which would have been the proper subjects of a petition
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules for review under rule 45. Artistica Ceramica, Inc.,
of Civil Procedure. As a rule, the remedy from a Ceralinda, Inc. Cyber Ceramics, Inc. and Millennium, Inc.
judgment or final order of the CA is appeal via petition vs. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner’s Association, Inc.
for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In and Bukluran Purok II Residents’ Association, G.R. No.
Mercado v. Court of Appeals, this Court had again 167583-84, June 16, 2010
stressed the difference of the remedies provided for
under Rule 45 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Certiorari; not available to correct errors of
judgment.
x x x [T]he proper remedy of the party aggrieved by a
decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review
under Rule 45, which is not identical with a petition for While petitioners would insist that the CA committed
review under Rule 65. Under Rule 45, decisions, final grave abuse of discretion, this Court is of the opinion,
303
however, that the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Certiorari; period for filing counted from denial of
CA, granting the forfeiture of the performance bond first motion for reconsideration.
among others, amount to nothing more than errors of
judgment, correctible by appeal. When a court, tribunal,
In San Juan, the Court was also confronted with the
or officer has jurisdiction over the person and the subject
question of when the reglementary period for filing a
matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions
petition for certiorari shall be reckoned. Petitioner
arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction.
therein filed second and third motions for reconsideration
Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said
from the interlocutory order and when he filed the
jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Under
petition for certiorari with the CA, he counted the 60-day
prevailing procedural rules and jurisprudence, errors of
reglementary period from the notice of denial of his third
judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action
motion for reconsideration. He argued that, since there is
for certiorari. If every error committed by the trial court
no rule prohibiting the filing of a second or third motion
or quasi-judicial agency were to be the proper subject of
for reconsideration of an interlocutory order, the 60-day
a special civil action for certiorari, then trial would never
period should be counted from the notice of denial of the
end and the dockets of appellate courts would be clogged
last motion for reconsideration. Having declared that the
beyond measure. For this reason, where the issue or
filing of a second motion for reconsideration that merely
question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness
reiterates the arguments in the first motion is subject to
of the decision, not the jurisdiction of the court to render
denial, the Court held that the 60-day period for filing a
said decision, the same is beyond the province of a
petition for certiorari shall be reckoned from the trial
special civil action for certiorari. Since petitioners filed
court’s denial of the first motion for reconsideration,
the instant special civil action for certiorari, instead of
otherwise, indefinite delays will ensue. Applying the
appeal via a petition for review, the petition should be
ruling in San Juan, the petition for certiorari was
dismissed. Artistica Ceramica, Inc., Ceralinda, Inc.
evidently filed out of time, as its filing was reckoned from
Cyber Ceramics, Inc. and Millennium, Inc. vs. Ciudad Del
the denial of the last motion. The subject Motion to
Carmen Homeowner’s Association, Inc. and Bukluran
Dismiss was filed in an attempt to resurrect the remedy
Purok II Residents’ Association, G.R. No. 167583-84,
of a petition for certiorari, which had been lost long
June 16, 2010
before its filing. Philippine National Bank vs. The
Intestate Estate of Francisco de Guzman, represented by
Certiorari; not available to correct errors of His Heirs: Rosalia, Eleuterio, Joe, Ernesto, Harison, all
judgment. surnamed De Guzman, and Gina De Guzman, G.R. No.
182507, June 16, 2010
Nothing in the records of this case supports petitioner’s
bare assertion that the COMELEC rendered its assailed
Resolutions with grave abuse of discretion. Beluso alleged
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in
Certiorari; requirement that tribunal, board or
perpetually disqualifying him to serve in any canvassing
officer be acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial
board, yet failed to prove where the abuse existed.
capacity.
Notably, the apparent thrust of Beluso’s petition is the
alleged error on the part of the COMELEC in drawing its
conclusions based on its findings and investigation. Thus, In the case before this Court, the petitioner fails to meet
in reality, what Beluso was questioning is the COMELEC’s the above-mentioned requisites for the proper invocation
appreciation of evidence. At this point, however, it is not of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. The Secretary
this Court’s function to re-evaluate the findings of fact of of Agrarian Reform in issuing the assailed DAR AO No.
the COMELEC, given its limited scope of its review power, 01-02, as amended, as well as Memorandum No. 88 did
which is properly confined only to issues of jurisdiction or so in accordance with his mandate to implement the land
grave abuse of discretion. Moreover, the arguments in use conversion provisions of Republic Act No. 6657. In
the petition and the issues alleged are only possible the process, he neither acted in any judicial or quasi-
errors of judgment, questioning the correctness of the judicial capacity nor assumed unto himself any
COMELEC’s rulings. Where the real issue involves the performance of judicial or quasi-judicial prerogative. A
wisdom or legal soundness of the decision – not the Petition for Certiorari is a special civil action that
jurisdiction of the court to render said decision – the may be invoked only against a tribunal, board, or
same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari officer exercising judicial functions. Section 1, Rule
under Rule 65. It is well settled that a writ of certiorari 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is explicit
may be issued only for the correction of errors of on this matter, viz.:
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. – When any
any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction. judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or
The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to issue a his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
certiorari writ cannot be exercised in order to review the amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is
judgment of the lower court as to its intrinsic no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
correctness, either upon the law or the facts of the case. in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby
Rudolfo I. Beluso vs. Commission on Elections, et al., may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging
G.R. No. 180711. June 22, 2010 the facts with certainty and praying that judgment must
304
be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of Guzman, and Gina De Guzman, G.R. No. 182507, June
such tribunal, board or officer. 16, 2010
A tribunal, board, or officer is said to be exercising Execution of judgment; execution upon motion and
judicial function where it has the power to determine effect of failure to redeem.
what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties
are, and then undertakes to determine these questions
Petitioner, in essence, argues that the October 11, 1977
and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Quasi-
Decision was not timely executed because of
judicial function, on the other hand, is “a term which
respondent’s failure to secure the final certificate of sale
applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of public
within 10 years from the entry of said judgment. This is
administrative officers or bodies x x x required to
erroneous. It is not disputed that shortly after the trial
investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold
court rendered the aforesaid judgment, respondent
hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for
moved for execution which was granted by the trial
their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial
court. On June 6, 1978, the subject property was sold on
nature.” Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise
execution sale. Respondent emerged as the highest
judicial or quasi-judicial acts, it is necessary that there be
bidder, thus, a certificate of sale was executed by the
a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or
sheriff in her favor on the same day. As correctly held by
property under which adverse claims to such rights are
the trial court, the October 11, 1977 Decision was
made, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought
already enforced when the subject property was levied
before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power
and sold on June 6, 1978 which is within the five-year
and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the
period for the execution of a judgment by motion under
respective rights of the contending parties. The
Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. It is, likewise,
Secretary of Agrarian Reform does not fall within the
not disputed that petitioner failed to redeem the subject
ambit of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or
property within one year from the annotation of the
quasi-judicial functions. The issuance and enforcement
certificate of sale on TCT No. 480537. The expiration of
by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform of the questioned
the one-year redemption period foreclosed petitioner’s
DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, and Memorandum No.
right to redeem the subject property and the sale thereby
88 were done in the exercise of his quasi-legislative and
became absolute. The issuance thereafter of a final
administrative functions and not of judicial or quasi-
certificate of sale is a mere formality and confirmation of
judicial functions. In issuing the aforesaid administrative
the title that is already vested in respondent. Thus, the
issuances, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform never made
trial court properly granted the motion for issuance of the
any adjudication of rights of the parties. As such, it can
final certificate of sale. Jose dela Reyes vs. Josephine
never be said that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform had
Anne B. Ramnani, G.R. No. 169135. June 18, 2010
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in issuing and enforcing DAR AO No.
01-02, as amended, and Memorandum No. 88 for he
never exercised any judicial or quasi-judicial functions
but merely his quasi-legislative and administrative Forum shopping; no forum shopping where
functions. Chamber of Real Estate and Builders petitions have different causes of action and seek
Associations, Inc. vs. The Secretary of Agrarian Reform, different reliefs.
G.R. No. 183409, June 18, 2010
Forum shopping consists of the filing of multiple suits

involving the same parties for the same cause of action,
either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of
Dismissals; effect of adjudication on the merits obtaining a favorable judgment. Thus, forum shopping
unless court declares otherwise. may arise: (a) whenever as a result of an adverse
decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable decision
(other than by appeal or certiorari) in another; or (b) if,
In any case, we agree with the CA’s conclusion that the
after having filed a petition in the Supreme Court, a party
trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
files another petition in the Court of Appeals, because he
denying petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss. However, we do
thereby deliberately splits appeals “in the hope that even
not agree that the judgment of dismissal in the first case
as one case in which a particular remedy is sought is
was not on the merits. A ruling on a motion to dismiss,
dismissed, another case (offering a similar remedy)
issued without trial on the merits or formal presentation
would still be open”; or (c) where a party attempts to
of evidence, can still be a judgment on the merits.
obtain a writ of preliminary injunction from a court after
Section 3 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court is explicit that
failing to obtain the writ from another court. What is
a dismissal for failure to comply with an order of the
truly important to consider in determining whether forum
court shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the
shopping exists or not is the vexation caused to the
merits. In other words, unless the court states that the
courts and the litigants by a party who accesses different
dismissal is without prejudice, the dismissal should be
courts and administrative agencies to rule on the same or
understood as an adjudication on the merits and is with
related causes or to grant the same or substantially the
prejudice. Philippine National Bank vs. The Intestate
same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of
Estate of Francisco de Guzman, represented by His Heirs:
conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora
Rosalia, Eleuterio, Joe, Ernesto, Harison, all surnamed De
upon the same issue. The filing of identical petitions in
305
different courts is prohibited, because such act tax, fee or charge imposed by the code. An exception to
constitutes forum shopping, a malpractice that is this rule obtains only when in the opinion of the Court of
proscribed and condemned as trifling with the courts and Tax Appeals (CTA) the collection thereof may jeopardize
as abusing their processes. Forum shopping is an the interest of the government and/or the taxpayer.
improper conduct that degrades the administration of
justice. Nonetheless, the mere filing of several cases
The situation, however, is different in the case of the
based on the same incident does not necessarily
collection of local taxes as there is no express provision
constitute forum shopping. The test is whether the
in the LGC prohibiting courts from issuing an injunction to
several actions filed involve the same transactions and
restrain local governments from collecting taxes. Thus,
the same essential facts and circumstances. The actions
in the case of Valley Trading Co., Inc. v. Court of First
must also raise identical causes of action, subject matter,
Instance of Isabela, Branch II, cited by the petitioner, we
and issues. Elsewise stated, forum shopping exists
ruled that:
where the elements of litis pendentia are present, or
where a final judgment in one case will amount to res
judicata in the other. Unlike the National Internal Revenue Code, the Local Tax
Code does not contain any specific provision prohibiting
courts from enjoining the collection of local taxes. Such
Lokin has filed the petition for mandamus to compel the
statutory lapse or intent, however it may be viewed, may
COMELEC to proclaim him as the second nominee of
have allowed preliminary injunction where local taxes are
CIBAC upon the issuance of NBC Resolution No. 07-72
involved but cannot negate the procedural rules and
(announcing CIBAC’s entitlement to an additional seat in
requirements under Rule 58.
the House of Representatives), and to strike down the
provision in NBC Resolution No. 07-60 and NBC
Resolution No. 07-72 holding in abeyance “all In light of the foregoing, petitioner’s reliance on the
proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties, above-cited case to support its view that the collection of
organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall taxes cannot be enjoined is misplaced. The lower court’s
likewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of their denial of the motion for the issuance of a writ of
respective cases.” He has insisted that the COMELEC had preliminary injunction to enjoin the collection of the local
the ministerial duty to proclaim him due to his being tax was upheld in that case, not because courts are
CIBAC’s second nominee; and that the COMELEC had no prohibited from granting such injunction, but because the
authority to exercise discretion and to suspend or defer circumstances required for the issuance of writ of
the proclamation of winning party-list organizations with injunction were not present. Nevertheless, it must be
pending disputes. On the other hand, Lokin has resorted emphasized that although there is no express prohibition
to the petition for certiorari to assail the September 14, in the LGC, injunctions enjoining the collection of local
2007 resolution of the COMELEC (approving the taxes are frowned upon. Courts therefore should
withdrawal of the nomination of Lokin, Tugna and Galang exercise extreme caution in issuing such injunctions.
and the substitution by Cruz-Gonzales as the second Angeles City vs. Angeles Electric Corporation, G.R. No.
nominee and Borje as the third nominee); and to 166134, June 29, 2010
challenge the validity of Section 13 of Resolution No.
7804, the COMELEC’s basis for allowing CIBAC’s Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding
withdrawal of Lokin’s nomination. whereby a party is directed either to do a particular act,
in which case it is called a mandatory injunction or to
Applying the test for forum shopping, the consecutive refrain from doing a particular act, in which case it is
filing of the action for certiorari and the action for called a prohibitory injunction. As a main action,
mandamus did not violate the rule against forum injunction seeks to permanently enjoin the defendant
shopping even if the actions involved the same parties, through a final injunction issued by the court and
because they were based on different causes of action contained in the judgment. Section 9, Rule 58 of the
and the reliefs they sought were different. Luis K. Lokin, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides,
Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, et al./Luis K. Lokin vs.
Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. Nos. 179431- SEC. 9. When final injunction granted. – If after the
32/G.R. No. 180443. June 22, 2010 trial of the action it appears that the applicant is entitled
to have the act or acts complained of permanently
enjoined, the court shall grant a final injunction
perpetually restraining the party or person enjoined from
the commission or continuance of the act or acts or
Injunction; no prohibition against injunction to
confirming the preliminary mandatory injunction.
restrain collection of local taxes.
Two (2) requisites must concur for injunction to issue:

A principle deeply embedded in our jurisprudence is that
(1) there must be a right to be protected and (2) the acts
taxes being the lifeblood of the government should be
against which the injunction is to be directed are violative
collected promptly, without unnecessary hindrance or
of said right. Particularly, in actions involving realty,
delay. In line with this principle, the National Internal
preliminary injunction will lie only after the plaintiff has
Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC) expressly provides that no
fully established his title or right thereto by a proper
court shall have the authority to grant an injunction to
action for the purpose. To authorize a temporary
restrain the collection of any national internal revenue
306
injunction, the complainant must make out at least a properties, this alone justifies the move of the petitioner
prima facie showing of a right to the final relief. in seeking the injunctive reliefs sought for.
Preliminary injunction will not issue to protect a right not
inesse. These principles are equally relevant to actions
Petitioner in its petition is questioning the assessment or
seeking permanent injunction. Philippine Economic Zone
the ruling of the City Treasurer on the business tax and
Authority, represented herein by Dir. Gen. Lilia B. De
fees, and not the local ordinance concerned. This being
Lima vs. Joseph Jude Carantes and all the other heirs of
the case, the Court opines that notice is not required to
Maximino Carantes, G.R. No. 181274. June 23, 2010
the Solicitor General since what is involved is just a
violation of a private right involving the right of
Injunction; requisites; discretion of trial court. ownership and possession of petitioner’s properties.
Petitioner, therefore, need not comply with Section 4,
Rule 63 requiring such notice to the Office of the Solicitor
Section 3, Rule 58, of the Rules of Court lays down the
General.
requirements for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction, viz:
The Court is fully aware of the Supreme Court
pronouncement that injunction is not proper to restrain
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief
the collection of taxes. The issue here as of the
demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists
moment is the restraining of the respondent from
in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts
pursuing its auction sale of the petitioner’s
complained of, or in the performance of an act or acts,
properties. The right of ownership and possession of
either for a limited period or perpetually;
the petitioner over the properties subject of the auction
sale is at stake.
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-
performance of the act or acts complained of during the
Respondents assert that not one of the witnesses
litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant;
presented by the petitioner have proven what kind of
or
right has been violated by the respondent, but merely
mentioned of an injury which is only a scenario based on
(c) That a party, court, or agency or a person is speculation because of petitioner’s claim that electric
doing, threatening, or attempting to do, or is procuring or power may be disrupted.
suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in
violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the
Engr. Abordo’s testimony reveals and even his Affidavit
subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to
Exhibit “S” showed that if the auction sale will push thru,
render the judgment ineffectual.
petitioner will not only lose control and operation of its
facility, but its employees will also be denied access to
Two requisites must exist to warrant the issuance of a equipments vital to petitioner’s operations, and since only
writ of preliminary injunction, namely: (1) the existence the petitioner has the capability to operate Petersville sub
of a clear and unmistakable right that must be protected; station, there will be a massive power failure or blackout
and (2) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ which will adversely affect business and economy, if not
to prevent serious damage. lives and properties in Angeles City and surrounding
communities.
In issuing the injunction, the RTC ratiocinated that:
Petitioner, thru its witnesses, in the hearing of the
It is very evident on record that petitioner resorted and temporary restraining order, presented sufficient and
filed an urgent motion for issuance of a temporary convincing evidence proving irreparable damages and
restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop the injury which were already elaborated in the temporary
scheduled auction sale only when a warrant of levy was restraining order although the same may be realized only
issued and published in the newspaper setting the if the auction sale will proceed. And unless prevented,
auction sale of petitioner’s property by the City restrained, and enjoined, grave and irreparable damage
Treasurer, merely few weeks after the petition for will be suffered not only by the petitioner but all its
declaratory relief has been filed, because if the electric consumers in Angeles, Clark, Dau and Bacolor,
respondent will not be restrained, it will render this Pampanga.
petition moot and academic. To the mind of the Court,
since there is no other plain, speedy and adequate The purpose of injunction is to prevent injury and
remedy available to the petitioner in the ordinary course damage from being incurred, otherwise, it will render any
of law except this application for a temporary restraining judgment in this case ineffectual.
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to stop the
auction sale and/or to enjoin and/or restrain respondents
“As an extraordinary remedy, injunction is calculated to
from levying, annotating the levy, seizing, confiscating,
preserve or maintain the status quo of things and is
garnishing, selling and disposing at public auction the
generally availed of to prevent actual or threatened acts,
properties of petitioner, or otherwise exercising other
until the merits of the case can be heard” (Cagayan de
administrative remedies against the petitioner and its
Oro City Landless Res. Assn. Inc. vs. CA, 254 SCRA 220)
307
It appearing that the two essential requisites of an the properties of AEC can be levied. In the meantime,
injunction have been satisfied, as there exists a right on AEC’s rights of ownership and possession must be
the part of the petitioner to be protected, its right[s] of respected. Angeles City vs. Angeles Electric Corporation,
ownership and possession of the properties subject of the G.R. No. 166134, June 29, 2010
auction sale, and that the acts (conducting an auction
sale) against which the injunction is to be directed, are
violative of the said rights of the petitioner, the Court
has no other recourse but to grant the prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction considering
that if the respondent will not be restrained from doing
the acts complained of, it will preempt the Court from Jurisdiction; hierarchy of courts.
properly adjudicating on the merits the various issues
between the parties, and will render moot and academic
the proceedings before this court. Moreover, it is settled that the normal rule is to strictly
follow the hierarchy of courts, thus:
As a rule, the issuance of a preliminary injunction rests

entirely within the discretion of the court taking The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must so
cognizance of the case and will not be interfered with, remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions
except where there is grave abuse of discretion assigned to it by the fundamental charter and
committed by the court. For grave abuse of discretion to immemorial tradition. A direct invocation of this Court’s
prosper as a ground for certiorari, it must be original jurisdiction to issue said writs should be allowed
demonstrated that the lower court or tribunal has only when there are special and important reasons
exercised its power in an arbitrary and despotic manner, therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be This is established policy—a policy that is necessary to
patent and gross as would amount to an evasion or to a prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and
unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act attention which are better devoted to those matters
in contemplation of law. In other words, mere abuse of within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further
discretion is not enough. over-crowding of the Court’s docket.
Guided by the foregoing, we find no grave abuse of PAGCOR represented by Atty. Carlos R. Bautista, Jr. vs.
discretion on the part of the RTC in issuing the writ of Fontana Development Corporation, G.R. No. 187972,
injunction. Petitioner, who has the burden to prove grave June 29, 2010
abuse of discretion, failed to show that the RTC acted
arbitrarily and capriciously in granting the injunction. Jurisdiction; Regional trial court has jurisdiction
Neither was petitioner able to prove that the injunction over complaint for injunction against PAGCOR.
was issued without any factual or legal justification. In
assailing the injunction, petitioner primarily relied on the
prohibition on the issuance of a writ of injunction to On the threshold issue of jurisdiction, PAGCOR insists
restrain the collection of taxes. But as we have already lack of jurisdiction of the trial court over the complaint of
said, there is no such prohibition in the case of local FDC and, hence, all the processes and writs issued by
taxes. Records also show that before issuing the said court are null and void. It posits that the proper
injunction, the RTC conducted a hearing where both legal remedy of FDC is not through an injunction
parties were given the opportunity to present their complaint before the trial court, but a petition for review
arguments. During the hearing, AEC was able to show on purely questions of law before this Court or an appeal
that it had a clear and unmistakable legal right over the to the Office of the President. It heavily relies on Sec. 9
properties to be levied and that it would sustain serious of PD 1869, which states that PAGCOR “shall exercise all
damage if these properties, which are vital to its the powers, authority and responsibilities vested in the
operations, would be sold at public auction. As we see it Securities and Exchange Commission,” and Sec. 6 of PD
then, the writ of injunction was properly issued. 902-A which provides for a petition for review to this
Court from SEC’s decisions. We are not convinced.
A final note. While we are mindful that the damage to a

taxpayer’s property rights generally takes a back seat to Jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the
the paramount need of the State for funds to sustain action is a matter of law and is conferred only by the
governmental functions, this rule finds no application in Constitution or by statute. It is settled that jurisdiction is
the instant case where the disputed tax assessment is determined by the allegations of the complaint or the
not yet due and demandable. Considering that AEC was petition irrespective of whether plaintiff is entitled to all
able to appeal the denial of its protest within the period or some of the claims or reliefs asserted. A perusal of
prescribed under Section 195 of the LGC, the collection of FDC’s complaint in Civil Case No. 08-120338 easily
business taxes through levy at this time is, to our mind, reveals that it is an action for injunction based on an
hasty, if not premature. The issues of tax exemption, alleged violation of contract—the MOA between the
double taxation, prescription and the alleged retroactive parties—which granted FDC the right to operate a casino
application of the RRCAC, raised in the protest of AEC inside the Clark Special Economic Zone (CSEZ). As such,
now pending with the RTC, must first be resolved before the Manila RTC has jurisdiction over FDC’s complaint
anchored on Sec. 19, Chapter II of BP 129, which grants
308
the RTCs original exclusive jurisdiction over “all civil to the principle of hierarchy of courts on the grounds of
actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable expediency and the importance of the issues involved.
of pecuniary estimation.” Evidently, a complaint for More importantly, we categorically ruled in PAGCOR v.
injunction or breach of contract is incapable of pecuniary Viola that cases involving revocation of a license falls
estimation. Moreover, the RTCs shall exercise original within the original jurisdiction of the RTC, thus:
jurisdiction “in the issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus
Having settled that PAGCOR’s revocation of
and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their
MONDRAGON’s authority to operate a casino was not an
respective regions” under Sec. 21 of BP 129.
exercise of quasi-judicial powers then it follows that the
case was properly filed before the Regional Trial Court.
PAGCOR’s claim of jurisdiction of this Court over the Hence, as the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction to take
complaint in question heavily leans on Sec. 9 of PD 1869, cognizance of the case, petitioner’s contention that the
PAGCOR’s Charter, which provides: temporary restraining order and the preliminary
injunction by the trial court are void must fail. PAGCOR
represented by Atty. Carlos R. Bautista, Jr. vs. Fontana
Section 9. Regulatory Power.—The Corporation shall
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 187972, June 29,
maintain a Registry of the affiliated entities and shall
2010
exercise all the powers, authority and responsibilities
vested in the Securities and Exchange Commission over
such affiliated entities x x x. Moreover,although the instant petition is styled as a
Petition for Certiorari, in essence, it seeks the declaration
by this Court of the unconstitutionality or illegality of the
In view of the vestment to PAGCOR by PD 1869 of the
questioned DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, and
powers, authority, and responsibilities of the SEC,
Memorandum No. 88. It, thus, partakes of the nature of
PAGCOR concludes that any decision or ruling it renders
a Petition for Declaratory Relief over which this Court has
has to be brought to this Court via a petition for review
only appellate, not original, jurisdiction. Section 5,
based on Sec. 6 of SEC’s Charter, PD 902-A, which
Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:
reads:
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following

The aggrieved party may appeal the order, decision or
powers:
ruling of the Commission sitting en banc to the Supreme
Court by petition for review in accordance with the
pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court. (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
This reasoning is flawed. A scrutiny of PD 1869
warranto, and habeas corpus.
demonstrates that it has no procedure for the appeal or
review of PAGCOR’s decisions or orders. Neither does it
make any express reference to an exclusive remedy that (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
can be brought before this Court. Even a review of PD appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may
1869’s predecessor laws—PD 1067-A, 1067-B, 1067-C, provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
1399, and 1632, as well as its amendatory law, RA
9487––do not confer original jurisdiction to this Court to
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
review PAGCOR’s actions and decisions. PAGCOR,
any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
however, insists that this Court has jurisdiction over an
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
action contesting its exercise of licensing and regulatory
ordinance, or regulation is in question. (Emphasis
powers, i.e., the revocation of FDC’s license to operate a
supplied.)
casino in CSEZ and that FDC’s complaint is a case of first
impression. PAGCOR’s argument is bereft of merit.
With that, this Petition must necessarily fail because this
Court does not have original jurisdiction over a Petition
A similar factual setting was presented by PAGCOR in
for Declaratory Relief even if only questions of law are
PAGCOR v. Viola, which involves the controversy between
involved. Chamber of Real Estate and Builders
PAGCOR and the Mimosa Regency Casino that operated
Associations, Inc. vs. The Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
inside the CSEZ. Mimosa filed a case for injunction and
G.R. No. 183409, June 18, 2010
prayed for the issuance of a TRO before the Pampanga
RTC when PAGCOR decided to close down the casino. In
this case, PAGCOR likewise assailed the jurisdiction of the
trial court by claiming that an original action before the
CA is the proper remedy. In PAGCOR v. Viola, we ruled
that PAGCOR, in the exercise of its licensing and
regulatory powers, has no quasi-judicial functions, as
Secs. 8 and 9 of PD 1869 do not grant quasi-judicial
powers to PAGCOR. As such, direct resort to this Court is
not allowed. While we allowed said recourse in Del Mar
v. PAGCOR and Jaworski v. PAGCOR, that is an exception
309
Jurisdiction; Supreme Court may resolve complaint Furthermore, the RTC likewise erred in dismissing
on the merits rather than remand to trial court, petitioner’s Omnibus Motion for allegedly failing to
where justice and equity require it. comply with the three-day notice requirement. The RTC
found that the notice of hearing of petitioner’s Omnibus
Motion which was set to be heard on 12 November 2004
While it is the trial court that has original jurisdiction
was received by respondent on 9 November 2004. The
over FDC’s complaint, PAGCOR nevertheless prays that
RTC held that the service of the notice of hearing was
this Court “suspend the Rules and directly decide the
one day short of the prescribed minimum three days
entire controversy in this proceeding instead of
notice. We disagree. Section 4 of Rule 15 provides that
remanding the same to the trial court.”
“[e]very written motion required to be heard and the
notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a
In the exercise of its broad discretionary power, we will manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at
resolve FDC’s complaint on the merits, instead of least three (3) days before the date of the hearing,
remanding it to the trial court for further proceedings. unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on
Moreover, the dispute between the parties involves a shorter notice.” Thus, the date of the hearing should be
purely question of law—whether the license or MOA was at least three days after receipt of the notice of hearing
issued pursuant to PD 1869 or Sec. 5, EO 80, in relation by the other parties. In this case, the petitioner’s
to RA 7227, which does not necessitate a full blown trial. Omnibus Motion was set for hearing on 12 November
Demands of substantial justice and equity require the 2004. Thus, to comply with the notice requirement,
relaxation of procedural rules. In Lianga Bay v. Court of respondent should have received the notice of the
Appeals, the Court held: hearing at least three days before 12 November 2004,
which is 9 November 2004. Clearly, respondent’s receipt
Remand of case to the lower court for further reception of on 9 November 2004 (Tuesday) of the notice of hearing
evidence is not necessary where the court is in a position of the Omnibus Motion which was set to be heard on 12
to resolve the dispute based on the records before it. On November 2004 (Friday), was within the required
many occasions, the Court, in the public interest and the minimum three-days’ notice. As explained by Retired
expeditious administration of justice, has resolved actions Justice Jose Y. Feria in his book, Civil Procedure
on the merits instead of remanding them to the trial Annotated, when the notice of hearing should be given:
court for further proceedings, such as where the ends of
justice would not be subserved by the remand of the The ordinary motion day is Friday. Hence, the notice
case or when public interest demands an early disposition should be served by Tuesday at the latest, in order that
of the case or where the trial court had already received the requirement of the three days may be complied with.
all the evidence of the parties. PAGCOR represented by
Atty. Carlos R. Bautista, Jr. vs. Fontana Development
If notice be given by ordinary mail, it should be actually
Corporation, G.R. No. 187972, June 29, 2010
received by Tuesday, or if not claimed from the post
office, the date of the first notice of the postmaster
should be at least five (5) days before Tuesday.
(Emphasis supplied)
Motions; notice of hearing not required for non-
litigious motions Fausto R. Preysler vs. Manila South Coast Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 171872, June 28, 2010
. As to petitioner’s claim that the subject motion is
defective for lack of a notice of hearing, the CA correctly
ruled that the subject motion is a non-litigious motion.
While, as a general rule, all written motions should be set
Motions; Three-day notice rule; substantial
for hearing under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of
compliance.
Court, excepted from this rule are non-litigious motions
or motions which may be acted upon by the court without
prejudicing the rights of the adverse party. As already In upholding the RTC Order denying petitioner’s Motion
discussed, respondent is entitled to the issuance of the for Reconsideration, the Court of Appeals relied mainly on
final certificate of sale as a matter of right and petitioner petitioner’s alleged violation of the notice requirements
is powerless to oppose the same. Hence, the subject under Sections 4, 5, and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court
motion falls under the class of non-litigious motions. At which read:
any rate, the trial court gave petitioner an opportunity to
oppose the subject motion as in fact he filed a Comment/
SECTION 4. Hearing of motion. – Except for motions
Opposition on March 1, 2004 before the trial court.
which the court may act upon without prejudicing the
Petitioner cannot, therefore, validly claim that he was
rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be
denied his day in court. Jose delaReyes vs. Josephine
set for hearing by the applicant.
Anne B. Ramnani, G.R. No. 169135. June 18, 2010
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice

Motions; Three-day notice rule.
of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner
as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three
310
(3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for meaningfully oppose or controvert the grounds upon
good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice. which it is based. x x x
SECTION 5. Notice of hearing. – The notice of hearing A close perusal of the records reveal that the trial
shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall court gave petitioner ten days within which to comment
specify the time and date of the hearing which must not on respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner
be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion. filed its Opposition to the Motion on November 26, 2001.
In its 14-page Opposition, it not only pointed out that the
Motion was defective for not containing a notice of
SECTION 6. Proof of service necessary. – No written
hearing and should then be dismissed outright by the
motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court
court; it also ventilated its substantial arguments against
without proof of service thereof.
the merits of the Motion and of the Supplemental Motion
for Reconsideration. Notably, its arguments were recited
The three-day notice rule is not absolute. A liberal at length in the trial court’s January 8, 2002 Joint
construction of the procedural rules is proper where the Resolution. Nevertheless, the court proceeded to deny
lapse in the literal observance of a rule of procedure has the Motions on the sole ground that they did not contain
not prejudiced the adverse party and has not deprived any notice of hearing.
the court of its authority. Indeed, Section 6, Rule 1 of
the Rules of Court provides that the Rules should be
The requirement of notice of time and hearing in the
liberally construed in order to promote their objective of
pleading filed by a party is necessary only to apprise the
securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
other of the actions of the former. Under the
every action and proceeding. Rules of procedure are tools
circumstances of the present case, the purpose of a
designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, and
notice of hearing was served. (Emphasis supplied)
courts must avoid their strict and rigid application which
would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather
than promote substantial justice. In Somera Vda. De In this case, the Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner
Navarro v. Navarro, the Court held that there was failed to comply with the three-day notice rule. However,
substantial compliance of the rule on notice of motions the Court of Appeals overlooked the fact that although
even if the first notice was irregular because no respondent received petitioner’s Motion for
prejudice was caused the adverse party since the motion Reconsideration six days after the scheduled hearing on
was not considered and resolved until after several 26 February 2004, the said hearing was reset three (3)
postponements of which the parties were duly notified. times with due notice to the parties. Thus, it was only on
Likewise, in Jehan Shipping Corporation v. National Food 6 August 2004, or more than five months after
Authority, the Court held that despite the lack of notice of respondent received a copy of petitioner’s Motion for
hearing in a Motion for Reconsideration, there was Reconsideration, that the motion was heard by the RTC.
substantial compliance with the requirements of due Clearly, respondent had more than sufficient time to
process where the adverse party actually had the oppose petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. In fact,
opportunity to be heard and had filed pleadings in respondent did oppose the motion when it filed its
opposition to the motion. The Court held: Motion to Dismiss dated 9 August 2004. In view of the
circumstances of this case, we find that there was
substantial compliance with procedural due process.
This Court has indeed held time and again, that under
Instead of dismissing petitioner’s Motion for
Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court,
Reconsideration based merely on the alleged procedural
mandatory is the requirement in a motion, which is
lapses, the RTC should have resolved the motion based
rendered defective by failure to comply with the
on the merits. Fausto R. Preysler vs. Manila South Coast
requirement. As a rule, a motion without a notice of
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 171872, June 28,
hearing is considered pro forma and does not affect the
2010
reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the
requisite pleading.
Parties; indispensable party.
As an integral component of the procedural due process,
the three-day notice required by the Rules is not Moreover, an indispensable party is one whose interest
intended for the benefit of the movant. Rather, the in the controversy is such that a final decree would
requirement is for the purpose of avoiding surprises that necessarily affect his/her right, so that the court cannot
may be sprung upon the adverse party, who must be proceed without their presence. In contrast, a necessary
given time to study and meet the arguments in the party is one whose presence in the proceedings is
motion before a resolution of the court. Principles of necessary to adjudicate the whole controversy but whose
natural justice demand that the right of a party should interest is separable such that a final decree can be made
not be affected without giving it an opportunity to be in their absence without affecting them. In the instant
heard. case, the action for prohibition seeks to enjoin the city
government of Parañaque from proceeding with its
implementation of the road construction project. The
The test is the presence of opportunity to be heard, as
State is neither a necessary nor an indispensable party to
well as to have time to study the motion and
an action where no positive act shall be required from it
or where no obligation shall be imposed upon it, such as
311
in the case at bar. Neither would it be an indispensable to avail of an injunctive relief must prove that he or she
party if none of its properties shall be divested nor any of possesses a right in esse or one that is actual or
its rights infringed. Office of the City Mayor of Parañaque existing. It should not be contingent, abstract, or future
City, et al. vs. Mario D. Ebio and His Children/Heirs rights, or one which may never arise.
namely, Arturo V. Ebio, Eduardo, et al., G.R. No. 178411,
June 23, 2010
In the case at bar, respondents assert that their
predecessor-in-interest, Pedro Vitalez, had occupied and
Pleadings; repetitive filing of identical motions. possessed the subject lot as early as 1930. In 1964,
respondent Mario Ebio secured a permit from the local
government of Parañaque for the construction of their
The Court finds insufferable petitioner’s repeated filing of
family dwelling on the said lot. In 1966, Pedro executed
Motions to Dismiss raising the same ground. In the three
an affidavit of possession and occupancy allowing him to
previous Motions to Dismiss and in an omnibus motion
declare the property in his name for taxation purposes.
for reconsideration, petitioner argued that the present
Curiously, it was also in 1966 when Guaranteed Homes,
case was barred by prior judgment and that there was
Inc., the registered owner of Road Lot No. 8 (“RL 8″)
forum-shopping. Correspondingly, the issues had been
which adjoins the land occupied by the respondents,
repetitively passed upon and resolved by the court a
donated RL 8 to the local government of Parañaque.
quo. The motions were apparently filed for no other
From these findings of fact by both the trial court and the
reason than to gain time and gamble on a possible
Court of Appeals, only one conclusion can be made: that
change of opinion of the court or the judge sitting on the
for more than thirty (30) years, neither Guaranteed
case. The Motions to Dismiss were filed in a span of five
Homes, Inc. nor the local government of Parañaque in its
years, the first one having been filed on June 1, 2000
corporate or private capacity sought to register the
and the last ¾ the subject motion ¾ on February 15,
accreted portion. Undoubtedly, respondents are deemed
2005, three years after petitioner filed its answer. In
to have acquired ownership over the subject property
fact, since the first Motion to Dismiss, three judges had
through prescription. Respondents can assert such right
already sat on the case and resolved the motions. By
despite the fact that they have yet to register their title
filing these motions, petitioner had disrupted the court’s
over the said lot. It must be remembered that the
deliberation on the merits of the case. This strategy
purpose of land registration is not the acquisition of
cannot be tolerated as it will entail inevitable delay in the
lands, but only the registration of title which the
disposition of the case.
applicant already possessed over the land. Registration
was never intended as a means of acquiring ownership. A
Although the ground stated in the second Motion to decree of registration merely confirms, but does not
Dismiss was forum-shopping and the subsequent motions confer, ownership. Office of the City Mayor of Parañaque
included other grounds, nonetheless, all of these City, et al. vs. Mario D. Ebio and His Children/Heirs
motions raised a similar argument—that since the namely, Arturo V. Ebio, Eduardo, et al., G.R. No. 178411,
dismissal in the first case is already final and executory June 23, 2010
and there is no reservation made by the court in its
judgment that the dismissal is without prejudice, the
Procedural rules; liberal application not available in
filing of the second case is barred. Therefore, the
absence of explanation for non-observance of
subsequent motions, being reiterations of the first
rules.
motion, technically partook of the nature of a motion for
reconsideration of the interlocutory order denying the
first Motion to Dismiss. This is not the first time that the Petitioners ask for leniency from this Court, asking for a
Court disallowed the repetitive filing of identical motions liberal application of the rules. However, it is quite
against an interlocutory order. In a parallel case, San apparent that petitioners offer no explanation as to why
Juan, Jr. v. Cruz, the Court acknowledged that there is they did not appeal under Rule 45. Petitioners’ Petition,
actually no rule prohibiting the filing of a pro forma Reply and Memorandum are all silent on this point,
motion against an interlocutory order as the prohibition probably hoping that the same would go unnoticed by
applies only to a final resolution or order of the court. respondents and by this Court. The attempt to skirt away
The Court held, nonetheless, that a second motion can be from the fact that the 15-day period to file an appeal
denied on the ground that it is merely a rehash or a mere under Rule 45 had already lapsed is made even more
reiteration of the grounds and arguments already passed apparent when even after the same was raised in issue
upon and resolved by the court. Philippine National Bank by respondents in their Comment and memorandum,
vs. The Intestate Estate of Francisco de Guzman, petitioners did not squarely address the same, nor offer
represented by His Heirs: Rosalia, Eleuterio, Joe, any explanation for such omission. In Jan-Dec
Ernesto, Harison, all surnamed De Guzman, and Gina De Construction Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, this Court
Guzman, G.R. No. 182507, June 16, 2010 explained why a liberal application of the rules cannot be
made to a petition which offers no explanation for the
non-observance of the rules, to wit:
Preliminary injunction; right in esse.
While there are instances where the extraordinary

We also find that the character of possession and
remedy of certiorari may be resorted to despite the
ownership by the respondents over the contested land
availability of an appeal, the long line of decisions
entitles them to the avails of the action. A right in esse
denying the special civil action for certiorari, either before
means a clear and unmistakable right. A party seeking
312
appeal was availed of or in instances where the appeal counsel of record was already dead. Her new counsel
period had lapsed, far outnumbers the instances where could only file the appeal four days after the prescribed
certiorari was given due course. The few significant reglementary period was over. In Republic vs. Court of
exceptions are: (a) when public welfare and the Appeals, 83 SCRA 453, we allowed the perfection of an
advancement of public policy dictate; (b) when the appeal by the Republic despite the delay of six days to
broader interests of justice so require; (c) when the writs prevent a gross miscarriage of justice since the Republic
issued are null; and (d) when the questioned order stood to lose hundreds of hectares of land alreadytitled in
amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. its name and had since then been devoted for
educational purposes. In Olacao v. National Labor
Relations Commission, 177 SCRA 38, 41, we accepted a
In the present case, petitioner has not provided any
tardy appeal considering that the subject matter in issue
cogent explanation that would absolve it of the
had theretofore been judicially settled, with finality, in
consequences of its failure to abide by the Rules.
another case. The dismissal of the appeal would have had
Apropos on this point are the Court’s observations in
the effect of the appellant being ordered twice to make
Duremdes v. Duremdes:
the same reparation to the appellee.
Although it has been said time and again that litigation is

The case at bench, given its own settings, cannot come
not a game of technicalities, that every case must be
close to those extraordinary circumstances that have
prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure
indeed justified a deviation from an otherwise stringent
so that issues may be properly presented and justly
rule. Let it not be overlooked that the timeliness of an
resolved, this does not mean that procedural rules may
appeal is a jurisdictional caveat that not even this Court
altogether be disregarded. Rules of procedure must be
can trifle with.
faithfully followed except only when, for persuasive
reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an
injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with Withal, this Court must stress that the bare invocation of
the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal “the interest of substantial justice” is not a magic wand
application of the rules of procedure should be an effort that will automatically compel this Court to suspend
on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately procedural rules. Indeed, in no uncertain terms, this
explain his failure to abide by the rules. (Emphasis Court has held that the said Rules may be relaxed only in
supplied.) ”exceptionally meritorious cases.” Petitioners have failed
to show that this case is one of the exceptions. Artistica
Ceramica, Inc., Ceralinda, Inc. Cyber Ceramics, Inc. and
Similarly, in Republic v. Court of Appeals, this Court did
Millennium, Inc. vs. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner’s
not apply a liberal construction of the rules for failure of
Association, Inc. and Bukluran Purok II Residents’
petitioner to offer an explanation as to why the petition
Association, G.R. No. 167583-84, June 16, 2010
was filed beyond the reglementary period provided for
under Rule 45, to wit:
Admittedly, this Court, in accordance with the liberal

spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of Quo warranto; timeliness of petition
justice, has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari
as having been filed under Rule 45, especially if filed
. On the first issue, the Court finds that public
within the reglementary period for filing a petition for
respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in
review.5 In this case, however, we find no reason to
considering petitioner’s Petition for Quo Warranto filed
justify a liberal application of the rules. The petition was
out of time. Its counting of the 10-day reglementary
filed well beyond the reglementary period for filing a
period provided in its Rules [i.e., Rule 17 of the 2004
petition for review without any reason therefor.
Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal]
from the issuance of NBC Resolution No. 07-60 on July 9,
2007 is erroneous.
While this Court has in the past allowed the To be sure, while NBC Resolution No. 07-60 partially
relaxing of the rules on the reglementary periods of proclaimed CIBAC as a winner in the May, 2007 elections,
appeal, it must be stressed that there must be a along with other party-list organizations, it was by no
showing of an extraordinary or exceptional measure a proclamation of private respondent himself as
circumstance to warrant such liberality. Bank of required by Section 13 of RA No. 7941.
America, NT & SA v. Gerochi, Jr. so instructs:
Section 13.How Party-List Representatives are Chosen.
True, in few highly exceptional instances, we have Party-list representatives shall be proclaimed by the
allowed the relaxing of the rules on the application of the COMELEC based on the list of names submitted by the
reglementary periods of appeal. We cite a few typical respective parties, organizations, or coalitions to the
examples: In Ramos vs. Bagasao, 96 SCRA 395, we COMELEC according to their ranking in said list.
excused the delay of four days in the filing of a notice of
appeal because the questioned decision of the trial court
was served upon appellant Ramos at a time when her
313
AT ALL EVENTS, this Court set aside NBC Resolution No. 2. Subject matter in the first and second cases.
07-60 in Barangay Association for National Advancement
and Transparency v.COMELEC after revisiting the formula
Conclusiveness of judgment does not require identity of
for allocation of additional seats to party-list
the causes of action for it to work. If a particular point or
organizations. Considering, however, that the records do
question is in issue in the second action, and the
not disclose the exact date of private respondent’s
judgment will depend on the determination of that
proclamation, the Court overlooks the technicality of
particular point or question, a former judgment between
timeliness and rules on the merits. Alternatively, since
the same parties will be final and conclusive in the
petitioner’s challenge goes into private respondent’s
second if that same point or question was in issue and
qualifications, it may be filed at anytime during his term.
adjudicated in the first suit; but the adjudication of an
issue in the first case is not conclusive of an entirely
Qualifications for public office are continuing different and distinct issue arising in the second. Hence,
requirements and must be possessed not only at the time facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former
of appointment or election or assumption of office but suit cannot again be raised in any future case between
during the officer’s entire tenure. Once any of the the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a
required qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably different claim or cause of action.
challenged.
Conclusiveness of judgment proscribes the relitigation in
Milagros E. Amores vs. House of Representatives a second case of a fact or question already settled in a
Electoral Tribunal and Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, G.R. previous case. The second case, however, may still
No. 189600, June 29, 2010 proceed provided that it will no longer touch on the same
fact or question adjudged in the first case.
Conclusiveness of judgment requires only the identity of
issues and parties, but not of causes of action. The
instant petition is denied on the ground of res judicata
Res judicata; conclusiveness of judgment. under the concept of conclusiveness of judgment. Ley
Construction & Development Corporation, et al. vs.
The rule is that when material facts or questions, which Philippine Commercial & International Bank, et al., G.R.
were in issue in a former action and were admitted or No. 160841, June 23, 2010
judicially determined, are conclusively settled by a
judgment rendered therein, such facts or questions Res judicata; res judicata disregarded if rigid
become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a application would involve sacrifice of justice to
subsequent action between the same parties or their technicality.
privies regardless of the form of the latter. Jurisprudence
provides that the concept of res judicata embraces two
Nonetheless, bearing in mind the circumstances obtaining
aspects. The first, known as “bar by prior judgment,” or
in this case, we hold that res judicata should not be
“estoppel by verdict,” is the effect of a judgment as a bar
applied as it would not serve the interest of substantial
to the prosecution of a second action upon the same
justice. Proceedings on the case had already been
claim, demand or cause of action. The second, known as
delayed by petitioner, and it is only fair that the case be
“conclusiveness of judgment,” otherwise known as the
allowed to proceed and be resolved on the merits.
rule of auter action pendent, ordains that issues actually
Indeed, we have held that res judicata is to be
and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be
disregarded if its rigid application would involve the
raised in any future case between the same parties
sacrifice of justice to technicality, particularly in this case
involving a different cause of action. The bar by prior
where there was actually no determination of the
judgment requires the following elements to be present
substantive issues in the first case and what is at stake is
for it to operate:
respondents’ home. Philippine National Bank vs. The
Intestate Estate of Francisco de Guzman, represented by
(1) A former final judgment that was rendered on the His Heirs: Rosalia, Eleuterio, Joe, Ernesto, Harison, all
merits; surnamed De Guzman, and Gina De Guzman, G.R. No.
182507, June 16, 2010
(2) The court in the former judgment had jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties; and,
(3) Identity of parties, subject matter and cause of Special Proceedings

action between the first and second actions.
Habeas corpus; nature, objective, and requirements
In contrast, the elements of conclusiveness of judgment of remedy.
are:
Essentially, a writ of habeascorpus applies to all cases of
1. Identity of parties; and illegal confinement or detention by which any person is
deprived of his liberty. Rule 102 of the 1997 Rules of
314
Court sets forth the procedure to be followed in the under some form of illegal restraint. If an individual’s
issuance of the writ. The Rule provides: liberty is restrained via some legal process, the writ of
habeas corpus is unavailing. Fundamentally, in order to
justify the grant of the writ ofhabeas corpus, the restraint
RULE 102 HABEAS CORPUS
of liberty must be in the nature of an illegal and
involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. In general,
SECTION 1. To what habeas corpus extends. – Except as the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine
otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas whether or not a particular person is legally held. A
corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas
detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, corpus, in fact, is an actual and effective, and not merely
orby which therightful custody of any person is withheld nominal or moral, illegal restraint of liberty. The writ of
from the person entitled thereto. habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and
effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful
SEC 2. Who may grant the writ. – The writ of habeas restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of
corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, or any personal freedom. A prime specification of an application
member thereof, on any day and at any time, or by the for a writ of habeas corpus is restraint of liberty. The
Court of Appeals or any member thereof in the instances essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas
authorized by law, and if so granted it shall be corpusis to inquire into all manner of involuntary
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines, and may be restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to
made returnable before the court or any member thereof, relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is
or before a Court of First Instance, or any judge thereof illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of
for hearing and decision on the merits. It may also be action is sufficient. In passing upon a petition for habeas
granted by a Court of First Instance, or a judge thereof, corpus, a court or judge must first inquire into whether
on any day and at any time, and returnable before the petitioner is being restrained of his liberty. If he is
himself, enforceable only within his judicial district. not, the writ will be refused. Inquiry into the cause of
detention will proceed only where such restraint exists.
If the alleged cause is thereafter found to be unlawful,
xxxx then the writ should be granted and the petitioner
discharged. Needless to state, if otherwise, again the
SEC. 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. writ will be refused. While habeas corpus is a writ of
– If it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of right, it will not issue as a matter of course or as a mere
his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process perfunctory operation on the filing of the petition. Judicial
issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or discretion is called for in its issuance and it must be clear
order of a court of record, and that the court or judge to the judge to whom the petition is presented that,
had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the prima facie, the petitioner is entitled to the writ. It is
judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be only if the court is satisfied that a person is being
allowed; or if the jurisdiction appears after the writ is unlawfully restrained of his liberty will the petition for
allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of habeas corpus be granted. If the respondents are not
any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or detaining or restraining the applicant or the person in
order. Nor shall anything in this rule be held to authorize whose behalf the petition is filed, the petition should be
the discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an dismissed. Nurhida Juhuri Ampatuan vs. Judge Virgilio V.
offense in the Philippines, or of a person suffering Macaraig, RTC, Manila Br., et al., G.R. No. 182497, June
imprisonment under lawful judgment. 29, 2010
The objective of the writ is to determine whether the

confinement or detention is valid or lawful. If it is, the
writ cannot be issued. What is to be inquired into is the
legality of a person’s detention as of, at the earliest, the
filing of the application for the writ of habeas corpus, for
even if the detention is at its inception illegal, it may, by Habeas corpus; restrictive custody of policeman by
reason of some supervening events, such as the PNP is not the detention or restraint contemplated
instances mentioned in Section 4 of Rule 102, be no by habeas corpus.
longer illegal at the time of the filing of the application.
Petitioner contends that when PO1 Ampatuan was placed
Plainly stated, the writ obtains immediate relief for those under the custody of respondents on 20 April 2008, there
who have been illegally confined or imprisoned without was yet no administrative case filed against him. When
sufficient cause. The writ, however, should not be issued the release order of Chief Inquest Prosecutor Nelson
when the custody over the person is by virtue of a Salva was served upon respondents on 21 April 2008,
judicial process or a valid judgment. there was still no administrative case filed against PO1
Ampatuan. She also argues that the arrest on 14 April
2008 of PO1 Ampatuan in Shariff Kabunsuan was illegal
The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, because there was no warrant of arrest issued by any
therefore, is that the individual seeking such relief is judicial authority against him. On the other hand,
illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or placed respondents, in their Comment filed by the Office of the
315
Solicitor General, argue that the trial court correctly Nurhida Juhuri Ampatuan vs. Judge Virgilio V. Macaraig,
denied the subject petition. Respondents maintain that RTC, Manila Br., et al., G.R. No. 182497, June 29, 2010
while the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila had
recommended that PO1 Ampatuan be released from
custody, said recommendation was made only insofar as
the criminal action for murder that was filed with the
prosecution office is concerned and is without prejudice Settlement of estates; appointment of
to other legal grounds for which he may be held under administrator; order of preference in the Rules is
custody. In the instant case, PO1 Ampatuan is also not absolute.
facing administrative charges for Grave Misconduct.
They cited the case of Manalo v. Calderon, where this Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court lists the order of
Court held that a petition for habeascorpus will be given preference in the appointment of an administrator of an
due course only if it shows that petitioner is being estate:
detained or restrained of his liberty unlawfully, but a
restrictive custody and monitoring of movements or
whereabouts of police officers under investigation by SEC. 6.When and to whom letters of administration
their superiors is not a form of illegal detention or granted. – If no executor is named in the will, or the
restraint of liberty. The Solicitor General is correct. executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust,
or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate,
administration shall be granted:
In this case, PO1 Ampatuan has been placed under
Restrictive Custody. Republic Act No. 6975 (also known
as the Department of Interior and Local Government Act (a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may
of 1990), as amended by Republic Act No. 8551 (also be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court,
known as the Philippine National Police Reform and or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or
Reorganization Act of 1998), clearly provides that next of kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and
members of the police force are subject to the willing to serve;
administrative disciplinary machinery of the PNP. Section
41(b) of the said law enumerates the disciplinary actions, (b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may
including restrictive custody that may be imposed by duly be, or next of kin, or the person selected by them, be
designated supervisors and equivalent officers of the PNP incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or
as a matter of internal discipline. The pertinent provision next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days after the death
of Republic Act No. 8551 reads: of the person to apply for administration or to request
that administration be granted to some other person, it
Sec. 52 – x x x. may be granted to one or more of the principal creditors,
if competent and willing to serve;
xxxx
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing
to serve, it may be granted to such other person as the
4. The Chief of the PNP shall have the power to impose court may select.
the disciplinary punishment of dismissal from the service;
suspension or forfeiture of salary; or any combination
thereof for a period not exceeding one hundred eighty However, the order of preference is not absolute for it
(180) days. Provided, further, That the Chief of the PNP depends on the attendant facts and circumstances of
shall have the authority to place police personnel under each case. Jurisprudence has long held that the selection
restrictive custody during the pendency of a grave of an administrator lies in the sound discretion of the trial
administrative case filed against him or even after the court. In the main, the attendant facts and
filing of a criminal complaint, grave in nature, against circumstances of this case necessitate, at the least, a
such police personnel. [Emphasis ours]. joint administration by both respondent and Emilio III of
their grandmother’s, Cristina’s, estate. In the case of Uy
v. Court of Appeals, we upheld the appointment by the
Given that PO1 Ampatuan has been placed under trial court of a co-administration between the decedent’s
restrictive custody, such constitutes a valid argument for son and the decedent’s brother, who was likewise a
his continued detention. This Court has held that a creditor of the decedent’s estate. In the same vein, we
restrictive custody and monitoring of movements or declared in Delgado Vda. de De la Rosa v. Heirs of
whereabouts of police officers under investigation by Marciana Rustia Vda. de Damian that:
their superiors is not a form of illegal detention or
restraint of liberty. Restrictive custody is, at best,
nominal restraint which is beyond the ambit of [i]n the appointment of an administrator, the principal
habeascorpus. It is neither actual nor effective restraint consideration is the interest in the estate of the one to be
that would call for the grant of the remedy prayed for. It appointed. The order of preference does not rule out the
is a permissible precautionary measure to assure the PNP appointment of co-administrators, specially in cases
authorities that the police officers concerned are always where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or
accounted for. Since the basis of PO1 Ampatuan’s factions be represented in the management of the
restrictive custody is the administrative case filed against estates, a situation which obtains here.
him, his remedy is within such administrative process.
316
Similarly, the subject estate in this case calls to the In the matter of the Intestate Estate of Cristina
succession other putative heirs, including another Aguinaldo-Suntayl Emilio A.M. Suntay III vs.
illegitimate grandchild of Cristina and Federico, Nenita Isabel Cojuanco-Suntay, G.R. No. 183053, June 16,
Tañedo, but who was likewise adopted by Federico, and 2010
the two (2) siblings of respondent Isabel, Margarita and
Emilio II. In all, considering the conflicting claims of the
putative heirs, and the unliquidated conjugal partnership
of Cristina and Federico which forms part of their
respective estates, we are impelled to move in only one Other Proceedings
direction, i.e., joint administration of the subject estate.
In the matter of the Intestate Estate of Cristina Appeals; period to appeal order in election case is
Aguinaldo-Suntayl Emilio A.M. Suntay III vs. Isabel mandatory and jurisdictional
Cojuanco-Suntay, G.R. No. 183053, June 16, 2010
Section 8 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC provides that:

Settlement of estates; distribution of shares in
estate; where premature.
Section 8. Appeal. – An aggrieved party may appeal the
decision to the Commission on Elections within five days
Indeed, the factual antecedents of this case accurately after promulgation by filing a notice of appeal with the
reflect the basis of intestate succession, i.e., love first court that rendered the decision with copy served on the
descends, for the decedent, Cristina, did not distinguish adverse counsel or party if not represented by counsel
between her legitimate and illegitimate grandchildren.
Neither did her husband, Federico, who, in fact, legally
raised the status of Emilio III from an illegitimate Although Castillo had received the November 21, 2008
grandchild to that of a legitimate child. The peculiar order of the RTC on December 15, 2008, she filed her
circumstances of this case, painstakingly pointed out by notice of appeal only on December 23, 2008, or eight
counsel for petitioner, overthrow the legal presumption in days after her receipt of the decision. Her appeal was
Article 992 of the Civil Code that there exist animosity properly dismissed for being too late under the
and antagonism between legitimate and illegitimate aforequoted rule of the COMELEC. Castillo now insists
descendants of a deceased. that her appeal should not be dismissed, because she
claims that the five-day reglementary period was a mere
technicality, implying that such period was but a trivial
Nonetheless, it must be pointed out that judicial restraint guideline to be ignored or brushed aside at will.
impels us to refrain from making a final declaration of
heirship and distributing the presumptive shares of the
parties in the estates of Cristina and Federico, Castillo’s insistence is unacceptable. The period of appeal
considering that the question on who will administer the and the perfection of appeal are not mere technicalities
properties of the long deceased couple has yet to be to be so lightly regarded, for they are essential to the
settled. Our holding in Capistrano v. Nadurata on the finality of judgments, a notion underlying the
same issue remains good law: stability of our judicial system. A greater reason to
adhere to this notion exists herein, for the short period of
five days as the period to appeal recognizes the
[T]he declaration of heirs made by the lower court is essentiality of time in election protests, in order that the
premature, although the evidence sufficiently shows who will of the electorate is ascertained as soon as possible so
are entitled to succeed the deceased. The estate had that the winning candidate is not deprived of the right to
hardly been judicially opened, and the proceeding has assume office, and so that any doubt that can cloud the
not as yet reached the stage of distribution of the estate incumbency of the truly deserving winning candidate is
which must come after the inheritance is liquidated. quickly removed. Contrary to Castillo’s posture, we
cannot also presume the timeliness of her appeal from
Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court does not depart the fact that the RTC gave due course to her appeal by
from the foregoing admonition: its elevating the protest to the COMELEC. The
presumption of timeliness would not arise if her appeal
was actually tardy. It is not trite to observe, finally, that
Sec. 1.When order for distribution of residue is made. – x
Castillo’s tardy appeal resulted in the finality of the RTC’s
x x. If there is a controversy before the court as to who
dismissal even before January 30, 2002. This result
are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the
provides an additional reason to warrant the assailed
distributive shares to which each person is entitled under
actions of the COMELEC in dismissing her appeal.
the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in
Accordingly, the Court finds that the COMELEC’s assailed
ordinary cases.
actions were appropriate and lawful, not tainted by either
arbitrariness or whimsicality. Minerva Gomez-Castillo vs.
No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 187231, June
obligations above mentioned has been made or provided 22, 2010
for, unless the distributees, or any of them, give a bond,
in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the
payment of said obligations within such time as the court
directs.
317
petitions for certiorari and for mandamus against the

COMELEC. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. vs. Commission on
Elections, et al./Luis K. Lokin vs. Commission on
Certiorari and mandamus; available in Supreme
Elections, et al., G.R. Nos. 179431-32/G.R. No. 180443.
Court for review of COMELEC resolutions in party-
June 22, 2010.
list case.
The COMELEC posits that once the proclamation of the

winning party-list organization has been done and its
nominee has assumed office, any question relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of the candidates to
the House of Representatives falls under the jurisdiction
Jurisdiction; Department of Agrarian Reform
of the HRET pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the
Adjudication Board (DARAB) has no certiorari
1987 Constitution. Thus, Lokin should raise the question
jurisdiction over orders of Provincial Adjudicator.
he poses herein either in an election protest or in a
special civil action for quo warranto in the HRET,not in a
special civil action for certiorari in this Court. We do not Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by the
agree. An election protest proposes to oust the winning Constitution or the law, and rules of procedure yield to
candidate from office. It is strictly a contest between the substantive law. Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must exist
defeated and the winning candidates, based on the as a matter of law. Only a statute can confer jurisdiction
grounds of electoral frauds and irregularities, to on courts and administrative agencies; rules of procedure
determine who between them has actually obtained the cannot.
majority of the legal votes cast and is entitled to hold the
office. It can only be filed by a candidate who has duly The DARAB assumed jurisdiction over the petition for
filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for in certiorari by virtue of Section 3, Rule VIII of the DARAB
the preceding elections. A special civil action for quo New Rules of Procedure, which allows the filing of such
warranto refers to questions of disloyalty to the State, or petition to assail an interlocutory order of the Provincial
of ineligibility of the winning candidate. The objective of Adjudicator. However, a month after the DARAB rendered
the action is to unseat the ineligible person from the its decision, the Court, in DARAB v. Lubrica, declared that
office, but not to install the petitioner in his place. Any such apparent grant of authority to issue a writ of
voter may initiate the action, which is, strictly speaking, certiorariis not founded on any law. It declared that
not a contest where the parties strive for supremacy neither the DARAB’s quasi-judicial authority nor its rule-
because the petitioner will not be seated even if the making power justifies the self-conferment of authority.
respondent may be unseated. Thus, the Court concluded that the DARAB has no
certiorari jurisdiction:
The controversy involving Lokin is neither an election
protest nor an action for quo warranto, for it concerns a In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial
very peculiar situation in which Lokin is seeking to be powers which an administrative agency may exercise is
seated as the second nominee of CIBAC. Although an defined in the enabling act of such agency. In other
election protest may properly be available to one party- words, the extent to which an administrative entity may
list organization seeking to unseat another party-list exercise such powers depends largely, if not wholly, on
organization to determine which between the defeated the provisions of the statute creating or empowering such
and the winning party-list organizations actually obtained agency. The grant of original jurisdiction on a quasi-
the majority of the legal votes, Lokin’s case is not one in judicial agency is not implied. There is no question that
which a nominee of a particular party-list organization the legislative grant of adjudicatory powers upon the
thereby wants to unseat another nominee of the same DAR, as in all other quasi-judicial agencies, bodies and
party-list organization. Neither does an action for quo tribunals, is in the nature of a limited and special
warranto lie, considering that the case does not involve jurisdiction, that is, the authority to hear and determine a
the ineligibility and disloyalty of Cruz-Gonzales to the class of cases within the DAR’s competence and field of
Republic of the Philippines, or some other cause of expertise. In conferring adjudicatory powers and
disqualification for her. Lokin has correctly brought this functions on the DAR, the legislature could not have
special civil action for certiorari against the COMELEC to intended to create a regular court of justice out of the
seek the review of the September 14, 2007 resolution of DARAB, equipped with all the vast powers inherent in the
the COMELEC in accordance with Section 7 of Article IX-A exercise of its jurisdiction. The DARAB is only a quasi-
of the 1987 Constitution, notwithstanding the oath and judicial body, whose limited jurisdiction does not include
assumption of office by Cruz-Gonzales. The authority over petitions for certiorari, in the absence of
constitutional mandate is now implemented by Rule 64 of an express grant in R.A. No. 6657, E.O. No. 229 and E.O.
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for the No. 129-A.
review of the judgments, final orders or resolutions of the
COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. As Rule 64
states, the mode of review is by a petition for certiorari in As intimated in Lubrica, petitioner should have filed the
accordance with Rule 65 to be filed in the Supreme Court petition for certiorari with the regular courts, and not
within a limited period of 30 days. Undoubtedly, the with the DARAB. In the absence of a specific statutory
Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over Lokin’s grant of jurisdiction, the DARAB, as a quasi-judicial body
with limited jurisdiction, cannot exercise jurisdiction over
318
the petition for certiorari. Julian Fernandez vs. Rufino

D. Fulgueras, G.R. No. 178575, June 29, 2010
Summary Procedure; Prohibition against filing of
Jurisdiction; Regional Trial Court, acting as Special petition for certiorari.
Agrarian Court, has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over petitions for determination of just
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, on forcible entry and
compensation.
unlawful detainer cases, provides:
Fortune Savings, on the other hand, claims in its

Sec. 13. Prohibited pleadings and motions.-The following
Comment that, even if Land Bank filed the case on time,
petitions, motions, or pleadings shall not be allowed:
the fact remains that the RTC dismissed the same for
Land Bank’s failure to serve summons. Fortune Savings’
filing of another case—Agrarian Case 2000-0155—cannot 1. Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the
operate as a continuance of Agrarian Case 99-0214 ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or
because it was an entirely different case altogether. failure to comply with section 12;
Agrarian Case 2000-0155 did not operate to revive
Agrarian Case 99-0214 nor did it give to Land Bank the 2. Motion for a bill of particulars;
benefit of having filed on time the action that the DARAB
Rules contemplated.
3. Motion for a new trial, or for reconsideration of a
judgment, or for reopening of trial;
Although the DAR is vested with primary jurisdiction
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988
or CARL to determine in a preliminary manner the 4. Petition for relief from judgment;
reasonable compensation for lands taken under the
CARP, such determination is subject to challenge in the 5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
courts. The CARL vests in the RTCs, sitting as Special affidavits or any other paper;
Agrarian Courts, original and exclusive jurisdiction over
all petitions for the determination of just compensation.
This means that the RTCs do not exercise mere appellate 6. Memoranda;
jurisdiction over just compensation disputes. The RTC’s
jurisdiction is not any less “original and exclusive” 7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition
because the question is first passed upon by the DAR. against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
The proceedings before the RTC are not a continuation of
the administrative determination. Indeed, although the
8. Motion to declare the defendant in default;
law may provide that the decision of the DAR is final and
unappealable, still a resort to the courts cannot be
foreclosed on the theory that courts are the guarantors of 9. Dilatory motions for postponement;
the legality of administrative action. The taking of
property under the CARL is a government exercise of the 10. Reply;
power of eminent domain. Since the determination of
just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is a
judicial function, such determination cannot be made to 11. Third-party complaints;
depend on the existence of administrative proceedings of
a similar nature. Thus, even while the DARAB summary 12. Interventions. (Emphasis supplied)
administrative hearing for determination of just
compensation is pending, the interested party may file a
petition for judicial determination of the same. In Although it is alleged that there may be a technical error
another case, the Court allowed the filing with the trial in connection with the service of summons, there is no
court of a petition to fix just compensation despite failure showing of any substantiveinjustice that would be caused
of the landowner to seek reconsideration of the DAR’s to IPI so as to call for the disregard of the clear and
valuation. categorical prohibition of filing petitions for certiorari. It
must be pointed out that the Rule on Summary
Procedure, by way of exception, permits only a motion to
Consequently, Land Bank’s filing of Agrarian Case 2000- dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
0155 after the dismissal without prejudice of Agrarian subject matter but it does not mention the ground of lack
Case 99-0214 cannot be regarded as barred by the filing of jurisdiction over the person. It is a settled rule of
of the latter case beyond the 15-day period prescribed statutory construction that the express mention of one
under Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB Rules. The thing implies the exclusion of all others. Expressio unius
procedural soundness of Agrarian Case 2000-0155 could est exclusio alterius. From this it can be gleaned that
not be made dependent on the DARAB case, for these allegations on the matter of lack of jurisdiction over the
two proceedings are separate and independent. Land person by reason of improper service of summons, by
Bank of the Philippines vs. Fortune Savings and Loan itself, without a convincing showing of any resulting
Association, Inc., represented by Philippine Deposit substantive injustice, cannot be used to hinder or stop
Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 177511, June 29, 2010 . the proceedings before the MCTC in the ejectment suit.
319
With more reason, such ground should not be used to cases.” Considering that the petition for certiorari filed
justify the violation of an express prohibition in the rules before the CA is categorically prohibited, the CA should
prohibiting the petition for certiorari. IPI’s arguments not have entertained the same but should have dismissed
attempting to show how the Rule on Summary Procedure it outright. Victorias Milling Company, Inc. vs. CA and
or lack of rules on certain matters would lead to injustice International Pharmaceuticals, Inc., G.R. No. 168062,
are hypothetical and need not be addressed in the June 29, 2010
present case. Of primary importance here is that IPI, the
real defendant in the ejectment case, filed its Answer and
Venue; filing of election protest in improper venue
participated in the proceedings before the MCTC.
not jurisdictional.
The purpose of the Rule on Summary Procedure is to

It is well-settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law. As
achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of
such, jurisdiction cannot be fixed by the will of the
cases without regard to technical rules. In the present
parties; nor be acquired through waiver nor enlarged by
case, weighing the consequences of continuing with the
the omission of the parties; nor conferred by any
proceedings in the MCTC as against the consequences of
acquiescence of the court. The allocation of jurisdiction is
allowing a petition for certiorari, it is more in accord with
vested in Congress, and cannot be delegated to another
justice, the purpose of the Rule on Summary Procedure,
office or agency of the Government.
the policy of speedy and inexpensive determination of
cases, and the proper administration of justice, to obey
the provisions in the Rule on Summary Procedure The Rules of Court does not define jurisdictional
prohibiting petitions for certiorari. boundaries of the courts. In promulgating the Rules of
Court, the Supreme Court is circumscribed by the zone
properly denominated as the promulgation of rules
The present situation, where IPI had filed the prohibited
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all
petition for certiorari; the CA’s taking cognizance thereof;
courts; consequently, the Rules of Court can only
and the subsequent issuance of the writ of injunction
determine the means, ways or manner in which said
enjoining the ejectment suit from taking its normal
jurisdiction, as fixed by the Constitution and acts of
course in an expeditious and summary manner, and the
Congress, shall be exercised. The Rules of Court yields to
ensuing delay is the antithesis of and is precisely the very
the substantive law in determining jurisdiction. The
circumstance which the Rule on Summary Procedure
jurisdiction over election contests involving elective
seeks to prevent. The petition for certiorari questioning
municipal officials has been vested in the RTC by Section
the MCTC’s interlocutory order is not needed here. The
251, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code).
rules provide respondent IPI with adequate relief. At the
On the other hand, A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, by specifying
proper time, IPI has the right to appeal to the RTC, and
the proper venue where such cases may be filed and
in the meantime no injustice will be caused to it by
heard, only spelled out the manner by which an RTC with
waiting for the MCTC to completely finish resolving the
jurisdiction exercises such jurisdiction. Like other rules on
ejectment suit. The proceedings before the MCTC being
venue, A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC was designed to ensure a
summary in nature, the time and expense involved
just and orderly administration of justice, and is
therein are minimal. IPI has already raised the matter of
permissive, because it was enacted to ensure the
improper service of summons in its Answer. The MCTC’s
exclusive and speedy disposition of election protests and
error/s, if any, on any of the matters raised by
petitions for quo warranto involving elective municipal
respondent IPI can be threshed out during appeal after
officials.
the MCTC has finally resolved the ejectment case under
summary procedure.
Castillo’s filing her protest in the RTC in Bacoor, Cavite
amounted only to a wrong choice of venue. Hence, the
As accurately pointed out by petitioner, Go v. Court of
dismissal of the protest by Branch 19 constituted plain
Appeals does not support the case of respondent IPI.
error, considering that her wrong choice did not affect
The factual milieu and circumstances of the said case do
the jurisdiction of the RTC. What Branch 19 should have
not fit with the present case. They are in fact the exact
done under the circumstances was to transfer the protest
opposite of those in the present case before the court
to Branch 22 of the RTC in Imus, Cavite, which was the
hearing the original ejectment case. Not only was there
proper venue. Such transfer was proper, whether she as
an absence of any “indefinite suspension” of the
the protestant sought it or not, given that the
ejectment suit before the MCTC but likewise there was no
determination of the will of the electorate of Bacoor,
“procedural void” that would otherwise cause delay in the
Cavite according to the process set forth by law was of
summary and expeditious resolution thereof that
the highest concern of our institutions, particularly of the
transpired to warrant applicability of Go v. Court of
courts. Minerva Gomez-Castillo vs. Commission on
Appeals. It is worth pointing out that in Go v. Court of
Elections, et al., G.R. No. 187231, June 22, 2010
Appeals the Supreme Court categorically upheld that “the
purpose of the Rule on Summary Procedure is to achieve
an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases Writ of Amparo; requirement of extraordinary
without regard to technical rules. Pursuant to this diligence.
objective, the Rule prohibits petitions for certiorari, like a
number of other pleadings, in order to prevent Considering the findings of the CA and our review of the
unnecessary delays and to expedite the disposition of records of the present case, we conclude that the PNP
320
and the AFP have so far failed to conduct an exhaustive Constitution to investigate all forms of human rights
and meaningful investigation into the disappearance of violations involving civil and political rights and to provide
Jonas Burgos, and to exercise the extraordinary diligence appropriate legal measures for the protection of human
(in the performance of their duties) that the Rule on the rights of all persons within the Philippines.
Writ of Amparo requires. Because of these investigative
shortcomings, we cannot rule on the case until a more
Under this mandate, the CHR is tasked to conduct
meaningful investigation, using extraordinary diligence, is
appropriate investigative proceedings, including field
undertaken.
investigations – acting as the Court’s directly
commissioned agency for purposes of the Rule on the
From the records, we note that there are very significant Writ of Amparo – with the tasks of: (a) ascertaining the
lapses in the handling of the investigation – among them identities of the persons appearing in the cartographic
the PNP-CIDG’s failure to identify the cartographic sketches of the two alleged abductors as well as their
sketches of two (one male and one female) of the five whereabouts; (b) determining based on records, past and
abductors of Jonas based on their interview of present, the identities and locations of the persons
eyewitnesses to the abduction. This lapse is based on identified by State Prosecutor Velasco alleged to be
the information provided to the petitioner by no less than involved in the abduction of Jonas, namely: T/Sgt. Jason
State Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco of the DOJ who Roxas (Philippine Army); Cpl. Maria Joana Francisco
identified the persons who were possibly involved in the (Philippine Air Force), M/Sgt. Aron Arroyo (Philippine Air
abduction, namely: T/Sgt. Jason Roxas (Philippine Army), Force), and an alias T.L., all reportedly assigned with
Cpl. Maria Joana Francisco (Philippine Air Force), M/Sgt. Military Intelligence Group 15 of Intelligence Service of
Aron Arroyo (Philippine Air Force), and an alias T.L., all the AFP; further proceedings and investigations, as may
reportedly assigned with Military Intelligence Group 15 of be necessary, should be made to pursue the lead
Intelligence Service of the AFP. No search and allegedly provided by State Prosecutor Velasco on the
certification were ever made on whether these persons identities of the possible abductors; (c) inquiring into the
were AFP personnel or in other branches of the service, veracity of Lipio’s and Manuel’s claims that Jonas was
such as the Philippine Air Force. As testified to by the abducted by a certain @KA DANTE and @KA ENSO of the
petitioner, no significant follow through was also made CPP/NPA guerilla unit RYG; (d) determining based on
by the PNP-CIDG in ascertaining the identities of the records, past and present, as well as further
cartographic sketches of two of the abductors despite the investigation, the identities and whereabouts of @KA
evidentiary leads provided by State Prosecutor Velasco of DANTE and @KA ENSO; and (e) undertaking all
the DOJ. Notably, the PNP-CIDG, as the lead measures, in the investigation of the Burgos abduction
investigating agency in the present case, did not appear that may be necessary to live up to the extraordinary
to have lifted a finger to pursue these aspects of the measures we require in addressing an enforced
case. We note, too, that no independent investigation disappearance under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
appeared to have been made by the PNP-CIDG to inquire Edita T. Burgos vs. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et
into the veracity of Lipio’s and Manuel’s claims that Jonas al./Edita T. Burgos vs. President Gloria Macapagal-
was abducted by a certain @KA DANTE and a certain Arroyo, et al./Edita T. burgos vs. Chief of Staff of the
@KA ENSO of the CPP/NPA guerilla unit RYG. The Armed Forces of the Philippines, Gen. Hermogenes
records do not indicate whether the PNP-CIDG conducted Esperon, Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 183711/183812/183713,
a follow-up investigation to determine the identities and June 22, 2010
whereabouts of @KA Dante and @KA ENSO. These
omissions were aggravated by the CA finding that the
PNP has yet to refer any case for preliminary
investigation to the DOJ despite its representation before
the CA that it had forwarded all pertinent and relevant Evidence
documents to the DOJ for the filing of appropriate
charges against @KA DANTE and @KA ENSO. Burden of proof; party alleging fraud has burden of
proof.
Based on these considerations, we conclude that further
investigation and monitoring should be undertaken.While Fraud is deemed to comprise anything calculated to
significant leads have been provided to investigators, the deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment
investigations by the PNP-CIDG, the AFP Provost Marshal, involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or
and even the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) have confidence justly reposed, resulting in the damage to
been less than complete. The PNP-CIDG’s investigation another or by which an undue and unconscionable
particularly leaves much to be desired in terms of the advantage is taken of another.It is a question of fact that
extraordinary diligence that the Rule on the Writ of must be alleged and proved. It cannot be presumed and
Amparo requires. For this reason, we resolve to refer the must be established by clear and convincing evidence,
present case to the CHR as the Court’s directly not by mere preponderance of evidence. The party
commissioned agency tasked with the continuation of the alleging the existence of fraud has the burden of proof.
investigation of the Burgos abduction and the gathering On the basis of the above disquisitions, this Court finds
of evidence, with the obligation to report its factual that petitioner has failed to discharge this burden. No
findings and recommendations to this Court. We take into matter how strong the suspicion is on the part of
consideration in this regard that the CHR is a specialized petitioner, such suspicion does not translate into tangible
and independent agency created and empowered by the evidence sufficient to nullify the assailed transactions
321
involving the subject MSCI Class “A” share of stock. essential part of our judicial system and courts should
Makati Sports Club, Inc. vs. Cecile H. Cheng, et al., G.R. proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the
No. 178523, June 16, 2010 right to appeal, but rather, ensure that every party-
litigant has the amplest opportunity for the proper and
just disposition of his cause, free from the constraints of
Existence of fraud is question of fact.
technicalities. In the case at bench, the respondent
should be given the fullest opportunity to establish the
Fraud is deemed to comprise anything calculated to merits of his appeal considering that what is at stake is
deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment the sacrosanct institution of marriage. Cynthia S. Bolos
involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or vs. Danilo T. Bolos, G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010.
confidence justly reposed, resulting in the damage to
another or by which an undue and unconscionable
Appeal; dismissal of appeal on purely technical
advantage is taken of another.It is a question of fact that
ground not favored.
must be alleged and proved. It cannot be presumed and
must be established by clear and convincing evidence,
not by mere preponderance of evidence. The party As a final note, it is worthy to emphasize that the
alleging the existence of fraud has the burden of proof. dismissal of an appeal on a purely technical ground is
On the basis of the above disquisitions, this Court finds frowned upon especially if it will result in unfairness. The
that petitioner has failed to discharge this burden. No rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid,
matter how strong the suspicion is on the part of technical sense for they have been adopted to help
petitioner, such suspicion does not translate into tangible secure, not override, substantial justice. For this reason,
evidence sufficient to nullify the assailed transactions courts must proceed with caution so as not to deprive a
involving the subject MSCI Class “A” share of stock. party of statutory appeal; rather they must ensure that
Makati Sports Club, Inc. vs. Cecile H. Cheng, et al., G.R. all litigants are granted the amplest opportunity for the
No. 178523, June 16, 2010 proper and just ventilation of their causes, free from the
constraint of technicalities. Cebu Metro Pharmacy, Inc.
vs. Euro-Med Laboratories, Inc., G.R. No. 164757,
October 18, 2010.
===========================
FOR AUGUST SEPTEMBER
== ======================== Appeal; effect of failure to attach material and
relevant documents to petition.
OCTOBER 2010 CASES The foregoing preliminary matters thus clarified, we find
that the CA cannot be faulted for dismissing the petition
for review ZFMC filed pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules by
Civil Procedure
way of appeal from the 30 June 2003 decision in O.P.
Case No. 5613. A perusal of said petition shows that,
Accion Publiciana; nature and purpose.
instead of formulating its own “concise statement of the
facts and the issues involved” as required under Rule 43
An accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to of the Rules, ZFMC merely quoted the first ten (10)
determine the better right of possession of realty pages of the 25 June 1985 decision in MNR Case No.
independently of title. Accion publiciana is also used to 4023. Altogether oblivious of the missing third page of
refer to an ejectment suit where the cause of its copy of said decision and the relevant facts it
dispossession is not among the grounds for forcible entry resultantly omitted, ZFMC also appended copies of only
and unlawful detainer, or when possession has been lost the following documents to its petition, viz.: (a) the
for more than one year and can no longer be maintained decision in O.P. Case No. 5613; (b) its motion for
under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The objective of a reconsideration thereof; and, (c) the 30 September 2003
plaintiff in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, order denying said motion for lack of merit. Despite
not ownership. Pio Modesto and Cirila Rivera-Modesto being alerted to the deficiencies of its petition in the CA’s
vs. Carlos Urbina, substituted by the heirs of Olympia 30 January 2004 resolution directing the submission of
Miguel Vda. de Urbina, et al., G.R. No. 189859, October the pleadings filed before the MNR and the Office of the
18, 2010. President, ZFMC stubbornly maintained, that said
documents were no longer necessary since the
Appeals; dismissal of appeal on purely technical undisputed facts of the case were already narrated in the
ground not favored. 25 June 1984 decision rendered in MNR Case No. 4023.
Appeal is an essential part of our judicial system. Its While it is admittedly the petitioner who decides at the
purpose is to bring up for review a final judgment of the outset which relevant documents will be appended to his
lower court. The courts should, thus, proceed with petition, it has been held that the CA has the duty to
caution so as not to deprive a party of his right to appeal. ensure that “the submission of supporting documents is
In the recent case of Almelor v. RTC of Las Pinas City, Br. not merely perfunctory. The practical aspect of this duty
254, the Court reiterated: While the right to appeal is a is to enable the CA to determine at the earliest possible
statutory, not a natural right, nonetheless it is an time the existence of prima facie merit in the petition.”
With the third page missing from ZFMC’s copy of the 25
322
June 1985 decision in MNR Case No. 4023 and the ground that the latter failed to file its Appellant’s Brief on
particulars it omitted as a consequence, we find that the time.
CA’s directive for the submission of the pleadings the
parties filed in said case and in O.P. Case No. 5613 was
In The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium v. Court
clearly necessary for the proper appreciation of the facts
of Appeals, the Court laid down the basic rules with
and the issues relevant to the petition before it.
respect to the issue of non-filing of appellant’s brief with
Considering that a petitioner’s failure to attach material
the CA and its consequences, to wit:
and relevant documents to his petition is a sufficient
ground to dismiss it, the CA correctly dealt with ZFMC’s
failure to comply with its directive by dismissing the (1) The general rule is for the Court of Appeals to dismiss
petition pursuant to Section 7, Rule 43 of Rules which an appeal when no appellant’s brief is filed within the
provides as follows: reglementary period prescribed by the rules;
Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. – (2) The power conferred upon the Court of Appeals to
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the dismiss an appeal is discretionary and directory and not
foregoing requirements regarding the payment of docket ministerial or mandatory;
and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of
service of the petition, and the contents of and the (3) The failure of an appellant to file his brief within the
documents which should accompany the petition shall be reglementary period does not have the effect of causing
sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. the automatic dismissal of the appeal;
Still insisting on the superfluity of the submission of said (4) In case of late filing, the appellate court has the
pleadings in its 28 July 2004 motion for reconsideration power to still allow the appeal; however, for the proper
of the dismissal of its petition, ZFMC had, of course, exercise of the court’s leniency it is imperative that:
requested for reasonable time within which to comply
with the CA’s earlier directive. In the twenty-two months
which elapsed from the filing of said motion up to the (a) the circumstances obtaining warrant the court’s
denial thereof in CA’s resolution dated 21 June 2006, liberality;
however, the record shows that ZFMC miserably failed to
submit the pleadings filed by the parties before the MNR (b) that strong considerations of equity justify an
and the Office of the President. To our mind, ZFMC’s exception to the procedural rule in the interest of
omission was fatal when viewed in the light of the above- substantial justice;
discussed deficiencies of its petition and its added failure
to submit copies of the very orders it sought to be
affirmed by the CA, i.e., the BFD Director’s orders dated (c) no material injury has been suffered by the appellee
8 May 1974 and 11 November 1974. By and of itself, a by the delay;
party’s failure to comply with the CA’s directive without
justifiable cause is also a ground for the dismissal of an (d) there is no contention that the appellees’ cause was
appeal under Section 1 (h), Rule 50 of the Rules. prejudiced;
Granted by the CA an extension of fifteen (15) days from (e) at least there is no motion to dismiss filed.
25 October, 2003 or until 9 November, 2003 within which
to file its petition for review, it does not likewise help
(5) In case of delay, the lapse must be for a reasonable
ZFMC’s cause any that it was only able to do so on 24
period; and
November 2003. Although appeal is an essential part of
our judicial process, it has been held, time and again,
that the right thereto is not a natural right or a part of (6) Inadvertence of counsel cannot be considered as an
due process but is merely a statutory privilege. Thus, adequate excuse as to call for the appellate court’s
the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the indulgence except:
period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also
jurisdictional and failure of a party to conform to the (a) where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel
rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and deprives the client of due process of law;
executory. Zamboanga Forest Managers Corporation vs.
New Pacific Timber and Supply Company, et al., G.R. No.
173342. October 13, 2010. (b) when application of the rule will result in outright
deprivation of the client’s liberty or property; or
Appeal; effect of failure to file appellant’s brief on

time; court’s discretion. (c) where the interests of justice so require.
Lastly, the Court does not agree with petitioners’ In this regard, the Court’s pronouncement in Natonton v.
contention that the CA committed grave abuse of Magaway is apropros:
discretion in not dismissing the LBP’s appeal on the
323
As held by the Court in Gregorio v. Court of Appeals (70 In the higher interest of justice, considering that the
SCRA 546 [1976]), “(T)he expiration of the time to file delay in filing a motion for extension to file appellant’s
brief, unlike lateness in filing the notice of appeal, appeal brief was only for nine (9) days, and normally, the Court
bond or record on appeal is not a jurisdictional matter of Appeals would routinely grant such extension, and the
and may be waived by the parties. Even after the appellant’s brief was actually filed within the period
expiration of the time fixed for the filing of the brief, the sought, the better course of action for the Court of
reviewing court may grant an extension of time, at least Appeals was to admit appellant’s brief.
where no motion to dismiss has been made. Late filing or
service of briefs may be excused where no material
Lapses in the literal observance of a rule of procedure will
injury has been suffered by the appellee by reason of the
be overlooked when they arose from an honest mistake,
delay or where there is no contention that the appellee’s
when they have not prejudiced the adverse party. The
cause was prejudiced.”
Court can overlook the late filing of the motion for
extension, if strict compliance with the rules would mean
Technically, the Court of Appeals may dismiss an appeal sacrificing justice to technicality.
for failure to file appellant’s brief on time. However, the
dismissal is directory, not mandatory. It is not the
Based on the abovequoted ruling, with more reason
ministerial duty of the court to dismiss the appeal. The
should the LBP’s delay in filing its second motion for
failure of an appellant to file his brief within the time
extension be excused, because such delay was only for
prescribed does not have the effect of dismissing the
five days. Moreover, the LBP was able to file its
appeal automatically. The court has discretion to dismiss
Appellant’s Brief within the second period of extension
or not to dismiss an appellant’s appeal. It is a power
granted by the CA.
conferred on the court, not a duty. The discretion must
be a sound one, to be exercised in accordance with the
tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the In the same manner, in Heirs of Victoriana Villagracia v.
circumstances obtaining in each case. Equitable Banking Corporation, the petitioners therein
failed to file their Appellant’s Brief with the CA within the
reglementary period. They also failed to file their motion
We observe that petitioners’ arguments are based on
for extension before the expiration of the time sought to
technical grounds. While indeed respondents did not file
be extended. In relaxing the application of the procedural
their brief seasonably, it was not mandatory on the part
rules and, thus, allowing the appeal to be reinstated, the
of the Court of Appeals to dismiss their appeal. As held
Court held as follows:
by this Court in the above-cited cases, late filing of brief
may be excused. In other words, the dismissal of
respondents’ appeal on that ground is discretionary on However, in the instant case, we are of the view that the
the part of the Appellate Court. ends of justice will be better served if it is determined on
the merits, after full opportunity is given to all parties for
ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on
Significantly, there is no showing that petitioners suffered
technicality or some procedural imperfections. It is far
a material injury or that their cause was prejudiced when
better to dispose of the case on the merits, which is a
respondents failed to submit their brief promptly. What is
primordial end, rather than on a technicality that may
clear is that the latter incurred delay in the filing of their
result in injustice. While it is desirable that the Rules of
brief because when the deadline fell due, they were not
Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be too
yet represented by a new counsel.
strict with procedural lapses that do not really impair the
proper administration of justice. The rules are intended to
The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set ensure the proper and orderly conduct of litigation
forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice, but not to because of the higher objective they seek, which is the
bind and chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, attainment of justice and the protection of substantive
courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules, rights of the parties. In Republic v. Imperial [362 Phil.
shorn of judicial discretion. That is precisely why courts, 466], the Court, through Mr. Chief Justice Hilario G.
in rendering justice, have always been, as they in fact Davide, Jr., stressed that the filing of the appellant’s brief
ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on in appeals is not a jurisdictional requirement. But an
the balance, technicalities take a backseat to substantive appeal may be dismissed by the CA on grounds
rights, and not the other way around. As applied to the enumerated under Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. The
instant case, in the language of then Chief Justice Court has the power to relax or suspend the rules or to
Querube Makalintal, technicalities “should give way to the except a case from their operation when compelling
realities of the situation.” reasons so warrant, or when the purpose of justice
requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause
that will merit suspension of the rules is discretionary
It is true that in the instant case, petitioners filed a
upon the court.
motion to dismiss. However, the same was submitted
only after the CA had already granted the LBP’s motion
for extension of time to file its brief and such brief was In the case at bench, without touching on the merits of
already filed with the appellate court. In Aguam v. Court the case, there appears a good and efficient cause to
of Appeals, this Court excused a delay of nine (9) days in warrant the suspension of the rules. Petitioners’ failure to
the filing of a motion for extension of the appellant’s brief file the appeal brief within the extended period may have
holding that: been rendered excusable by force of circumstances.
324
Petitioners had to change their counsel because he was relation with the said Rule, one of the grounds for
appointed judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. Their dismissing an appeal under Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the
new counsel had to go over the six (6) volumes of the same Rules is the failure of the appellant to serve and file
records of the case to be able to file an intelligent brief. the required number of copies of his Brief or
Thus, a few days of delay in the filing of the motion for Memorandum within the time provided by the Rules. The
extension may be justified. In addition, no material injury Court is not persuaded. Indeed, Section 7, Rule 44 of
was suffered by the appellees by reason of the delay in the Rules of Court requires the appellant to serve two
the filing of the brief. copies of the appellant’s brief to the appellee. However,
the failure to serve the required number of copies does
not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal.
Dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is not
Thus, this Court held in Philippine National Bank v.
encouraged. The rules of procedure ought not to be
Philippine Milling Co., Inc. that:
applied in a very rigid and technical sense, for they have
been adopted to help secure, not override, substantial
justice. Judicial action must be guided by the principle [P]ursuant to Section 1 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court,
that a party-litigant should be given the fullest “(a)n appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals,
opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or on its own motion or on that of the appellee” upon the
defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or ground, among others, of “(f)ailure of the appellant x x x
property on technicalities. When a rigid application of the to serve and file the required number of copies of his
rules tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial brief,” within the reglementary period. Manifestly, this
justice, this Court is empowered to suspend their provision confers a power and does not impose a duty.
operation. What is more, it is directory, not mandatory.
In the instant case, the LBP’s delay in filing its Appellant’s The CA has, under the said provision of the Rules of
Brief is justified by the fact that the Legal Services Court, discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss
Department of the LBP underwent re-organization respondent’s appeal. Although said discretion must be a
resulting in the retirement and transfer of the remaining sound one, to be exercised in accordance with the tenets
lawyers, cases and personnel from one department to of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances
another as well as in the merger and dissolution of other obtaining in each case, the presumption is that it has
departments within the LBP. In its Manifestation, which been so exercised. It is incumbent upon herein
petitioners did not dispute, the LBP claimed that by petitioners, as actors in the case at bar, to offset this
reason of the abovementioned re-organization, the presumption. Yet, the records before the Court do not
lawyer handling the present case actually received a copy satisfactorily show that the CA has committed grave
of the Resolution of the CA setting the deadline for the abuse of discretion in not dismissing the LBP’s appeal.
filing of its Appellant’s Brief only on May 21, 2001, four There is no question that the LBP was only able to serve
days after the expiration of the period granted by the CA. on petitioners one copy of its appellant’s brief. However,
Besides, there is no indication that the LBP intended to settled is the rule that a litigant’s failure to furnish his
delay the proceedings, considering that it only filed two opponent with a copy of his appeal brief does not suffice
motions for extension to file its brief. As adverted to by to warrant dismissal of that appeal. In such an instance,
this Court in De Leon, the dismissal of the LBP’s appeal, all that is needed is for the court to order the litigant to
together with the other appeals it had filed, will have a furnish his opponent with a copy of his brief. In the
great impact not only on the LBP as the financial instant case, with much less reason should the LBP’s
intermediary of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform appeal be dismissed, because petitioners were served
Program, but also on the national treasury and the with the LBP’s brief, albeit only one copy was given to
already depressed economic condition of our country. In them. The Court would be dwelling too much on
other words, the instant case is impressed with public technicality if the appeal is dismissed simply on the
interest. As such, and in the interest of substantial ground that LBP failed to furnish petitioners with two
justice, the Court finds that the same must be decided on copies, instead of only one, of its appeal brief. Indeed,
the merits. Based on the foregoing discussions, the there is no showing, and the Court finds none in the
Court finds that the CA did not commit grave abuse of instant petition, that such procedural lapse on the part of
discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss the LBP resulted in material injury to the latter. Jorge L.
respondent LBP’s appeal. Jorge L. Tiangco, et al. vs. Tiangco, et al. vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No.
Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 153998, October 153998, October 6, 2010
6, 2010
Appeal; factual findings of Court of Appeals
Appeal; effect of failure to serve required number generally binding on Supreme Court.
of copies of appellant’s brief; court’s discretion.
In asking us to determine which of the parties has a
Petitioners also assert that the LBP’s appeal filed with better right to possess the property, we are asked to
the CA should have been dismissed on the ground that resolve a factual issue, involving as it does the weighing
the LBP failed to serve two copies of its Appellant’s Brief and evaluation of the evidence presented by the parties
to petitioners. Petitioners argue that under Section 7, in the courts below. Generally, such an exercise is not
Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, the appellant is required to appropriate in a petition for review on certiorari under
serve two copies of his Brief on the appellee and that, in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to resolve only
325
questions of law. Moreover, the factual findings of the We are very much aware that the rule to the effect that
CA, when supported by substantial evidence, are this Court is not a trier of facts admits of exceptions. As
conclusive and binding on the parties and are not we have stated in Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd.
reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any vs. CA:
of the following recognized exceptions:
[i]t is a settled rule that in the exercise of the Supreme
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on Court’s power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts
speculation, surmises and conjectures; and does not normally undertake the re-examination of
the evidence presented by the contending parties during
the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts
(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
of the CA are conclusive and binding on the Court.
absurd or impossible;
However, the Court had recognized several exceptions to
this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded
(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2)
when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd
(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of
facts; discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts
are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court
(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its
findings are contrary to the admissions of both the
(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are
went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
appellee; they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the
petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the
(7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of
court; evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;
and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly
(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a
different conclusion. (Emphasis supplied.)
(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in
the petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not disputed by In the instant case, the records will show that the IPO
the respondents; and and the CA made differing conclusions on the issue of
ownership based on the evidence presented by the
parties. Hence, this issue may be the subject of this
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
Court’s review. E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc. and Engracio
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
Yap vs. Shen Dar Electricity Machinery Co., Ltd., G.R. No.
contradicted by the evidence on record.
184850, October 20, 2010.
Since the CA affirmed the factual findings of the RTC, we

Appeal; factual findings of Court of Appeals and
would normally be precluded from re-examining the
trial court entitled to great respect.
factual circumstances of this case. However, it appears
that the RTC and the CA, in concluding that Urbina has
the right to lawfully eject the Modestos from the lot in Both the trial and the appellate courts ruled that
question, have greatly misapprehended the facts of this respondent has proven her claims of ownership and
case. Pio Modesto and Cirila Rivera-Modesto vs. Carlos possession with a preponderance of evidence. Petitioners
Urbina, substituted by the heirs of Olympia Miguel Vda. now argue that the two courts erred in their appreciation
de Urbina, et al., G.R. No. 189859, October 18, 2010. of the evidence. They ask the Court to review the
evidence of both parties, despite the CA’s finding that the
trial court committed no error in appreciating the
Appeal; factual findings of Court of Appeals and
evidence presented during trial. Hence, petitioners seek
Intellectual Property Office (IPO).
a review of questions of fact, which is beyond the
province of a Rule 45 petition. A question of fact exists if
Petitioners raise the factual issue of who the true owner the uncertainty centers on the truth or falsity of the
of the mark is. As a general rule, this Court is not a trier alleged facts. “Such questions as whether certain items
of facts. However, such rule is subject to exceptions. of evidence should be accorded probative value or
weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether the
In New City Builders, Inc. v. National Labor Relations proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing
Commission, the Court ruled that: and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are
without doubt questions of fact.”
326
Since it raises essentially questions of fact, this default on the monthly payments of his loan obligation.
assignment of error must be dismissed for it is settled These findings are supported by the evidence on record.
that only questions of law may be reviewed in an appeal
by certiorari. There is a question of law when there is
At the time of foreclosure – April 1999 – respondent’s
doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.
savings account deposits showed a balance of
Questions of law can be resolved without having to re-
P852,913.26. This was more than enough to cover
examine the probative value of evidence presented, the
whatever amortizations were due from him at that time.
truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. The instant
Moreover, the Amortization Schedule shows that, as of
case does not present a compelling reason to deviate
April 27, 1999, respondent’s loan account with the bank
from the foregoing rule, especially since both trial and
totaled only P269,023.38. The same schedule shows
appellate courts agree that respondent had proven her
that, by March 27, 2000, he had “0.00” balance left to
claim of ownership as against petitioners’ claims. Their
pay, meaning he had paid his loan in full. Rizal
factual findings, supported as they are by the evidence,
Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Pedro P.
should be accorded great respect.
Buenaventura G.R. No. 176479, October 6, 2010
In any case, even if petitioners’ arguments attacking the

Appeal; factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies.
authenticity and admissibility of the Deed of Quitclaim
executed in favor of respondent’s father are well-taken, it
will not suffice to defeat respondent’s claim over the Next, petitioners challenge the CA’s reversal of the
subject property. Even without the Deed of Quitclaim, factual findings of the BLA that Shen Dar and not EYIS is
respondent’s claims of prior possession and ownership the prior user and, therefore, true owner of the mark. In
were adequately supported and corroborated by her arguing its position, petitioners cite numerous rulings of
other documentary and testimonial evidence. We agree this Court where it was enunciated that the factual
with the trial court’s observation that, in the ordinary findings of administrative bodies are given great weight if
course of things, people will not go to great lengths to not conclusive upon the courts when supported by
execute legal documents and pay realty taxes over a real substantial evidence. We agree with petitioners that the
property, unless they have reason to believe that they general rule in this jurisdiction is that the factual findings
have an interest over the same. The fact that of administrative bodies deserve utmost respect when
respondent’s documents traverse several decades, from supported by evidence. However, such general rule is
the 1960s to the 1990s, is an indication that she and her subject to exceptions.
family never abandoned their right to the property and
have continuously exercised rights of ownership over the In Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, the Court established the
same. Moreover, respondent’s version of how the rule of conclusiveness of factual findings of the CA as
petitioners came to occupy the property coincides with follows:
the same timeline given by the petitioners themselves.
The only difference is that petitioners maintain they came
into possession by tolerance of the Smith family, while Jurisprudence teaches us that “(a)s a rule, the
respondent maintains that it was her parents who gave jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought to it from the
permission to petitioners. Given the context under which Court of Appeals x x x is limited to the review and
the parties’ respective statements were made, the Court revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the
is inclined to believe the respondent’s version, as both appellate court, as its findings of fact are deemed
the trial and appellate courts have concluded, since her conclusive. As such this Court is not duty-bound to
version is corroborated by the documentary evidence. analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already
Delfin Lamsis, et al. vs. Margarita Semon Dong-e, G.R. considered in the proceedings below. This rule, however,
No. 173021, October 20, 2010. is not without exceptions.” The findings of fact of the
Court of Appeals, which are as a general rule deemed
conclusive, may admit of review by this Court:
Appeal; factual findings of lower courts generally
binding on Supreme Court.
(1) when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and
the trial court are contradictory;
Clearly, the petition disputes the factual findings of the
CA, which, in turn, merely affirmed the factual findings of
the RTC. It is settled that factual findings of the trial (2) when the findings are grounded entirely on
court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally
not be reviewed on appeal. Inquiry into the veracity of (3) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals
the CA’s factual findings and conclusions is not the from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd,
function of the Supreme Court, because this Court is not or impossible;
a trier of facts. Neither is it our function to reexamine
and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties.
While it is true that there are well-established exceptions (4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the
to this principle, petitioner in this case has failed to show appreciation of facts;
that this case falls under one of such exceptions. The
RTC and the CA both found that respondent was not in
327
(5) when the appellate court, in making its findings, goes It is settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies,
beyond the issues of the case, and such findings are which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not
appellee; only respect, but also finality, especially when affirmed
by the Court of Appeals. In particular, factual findings of
construction arbitrators are final and conclusive and not
(6) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
reviewable by this Court on appeal.
premised on a misapprehension of facts;
This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions. In

(7) when the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain
Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources Corporation v. Titan-
relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a
Ikeda Construction and Development Corporation, we
different conclusion;
said:
(8) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;

In David v. Construction Industry and Arbitration
Commission, we ruled that, as exceptions, factual
(9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without findings of construction arbitrators may be reviewed by
citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; this Court when the petitioner proves affirmatively that:
and (1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other
undue means; (2) there was evident partiality or
(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are corruption of the arbitrators or any of them; (3) the
premised on the absence of evidence but such findings arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to hear
are contradicted by the evidence on record. evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; (4)
one or more of the arbitrators were disqualified to act as
such under Section nine of Republic Act No. 876 and
Thereafter, in Villaflor v. Court of Appeals, this Court willfully refrained from disclosing such disqualifications or
applied the above principle to factual findings of quasi- of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party
judicial bodies, to wit: have been materially prejudiced; or (5) the arbitrators
exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them,
Proceeding by analogy, the exceptions to the rule on that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject
conclusiveness of factual findings of the Court of Appeals, matter submitted to them was not made.
enumerated in Fuentes vs. Court of Appeals, can also be
applied to those of quasi-judicial bodies x x x. Other recognized exceptions are as follows: (1) when
there is a very clear showing of grave abuse of discretion
Here, the CA identified certain material facts that were resulting in lack or loss of jurisdiction as when a party
allegedly overlooked by the BLA and the IPO Director was deprived of a fair opportunity to present its position
General which it opined, when correctly appreciated, before the Arbitral Tribunal or when an award is obtained
would alter the result of the case. An examination of the through fraud or the corruption of arbitrators, (2) when
IPO Decisions, however, would show that no such the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those
evidence was overlooked. E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc. and of the CIAC, and (3) when a party is deprived of
Engracio Yap vs. Shen Dar Electricity Machinery Co., Ltd., administrative due process.
G.R. No. 184850, October 20, 2010.
A perusal of the records would reveal that none of the
Appeal; factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies (in aforementioned circumstances, which would justify
this case, the Construction Industry Arbitration exemption of this case from the general rule, are present
Commission [CIAC]) accorded respect. here. Such being the case, the Court, not being a trier of
facts, is not duty-bound to examine, appraise and
analyze anew the evidence presented before the
Despite petitioner’s attempts to make it appear that it is arbitration body.
advancing questions of law, it is quite clear that what
petitioner seeks is for this Court to recalibrate the
evidence it has presented before the CIAC. It insists that XXX XXX XXX
its evidence sufficiently proves that it is entitled to
payment for respondent’s use of its manlift equipment, Again, these issues are purely factual and cannot be
and even absent proof of the supposed agreement on the properly addressed in this petition for review on
charges petitioner may impose on respondent for the use certiorari. In Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction
of said equipment, respondent should be made to pay Co., Ltd. v. Dynamic Planners and Construction Corp., it
based on the principle of unjust enrichment. Petitioner was emphasized that mathematical computations, the
also questions the amounts awarded by the CIAC for propriety of arbitral awards, claims for “other costs” and
inventoried materials, and costs incurred by petitioner for “abandonment” are factual questions. Since the
completing the work left unfinished by respondent. As discussions of the CIAC and the CA in their respective
reiterated by the Court in IBEX International, Inc. v. Decisions show that its factual findings are supported by
Government Service Insurance System, to wit: substantial evidence, there is no reason why this Court
should not accord finality to said findings. Verily, to
328
accede to petitioner’s request for a recalibration of its evidence. Since the appeal raised mixed questions of
evidence, which had been thoroughly studied by both the fact and law, no error can be imputed on petitioner for
CIAC and the CA would result in negating the objective of invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the CA through an
Executive Order No. 1008, which created an arbitration ordinary appeal under Rule 41. Republic of the
body to ensure the prompt and efficient settlement of Philippines vs. Angelo B. Malabanan, et al., G.R. No.
disputes in the construction industry. Thus, the Court 169067, October 6, 2010
held in Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources Corporation
v. Titan-Ikeda Construction and Development
Appeal; period to appeal; “fresh period rule.
Corporation, that:
Jurisprudence has settled the “fresh period rule,”

x x x The Court will not review the factual findings of an
according to which, an ordinary appeal from the RTC to
arbitral tribunal upon the artful allegation that such body
the Court of Appeals, under Section 3 of Rule 41 of the
had “misapprehended facts” and will not pass upon
Rules of Court, shall be taken within fifteen (15) days
issues which are, at bottom, issues of fact, no matter
either from receipt of the original judgment of the trial
how cleverly disguised they might be as “legal
court or from receipt of the final order of the trial court
questions.” The parties here had recourse to arbitration
dismissing or denying the motion for new trial or motion
and chose the arbitrators themselves; they must have
for reconsideration. In Sumiran v. Damaso, we
had confidence in such arbitrators. The Court will not,
presented a survey of the cases applying the fresh period
therefore, permit the parties to relitigate before it the
rule:
issues of facts previously presented and argued before
the Arbitral Tribunal, save only where a clear showing is
made that, in reaching its factual conclusions, the Arbitral As early as 2005, the Court categorically declared in
Tribunal committed an error so egregious and hurtful to Neypes v. Court of Appeals that by virtue of the power of
one party as to constitute a grave abuse of discretion the Supreme Court to amend, repeal and create new
resulting in lack or loss of jurisdiction. procedural rules in all courts, the Court is allowing a fresh
period of 15 days within which to file a notice of appeal in
the RTC, counted from receipt of the order dismissing or
As discussed above, there is nothing in the records that
denying a motion for new trial or motion for
point to any grave abuse of discretion committed by the
reconsideration. This would standardize the appeal
CIAC. Shinryo (Philippines) Company, Inc. vs. RRN
periods provided in the Rules and do away with the
Incorporated, G.R. No. 172525, October 20, 2010.
confusion as to when the 15-day appeal period should be
counted. Thus, the Court stated:
Appeal; modes of appeal from decisions of regional
trial court.
To recapitulate, a party-litigant may either file his notice
of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the Regional
In Murillo v. Consul, we had the opportunity to clarify Trial Court’s decision or file it within 15 days from receipt
the three (3) modes of appeal from decisions of the RTC, of the order (the “final order”) denying his motion for
to wit: (1) by ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error new trial or motion for reconsideration. Obviously, the
under Rule 41, where judgment was rendered in a civil or new 15-day period may be availed of only if either
criminal action by the RTC in the exercise of original motion is filed; otherwise, the decision becomes final and
jurisdiction; (2) by petition for review under Rule 42, executory after the lapse of the original appeal period
where judgment was rendered by the RTC in the exercise provided in Rule 41, Section 3.
of appellate jurisdiction; and (3) by petition for review on
certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The first
The foregoing ruling of the Court was reiterated in Makati
mode of appeal is taken to the CA on questions of fact or
Insurance Co., Inc. v. Reyes, to wit:
mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of
appeal is brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law,
or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode of Propitious to petitioner is Neypes v. Court of Appeals,
appeal is elevated to the Supreme Court only on promulgated on 14 September 2005 while the present
questions of law. Petition was already pending before us. x x x.
XXX XXX XXX xxxx
Here, petitioner’s appeal does not only involve a question With the advent of the “fresh period rule” parties who
of law. Aside from the trial court’s ruling that it has no availed themselves of the remedy of motion for
jurisdiction over the complaint, petitioner likewise reconsideration are now allowed to file a notice of appeal
questioned the other basis for the trial court’s ruling, within fifteen days from the denial of that motion.
which refers to previously decided cases allegedly
upholding with finality the ownership of the Malabanans The “fresh period rule” is not inconsistent with Rule 41,
over the disputed property. As correctly argued by Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court which states that
petitioner, the question of whether the ownership of the the appeal shall be taken “within fifteen (15) days from
Malabanans has in fact been sustained with finality is notice of judgment or final order appealed from.” The use
factual in nature as it requires the presentation of of the disjunctive word “or” signifies disassociation and
329
independence of one thing from another. It should, as a already filed his Notice of Appeal. Clearly, under the
rule, be construed in the sense which it ordinarily implies. fresh period rule, respondent was able to file his appeal
Hence, the use of “or” in the above provision supposes well-within the prescriptive period of 15 days, and the
that the notice of appeal may be filed within 15 days Court of Appeals did not err in giving due course to said
from the notice of judgment or within 15 days from appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 82610. Ermelinda Manaloto, et
notice of the “final order,” x x x. al. vs. Ismael Veloso III, G.R. No. 171365, October 6,
2010.
xxxx
The “fresh period rule” finally eradicates the confusion as

to when the 15-day appeal period should be counted — Appeal; period to appeal; “fresh period rule;”
from receipt of notice of judgment or from receipt of retroactivity
notice of “final order” appealed from.
. Also in Sumiran, we recognized the retroactive
Taking our bearings from Neypes, in Sumaway v. Urban application of the fresh period rule to cases pending and
Bank, Inc., we set aside the denial of a notice of appeal undetermined upon its effectivity:
which was purportedly filed five days late. With the fresh
period rule, the 15-day period within which to file the
The retroactivity of the Neypes rule in cases where the
notice of appeal was counted from notice of the denial of
period for appeal had lapsed prior to the date of
the therein petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
promulgation of Neypes on September 14, 2005, was
clearly explained by the Court in Fil-Estate Properties,
We followed suit in Elbiña v. Ceniza, wherein we applied Inc. v. Homena-Valencia, stating thus:
the principle granting a fresh period of 15 days within
which to file the notice of appeal, counted from receipt of
The determinative issue is whether the “fresh period” rule
the order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for
announced in Neypes could retroactively apply in cases
reconsideration or any final order or resolution.
where the period for appeal had lapsed prior to 14
September 2005 when Neypes was promulgated. That
Thereafter, in First Aqua Sugar Traders, Inc. v. Bank of question may be answered with the guidance of the
the Philippine Islands, we held that a party-litigant may general rule that procedural laws may be given
now file his notice of appeal either within fifteen days retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at
from receipt of the original decision or within fifteen days the time of their passage, there being no vested rights in
from the receipt of the order denying the motion for the rules of procedure. Amendments to procedural rules
reconsideration. are procedural or remedial in character as they do not
create new or remove vested rights, but only operate in
furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights
In De los Santos v. Vda. de Mangubat, we applied the
already existing. (Emphases supplied.)
same principle of “fresh period rule,” expostulating that
procedural law refers to the adjective law which
prescribes rules and forms of procedure in order that Certiorari; improper remedy.
courts may be able to administer justice. Procedural laws
do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive
A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment,
law, or the general rule against the retroactive operation
final order, or resolution of the CA, as in this case, may
of statutes. The “fresh period rule” is irrefragably
file before this Court a verified petition for review
procedural, prescribing the manner in which the
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
appropriate period for appeal is to be computed or
within 15 days from notice of the judgment, final order,
determined and, therefore, can be made applicable to
or resolution appealed from. Petitioners, instead of a
actions pending upon its effectivity, such as the present
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, filed with
case, without danger of violating anyone else’s rights.
this Court the instant petition for certiorari under Rule
65, an improper remedy. By availing of a wrong or
XXX XXX XXX inappropriate mode of appeal, the petition merits outright
dismissal. Esmeraldo C. Romullo, et al. v.. Samahang
Magkakapitbahay ng Bayanihan Compound Homeowners
In the case before us, respondent received a copy of the
Association, Inc. represented by its President, Paquito
Resolution dated September 2, 2003 of the RTC-Branch
Quitalig, G.R. No. 180687, October 6, 2010
227 dismissing his complaint in Civil Case No. Q-02-
48341 on September 26, 2003. Fourteen days
thereafter, on October 10, 2003, respondent filed a Certiorari; not available to set aside denial of
Motion for Reconsideration of said resolution. The RTC- motion to dismiss in absence of grave abuse of
Branch 227 denied respondent’s Motion for discretion.
Reconsideration in an Order dated December 30, 2003,
which the respondent received on February 20, 2004. On
An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory
March 1, 2004, just after nine days from receipt of the
order which neither terminates nor finally disposes of a
order denying his Motion for Reconsideration, respondent
case as it leaves something to be done by the court
330
before the case is finally decided on the merits. As such, Sec. 8. Prohibited pleadings. – The following pleadings
the general rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss are prohibited:
cannot be questioned in a special civil action
for certiorari which is a remedy designed to correct errors
(1) Motion to dismiss;
of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. To justify the
grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the denial
of the motion to dismiss must have been tainted with (2) Motion for a bill of particulars;
grave abuse of discretion. By “grave abuse of discretion”
is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of (3) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration
judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The of judgment or order, or for re-opening of trial;
abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and (4) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a affidavits or any other paper, except those filed due to
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act clearly compelling reasons. Such motion must be verified
all in contemplation of law. In the instant case, Global did and under oath; and
not properly substantiate its claim of arbitrariness on the
part of the trial court judge that issued the assailed (5) Motion for postponement and other motions of similar
orders denying the motion to dismiss. In a petition intent, except those filed due to clearly compelling
for certiorari, absent such showing of arbitrariness, reasons. Such motion must be verified and under oath.
capriciousness, or ill motive in the disposition of the trial (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
judge in the case, we are constrained to uphold the
court’s ruling, especially because its decision was upheld
by the CA. Global Business Holdings, Inc. vs. Surecomp With the above proscription, the RTC in the first place
Software B.V., [G.R. No. 173463. October 13, 2010] should not have issued the December 3, 2003 Order
denying the UOB Group’s motion for reconsideration,
which WINCORP adopted. The remedy of an aggrieved
The petition before the CA was filed out of time. A party like WINCORP is to file a petition for certiorari
perusal of the allegations in the subject petition reveals within sixty (60) days from receipt of the assailed order
that though it sought the nullification of the February 2, and not to file a motion for reconsideration, the latter
2004 Decision of the RTC, what it questioned was the being a prohibited pleading. Here, WINCORP should have
RTC’s resolve to render a judgment before trial pursuant filed the petition for certiorari before the CA on or before
to Section 4, Rule 4 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for January 12, 2004. It was, however, filed only on
Intra-Corporate Controversies. Said section provides, February 13, 2004. With that, the CA should have
dismissed the petition outright for being filed late.
Sec. 4. Judgment before pre-trial. – If, after submission
of the pre-trial briefs, the court determines that, upon Even if the sixty (60)-day period will be reckoned from
consideration of the pleadings, the affidavits and other WINCORP’s receipt of the December 3, 2003 Order, the
evidence submitted by the parties, a judgment may be petition for certiorari was still filed out of time since it
rendered, the court may order the parties to file should have been filed on or before February 2, 2004.
simultaneously their respective memoranda within a non-
extendible period of twenty (20) days from receipt of the
order. Thereafter, the court shall render judgment, either This Court can only conclude that WINCORP filed the
full or otherwise, not later than ninety (90) days from the petition for certiorari supposedly assailing the February 2,
expiration of the period to file the memoranda. 2004 Decision as a subterfuge to make it appear that it
was filed on time when in truth it was assailing an earlier
order, the period for which to assail the same has long
As correctly pointed out by the Farmix Group, it is very elapsed. Westmont Investment Corporation vs. Farmix
clear that the issues raised in the subject petition Fertilizer Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 165876, October
pertained to previous orders of the RTC – the November 4, 2010
12 and December 3, 2003 Orders – submitting the case
for decision.
Certiorari; requirement that respondents be
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
The November 12, 2003 Order was received by WINCORP
on November 13, 2003. It then filed a Manifestation and
Motion adopting the UOB Group’s motion for Preliminarily, certiorari does not lie against respondents
reconsideration of said order and even raised additional who do not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
arguments. Thereafter, the RTC issued the December 3, Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is clear:
2003 Order denying UOB Group’s motion for
reconsideration but there was no mention of WINCORP’s Section 1. Petition for certiorari.—When any tribunal,
manifestation and motion. board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his
Rule 1 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra- jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
Corporate Controversies specifically prohibits the filing of to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal,
motions for reconsideration, to wit: nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
331
ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered in the
file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the cases, provided that the measure will not give one party
facts with certainty and praying that judgment be an undue advantage over the other, or prejudice the
rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such substantial rights of any of the parties.
tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental
reliefs as law and justice may require.
Indeed, the objectives of judicial economy and simplicity
sit well with the prospect of consolidating the two subject
Parenthetically, petitioners do not even allege with any cases. We take note that the Certiorari Petition in this
modicum of particularity how respondents acted without case is only a pending incident in the Receivership Case,
or in excess of their respective jurisdictions, or with which is the main action and in which a motion for the
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of recall of the April 30, 2000 Order of the hearing officer is
jurisdiction. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, still awaiting resolution before Branch 138 of the RTC of
Inc. etc., et al. vs. Anti-Terrorism council, et al./Kilusang Makati, where the case was transferred. Thus, the
Mayo Uno etc., et al. Vs. Hon. Eduardo Ermit., et outcome of the Certiorari Petition will definitely have a
al./Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), et al.  vs. bearing on the Receivership Case, involving as they do
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, etc., et al./Karapatan, et al. vs. the same focal issue of whether or not Excap had been
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, etc., et al./The Integrated Bar found in possession of Bancapital’s assets and requiring
of the Philippines etc. et al. vs. Executive Secretary substantially the same evidence on that matter. In other
Eduardo Ermita, et al./Bagong Alyansang Makabayan- words, conducting separate trials of the cases would only
Southern Tagalog, et al. vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, entail substantial duplication of time and effort not only
etc., et al., G.R. Nos. 178552, 178554, 178581, 178890, by the parties but also by the courts and could terminate
179157, 179461.October 5, 2010 in the two courts rendering conflicting decisions. Bank of
Commerce vs. Hon. Estela Perlas-Bernabe, etc., et
al., G.R. No. 172393, October 20, 2010.
Contempt; indirect contempt

Consolidation.
. Indirect contempt of court is governed by Section 3,

At this juncture, considering that both the Receivership
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Case and the Certiorari Petition have yet to be resolved,
we now come to terms with the central issue of whether
the consolidation of these cases is proper under the Section 6: Indirect contempt to be punished after charge
circumstances. Consolidation of cases is governed by and hearing.-After a charge in writing has been filed, and
Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court, which materially an opportunity given to the respondent to comment
states: thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court
and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of
any of the following acts may be punished for indirect
Section 1. Consolidation. – When actions involving a
contempt:
common question of law or fact are pending before the
court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all
the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the (a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the
actions consolidated; and it may make such orders performance of his official duties or in his official
concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid transactions;
unnecessary costs or delay.
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ,
It is well recognized that consolidation of cases avoids process, order, or judgment of a court, including the act
multiplicity of suits, guards against oppression and of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected
abuse, prevents delay, clears congested court dockets, from any real property by the judgment or process of any
simplifies the work of the courts and seeks to attain court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or
justice with the least expense and vexation to litigants. induces another to enter into or upon such real property,
Generally, consolidation applies only to cases pending for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or
before the same judge and not to cases pending in possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession
different branches of the same court or in different given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
courts.
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the
Yet in appropriate instances and in the interest of justice, processes or proceedings of a court not constituting
cases pending in different branches of the court or in direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
different courts may be consolidated, consistent with the
rule in our jurisdiction that leans towards permitting
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly,
consolidation of cases whenever possible and irrespective
to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of
of the diversity of the issues for resolution. Hence,
justice;
consolidation of cases is proper when the actions involve
the same reliefs or the same parties and basically the
same issues, or when there is real need to forestall the
332
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, the time of the application of the writ, this Court had yet
and acting as such without authority; to decide G.R. No. 172812. LA Calanza opined that so
long as there is no finality yet of the decision reversing a
ruling of the LA awarding reinstatement, the same should
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
be enforced. This was how he interpreted this Court’s
pronouncements in Roquero and Zamora; that “even if
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is
property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the
or process of a court held by him. x x x. employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the
dismissed employee during the period of appeal until
Do the acts of respondents Enriquez and Sia in filing a reversal by the higher court.” But as we clearly discussed
motion for partial execution; of LA Calanza in granting in Bago v. National Labor Relations Commission, while it
the writ of execution and applying or not applying is true that the reinstatement aspect of the LA decision is
established jurisprudence; and of Sheriff Paredes in immediately executory, the reversal thereof by the NLRC
serving the notice of sale of the real property owned by becomes final and executory after ten (10) days from
petitioner fall under the above enumeration? We answer receipt thereof by the parties. That the CA may take
in the negative. cognizance of and resolve a petition for the nullification of
the NLRC decision on jurisdictional and due process
considerations does not affect the statutory finality of the
Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the NLRC decision. It then logically follows that, at the time
court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice, and of the application for the writ ¾ since the Court
dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or eventually sustained the NLRC and the CA decisions in
disobedience of the court’s order, but such conduct which G.R. No. 172812 ¾ no issue of payroll reinstatement may
tends to bring the authority of the court and the be considered at all after the reversal of the LA decision
administration of law into disrepute or, in some manner, by the NLRC. Still, the erroneous issuance of the writ of
to impede the due administration of justice. It is a execution by LA Calanza can only be deemed grave
defiance of the authority, justice, or dignity of the court abuse of discretion which is more properly the subject of
which tends to bring the authority and administration of a petition for certiorari and not a petition for indirect
the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice contempt. No one who is called upon to try the facts or
party-litigants or their witnesses during litigation. The interpret the law in the process of administering justice
power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and can be infallible in his judgment.
is essential to the preservation of order in judicial
proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments,
orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to Finally, Sheriff Paredes, in serving the notice of sale, was
the due administration of justice. However, such power only performing his duty pursuant to the writ of
should be exercised on the preservative, not on the execution. No matter how erroneous the writ was, it was
vindictive, principle. Only occasionally should the court issued by LA Calanza and was addressed to him as the
invoke its inherent power in order to retain that respect, sheriff, commanding him to collect from petitioner the
without which the administration of justice will falter or amount due Enriquez and Sia. In the event he failed to
fail. Only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to collect the amount, he was authorized to cause the
obey should the power be exercised. Such power, being satisfaction of the same on the movable and immovable
drastic and extraordinary in its nature, should not be properties of petitioner not exempt from execution. Thus,
resorted to unless necessary in the interest of justice. It any act performed by Sheriff Paredes pursuant to the
is true that, at the time of the filing by Enriquez and Sia aforesaid writ cannot be considered contemptuous. At the
of the motion for the partial execution of the LA decision time of the service of the notice of sale, there was no
which directed their reinstatement, the decision had order from any court or tribunal restraining him from
already been reversed by the NLRC, and such reversal enforcing the writ. It was ministerial duty for him to
was affirmed by the CA. The case was then on appeal to implement it.
this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. We find that their motion To be considered contemptuous, an act must be clearly
for partial execution was a bona fide attempt to contrary to or prohibited by the order of the court or
implement what they might have genuinely believed they tribunal. A person cannot, for disobedience, be punished
were entitled to in accordance with existing laws and for contempt unless the act which is forbidden or
jurisprudence. This is especially true in the instant case required to be done is clearly and exactly defined, so that
where the means of livelihood of the dismissed there can be no reasonable doubt or uncertainty as to
employees was at stake. Any man in such an uncertain what specific act or thing is forbidden or required. Bank
and economically threatened condition would be expected of the Philippine Islands vs. Labor Arbiter Roderick
to take whatever measures are available to ensure a Joseph Calanza, et al., G.R. No. 180699. October
means of sustenance for himself and his family. Clearly, 13, 2010.
Enriquez and Sia were merely pursuing a claim which
they honestly believed was due them. Their act is far
Counsel; withdrawal of appearance.
from being contumacious.
Rule 138, section 26 of the Rules of Court outlines the

On the other hand, LA Calanza, on motion of Enriquez
procedure in case of withdrawal of counsel. It states:
and Sia, issued the writ of execution considering that at
333
RULE 138 Attorneys and Admission to Bar totally unrelated to the latter’s claim against the
Sebastian spouses because they are “not the same.”
Sec. 26. Change of attorneys. – An attorney may retire
at any time from any action or special proceeding, by the To resolve the issues abovementioned, the elements of a
written consent of his client filed in court. He may also compulsory counterclaim are thus given:
retire at any time from an action or special proceeding,
without the consent of his client, should the court, on
A counterclaim is compulsory and is considered barred if
notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing,
not set up where the following circumstances are
determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case
present: 1) that it arises out of the, or is necessarily
of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed
connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the
shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the
subject matter of the opposing party’s claim, 2) that it
former one, and written notice of the change shall be
does not require for its adjudication the presence of third
given to the adverse party.
parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction,
and 3) that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the
Under the first sentence of Section 26, the withdrawal of claim. (Javier vs. IAC, 171 SCRA 605)
counsel with the conformity of the client is completed
once the same is filed in court. No further action thereon
The provisions of Section 8, Rule 6 must necessarily be
by the court is needed other than the mechanical act of
mentioned also. To wit:
the Clerk of Court of entering the name of the new
counsel in the docket and of giving written notice thereof
to the adverse party. Sec. 8, Rule 6. Counterclaim or cross-claim in the
answer. – The answer may contain any counterclaim or
crossclaim which a party may have at the time against
In this case, it is uncontroverted that the withdrawal of
the opposing party or a co-defendant provided, that the
respondent Samsung’s original counsel, V.E. Del Rosario
court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim and can, if
and Partners on 19 October 2000, was with the client’s
the presence of third parties is essential for its
consent. Thus, no approval thereof by the trial court was
adjudication, acquire jurisdiction of such parties.
required because a court’s approval is indispensable only
if the withdrawal is without the client’s consent. It being
daylight clear that the withdrawal of respondent The rules and jurisprudence do not require that the
Samsung’s original counsel was sufficient as the same parties to the counterclaim be the original parties only.
carried the stamp of approval of the client, the notice of In fact, the presence of third parties is allowed, the only
mediation sent to respondent Samsung’s original counsel provision being their capacity to be subjected under the
was ineffectual as the same was sent at the time when court’s jurisdiction. As regards the nature of the claims
such counsel had already validly withdrawn its of the parties, neither is it required that they be of the
representation. Corollarily, the absence of respondent same nature, only that they arise from the same
Samsung during the scheduled mediation conference was transaction or occurrence.
excusable and justified. Therefore, the trial court
erroneously dismissed Civil Case No. 97-86265. Real It cannot be gainsaid that the emerging trend in the
Bank Inc. vs. Samsung Mabuhay Corporation, et al., G.R. rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the
No. 175862, October 13, 2010. amplest opportunity for the proper and just
determination of his cause, free from the constraints of
Counterclaims; permissive counterclaims; improper technicalities. Rules on the payment of filing fees have
dismissal even if docket fees are due and unpaid. already been relaxed:
Be that as it may, the trial court was incorrect in 1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
dismissing Bayerphil’s counterclaim for non-payment of appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the
docket fees.  All along, Bayerphil has never evaded prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with
payment of the docket fees on the honest belief that its jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the
counterclaim was compulsory. It has always argued action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
against Calibre’s contention that its counterclaim was accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court
permissive ever since the latter opposed Bayerphil’s may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable
motion before the RTC to implead the Sebastian time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
spouses. Lastly, Bayerphil’s belief was reinforced by reglementary period.
Judge Claravall’s October 24, 1990 Resolution when she
denied Calibre’s motion to strike out Bayerphil’s 2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims,
counterclaim. Thus: third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not
be considered filed until and unless the filing fee
With respect to the motion to strike out the counterclaim, prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow
the Rejoinder and Reply of CALIBRE mentioned two payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in
reasons to support it. These are: 1) that the no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or
counterclaim is not against the opposing party only, and reglementary period.
2) that the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is
334
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim questions would indicate that the counterclaim is
by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of compulsory.
the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment
awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if
Tested against the above-mentioned criteria, this Court
specified the same has been left for determination by the
agrees with the CA’s view that petitioner’s counterclaim
court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute
for the recovery of the amount representing rentals
a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of
collected by Fernando from the CMTC is permissive. The
the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to
evidence needed by Fernando to cause the annulment of
enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional
the bid award, deed of absolute sale and TCT is different
fee.
from that required to establish petitioner’s claim for the
recovery of rentals. The issue in the main action, i.e.,
It is a settled doctrine that “although the payment of the the nullity or validity of the bid award, deed of absolute
prescribed docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, its sale and TCT in favor of CMTC, is entirely different from
non-payment x x x should not result in the automatic the issue in the counterclaim, i.e., whether petitioner is
dismissal of the case provided the docket fees are paid entitled to receive the CMTC’s rent payments over the
within the applicable prescriptive period.” “The subject property when petitioner became the owner of
prescriptive period therein mentioned refers to the period the subject property by virtue of the consolidation of
within which a specific action must be filed. It means ownership of the property in its favor. Government
that in every case, the docket fee must be paid before Service Insurance System (GSIS) vs. Heirs of Fernando
the lapse of the prescriptive period. Chapter 3, Title V, P. Caballero, et al., G.R. No. 158090, October 4, 2010
Book III of the Civil Code is the principal law governing
prescription of actions.”
In accordance with the aforementioned rules on payment

Docket fees; GSIS not exempt from payment.
of docket fees, the trial court upon a determination that
Bayerphil’s counterclaim was permissive, should have
instead ordered Bayerphil to pay the required docket fees Petitioner [GSIS] further argues that assuming that its
for the permissive counterclaim, giving it reasonable time counterclaim is permissive, the trial court has jurisdiction
but in no case beyond the reglementary period. At the to try and decide the same, considering petitioner’s
time Bayerphil filed its counter-claim against Calibre and exemption from all kinds of fees.
the spouses Sebastian without having paid the docket
fees up to the time the trial court rendered its Decision In In Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the
on December 6, 1993, Bayerphil could still be ordered to Government Service Insurance System from Payment of
pay the docket fees since no prescription has yet set in. Legal Fees, the Court ruled that the provision in the
Besides, Bayerphil should not suffer from the dismissal of Charter of the GSIS, i.e., Section 39 of Republic Act No.
its case due to the mistake of the trial court. Calibre 8291, which exempts it from “all taxes, assessments,
Traders Inc., Mario Sison Sebastian and Minda Blanco fees, charges or duties of all kinds,” cannot operate to
Sebastian vs. Bayer Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 161431, exempt it from the payment of legal fees. This was
October 13, 2010. because, unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, which
empowered Congress to repeal, alter or supplement the
Counterclaims; tests to determine if compulsory. rules of the Supreme Court concerning pleading, practice
and procedure, the 1987 Constitution removed this
power from Congress. Hence, the Supreme Court now
Going now to the first assigned error, petitioner submits
has the sole authority to promulgate rules concerning
that its counterclaim for the rentals collected by
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts.
Fernando from the CMTC is in the nature of a compulsory
counterclaim in the original action of Fernando against
petitioner for annulment of bid award, deed of absolute In said case, the Court ruled that:
sale and TCT No. 76183. Respondents, on the other
hand, alleged that petitioner’s counterclaim is permissive The separation of powers among the three co-equal
and its failure to pay the prescribed docket fees results branches of our government has erected an impregnable
into the dismissal of its claim. wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules of
pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province
To determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or of this Court. The other branches trespass upon this
not, the Court has devised the following tests: (a) Are prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders that
the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by the effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the procedural
counterclaim largely the same? (b) rules promulgated by this Court. Viewed from this
Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s perspective, the claim of a legislative grant of exemption
claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? (c) Will from the payment of legal fees under Section 39 of RA
substantially the same evidence support or refute 8291 necessarily fails.
plaintiff’s claim as well as the defendant’s counterclaim?
and (d) Is there any logical relation between the claim Congress could not have carved out an exemption for the
and the counterclaim? A positive answer to all four GSIS from the payment of legal fees without
335
transgressing another equally important institutional when he continued his possession despite the termination
safeguard of the Court’s independence − fiscal of his right thereunder.
autonomy. Fiscal autonomy recognizes the power and
authority of the Court to levy, assess and collect fees,
In forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege in the
including legal fees. Moreover, legal fees under Rule 141
complaint, and prove, that he was in prior physical
have two basic components, the Judiciary Development
possession of the property in dispute until he was
Fund (JDF) and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary
deprived thereof by the defendant by any of the means
Fund (SAJF). The laws which established the JDF and the
provided in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules either by
SAJF expressly declare the identical purpose of these
force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In
funds to “guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as
unlawful detainer, there must be an allegation in the
mandated by the Constitution and public policy.” Legal
complaint of how the possession of defendant started or
fees therefore do not only constitute a vital source of the
continued, that is, by virtue of lease or any contract, and
Court’s financial resources but also comprise an essential
that defendant holds possession of the land or building
element of the Court’s fiscal independence. Any
“after the expiration or termination of the right to hold
exemption from the payment of legal fees granted by
possession by virtue of any contract, express or
Congress to government-owned or controlled
implied.” Corazon D. Sarmienta, et al. vs. Manalite
corporations and local government units will necessarily
Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 182953.
reduce the JDF and the SAJF. Undoubtedly, such situation
October 11, 2010
is constitutionally infirm for it impairs the Court’s
guaranteed fiscal autonomy and erodes its independence.
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) vs. Heirs
of Fernando P. Caballero, et al., G.R. No. 158090,
October 4, 2010 Ejectment; unlawful detainer.
Ejectment; forcible entry and unlawful detainer An action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer is
distinguished governed by Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, Section 1 of
which provides:
. Well settled is the rule that what determines the nature
of the action as well as the court which has jurisdiction SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and
over the case are the allegations in the complaint. In when. — Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding
ejectment cases, the complaint should embody such section, a person deprived of the possession of any land
statement of facts as to bring the party clearly within the or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or
class of cases under Section 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person
of Civil Procedure, as amended. Section 1 provides: against whom the possession of any land or building is
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of
SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract,
when.– Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding express or implied, or the legal representatives or
section, a person deprived of the possession of any land assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other
or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such
stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring
against whom the possession of any land or building is an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of
the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, possession, or any person or persons claiming under
express or implied, or the legal representatives or them, for the restitution of such possession, together
assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other with damages and costs.
person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such
unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of
an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the real property from one who illegally withholds possession
person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of after the expiration or termination of his right to hold
possession, or any person or persons claiming under possession under any contract, express or implied. The
them, for the restitution of such possession, together possession of the defendant in unlawful detainer is
with damages and costs. originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or
termination of the right to possess. An unlawful detainer
There are two entirely distinct and different causes of proceeding is summary in nature, jurisdiction of which
action under the aforequoted rule, to wit: (1) a case for lies with the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan
forcible entry, which is an action to recover possession of trial court. The action must be brought within one year
a property from the defendant whose occupation thereof from the date of last demand; and the issue in said case
is illegal from the beginning as he acquired possession by is the right to physical possession. Esmeraldo C.
force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; and (2) a Romullo, et al. vs. Samahang Magkakapitbahay ng
case for unlawful detainer, which is an action for recovery Bayanihan Compound Homeowners Association, Inc.
of possession from the defendant whose possession of represented by its President, Paquito Quitalig, G.R. No.
the property was inceptively lawful by virtue of a contract 180687, October 6, 2010
(express or implied) with the plaintiff, but became illegal
336
occupied by them, trifling technicalities that would tend

to defeat the speedy administration of justice formal
demand is not necessary thereto, (Republic vs. Cruz C.A.
Ejectment; unlawful detainer; allegations
G.R. No. 24910 R Feb. 7, 1964) however, to afford a
constitute case of unlawful detainer.
sufficient period of time within which to vacate the
premises peacefully another oral and formal demands
In the present case, a thorough perusal of the complaint were made upon the same to that effect, and demolish
would reveal that the allegations clearly constitute a case the temporary office and houses they constructed on
of unlawful detainer: plaintiff’s property and instead defendants again, as
representative to alleged “Estate of Julian Tallano” filed a
xxxx complaint for ejectment against plaintiffs former
President, Hon. Marcelino Aben which case, is docketed
as civil case no. 4119, lodged, before branch 11 of this
3. Plaintiff is the registered owner of that certain parcel Honorable court, defendants obstinately refused to
of land involved in the instant case covered by TCT No. peacefully turn over the property they intruded upon in
222603 containing an area of 9,936 sq.m. situated in fact they even dared plaintiff to file a case against them
Sitio Manalite, Phase I, Baranggay Sta. Cruz, Antipolo boasting that nobody can order them to vacate
City, which property was place under community the premises;
mortgage program (CMP);
9. Defendants’ letter dated August 9, 2000,

4. Other defendants in the instant case are all member acknowledged actual receipt of plaintiffs two (2) formal
and officers of defendant AMARA who, through force, demands letters. Thus, “the issuance of Katibayan
intimidation, threat, strategy and stealth entered into Upang Makadulog sa Hukuman” dated September 25,
the premises herein and constructed their temporary 2000;
houses and office building respectively, pre-empting
plaintiff from using the premises thus, depriving the
same of its prior possession thereof; 10. As a result thereof, plaintiff was compelled to engage
the services of the undersigned counsel in order to
immediately institute the instant suit for which services
5. On September 2, 1992 as an strategy of the cheapest plaintiff agreed to pay the amount of P35,000.00 plus
sort defendants, in conspiracy and collusion with each P3,500.00 per court appearance;
other, defendants as representative of Heirs of Antonio
and Hermogenes Rodriquez, the alleged owner of the
property at bar, filed civil case no. 92-2454 against xxxx
plaintiff, lodge before Branch 73 of the Regional Trial
Court of Antipolo City, seeking to annul plaintiff title; A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for
unlawful detainer if it recites the following: (1) initially,
6. Immediately upon final dismissal of such groundless, possession of property by the defendant was by contract
baseless and malicious suit, plaintiff demanded with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, such
defendants to vacate the premises, but the latter pleaded possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to
with the former to be given a one (1) year period within defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of
which to look for a place to transfer, which period, upon possession; (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in
pleas of defendants, coupled with plaintiff’s benevolence possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of
was repeatedly extended by said plaintiffs tolerance of the enjoyment thereof; and (4) within one year from the
occupancy thereof, but under such terms and conditions. last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the
Due to failure to comply with their undertaking despite plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.
repeated demands therefor plaintiffs sent a formal
demand letter upon defendants; Likewise, the evidence proves that after MAHA acquired
the property, MAHA tolerated petitioners’ stay and gave
7. Upon receipt of the above-stated demand, defendants them the option to acquire portions of the property by
propose to become members of plaintiff, as qualification becoming members of MAHA. Petitioners’ continued stay
to acquire portions of the property by sale pursuant to on the premises was subject to the condition that they
the CMP, to which plaintiff agreed and tolerated shall comply with the requirements of the CMP. Thus,
defendants possession by giving the same a period until when they failed to fulfill their obligations, MAHA had the
the month of December 1999, to comply with all the right to demand for them to vacate the property as their
requirements pre-requisite to the availing of the CMP right of possession had already expired or had been
benefits but failed and despite repeated demands terminated. The moment MAHA required petitioners to
therefor, thus, the filing of a complaint with the leave, petitioners became deforciants illegally occupying
Baranggay and the issuance of the certificate to file the land. Well settled is the rule that a person who
action dated February 8, 2000; occupies the land of another at the latter’s tolerance or
permission, without any contract between them, is
necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will
8. As time is of the essence, and the fact that the vacate upon demand, failing which, a summary action for
defendants are mere intruders or usurpers who have no ejectment is the proper remedy against him. Thus, the
possessory right whatsoever over the land illegally RTC and the CA correctly ruled in favor of
337
MAHA. Corazon D. Sarmienta, et al. vs. Manalite Ejectment; unlawful detainer; sole issue is physical
Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 182953. October or material possession of property, independent of
11, 2010 claim of ownership.
As to petitioners’ argument that MAHA’s title is void for

having been secured fraudulently, we find that such issue
was improperly raised. In an unlawful detainer case, the
Ejectment; unlawful detainer; complaint sufficiently
sole issue for resolution is physical or material possession
alleges cause of action for unlawful detainer.
of the property involved, independent of any claim of
ownership by any of the parties. Since the only issue
Based on the foregoing, we have held that a complaint involved is the physical or material possession of the
sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer premises, that is possession de facto and not
if it recites the following: possession de jure, the question of ownership must be
threshed out in a separate action. Corazon D.
(1) initially, possession of property by the defendant Sarmienta, et al. vs. Manalite Homeowners Association,
was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; Inc., G.R. No. 182953. October 11, 2010
(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon

notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the
latter’s right of possession; Extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage;
notice requirement.
(3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of
the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment In Olizon v. Court of Appeals, the Court expounded on
thereof; and the purpose for giving notice of the foreclosure sale; and
if such purpose could be attained by publication alone,
(4) within one year from the last demand on defendant then the absence of actual posting should not nullify the
to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the sale. Thus:
complaint for ejectment.
We take judicial notice of the fact that newspaper
In this case, respondent’s allegations in the complaint publications have more far-reaching effects than posting
clearly make a case for unlawful detainer, essential to on bulletin boards in public places. There is a greater
confer jurisdiction on the MeTC over the subject matter. probability that an announcement or notice published in a
Thus, we accord respect to the CA’s findings, to wit: newspaper of general circulation, which is distributed
nationwide, shall have a readership of more people than
that posted in a public bulletin board, no matter how
A review of the Complaint readily reveals that land titles strategic its location may be, which caters only to a
were issued in the name of the respondent after it limited few. Hence, the publication of the notice of sale
purchased the land referred to as the Bayanihan in the newspaper of general circulation alone is more
Compound through the Community Mortgage Program than sufficient compliance with the notice-posting
(CMP) of the National Home Mortgage Finance requirement of the law. By such publication, a
Corporation.  The lots allocated to the petitioners formed reasonably wide publicity had been effected such that
part of the Bayanihan Compound which they received as those interested might attend the public sale, and the
members/beneficiaries of the respondent.  However, their purpose of the law had been thereby subserved.
refusal to pay the monthly amortizations despite
demands resulted in their expulsion as members and loss
of recognition as beneficiaries of the lots in question.  The object of a notice of sale is to inform the public of
Even when the case was referred to the barangay, no the nature and condition of the property to be sold, and
settlement was reached.  Petitioners likewise did not of the time, place and terms of the sale. Notices are
conform to respondent’s demand to vacate the premises given for the purpose of securing bidders and to prevent
and return its possession.  As such, respondent sought to a sacrifice of the property. If these objects are attained,
recover possession of the said lots by filing a case for immaterial errors and mistakes will not affect the
ejectment within a year after final demand. sufficiency of the notice; but if mistakes or omissions
occur in the notices of sale, which are calculated to deter
or mislead bidders, to depreciate the value of the
Esmeraldo C. Romullo, et al. vs. Samahang property, or to prevent it from bringing a fair price, such
Magkakapitbahay ng Bayanihan Compound Homeowners mistakes or omissions will be fatal to the validity of the
Association, Inc. represented by its President, Paquito notice, and also to the sale made pursuant thereto.
In the instant case, the aforesaid objective was attained

since there was sufficient publicity of the sale through the
newspaper publication. There is completely no showing
that the property was sold for a price far below its value
as to insinuate any bad faith, nor was there any showing
338
or even an intimation of collusion between the sheriff property. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs.
who conducted the sale and respondent bank. This being Pedro P. Buenaventura, G.R. No. 176479, October 6,
so, the alleged non-compliance with the posting 2010
requirement, even if true, will not justify the setting aside
of the sale.
Factual findings of administrative agencies
generally accorded respect and even finality .
Olizon squarely applies in this case. It is not disputed
that the Notice of Sale was duly published in a newspaper
Factual findings of administrative agencies are generally
of general circulation once a week for three consecutive
respected and even accorded finality because of the
weeks. Respondents did not allege, much less prove,
special knowledge and expertise gained by these
any mistake or omission in the published Notice of Sale
agencies from handling matters falling under their
calculated to deter or mislead bidders, depreciate the
specialized jurisdiction. Given that the LMB is the
value of the property, or to prevent it from bringing a fair
administrative agency tasked with assisting the Secretary
price; or sale of the mortgaged properties for a price far
of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
below their value as to insinuate bad faith; or collusion
(DENR) in the management and disposition of alienable
between Notary Public Magpantay, who conducted the
and disposable lands of the public domain, we defer to its
sale, and petitioner. Hence, the alleged non-compliance
specialized knowledge on these matters. Pio Modesto
with the posting requirement, even if true, shall not
and Cirila Rivera-Modesto vs. Carlos Urbina, substituted
justify the setting aside of the foreclosure sale. Century
by the heirs of Olympia Miguel Vda. de Urbina, et
Savings Bank vs. Spouses Danilo T. Samonte and
al., G.R. No. 189859, October 18, 2010.
Rosalinda M. Samonte, G.R. No. 176212, October 20,
2010.
Injunction; preliminary injunction; nature of
remedy and evidence relied on.
Extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage; requirement
that debtor be in default.
It must also be pointed out that there was a preliminary
issue – that of the parties’ respective petitions for
Foreclosure is valid only when the debtor is in default in
injunction – that had to be determined before the
the payment of his obligation. It is a necessary
resolution of the main case. When the case was
consequence of non-payment of mortgage indebtedness.
transferred from the SEC to the RTC, only the matter of
As a rule, the mortgage can be foreclosed only when the
the petitions for preliminary injunctions had been heard
debt remains unpaid at the time it is due. In a real
and submitted for resolution. The hearings to resolve the
estate mortgage, when the principal obligation is not paid
petition to nullify the Foundation’s Amended By-laws
when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose on
were yet to be held.
the mortgage, to have the property seized and sold, and
to apply the proceeds to the obligation. RCBC’s own
Amortization Schedule readily shows the applicability of An injunctive writ is not a judgment on the merits of the
Article 1176 of the Civil Code, which states: case. A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based
solely on initial and incomplete evidence. The evidence
submitted during the hearing on an application for a writ
Art. 1176. The receipt of the principal by the creditor,
of preliminary injunction is not conclusive or complete,
without reservation with respect to the interest, shall give
for only a “sampling” is needed to give the trial court an
rise to the presumption that the said interest has been
idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction
paid.
pending the decision of the case on the merits.
The receipt of a later installment of a debt without

An order granting a preliminary injunction is not a final
reservation as to prior installments, shall likewise raise
resolution or decision disposing of the case. It is based
the presumption that such installments have been paid.
on a preliminary determination of the status quo and on
petitioner’s entitlement to the Writ. Thus, the findings of
Respondent’s passbooks indicate that RCBC continued to fact and opinion of a court when issuing the writ of
receive his payments even after it made demands for him preliminary injunction are interlocutory in nature and
to pay his past due accounts, and even after the auction made before the trial on the merits is commenced or
sale. RCBC cannot deny receipt of the payments, even terminated. There may be vital facts to be presented at
when it claims that the deposits were “not withdrawn.” It trial which may not be obtained or presented during the
is not respondent’s fault that RCBC did not withdraw the hearing on the application for the injunctive writ. The
money he deposited. His obligation under the mortgage trial court needs to conduct substantial proceedings in
agreement was to deposit his payment in the savings order to put the main controversy to rest. As such, even
account he had opened for that purpose, in order that as respondents claim that the RTC correctly ruled that
RCBC may debit the amount of his monthly liabilities the Amended By-laws are not valid, they are still
therefrom. He complied with his part of the agreement. contesting the latter’s finding on the number of qualified
This bolsters the conclusion of the CA that respondent apostles. This only further underscores the need for trial
had no unpaid installments and was not in default as to determine which of the parties’ claims are true and
would warrant the application of the acceleration clause relevant. There are other questions raised that cannot
and the subsequent foreclosure and auction sale of the be answered in the present petition, and nothing less
339
than a full-blown trial is needed in order to test the evident in its recognition of the fact that by virtue of the
conflicting claims of the parties. Manuel D. Recto, et al. enactment of R.A. No. 8799, it has thereby also lost the
vs. Bishop Federico O. Escaler, S.J., et al., G.R. No. oversight power to correct abuses of discretion in the
173179, October 20, 2010. issuance of interlocutory orders by its hearing officers.
More to the point, it likewise ordered the transfer of the
records of the case to the trial court where it may
Judgment; finality.
supposedly be heard for further consideration. On these
observations, it is clear that this Order could not have
Elemental is the rule of procedure that the nature of a written finis to the Certiorari Petition for the basic reason
pleading is to be determined by the averments in it that the SEC En Banc, at that given point, could no
and not by its title. Hence, while petitioner’s Motion (to longer validly act on the same —much less to rule on the
Recall the April 19, 2000 Order) was so denominated, it merits of the petition. Bank of Commerce vs. Hon. Estela
is not difficult to see that the remedy it was seeking was Perlas-Bernabe, etc., et al. G.R. No. 172393, October 20,
actually a reconsideration of the dismissal of the 2010.
Receivership Case. This Motion, to reiterate, does not
appear to have been acted upon by the hearing officer at
Judgment; finality.
any time during the interim that the subject order was
issued and the two cases were eventually transferred to
Branches 138 and 142 of the RTC of Makati. In Once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of
particular, when the Receivership Case was transferred to the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous
Branch 138, petitioner’s Motion to Recall was still a or not and no court – not even the Supreme Court – has
pending incident in the case. With the transfer of the the power to revise, review, change or alter the same.
records to the said court, the accompanying duty to The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the
resolve the motion likewise had devolved on the said fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice
court. In other words, contrary to the findings of the that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of
Court of Appeals, the Receivership Case has not yet courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must
attained finality, as indeed the motion seeking become final at some definite date fixed by law.
reconsideration of its dismissal had not been acted upon
by the hearing officer himself and had not yet, in fact,
Admittedly, the rule that a judgment that has become
been acted upon by Branch 138 of the RTC of Makati.
final and executory can no longer be disturbed, altered or
Moreover, the November 23, 2000 Order of the SEC En
modified admits of exceptions in special cases. In filing
Banc reads in full:
the petition at hand, however, ZFMC has once again
hindered the proper appreciation of the facts of the case
Under the Revised Rules of Procedure of the Securities by failing to submit copies of the BFD Director’s orders
and Exchange Commission, parties in an intra-corporate dated 8 May 1974 and 11 November 1974, a complete
dispute are allowed to file a petition copy of the 25 June 1985 decision in MNR Case No. 4023
for certiorari questioning interlocutory orders of the and the pleadings the parties filed before the MNR and
Hearing Officer based on grave abuse of discretion. Such the Office of the President. Even if we were, therefore, to
remedy was allowed by the Commission in order for it to excuse ZFMC’s procedural lapses before the CA, there
have oversight power over the acts of the Hearing would still be a paucity of bases for the reversal of the 30
Officer. With the passage [of] Republic Act 8799 June 2003 decision in O.P. Case No. 5613. Zamboanga
otherwise known as the “Securities Regulation Code,” the Forest Managers Corporation vs. New Pacific Timber and
jurisdiction of the Commission over intra-corporate Supply Company, et al., G.R. No. 173342. October 13,
dispute was transferred to the regular courts. With the 2010.
transfer of this function to the regular courts, the
oversight power of the Commission en banc over the acts
Judgment; finality; party cannot re-litigate claims
of their Hearing Officers, has now become functus
already resolved with finality.
officius. Therefore, the present petition
for certiorari herein shall no longer be acted upon by the
Commission and denied due course. A copy of this order, In their Memorandum, respondents’ claim that CMTC
together with the records of the case, [is] hereby cannot purchase real estate or invest its funds in any
forwarded to the Regional Trial Court where the main purpose other than its primary purpose for which it was
case shall be heard for their consideration. SO organized in the absence of a corporate board resolution;
ORDERED. the bid award, deed of absolute sale and TCT No. T-
76183, issued in favor of the CMTC, should be nullified;
the trial court erred in concluding that GSIS personnel
As can be gleaned from the aforequoted order, the
have regularly performed their official duty when they
SEC En Banc has chosen not to act on
conducted the public bidding; Fernando, as former owner
the Certiorari Petition which principally assailed the
of the subject property and former member of the GSIS,
October 22 and December 16, 1999 Orders of Hearing
has the preemptive right to repurchase the foreclosed
Officer Bacalla respectively accepting the Committee
property. These additional averments cannot be taken
Report and denying reconsideration, precisely because it
cognizance by the Court, because they were substantially
acknowledged that it has lost jurisdiction over the
respondents’ arguments in their petition for review
petition as a result of the supervening transfer of
on certiorari earlier filed before Us and docketed as G.R.
jurisdiction over the case to the trial court. This is
No. 156609. Records show that said petition was denied
340
by the Court in a Resolution dated April 23, 2003, for Invariably, rules of procedure should be viewed as mere
petitioners’ (respondents herein) failure to sufficiently tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.
show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible Their strict and rigid application, which would result in
error in the challenged decision as to warrant the technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote
exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate substantial justice, must always be eschewed.  Even the
jurisdiction. [The petition was also denied for lack of Rules of Court reflects this principle.  The power to
proof of the petition on the adverse party and its failure suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and
to attach the affidavit of service of copy of the petition on compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself
the adverse parties. (Id. at 190.)] Said resolution had already declared to be final.
became final and executory on June 9, 2003.
Respondents’ attempt to re-litigate claims already passed
That the issues posed by this case are of transcendental
upon and resolved with finality by the Court in G.R. No.
importance is not hard to discern from these discussions.
156609 cannot be allowed. Government Service
A constitutional limitation, guaranteed under no less than
Insurance System (GSIS) vs. Heirs of Fernando P.
the all-important Bill of Rights, is at stake in this case:
Caballero, et al., G.R. No. 158090, October 4, 2010
how can compensation in an eminent domain be “just”
when the payment for the compensation for property
Judgment; immutability; exceptions. already taken has been unreasonably delayed? To claim,
as the assailed Resolution does, that only private interest
is involved in this case is to forget that an expropriation
As a rule, a final judgment may no longer be altered,
involves the government as a necessary actor.
amended or modified, even if the alteration, amendment
It forgets, too, that under eminent domain, the
or modification is meant to correct what is perceived to
constitutional limits or standards apply to government
be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law and regardless
who carries the burden of showing that these standards
of what court, be it the highest Court of the land,
have been met. Thus, to simply dismiss this case as a
rendered it. In the past, however, we have recognized
private interest matter is an extremely shortsighted view
exceptions to this rule by reversing judgments and
that this Court should not leave uncorrected. As duly
recalling their entries in the interest of substantial justice
noted in the above discussions, this issue is not one of
and where special and compelling reasons called for such
first impression in our jurisdiction; the consequences of
actions.
delay in the payment of just compensation have been
settled by this Court in past rulings. Our settled
Notably, in San Miguel Corporation v. National Labor jurisprudence on the issue alone accords this case
Relations Commission, Galman v. primary importance as a contrary ruling would unsettle,
Sandiganbayan, Philippine Consumers Foundation v. on the flimsiest of grounds, all the rulings we have
National Telecommunications Commission, and Republic established in the past. More than the stability of our
v. de los Angeles, we reversed our judgment on jurisprudence, the matter before us is of transcendental
the second motion for reconsideration, while in Vir-Jen importance to the nation because of the subject matter
Shipping and Marine Services v. National Labor Relations involved – agrarian reform, a societal objective that the
Commission, we did so on a third motion for government has unceasingly sought to achieve in the
reconsideration. In Cathay Pacific v. Romillo and Cosio past half century. This reform program and its objectives
v. de Rama, we modified or amended our ruling on the would suffer a major setback if the government falters or
second motion for reconsideration. More recently, in the is seen to be faltering, wittingly or unwittingly, through
cases of Munoz v. Court of Appeals, Tan Tiac Chiong v. lack of good faith in implementing the needed reforms.
Hon. Cosico, Manotok IV v. Barque, and Barnes v. Truly, agrarian reform is so important to the national
Padilla, we recalled entries of judgment after finding that agenda that the Solicitor General, no less, pointedly
doing so was in the interest of substantial justice. linked agricultural lands, its ownership and abuse, to the
In Barnes, we said: idea of revolution. This linkage, to our mind, remains
valid even if the landowner, not the landless farmer, is at
x x x Phrased elsewise, a final and executory judgment the receiving end of the distortion of the agrarian reform
can no longer be attacked by any of the parties or be program.
modified, directly or indirectly, even by the highest court
of the land. As we have ruled often enough, rules of procedure should
not be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of
However, this Court has relaxed this rule in order to procedure are used only to help secure, not override,
serve substantial justice considering (a) matters of life, substantial justice. As we explained in Ginete v. Court of
liberty, honor or property, (b) the existence of special or Appeals:
compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d)
a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should
of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (e) a be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the
lack of any showing that the review sought is merely attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application,
frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate
unjustly prejudiced thereby. rather than promote substantial justice, must always be
eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflect this principle.
The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so
341
pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this adjudication on said papers and attachments is proper.
Court itself has already declared to be final, as we are The petitioner’s position is impressed with merit.
now constrained to do in the instant case.
Rule 34 of the Rules of Court provides that “where an
x x x x answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the
material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading, the
court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on
The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to
such pleading.” Judgment on the pleadings is, therefore,
afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the
based exclusively upon the allegations appearing in the
proper and just determination of his cause, free from the
pleadings of the parties and the annexes, if any, without
constraints of technicalities. Time and again, this Court
consideration of any evidence aliunde. When what is left
has consistently held that rules must not be applied
are not genuinely issues requiring trial but questions
rigidly so as not to override substantial justice.
concerning the proper interpretation of the
provisions of some written contract attached to the
Similarly, in de Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, we had pleadings, judgment on the pleadings is proper.
occasion to state:
From the pleadings, the parties admitted the following
The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set facts:
forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice but not to
bind and chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise,
(1) EIB is the stockbroker of petitioners.
courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules,
shorn of judicial discretion. That is precisely why courts in
rendering justice have always been, as they ought to be, (2) Petitioners and EIB entered into a SDAA, Annex “1” of
conscientiously guided by the norm that when on the EIB’s answer, which governed the relationship between
balance, technicalities take a backseat against petitioners as clients and EIB as stockbroker. Sec. 7 of
substantive rights, and not the other way around. Truly the SDAA provides:
then, technicalities, in the appropriate language of
Justice Makalintal, “should give way to the realities
7. Lien
of the situation.
The client agrees that all monies and/or securities

We made the same recognition in Barnes, on the
and/or all other property of the Client (plaintiffs) in
underlying premise that a court’s primordial and most
the Company’s (defendant) custody or control held
important duty is to render justice; in discharging the
from time to time shall be subject to a general lien
duty to render substantial justice, it is permitted to re-
in favour of Company for the discharge of all or any
examine even a final and executory judgment.
indebtedness of the Client to the Company. The
Client shall not be entitled to withdraw any monies
Based on all these considerations, particularly the or securities held by the Company pending the
patently illegal and erroneous conclusion that the payment in full to the Company of any
petitioners are not entitled to 12% interest, we find that indebtedness of the Client to the Company. The
we are duty-bound to re-examine and overturn the company shall be entitled at any time and without notice
assailed Resolution. We shall completely and inexcusably to the Client to retain, apply, sell or dispose of all or any
be remiss in our duty as defenders of justice if, given the of the [client’s] property if any such obligation or liability
chance to make the rectification, we shall let the is not discharged in full by the client when due or on
opportunity pass. Apo Fruits Corporation, et al. vs. Land demand in or towards the payment and discharge of such
Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164195, October 12, obligation or liability and the Company shall be under no
2010. duty to the client as to the price obtained or any losses
or liabilities incurred or arising in respect of any such sale
or disposal. Subject to the relevant law and regulation on
Judgment on the pleadings .
the matter, the client hereby authorizes the Company, on
his/its behalf, at any time and without notice to the
At the outset, we lay stress on the Court’s policy that client’s property if any such obligation or liability is not
cases should be promptly and expeditiously resolved. The discharged. (Emphasis supplied.)
Rules of Court seeks to abbreviate court procedure in
order to allow the swift disposition of cases. Specifically,
It is clear from the SDAA that all monies, securities, and
special strategies like demurrer to evidence, judgment on
other properties of petitioners in EIB’s custody or control
the pleadings, and summary judgment were adopted to
shall be subject to a general lien in favor of the latter
attain this avowed goal. Full-blown trial is dispensed with
solely for the discharge of all or any indebtedness
and judgment is rendered on the basis of the pleadings,
to EIB.
supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions of the
parties. In the instant petition, the Court is confronted
with the propriety of the judgment on the pleadings (3) From June 2003 to March 2004, petitioners, through
rendered by the Makati City RTC. Petitioners claim such their broker, EIB, bought 60,790,000 KKP shares of stock
at the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE).
342
(4) On various dates in July and August 2003, The principal issue in petitioners’ complaint is whether
petitioners bought 16,180,000 DMCI shares of stock EIB can be compelled to return DMCI shares to
through EIB likewise at the PSE, while 16,000,000 DMCI petitioners based on the alleged unauthorized disposal or
shares of petitioners were transferred to EIB by Westlink sale of said shares to comply with the buy back of the
Global Equities, Inc. Thus, a total of 32,180,000 DMCI KKP shares. The threshold issue raised in the answer is
shares of stock owned by petitioners were placed in the the lack of jurisdiction over the complaint due to the
custody or control of EIB. alleged nonpayment of the proper docket fees.
Affirmative defenses presented are that EIB disposed of
the DMCI shares pursuant to Sec. 7 of the SDAA, and the
(5) On April 1, 2004, petitioners ordered the sale of
notices of sale, ratification and laches.
60,790,000 KPP shares to any buyer at the price of PhP
0.14 per share. The KPP shares were eventually sold at
PhP 0.14 per share to interested buyers. Based on the admissions in the pleadings and documents
attached, the Court finds that the issues presented by the
complaint and the answer can be resolved within the four
(6) Petitioners failed to reacquire or buy back the KPP
corners of said pleadings without need to conduct further
shares at PhP 0.18 per share after 30 days from date of
hearings. As explained by the Court in Philippine National
transaction.
Bank v. Utility Assurance & Surety Co., Inc., when what
remains to be done is the proper interpretation of
(7) As petitioners failed to deliver funds to EIB to honor the contracts or documents attached to the
the buy-back obligation, not to mention the cash account pleadings, then judgment on the pleadings is
obligations of petitioners in the amount of PhP 70 million proper. In the case at bar, the issue of whether the sale
to EIB, EIB had no recourse but to sell the DMCI shares of DMCI shares to effectuate the buy back of the KKP
of petitioners to reacquire the KPP shares. shares is valid can be decided by the trial court based on
the SDAA, Notices of Sale, Sales Confirmation Receipts,
(8) Thus, on various dates in June 2004, EIB, without the letters of the parties, and other appendages to the
petitioners’ knowledge and consent, sold petitioners’ pleadings in conjunction with the allegations or
32,180,000 DMCI shares at the controlling market price. admissions contained in the pleadings without need of
EIB later sent sales confirmation receipts to petitioners trial. The Makati City RTC is, therefore, correct in issuing
regarding the sale of their DMCI shares, said receipts the October 18, 2005 Resolution granting the Motion for
containing the common notice, which reads: Judgment on the Pleadings.
All transaction[s] are subject to the rules and customs of The CA nullified the October 18, 2005 Resolution on the
the Exchange and its Clearing House. It is agreed that ground that there are other issues that must be resolved
all securities shall secure all my/our liabilities to during a full-blown trial, ratiocinating this way:
e.securities and is authorized in their discretion to sell
all or any of them without notice to we/us whenever in While it may be true that the Appellant has already
the opinion of e.securities my/our account is not properly admitted that the sale of the DMCI shares was for the
secured. (Emphasis supplied.) purpose of buying back the KPP shares and that such
admission strengthened Appellees’ claim that the sale of
(9) EIB sent statements of accounts to petitioners the DMCI shares is a nullity, there were other issues
showing the sale of the DMCI shares which uniformly raised by the Appellant that can only be threshed out
contained the following notice: during a full blown trial, viz: the average price of the KPP
shares of stock, the scope of the collaterals stated in the
Notices of Sale and the monetary claims of the Appellant
This statement will be considered correct unless we against the Appellees.
receive notice in writing of any exceptions within 5 days
from receipt. Please address all correspondence
concerning exceptions to our OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT. To the mind of the Court, these matters are not
Kindly notify us in writing of any changes in your genuinely triable issues but actually minor issues or mere
address. incidental questions that can be resolved by construing
the statements embodied in the appendages to the
pleadings. The facts that gave rise to the side issues are
(10) On January 12, 2005, petitioners wrote EIB undisputed and were already presented to the trial court
demanding the return of the 32,180,000 DMCI shares. rendering trial unnecessary. Pacific Rehouse
Corporation, et al. vs. EIB Securities, Inc., G.R. No.
(11) On January 12, 2005, EIB rejected petitioners 184036, October 13, 2010.
demand for the return of the DMCI shares, as those were
already sold to cover the buy back of the KPP shares. Jurisdiction; bar by laches.
(12) Petitioners’ prayer is the return of the 32,180,000 For the first time in the entire proceedings of this case,
DMCI shares by EIB to them. petitioners raise the trial court’s alleged lack of
jurisdiction over the subject-matter in light of the
effectivity of the IPRA at the time that the complaint was
343
filed in 1998. They maintain that, under the IPRA, it is enactment of the IPRA. They assailed the validity of the
the NCIP which has jurisdiction over land disputes CSTFAL resolution favoring respondent on the ground
involving indigenous cultural communities and indigenous that the CSTFAL had been rendered functus officio under
peoples. the IPRA. Inexplicably, petitioners still did not question
the trial court’s jurisdiction.
As a rule, an objection over subject-matter jurisdiction
may be raised at any time of the proceedings. This is When petitioners recoursed to the appellate court, they
because jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties or only raised as errors the trial court’s appreciation of the
vested by the agreement of the parties. Jurisdiction is evidence and the conclusions that it derived therefrom.
vested by law, which prevails at the time of the filing of In their brief, they once again assailed the CSTFAL’s
the complaint. resolution as having been rendered functus officio by the
enactment of IPRA. But nowhere did petitioners assail
the trial court’s ruling for having been rendered without
An exception to this rule has been carved by
jurisdiction.
jurisprudence. In the seminal case of Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy, the Court ruled that the existence of laches
will prevent a party from raising the court’s lack of It is only before this Court, eight years after the filing of
jurisdiction. Laches is defined as the “failure or neglect, the complaint, after the trial court had already conducted
for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to a full-blown trial and rendered a decision on the merits,
do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or after the appellate court had made a thorough review of
should have been done earlier; it is negligence or the records, and after petitioners have twice encountered
omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, adverse decisions from the trial and the appellate courts
warranting the presumption that the party entitled to — that petitioners now want to expunge all the efforts
assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.” that have gone into the litigation and resolution of their
Wisely, some cases have cautioned against applying case and start all over again. This practice cannot be
Tijam, except for the most exceptional cases where the allowed. Thus, even assuming arguendo that petitioners’
factual milieu is similar to Tijam. theory about the effect of IPRA is correct (a matter which
need not be decided here), they are already barred by
laches from raising their jurisdictional objection under the
In Tijam, the surety could have raised the issue of lack of
circumstances. Delfin Lamsis, et al. vs. Margarita Semon
jurisdiction in the trial court but failed to do so. Instead,
Dong-e, G.R. No. 173021, October 20, 2010.
the surety participated in the proceedings and filed
pleadings, other than a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction. When the case reached the appellate court, Jurisdiction; determined by allegations in
the surety again participated in the case and filed their complaint.
pleadings therein. It was only after receiving the
appellate court’s adverse decision that the surety awoke
Settled is the rule that jurisdiction in ejectment cases is
from its slumber and filed a motion to dismiss, in lieu of a
determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint.
motion for reconsideration. The CA certified the matter
It cannot be made to depend on the defenses set up in
to this Court, which then ruled that the surety was
the answer or pleadings filed by the defendant. Neither
already barred by laches from raising the jurisdiction
can it be made to depend on the exclusive
issue.
characterization of the case by one of the parties. The
test for determining the sufficiency of those allegations is
In case at bar, the application of the Tijam doctrine is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can
called for because the presence of laches cannot be render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer of
ignored. If the surety in Tijam was barred by laches the plaintiff. Esmeraldo C. Romullo, et al. vs.. Samahang
for raising the issue of jurisdiction for the first time Magkakapitbahay ng Bayanihan Compound Homeowners
in the CA, what more for petitioners in the instant Association, Inc. represented by its President, Paquito
case who raised the issue for the first time in their Quitalig, G.R. No. 180687, October 6, 2010
petition before this Court. At the time that the
complaint was first filed in 1998, the IPRA was already in
Jurisdiction; jurisdiction by estoppel.
effect but the petitioners never raised the same as a
ground for dismissal; instead they filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the value of the property did Considering the foregoing discussion, we find no need to
not meet the jurisdictional value for the RTC. They remand the case to the trial court for the resolution of
obviously neglected to take the IPRA into consideration. Bayerphil’s counterclaim. In Metromedia Times
When the amended complaint was filed in 1998, the Corporation v. Pastorin, we discussed the rule as to when
petitioners no longer raised the issue of the trial court’s jurisdiction by estoppel applies and when it does not,
lack of jurisdiction. Instead, they proceeded to trial, all thus:
the time aware of the existence of the IPRA as evidenced
by the cross-examination conducted by petitioners’ Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit is
lawyer on the CSTFAL Chairman Guillermo Fianza. In the yet another matter. Whenever it appears that the court
cross-examination, it was revealed that the petitioners has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action
were aware that the DENR, through the CSTFAL, had lost shall be dismissed (Section 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court).
its jurisdiction over ancestral land claims by virtue of the This defense may be interposed at any time, during
344
appeal (Roxas vs. Rafferty, 37 Phil. 957) or even after plain reading of the prayer does not show that petitioners
final judgment (Cruzcosa vs. Judge Concepcion, et al., asked for the payment of actual damages of PhP 4.5
101 Phil. 146). Such is understandable, as this kind of million. The reliefs asked by petitioners in the prayer
jurisdiction is conferred by law and not within the courts, are:
let alone the parties, to themselves determine or
conveniently set aside. In People vs. Casiano (111 Phil.
1. Upon the filing of the Complaint, a writ
73, 93-94), this Court, on the issue of estoppel, held:
of preliminary attachment be issued ex
parte against defendant pursuant to
“The operation of the principle of estoppel on the Section 2, Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of
question of jurisdiction seemingly depends upon whether Civil Procedure;
the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had 2. After trial, judgment rendered in favor
no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon of plaintiffs and against defendant as
the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not follows:
barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for
the same ‘must exist as a matter of law, and may not be
On the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – declaring void the sale
conferred by consent of the parties or by estoppel’ (5
by defendant of the 32,180,000 DMCI shares of stock of
C.J.S., 861-863). However, if the lower court had
plaintiffs and directing defendant to return to plaintiffs
jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a
the latter’s 32,180,000 DMCI shares of stock, or in the
given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no
event the return thereof is not possible, holding
jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such
defendant liable under Articles 1888,1889,1909 and
theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an
other pertinent provisions of the Civil Code.
inconsistent position – that the lower court had
jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel applies. The
rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and does not On the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – directing defendant
depend upon the will of the parties, has no bearing to pay plaintiffs moral damages in the amount of at least
thereon.” P3,000,000.00;
In this case, the trial court had jurisdiction over the On the THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – directing defendant
counterclaim although it erroneously ordered its to pay plaintiffs exemplary damages in the amount of at
automatic dismissal. As already discussed, the trial court least P3,000,000.00; and
should have instead directed Bayerphil to pay the
required docket fees within a reasonable time. Even On the FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – directing defendant
then, records show that the trial court heard the to pay plaintiffs attorney’s fees in the amount of
counterclaim although it again erroneously found the P2,000,000.00 and such amounts as may be proven at
same to be unmeritorious. Besides, it must also be the trial as litigation expenses.
mentioned that Bayerphil was lulled into believing that its
counterclaim was indeed compulsory and thus there was
no need to pay docket fees by virtue of Judge Claravall’s Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
October 24, 1990 Resolution. Petitioners also actively
participated in the adjudication of the counterclaim which Since the prayer did not ask for the payment of actual
the trial court adjudge to be unmeritorious. Calibre damages of PhP 4.5 million, the clerk of court correctly
Traders Inc., Mario Sison Sebastian and Minda Blanco assessed the amount of PhP 120,758.80 as docket fees
Sebastian vs. Bayer Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 161431, based on the total amount of PhP 8 million consisting of
October 13, 2010. PhP 3 million as moral damages, PhP 3 million as
exemplary damages, and PhP 2 million as attorney’s fees.
Jurisdiction; payment of docket fees.
In disputing the fees paid by petitioners, respondent
EIB asserts that the trial court has no jurisdiction over relies on our ruling in Manchester, where we said that “all
the complaint on account of insufficient dockets fees. complaints, petitions, answers and other similar
Although petitioners paid a total of PhP 120,758.80 in pleadings should specify the amount of damages being
legal fees with the RTC, EIB argues that what was paid is prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in
based merely on petitioners’ prayer for moral damages of the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the
PhP 3 million, exemplary damages of PhP 3 million, and assessment of the filing fees in any case.”
attorney’s fees of PhP 2 million, but not including
petitioners’ claim for PhP 4.5 million as actual damages EIB insinuates that petitioners, by alleging the substantial
as averred in paragraph 9 of the complaint. Thus, EIB, loss of PhP 4.5 million from the sale of the DMCI shares
relying on Manchester Development Corporation v. Court but not specifying the amount in their prayer,
of Appeals (Manchester) and Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. circumvented the Manchester ruling to evade the
v. Asuncion, maintains that the RTC should not have payment of the correct filing fees. This postulation is
entertained the case. incorrect. It is clear that petitioners demanded the return
of the DMCI shares in the prayer of the complaint and
It is hornbook law that courts acquire jurisdiction over a NOT the alleged loss in the value of the shares. If the
case only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee. A DMCI shares are returned, then no actual damages are
345
suffered by petitioners. A recall of the averment in par. 9 certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Thus,
of the complaint shows that the alleged loss of PhP 4.5 Section 2 of Rule 64 of the Rules of Court now clearly
million to petitioners resulted from the sale of DMCI specifies that the mode of review is the special civil
shares at PhP 0.24 per share when they acquired it at action of certiorari under Rule 65, except as therein
PhP 0.38 per share. More importantly, the court was provided. In Ocate v. Commission on Elections, we
proscribed by the Manchester ruling from granting actual further held that:
damages of PhP 4.5 million to petitioners, because
precisely the alleged damages were never sought in the
The purpose of a petition for certiorari is to determine
prayer. Ergo, EIB’s attack on the trial court’s assumption
whether the challenged tribunal has acted without or in
of jurisdiction must fail. Pacific Rehouse Corporation, et
excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
al. vs. EIB Securities, Inc., G.R. No. 184036, October 13,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Thus, any
2010.
resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in
relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Jurisdiction; Supreme Court’s certiorari jurisdiction Procedure is limited to the resolution of
over rulings of Commission on Elections jurisdictional issues.
(COMELEC).
The COMELEC should likewise be aware that the
First, both the COMELEC and the private respondents Constitution itself, in defining judicial power, pointedly
posit that the Court improperly exercised its limited states that –
certiorari jurisdiction; they theorize that Mitra’s petition
failed to allege and show errors of jurisdiction or grave
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. They
settle actual controversies involving rights which are
also stress that the Court should respect and consider the
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
COMELEC’s findings of fact to be final and non-
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
reviewable. The COMELEC’s submission in this regard –
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is limited to
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
corrections of questions of law and that the factual issues
Government.
raised in the present petition are not appropriate for a
petition for review on certiorari – is wholly erroneous.
This submission appears to have confused the standards
of the Court’s power of review under Rule 65 and Rule 45
of the Rules of Court, leading the COMELEC to grossly This provision, more than anything else, identifies
misread the import of Mitra’s petition before the Court. the power and duty of this Court in grave abuse of
discretion situations, and differentiates this
To recall, Mitra brought his case before us via a petition authority from the power of review by appeal that
for certiorari, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 64, in relation Rule 45 of the Rules of Court defines.
to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court. Thus, in our July 2,
2010 Decision, we emphasized that our review (under Based on these considerations, we cannot accept the
the Rule 65 standard of grave abuse of discretion, and COMELEC’s position that patently confuses the mode of
not under the Rule 45 question of law standard) is based review in election cases under Rules 64 and 65 of the
on a very limited ground, i.e., on the jurisdictional issue Rules of Court, with the appellate review that Rule 45 of
of whether the COMELEC acted without or in excess of its the same Rules provides. Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra vs.
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting Commission on Elections, Antonio V. Gonzales and
to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The basis for the Orlando R. Balbon, Jr., G.R. No. 191938, October 19,
Court’s review of COMELEC rulings under the standards 2010.
of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is Section 7, Article IX-A
of the Constitution which provides that “[U]nless
otherwise provided by [the] Constitution or by law, any
decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the Jurisdiction; Supreme Court’s certiorari jurisdiction
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy over rulings of COMELEC; review of factual issues.
thereof.” For this reason, the Rules of Court provide for a
separate rule (Rule 64) specifically applicable only to
decisions of the COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. We likewise reject the COMELEC and the private
This Rule expressly refers to the application of Rule respondents’ proposition that the Court erred in
65 in the filing of a petition for certiorari, subject to exercising its limited certiorari jurisdiction. Although the
the exception clause – “except as hereinafter provided.” COMELEC is admittedly the final arbiter of all factual
issues as the Constitution and the Rules of Court provide,
we stress that in the presence of grave abuse of
In Aratuc v. Commission on Elections and Dario v. Mison, discretion, our constitutional duty is to intervene and not
the Court construed the above-cited constitutional to shy away from intervention simply because a
provision as relating to the special civil action for specialized agency has been given the authority to
certiorari under Rule 65 (although with a different resolve the factual issues. As we emphasized in our
reglementary period for filing) and not to an appeal by Decision, we have in the past recognized exceptions to
346
the general rule that the Court ordinarily does not review the years. In fact, an appreciation of Mitra’s supposed
in a certiorari case the COMELEC’s appreciation and “residence” raises doubts whether or not he indeed lives
evaluation of evidence. One such exception is when the there. Verily, what is lacking therein are the loving
COMELEC’s appreciation and evaluation of evidence go attention and details inherent in every home to make it
beyond the limits of its discretion to the point of being one’s residence. Perhaps, at most, and to this
grossly unreasonable. In this situation, we are duty Commission’s mind, this small room could have served as
bound under the Constitution to intervene and correct Mitra’s resting area whenever he visited the said locality
COMELEC errors that, because of the attendant grave but nothing more.
abuse of discretion, have mutated into errors of
jurisdiction.
This observation coupled with the numerous statements
from former employees and customers of Maligaya Feed
Our Decision clearly pointed out Mitra’s submissions and Mill and Farm that Mitra’s residence is located in an
arguments on grave abuse of discretion, namely, that the unsavory location, considering the noise and pollution of
COMELEC failed to appreciate that the case is a being in a factory area, and that the same, in fact, had
cancellation of a COC proceeding and that the critical been Maligaya Feed Mill’s office just a few months back,
issue is the presence of deliberate false material militates against Mitra’s claim that the same has been his
representation to deceive the electorate. In fact, Mitra’s residence since early 2008. These information make
petition plainly argued that the COMELEC’s grave abuse it clear to this Commission that this room is not a
of discretion was patent when it failed to consider that home.
the ground to deny a COC is deliberate false
representation. We completely addressed this issue and,
Thus presented, the COMELEC’s requirement of what
in the process, analyzed the reasoning in the assailed
should be considered a “residence” cannot but be a
COMELEC decision. At every step, we found that the
highly subjective one that finds no basis in law, in
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in the
jurisprudence, or even in fact.
appreciation of the evidence.
Third, we cannot likewise agree with the private

Second, the private respondents contend that the
respondents’ theory that the quantum of evidence
COMELEC did not use subjective non-legal standards
necessary to overturn the factual findings of the
(i.e., interior decoration of the room) in arriving at its
COMELEC should be clear and convincing evidence, as it
decision; it merely stated how it perceived Mitra’s alleged
misappreciates that we nullified the COMELEC’s findings
residence. The private respondents additionally claim
because it used the wrong considerations in arriving at its
that the quantum of evidence necessary to overturn the
conclusions. The private respondents fail to realize that
findings of the COMELEC should be clear and convincing
the important considerations in the present case relate to
evidence, which level of evidence does not obtain in the
questions bearing on the cancellation of the COC that
present case. The assailed COMELEC ruling speaks for
they prayed for; the main critical points are the alleged
itself on the matter of the standards the COMELEC used.
deliberate misrepresentation by Mitra and the
We found that the COMELEC plainly used a subjective
underlying question of his residency in Aborlan,
non-legal standard in its analysis and thereby, the
Palawan. While it is undisputed that Mitra’s
COMELEC used wrong considerations in arriving at the
domicile of origin is Puerto Princesa City, Mitra
conclusion that Mitra’s residence at the Maligaya Feedmill
adequately proved by substantial evidence that he
is not the residence contemplated by law. We reiterate
transferred by incremental process to Aborlan
that the COMELEC based its ruling that Mitra did not take
beginning 2008, and concluded his transfer in early
up residence in Aborlan largely on the photographs of
2009. As our Decision discussed and as repeated
Mitra’s Aborlan premises; it concluded that the
elsewhere in this Resolution, the private respondents
photographed premises could not have been a residence
failed to establish by sufficiently convincing evidence that
because of its assessment of the interior design and
Mitra did not effectively transfer, while the COMELEC not
furnishings of the room. Thus, the COMELEC Second
only grossly misread the evidence but even used the
Division’s Resolution (which the COMELEC en banc fully
wrong considerations in appreciating the submitted
supported) did not merely conclude that Mitra does not
evidence. To convince us of their point of view, the
live in the photographed premises; more than this, it
private respondents point out that we (1) totally
ruled that these premises cannot be considered a home
disregarded the other evidence they submitted, which the
or a residence, for lack of the qualities of a home that the
COMELEC, on the other hand, properly considered; (2)
Second Division wanted to see. To quote:
disregarded the import of the effectivity of the lease
contract, which showed that it was only effective until
The pictures presented by Mitra of his supposed February 28, 2010; and (3) disregarded the evidence
“residence” are telling. The said pictures show a small, showing that Mitra failed to abandon his domicile of
sparsely furnished room which is evidently unlived in and origin. These issues are not new issues; we extensively
which is located on the second floor of a structure that and thoroughly considered and resolved them in our July
appears like a factory or a warehouse. These pictures 2, 2010 Decision. At this point, we only need to address
likewise show that the “residence” appears hastily set-up, some of the private respondents’ misleading points in
cold, and utterly devoid of any [personality] which would order to clear the air.
have imprinted Mitra’s personality thereto such as old
family photographs and memorabilia collected through
347
1. The private respondents’ reliance on the expiration since it is “on the process of gathering data on the Master
date of the lease contract, to disprove Mitra’s claim that list of Farmers engaged in growing High Value
the room at the Maligaya Feedmill is his residence, is Commercial Crops in Aborlan.” Under what law or
misplaced. This argument is flimsy since the contract did regulation the certifying office has the obligation to
not provide that it was completely and fully time-barred prepare a list of agricultural business interests in Aborlan
and was only up to February 28, 2010; it was renewable has not even been alleged.
at the option of the parties. That a lease is fixed for a
one-year term is a common practice. What is important
At the risk of repetition, we reiterate that Mitra’s business
is that it is renewable at the option of the parties. In the
interests in Aborlan stand undisputed in the present
absence of any objection from the parties, the lease
case. Not only was Mitra able to present photographs of
contract simply continues and is deemed renewed.
his experimental pineapple plantation; his claim of
ownership was also corroborated by the statements of
2. In an attempt to show that Mitra considers himself a Dr. Carme Caspe, Ricardo Temple and other witnesses.
resident of Puerto Princesa City, the private respondents Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra vs. Commission on Elections,
submitted in their Motion for Reconsideration a colored Antonio V. Gonzales and Orlando R. Balbon, Jr., G.R. No.
certified true copy of Mitra’s alleged Puerto Princesa City 191938, October 19, 2010.
Community Tax Certificate (CTC) dated February 3, 2009
allegedly showing Mitra’s signature. To recall, we found
Litis pendentia; requisites.
that based on the records before us, the purported
February 3, 2009 CTC did not bear the signature of
Mitra. Although the private respondents have belatedly Moreover, this Court rejects the contention of petitioners
filed this evidence, we carefully examined the recently that the RTC and the CA erred in not dismissing the
submitted colored copy of the February 3, 2009 CTC and complaint of respondent on the ground of litis pendentia,
saw no reason to reverse our finding; the “alleged in view of the pendency of the HLURB case. The
signature” appears to us to be a mere hazy requisites of litis pendentia are the following: (a) identity
“superimposition” that does not bear any resemblance at of parties, or at least such as representing the same
all to Mitra’s signature. We, thus, stand by our ruling interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted
that the February 3, 2009 CTC, if at all, carries very little and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the
evidentiary value. It did it not at all carry Mitra’s same facts; and (c) identity of the two cases such that
signature; his secretary’s positive testimony that she judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful,
secured the CTC for Mitra, without the latter’s would amount to res judicata in the other. The causes of
participation and knowledge, still stands unrefuted. action and, logically, the issues in the two cases, are
clearly different, each requiring divergent adjudication.
In short, while there is identity of parties, there are
3. The private respondents likewise belatedly submitted
different issues, causes of action, and reliefs prayed for
a Certification, dated July 17, 2010, from the Municipal
between them. Contrary to petitioners’ posture, not all
Agriculturist of Aborlan, stating that its office does not
the elements of litis pendentia are present. Appropos is
have any record of the supposed pineapple plantation in
the CA’s ruling:
Barangay Isaub, Aborlan, Palawan. This late submission
was made to show that Mitra has no established business
interests in Aborlan. The Certification pertinently states: The suit filed with the HLURB involves: (1) the
reinstatement of the petitioners as members of the
respondent, which was their community association; (2)
This is to certify that as of this date, there is no existing
a call for regular annual meetings; (3) elections for board
records/registration in our office regarding the alleged
of directors; ([4]) an accounting of funds; and ([5]) the
pineapple plantation in Barangay Isaub, Aborlan,
annulment of the board resolutions which expelled them
Palawan. However, the Office of the Municipal
as members and disqualified them to be beneficiaries of
Agriculturist is on the process of gathering data on
the housing program. On the other hand, the ejectment
the Master list of Farmers engaged in growing High
case has in issue the better right of the petitioners or of
Value Commercial Crops in Aborlan.
the respondent to the physical possession of the lots
occupied by petitioners. Clearly, therefore, no identity of
This certification is issued to MR. BENJAMIN KATON a the rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for exist in both
resident in Penida Subdivision, Puerto Princesa City for cases. Esmeraldo C. Romullo, et al. vs. Samahang
whatever legal purposes may serve him best. Magkakapitbahay ng Bayanihan Compound Homeowners
Association, Inc. represented by its President, Paquito
We cannot give any evidentiary value to this submission
for two reasons. First, it was filed only on
reconsideration stage and was not an evidence before us Mediation; effect of failure to appear.
when the case was submitted for resolution. Second,
even if it had not been filed late, the Certification does
In Senarlo v. Judge Paderanga, this Court accentuated
not prove anything; it is, on its face, contradictory. On
that mediation is part of pre-trial and failure of the
the one hand, it categorically states that there are no
plaintiff to appear thereat merits sanction on the part of
existing records of any pineapple plantation in Barangay
the absent party. This court held:
Isaub, Aborlan, Palawan; on the other hand, it also
expressly states that its records are not yet complete
348
A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA dated 16 October 2001, previous submissions; they are the same arguments
otherwise known as the Second Revised Guidelines for addressing the issues we already considered and passed
the Implementation of Mediation Proceedings and Section upon in our July 2, 2010 Decision. Thus, both the
5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court grant judges the COMELEC and private respondents failed to raise any new
discretion to dismiss an action for failure of the plaintiff and substantial argument meriting reconsideration. The
to appear at mediation proceedings. denial of the motion for oral arguments proceeds from
this same reasoning; mere reiterations of the parties’
original submissions on issues our Decision has
A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA considers mediation a part
sufficiently covered, without more, do not merit the time,
of pre-trial and provides sanctions for the absent party:
effort and attention that an oral argument shall require.
Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra vs. Commission on Elections,
12. Sanctions. Antonio V. Gonzales and Orlando R. Balbon, Jr., G.R. No.
191938, October 19, 2010.
Since mediation is part of Pre-Trial, the trial court shall
impose the appropriate sanction including but not limited Motions; period to file motion for reconsideration is
to censure, reprimand, contempt and such sanctions as non-extendible.
are provided under the Rules of Court for failure to
appear for pre-trial, in case any or both of the parties
The appellate court was correct in denying petitioner’s
absent himself/themselves, or for abusive conduct during
motion for extension of time to file a motion for
mediation proceedings.
reconsideration considering that the reglementary period
for filing the said motion for reconsideration is non-
Under Rule 18, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, failure of extendible. As pronounced in Apex Mining Co., Inc. v.
the plaintiff to appear at pre-trial shall be cause for Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
dismissal of the action:
The rule is and has been that the period for filing a
Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear. – The failure of the motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. The Court
plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next has made this clear as early as 1986 in Habaluyas
preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the Enterprises vs. Japzon. Since then, the Court has
action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless consistently and strictly adhered thereto.
otherwise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the
part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff
Given the above, we rule without hesitation that the
to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render
appellate court’s denial of petitioner’s motion for
judgment on the basis thereof.
reconsideration is justified, precisely because petitioner’s
earlier motion for extension of time did not suspend/toll
Real Bank Inc. vs. Samsung Mabuhay Corporation, et al., the running of the 15-day reglementary period for filing a
G.R. No. 175862, October 13, 2010. motion for reconsideration. Under the circumstances, the
CA decision has already attained finality when petitioner
Mootness. Certainly, with the dismissal of the non- filed its motion for reconsideration. It follows that the
bailable case against accused Guisande, she is no longer same decision was already beyond the review jurisdiction
under peril to be confined in a jail facility, much less at of this Court. Cynthia S. Bolos vs. Danilo T. Bolos, G.R.
the NCMH. Effectively, accused Guisande’s person, and No. 186400, October 20, 2010.
treatment of any medical and mental malady she may or
may not have, can no longer be subjected to the lawful Oral argument.
processes of the RTC Mandaluyong City. In short, the
cases have now been rendered moot and academic
We note at the outset that the COMELEC and private
which, in the often cited David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, is
respondents’ arguments are mere rehashes of their
defined as “one that ceases to present a justiciable
previous submissions; they are the same arguments
controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a
addressing the issues we already considered and passed
declaration thereon would be of no practical use or
upon in our July 2, 2010 Decision. Thus, both the
value.” David E. So, on behalf of his daughter Maria
COMELEC and private respondents failed to raise any new
Elena So Guisande vs. Hon. Esteban A. Tacla, Jr. etc., et
and substantial argument meriting reconsideration. The
al. / Hon. Esteban A. Tacla, Jr., etc., et al. vs. David E.
denial of the motion for oral arguments proceeds from
So, on behalf of his daughter Maria Elena So Guisande,
this same reasoning; mere reiterations of the parties’
G.R. Nos. 190108, 190473. October 19, 2010.
original submissions on issues our Decision has
sufficiently covered, without more, do not merit the time,
effort and attention that an oral argument shall require.
Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra vs. Commission on Elections,
Motions; motion for reconsideration. Antonio V. Gonzales and Orlando R. Balbon, Jr., G.R. No.
191938, October 19, 2010.
We note at the outset that the COMELEC and private

respondents’ arguments are mere rehashes of their Parties; foreign corporation; capacity to sue;
estoppel.
349
The determination of a corporation’s capacity is a factual A pleading is verified by an affidavit that an affiant has
question that requires the elicitation of a preponderant read the pleading and that the allegations therein are
set of facts. As a rule, unlicensed foreign non-resident true and correct as to his personal knowledge or based
corporations doing business in the Philippines cannot file on authentic records. The party does not need to sign
suits in the Philippines. This is mandated under Section the verification. A party’s representative, lawyer, or any
133 of the Corporation Code, which reads: person who personally knows the truth of the facts
alleged in the pleading may sign the verification.
Sec. 133. Doing business without a license. – No
foreign corporation transacting business in the Philippines On the other hand, a certification of non-forum shopping
without a license, or its successors or assigns, shall be is a certification under oath by the plaintiff or principal
permitted to maintain or intervene in any action, suit or party in the complaint or other initiatory pleading,
proceeding in any court or administrative agency of the asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification
Philippines, but such corporation may be sued or annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith, that
proceeded against before Philippine courts or (a) he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed
administrative tribunals on any valid cause of action any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal
recognized under Philippine laws. or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim,
A corporation has a legal status only within the state or
a complete statement of the present status thereof; and
territory in which it was organized. For this reason, a
(c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar
corporation organized in another country has no
action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall
personality to file suits in the Philippines. In order to
report that fact within five days therefrom to the court
subject a foreign corporation doing business in the
wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
country to the jurisdiction of our courts, it must acquire a
been filed.
license from the Securities and Exchange Commission
and appoint an agent for service of process. Without such
license, it cannot institute a suit in the Philippines. It is true that the power of a corporation to sue and be
sued is lodged in the board of directors that exercises its
corporate powers. However, it is settled – and we have
The exception to this rule is the doctrine of estoppel.
so declared in numerous decisions – that the president of
Global is estopped from challenging Surecomp’s capacity
a corporation may sign the verification and the
to sue. A foreign corporation doing business in the
certification of non-forum shopping.
Philippines without license may sue in Philippine courts a
Filipino citizen or a Philippine entity that had contracted
with and benefited from it. A party is estopped from In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo, we held that the
challenging the personality of a corporation after having lone signature of the University President was sufficient
acknowledged the same by entering into a contract with to fulfill the verification requirement, because such officer
it. The principle is applied to prevent a person had sufficient knowledge to swear to the truth of the
contracting with a foreign corporation from later taking allegations in the petition.
advantage of its noncompliance with the statutes, chiefly
in cases where such person has received the benefits of
In People’s Aircargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. v. CA, we
the contract. Global Business Holdings, Inc. vs.
held that in the absence of a charter or by-law provision
Surecomp Software B.V., G.R. No. 173463. October 13,
to the contrary, the president of a corporation is
2010
presumed to have the authority to act within the domain
of the general objectives of its business and within the
Pleadings; certification on forum shopping; scope of his or her usual duties. Moreover, even if a
authority of President to execute on behalf of certain contract or undertaking is outside the usual
corporation even without board authorization. powers of the president, the corporation’s ratification of
the contract or undertaking and the acceptance of
benefits therefrom make the corporate president’s
In Hutama-RSEA/Super Max Phils., J.V. v. KCD Builders
actions binding on the corporation. (Citations omitted.)
Corporation, Hutama as petitioner therein questioned the
verification and certification on non-forum shopping of
respondent KCD which the latter attached to its Moreover, this Court’s pronouncement in Cagayan Valley
Complaint for Sum of Money filed before the RTC. Drug Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
According to Hutama, KCD’s president did not present reiterated in PNCC Skyway Traffic Management and
any proof that he is authorized by the corporation to sign Security Division Workers Organization v. PNCC Skyway
the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Corporation and Mid-Pasig Land Development
In explaining the requirement of verification and Corporation v. Tablante, on the authority of certain
certification against forum-shopping and upholding the officers and employees of the corporation to sign the
authority of the president of the corporation to execute verification and certification of non-forum shopping is
the same sans proof of authority, this Court has this to likewise significant, to wit:
say:
It must be borne in mind that Sec. 23, in relation to Sec.
25 of the Corporation Code, clearly enunciates that all
350
corporate powers are exercised, all business conducted, no more need to discuss whether the authority granted to
and all properties controlled by the board of directors. A Albao under Board Resolution No. 2001-06 is only limited
corporation has a separate and distinct personality from to representing Cebu Metro in the court hearings before
its directors and officers and can only exercise its the MTCC or extends up to signing of the verification and
corporate powers through the board of directors. Thus, it certification of non-forum shopping on appeal. Again,
is clear that an individual corporate officer cannot solely even without such proof of authority, Albao, as Cebu
exercise any corporate power pertaining to the Metro’s President and Manager, is justified in signing said
corporation without authority from the board of verification and certification. Thus, the CA should not
directors. This has been our constant holding in cases have considered as fatal Cebu Metro’s failure to attach a
instituted by a corporation. Secretary’s Certificate attesting to Albao’s authority to
sign the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping and dismissed the petition or should have
In a slew of cases, however, we have recognized the
reinstated the same after Cebu Metro’s submission of the
authority of some corporate officers to sign the
Secretary’s Certificate showing that Board Resolution No.
verification and certification against forum shopping. In
2001-06 confirmed the election of Albao as the
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. CA, we
corporation’s President and Manager. Moreover, the fact
recognized the authority of a general manager or acting
that the Board of Directors of Cebu Metro ratified Albao’s
general manager to sign the verification and certificate
authority to represent the corporation in the appeal of
against forum shopping; in Pfizer v. Galan, we upheld
the MTCC Decision in Civil Case No. R-44430 before the
the validity of a verification signed by an “employment
RTC, CA, and this Court, and consequently to sign the
specialist” who had not even presented any proof of her
verification and certification on its behalf by the passage
authority to represent the company; in Novelty
of Resolution No. 2004-05 confirming and affirming her
Philippines Inc., v. CA, we ruled that a personnel officer
authority only gives this Court more reason to uphold
who signed the petition but did not attach the authority
such authority. Cebu Metro Pharmacy, Inc. vs. Euro-Med
from the company is authorized to sign the verification
Laboratories, Inc., G.R. No. 164757, October 18, 2010.
and non-forum shopping certificate; and in Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Company v. WMC Resources
International Pty. Ltd. (Lepanto), we ruled that the
Chairperson of the Board and President of the Company
can sign the verification and certificate against non-forum
Pleadings; certification on forum shopping;
shopping even without the submission of the board’s
necessity of board resolution; subsequent
authorization.
compliance does not excuse failure to comply with
requirement in first instance.
In sum, we have held that the following officials or
employees of the company can sign the verification and
In particular, on the matter of the certificate of non-
certification without need of a board resolution: (1) the
forum shopping that was similarly at issue, Tible
Chairperson of the Board of Directors, (2) the President
pointedly said:
of a corporation, (3) the General Manager or Acting
General Manager, (4) Personnel Officer, and (5) an
Employment Specialist in a labor case. x x x the requirement under Administrative Circular No.
04-94 for a certificate of non-forum shopping is
mandatory. The subsequent compliance with said
While the above cases do not provide a complete listing
requirement does not excuse a party’s failure to comply
of authorized signatories to the verification and
therewith in the first instance. In those cases where this
certification required by the rules, the determination of
Court excused the non-compliance with the requirement
the sufficiency of the authority was done on a case to
of the submission of a certificate of non-forum shopping,
case basis. The rationale applied in the foregoing cases
it found special circumstances or compelling reasons
is to justify the authority of corporate officers or
which made the strict application of said Circular clearly
representatives of the corporation to sign the verification
unjustified or inequitable. x x x [Emphasis supplied.]
or certificate against forum shopping, being ‘in a position
to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the
allegations in the petition’. (Citations omitted.) This same rule was echoed in Mediserv v. Court of
Appeals where we said in the course of allowing a liberal
justification:
From the foregoing, it is clear that Albao, as President
and Manager of Cebu Metro, has the authority to sign the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping even It is settled that liberal construction of the rules may be
without the submission of a written authority from the invoked in situations where there may be some excusable
board. As the corporation’s President and Manager, she formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the
is in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and
of the allegations in the petition. In addition, such an act connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance
is presumed to be included in the scope of her authority with the rules. After all, rules of procedure are not to be
to act within the domain of the general objectives of the applied in a very rigid, technical sense; they are used
corporation’s business and her usual duties in the only to help secure substantial justice. [Emphasis
absence of any contrary provision in the corporation’s supplied.]
charter or by-laws. Having said this, there is therefore
351
To be sure, BPI’s cited Shipside case also involved the Under the circumstances, what applies to the present
absence of proof – attached to the petition – that the case is the second paragraph of Section 5, Rule 7 of the
filing officer was authorized to sign the verification and Rules of Court which states:
non-forum shopping certification. In the Motion for
Reconsideration that followed the dismissal of the case,
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall
the movant attached a certificate issued by its board
not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or
secretary stating that ten (10) days prior to the filing of
other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
the petition, the filing officer had been authorized by
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
petitioner’s board of directors to file said petition. Thus,
provided, upon motion and after hearing.
proper authority existed but was simply not attached to
the petition. On this submission, the petitioner sought
and the Court positively granted relief. We thus hold that the dismissal of the case is the
appropriate ruling from this Court, without prejudice to
its refiling as the Rules allow.
In the present case, we do not see a situation
comparable to the cited Shipside. BPI did not submit any
proof of authority in the first instance because it did not We end this Decision by quoting our parting words in
believe that a board resolution evidencing such authority Melo v. Court of Appeals:
was necessary. We note that instead of immediately
submitting an appropriate board resolution – after the We are not unmindful of the adverse consequence to
First Union and Linda filed their motion to dismiss – BPI private respondent of a dismissal of her complaint, nor of
argued that it was not required to submit one and even the time, effort, and money spent litigating up to this
argued that: Court solely on a so-called technical ground.
Nonetheless, we hold that compliance with the
The Complaint can only be dismissed under Section 5, certification requirement on non-forum shopping should
Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure if there was not be made subject to a party’s afterthought, lest the
no certification against forum shopping. The Complaint policy of the law be undermined.
has. The provision cited does not even require that the
person certifying show proof of his authority to do so x x Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Hon. Court of Appeals,
x. et al., G.R. No. 168313. October 6, 2010
In fact, BPI merely attached to its opposition a special

power of attorney issued by Mr. Kabigting, a bank vice-
president, granting Asis and Ong the authority to file the
complaint. Thus, no direct authority to file a complaint Pleadings; failure to state cause of action .
was initially ever given by BPI – the corporate entity in
whose name and behalf the complaint was filed. Only in We likewise agree with the Court of Appeals that the
its Reply to the Comment to plaintiff’s Opposition to the RTC-Branch 227 should not have dismissed respondent’s
Motion to Dismiss did BPI “beg the kind indulgence of the complaint for damages on the ground of failure to state a
Honorable Court as it inadvertently failed to submit with cause of action. According to Rule 2, Section 2 of the
the Special Power of Attorney the Corporate Secretary’s Rules of Court, a cause of action is the act or omission by
Certificate which authorized Mr. Zosimo Kabigting to which a party violates a right of another. When the
appoint his substitutes. Even this submission, however, ground for dismissal is that the complaint states no cause
was a roundabout way of authorizing the filing officers to of action, such fact can be determined only from the facts
file the complaint. alleged in the complaint and from no other, and the court
cannot consider other matters aliunde. The test,
BPI, interestingly, never elaborated nor explained its therefore, is whether, assuming the allegations of fact in
belatedly claimed inadvertence in failing to submit a the complaint to be true, a valid judgment could be
corporate secretary’s certificate directly authorizing its rendered in accordance with the prayer stated therein.
representatives to file the complaint; it particularly failed
to specify the circumstances that led to the claimed Respondent made the following allegations in support of
inadvertence. Under the given facts, we cannot but his claim for damages against petitioners:
conclude that, rather than an inadvertence, there was an
initial unwavering stance that the submission of a specific
authority from the board was not necessary. In blunter FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
terms, the omission of the required board resolution in
the complaint was neither an excusable deficiency nor an 28. After the promulgation of the Metropolitan Trial
omission that occurred through inadvertence. In the Court of its Decision dated August 3, 1999, ordering the
usual course in the handling of a case, the failure was a [herein respondent] and all person claiming rights under
mistake of counsel that BPI never cared to admit but him to –
which nevertheless bound it as a client. From this
perspective, BPI’s case is different from Shipside so that
(a) Vacate the leased premises;
the ruling in this cited case cannot apply.
352
(b) pay the [herein petitioners] the sum of Second, petitioners are obliged to respect respondent’s
P306,000.00 as unpaid rentals from May 23, 1997 to good name even though they are opposing parties in the
November 22, 1998; and unlawful detainer case. As Article 19 of the Civil Code
requires, “[e]very person must, in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
(c) pay the sum of P5,000.00 as attorneys fees;
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
good faith.” A violation of such principle constitutes an
But while said Decision was still pending appeal with the abuse of rights, a tortuous conduct. We expounded in
Regional Trial Court, the [petitioners], through Sea Commercial Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals that:
[petitioner] Manaloto, already distributed copies of said
Decision to some of the homeowners of Horseshoe
Village, who personally know the [respondent]. This act
is a direct assault or character assassination on the part
of the [respondent] because as stated in the said XXX XXX XXX
decision, [respondent] has been staying in the premises
but did not or refused to pay his monthly rentals for a
Petitioners are also expected to respect respondent’s
long period of time when in truth and in fact was untrue.
“dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind” under
Article 26 of the Civil Code, which provides:
29. That from the time the said decision was
distributed to said members homeowners, the
XXX XXX XXX
[respondent] became the subject of conversation or talk
of the town and by virtue of which [respondent’s] good
name within the community or society where he belongs Thus, Article 2219(10) of the Civil Code allows the
was greatly damaged; his reputation was besmirched; recovery of moral damages for acts and actions referred
[respondent] suffered sleepless night and serious to in Article 26, among other provisions, of the Civil
anxiety. [Respondent], who is the grandson of the late Code.
Senator Jose Veloso and Congressman Ismael Veloso,
was deprived of political career and to start with was to And third, respondent alleged that the distribution by
run as candidate for Barangay Chairman within their area petitioners to Horseshoe Village homeowners of copies of
which was being offered to him by the homeowners but the MeTC decision in the unlawful detainer case, which
this offer has started to fade and ultimately totally was adverse to respondent and still on appeal before the
vanished after the distribution of said Decision. Damages RTC-Branch 88, had no apparent lawful or just purpose
to his good names and reputations and other damages except to humiliate respondent or assault his character.
which he suffered as a consequence thereof, may be As a result, respondent suffered damages – becoming the
reasonably compensated for at least P1,500,000.00 as talk of the town and being deprived of his political career.
moral and consequential damages.
Petitioners reason that respondent has no cause of action

30. In order to deter [petitioners] and others from against them since the MeTC decision in the unlawful
doing as abovementioned, [petitioners] should likewise detainer case was part of public records.
be assessed exemplary damages in the amount of
P500,000.00.
It is already settled that the public has a right to see and
copy judicial records and documents. However, this is
A cause of action (for damages) exists if the following not a case of the public seeking and being denied access
elements are present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff to judicial records and documents. The controversy is
by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or rooted in the dissemination by petitioners of the MeTC
is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named judgment against respondent to Horseshoe Village
defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) homeowners, who were not involved at all in the unlawful
an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative detainer case, thus, purportedly affecting negatively
of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the respondent’s good name and reputation among said
obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter homeowners. The unlawful detainer case was a private
may maintain an action for recovery of damages. We dispute between petitioners and respondent, and the
find that all three elements exist in the case at bar. MeTC decision against respondent was then still pending
Respondent may not have specifically identified each appeal before the RTC-Branch 88, rendering suspect
element, but it may be sufficiently determined from the petitioners’ intentions for distributing copies of said MeTC
allegations in his complaint. decision to non-parties in the case. While petitioners
were free to copy and distribute such copies of the MeTC
First, respondent filed the complaint to protect his good judgment to the public, the question is whether they did
character, name, and reputation. Every man has a right so with the intent of humiliating respondent and
to build, keep, and be favored with a good name. This destroying the latter’s good name and reputation in the
right is protected by law with the recognition of slander community. Ermelinda Manaloto, et al. vs. Ismael Veloso
and libel as actionable wrongs, whether as criminal III, G.R. No. 171365, October 6, 2010.
offenses or tortuous conduct.
353
Pleadings; failure to state cause of action; prejudice, do not constitute a panacea or a solution to
hypothetical admission. the congestion of court dockets; while they lend a
deceptive aura of efficiency to records of individual
judges, they merely postpone the ultimate reckoning
We cannot subscribe to respondent’s argument that there
between the parties. In the absence of clear lack of
is no more need for the presentation of evidence by the
merit or intention to delay, justice is better served by a
parties since petitioners, in moving for the dismissal of
brief continuance, trial on the merits, and final disposition
respondent’s complaint for damages, hypothetically
of cases before the court.
admitted respondent’s allegations. The hypothetical
admission of respondent’s allegations in the complaint
only goes so far as determining whether said complaint Accordingly, the ends of justice and fairness would be
should be dismissed on the ground of failure to state a best served if the parties in Civil Case No. 97-86265 are
cause of action. A finding that the complaint sufficiently given the full opportunity to thresh out the real issues in
states a cause of action does not necessarily mean that a full blown trial. Besides, petitioner Real Bank, Inc.
the complaint is meritorious; it shall only result in the would not be prejudiced should the RTC proceed with
reinstatement of the complaint and the hearing of the Civil Case No. 97-86265 as it is not stripped of any
case for presentation of evidence by the parties. affirmative defenses nor deprived of due process of law.
Ermelinda Manaloto, et al. vs. Ismael Veloso III, G.R. No.
171365, October 6, 2010.
Real Bank Inc. vs. Samsung Mabuhay Corporation, et al.,
G.R. No. 175862, October 13, 2010.
Procedural rules; cannot be discarded with mere
expediency of claiming substantial merit.
There is no basis for petitioner’s assertion either that the

Procedural rules; liberal application must be
tenets of substantial justice, the novelty and importance
justified by ample reasons.
of the issue and the meritorious nature of this case
warrant a relaxation of the Rules in her favor. Time and
again the Court has stressed that the rules of procedure This Court has repeatedly emphasized the need to abide
must be faithfully complied with and should not be by the Rules of Court and the procedural requirements it
discarded with the mere expediency of claiming imposes. The verification of a complaint and the
substantial merit. As a corollary, rules prescribing the attachment of a certificate of non-forum shopping are
time for doing specific acts or for taking certain requirements that – as pointed out by the Court, time
proceedings are considered absolutely indispensable to and again – are basic, necessary and mandatory for
prevent needless delays and to orderly and promptly procedural orderliness. Thus, we cannot simply and in a
discharge judicial business. By their very nature, these general way apply – given the factual circumstances of
rules are regarded as mandatory. Cynthia S. Bolos vs. this case – the liberal jurisprudential exception in
Danilo T. Bolos, G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010. Shipside and its line of cases to excuse BPI’s failure to
submit a board resolution. While we may have excused
strict compliance in the past, we did so only on sufficient
Procedural rules; instance where strict application
and justifiable grounds that compelled a liberal approach
is unwarranted.
while avoiding the effective negation of the intent of the
rule on non-forum shopping. In other words, the rule for
Herein respondent Samsung instituted Civil Case No. 97- the submission of a certificate of non-forum shopping,
86265 before the RTC, to recover the amount it claims to proper in form and substance, remains to be a strict and
have lost due to the negligence of petitioner Real Bank, mandatory rule; any liberal application has to be justified
Inc., clearly a property right. The substantive right of by ample and sufficient reasons that maintain the
respondent Samsung to recover a due and demandable integrity of, and do not detract from, the mandatory
obligation cannot be diminished by an unwarranted character of the rule. The rule, its relaxation and their
strictness in the application of a rule of procedure. In rationale were discussed by the Court at length in Tible &
Calalang v. Court of Appeals, this Court underscored that Tible Company, Inc. v. Royal Savings and Loan
unless a party’s conduct is so negligent, irresponsible, Association where we said:
contumacious or dilatory as to provide substantial
grounds for dismissal for non-appearance, the court
Much reliance is placed on the rule that “Courts are not
should consider lesser sanctions which would still amount
slaves or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial
into achieving the desired end. In Bank of the Philippine
discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always
Islands v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that in the absence
been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the
of a pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the
norm that on balance, technicalities take a backseat
case or a wanton failure to observe the mandatory
against substantive rights, and not the other way
requirement of the rules, courts should decide to
around.” This rule must always be used in the right
dispense rather than wield their authority to dismiss.
context, lest injustice, rather than justice would be its
end result.
While not at the fore of this case, it may be stated that
the state of the court docket cannot justify injudicious
It must never be forgotten that, generally, the
case dismissals. Inconsiderate dismissals, even without
application of the rules must be upheld, and the
354
suspension or even mere relaxation of its application, is of the Philippine Islands vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.,
the exception. This Court previously explained: G.R. No. 168313. October 6, 2010
The Court is not impervious to the frustration that

litigants and lawyers alike would at times encounter in
procedural bureaucracy but imperative justice requires
Procedural rules; strict and rigid application
correct observance of indispensable technicalities
avoided to secure substantial justice.
precisely designed to ensure its proper dispensation. It
has long been recognized that strict compliance with the
Rules of Court is indispensable for the prevention of As we have ruled often enough, rules of procedure
needless delays and for the orderly and expeditious should not be applied in a very rigid, technical sense;
dispatch of judicial business. rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not
override, substantial justice. As we explained in Ginete
v. Court of Appeals:
Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere
technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the
convenience of a party. Adjective law is important in Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure
ensuring the effective enforcement of substantive rights should be viewed as mere tools designed to
through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and
These rules are not intended to hamper litigants or rigid application, which would result in technicalities that
complicate litigation but, indeed to provide for a system tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice,
under which a suitor may be heard in the correct form must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court
and manner and at the prescribed time in a peaceful reflect this principle. The power to suspend or even
confrontation before a judge whose authority they disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to
acknowledge. alter even that which this Court itself has already
declared to be final, as we are now constrained to do in
the instant case.
It cannot be overemphasized that procedural rules have
their own wholesome rationale in the orderly
administration of justice. Justice has to be administered x x x x
according to the Rules in order to obviate arbitrariness,
caprice, or whimsicality. We have been cautioned and The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to
reminded in Limpot v. Court of Appeals, et al., that: afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the
proper and just determination of his cause, free from the
Rules of procedure are intended to ensure the orderly constraints of technicalities. Time and again, this Court
administration of justice and the protection of substantive has consistently held that rules must not be applied
rights in judicial and extrajudicial proceedings. It is a rigidly so as not to override substantial justice.
mistake to propose that substantive law and adjective [Emphasis supplied.]
law are contradictory to each other or, as often
suggested, that enforcement of procedural rules should Similarly, in de Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, we had
never be permitted if it will result in prejudice to the occasion to state:
substantive rights of the litigants. This is not exactly
true; the concept is much misunderstood. As a matter of
fact, the policy of the courts is to give both kinds of law, The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set
as complementing each other, in the just and speedy forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice but not to
resolution of the dispute between the parties. bind and chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise,
Observance of both substantive rights is equally courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules,
guaranteed by due process, whatever the source of such shorn of judicial discretion. That is precisely why courts in
rights, be it the Constitution itself or only a statute or a rendering justice have always been, as they ought to be,
rule of court. conscientiously guided by the norm that when on the
balance, technicalities take a backseat against
substantive rights, and not the other way around.
xxxx Truly then, technicalities, in the appropriate language of
Justice Makalintal, “should give way to the realities of the
x x x (T)hey are required to be followed except only situation. [Emphasis supplied.]
when for the most persuasive of reasons them may be
relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not We made the same recognition in Barnes, on the
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in underlying premise that a court’s primordial and most
not complying with the procedure prescribed. x x x While important duty is to render justice; in discharging the
it is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, duty to render substantial justice, it is permitted to re-
this does not mean that the Rules of Court may be examine even a final and executory judgment. Apo
ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the Fruits Corporation, et al. vs. Land Bank of the
orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and Philippines, G.R. No. 164195, October 12, 2010.
their just resolution. Justice eschews anarchy. Bank
355
spouses Peñaredondo. Because of this falsification, he

filed civil and criminal cases against spouses
Peñaredondo to nullify the deed of donation and to
Writ of possession; issuance not ministerial where
punish the party responsible for the falsified document.
third party holds property adversely to judgment
Petitioner’s claim that he is in actual possession of the
debtor.
property is not challenged, and he has come to court
asserting an ownership right adverse to that of the
This rule, however, is not without exception. Under mortgagors, the spouses Peñaredondo.
Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which is made
to apply suppletorily to the extrajudicial foreclosure of
The third party’s possession of the property is legally
real estate mortgages by Section 6, Act 3135, as
presumed to be based on a just title, a presumption
amended, the possession of the mortgaged property may
which may be overcome by the purchaser in a judicial
be awarded to a purchaser in the extrajudicial foreclosure
proceeding for recovery of the property. Through such a
unless a third party is actually holding the property
judicial proceeding, the nature of the adverse possession
adversely to the judgment debtor. Section 33 provides:
by the third party may be determined, after such third
party is accorded due process and the opportunity to be
Sec. 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration of heard. The third party may be ejected from the property
redemption period; by whom executed or given. only after he has been given an opportunity to be heard,
conformably with the time-honored principle of due
If no redemption be made within one (1) year from the process. The Civil Code protects the actual possessor of
date of the registration of the certificate of sale, the a property, as Article 433 thereof provides:
purchaser is entitled to a conveyance and possession of
the property; or, if so redeemed whenever sixty (60) Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership
days have elapsed and no other redemption has been raises disputable presumption of ownership. The true
made, and notice thereof given, and the time for owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of
redemption has expired, the last redemptioner is entitled the property.
to the conveyance and possession; but in all cases the
judgment obligor shall have the entire period of one (1)
One who claims to be the owner of a property possessed
year from the date of the registration of the sale to
by another must bring the appropriate judicial action for
redeem the property. The deed shall be executed by the
its physical recovery. The “judicial process” could mean
officer making the sale or by his successor in office, and
no less than an ejectment suit or a reivindicatory action,
in the latter case shall have the same validity as though
in which the ownership claims of the contending parties
the officer making the sale had continued in office and
may be properly heard and adjudicated. The ex parte
executed it.
petition for the issuance of a writ of possession filed by
respondent, strictly speaking, is not the kind of judicial
Upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the process contemplated in Article 433 of the Civil Code.
purchaser or redemptioner shall be substituted to and Even if the same may be considered a judicial proceeding
acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim of the for the enforcement of one’s right of possession as
judgment obligor to the property as of the time of the purchaser in a foreclosure sale, it is not an ordinary suit
levy. The possession of the property shall be given to the filed in court, by which one party sues another for the
purchaser or last redemptioner by the same officer unless enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
a third party is actually holding the property adversely to redress of a wrong. Unlike a judicial foreclosure of real
the judgment obligor. estate mortgage under Rule 68 of the Rules of Court
where an action for foreclosure is filed before the RTC
The same issue had been raised in Bank of the Philippine where the mortgaged property or any part thereof is
Islands v. Icot, Development Bank of the Philippines v. situated, any property brought within the ambit of Act
Prime Neighborhood Association, Dayot v. Shell Chemical 3135 is foreclosed by the filing of a petition, not with any
Company (Phils.), Inc., and Philippine National Bank v. court of justice, but with the office of the sheriff of the
Court of Appeals, and we uniformly held that the province where the sale is to be made. As such, a third
obligation of the court to issue an ex parte writ of person in possession of an extrajudicially foreclosed
possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial property, who claims a right superior to that of the
foreclosure sale ceases to be ministerial once it appears original mortgagor, is given no opportunity to be heard
that there is a third party in possession of the property on his claim. It stands to reason, therefore, that such
who is claiming a right adverse to that of the third person may not be dispossessed on the strength of
debtor/mortgagor. The purchaser’s right of possession is a mere ex parte possessory writ, since to do so would be
recognized only as against the judgment debtor and his tantamount to his summary ejectment, in violation of the
successor-in-interest but not against persons whose right basic tenets of due process.
of possession is adverse to the latter. In this case,
petitioner opposed the issuance of the writ of possession The Court cannot sanction a procedural shortcut. To
on the ground that he is in actual possession of the enforce the writ against petitioner, an unwitting third
mortgaged property under a claim of ownership. He party possessor who took no part in the foreclosure
explained that his title to the property was cancelled by proceedings, would amount to the taking of real property
virtue of a falsified deed of donation executed in favor of without the benefit of proper judicial intervention.
356
Hence, it was not a ministerial duty of the trial court of possession. The writ of possession issues as a matter
under Act 3135 to issue a writ of possession for the of course even without the filing and approval of a bond
ouster of petitioner from the lot subject of this instant after consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a
case, particularly in light of the latter’s opposition, claim new TCT in the name of the purchaser. Emmanuel C.
of ownership and rightful possession of the disputed Villanueva vs. Cherdan Lending Investors Corporation,
properties. G.R. No. 177881. October 13, 2010
In granting respondent’s petition, the appellate court

cited Ancheta v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company,
Inc. and PNB v. Sanao Marketing Corporation. The
invocation of these cases is misplaced. These cases
involved the propriety of the issuance of a writ of
possession pending the determination of the validity of
the mortgage or foreclosure proceedings filed by the
mortgagor or by at least one of the mortgagors who was
a party to the foreclosure proceedings. We held then that
the pendency of such determination is not a bar to the
issuance of the possessory writ as no discretion is left to
the issuing judge. The above-cited cases have different
factual milieu which makes them inapplicable to the Special Proceedings
present case. In Ancheta and PNB, the oppositors were
parties to the mortgage and the foreclosure proceedings;
in the present case, the oppositor was a third party who Writ of Habeas Corpus.
was a stranger to the mortgage and who did not
participate in the foreclosure proceedings. Moreover, in As correctly pointed out by the OSG, the petition for the
Ancheta and PNB, the oppositors objected to the issuance writs of habeas corpus and amparo was based on the
of the writ because of the pendency of a case for the criminal case for Qualified Theft against petitioner So’s
annulment of the real estate mortgage and the daughter, Guisande. To recall, petitioner So claimed that
foreclosure proceedings; while petitioner herein objected the conditions and circumstances of his daughter’s,
because he is in actual possession of the foreclosed accused Guisande’s, confinement at the NCMH was “life
property and he is claiming the right of ownership threatening”; although Guisande was accused of a non-
adverse to that of the mortgagor, the spouses bailable offense, the NCMH could not adequately treat
Peñaredondo. These factual circumstances in the instant Guisande’s mental condition. Thus, to balance the
case call for the application not of Ancheta and PNB but conflicting right of an accused to medical treatment and
of the other set of cases thoroughly discussed above the right of the prosecution to subject to court processes
declaring that the issuance of the possessory writ is not a an accused charged with a non-bailable offense, the CA
ministerial duty of the RTC judge. Emmanuel C. directed the transfer of Guisande from the NCMH to St.
Villanueva vs. Cherdan Lending Investors Corporation, Clare’s Medical Center, while noting that because of the
G.R. No. 177881. October 13, 2010 peculiarities of this case, there was a deviation from the
regular course of procedure, since accused Guisande
Writ of possession; nature and instances of should have been confined in jail because she was
issuance. charged with a non-bailable offense. Notably, nowhere in
the transcript of the CA hearing on December 3, 2009,
nor in the Order recited in open court by Justice Pizarro,
A writ of possession is an order of the court commanding is there an affirmation of petitioner So’s claim that the
the sheriff to place a person in possession of a real or confinement of accused Guisande at the NCMH was
personal property. It may be issued in an extrajudicial illegal. Neither were the respective acts performed by
foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of respondents Judge Tacla and Dr. Vicente in ascertaining
Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, either 1) within the the mental condition of accused Guisande to withstand
one-year redemption period, upon the filing of a bond, or trial declared unlawful. On the contrary, the NCMH, a
2) after the lapse of the redemption period, without need well-reputed government forensic facility, albeit not held
of a bond or of a separate and independent action. It is in high regard by petitioner So’s and accused Guisande’s
settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the family, had assessed Guisande fit for trial.
absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not
redeemed within one year after the registration of the
sale. As such, he is entitled to the possession of the The Rules on the Writs of Habeas Corpus and Amparo are
property and can demand that he be placed in possession clear; the act or omission or the threatened act or
at any time following the consolidation of ownership in omission complained of – confinement and custody for
his name and the issuance to him of a new TCT. Time habeas corpus and violations of, or threat to violate, a
and again, we have held that it is ministerial upon the person’s life, liberty, and security for amparo cases –
court to issue a writ of possession after the foreclosure should be illegal or unlawful.
sale and during the period of redemption. Upon the filing
of an ex parte motion and the approval of the Rule 102 of the Rules of Court on Habeas Corpus
corresponding bond, the court issues the order for a writ provides:
357
Sec. 1. To what habeas corpus extends. – Except as habeas corpus, in fact, is an actual and effective, and not
otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas merely nominal or moral, illegal restraint of liberty. The
corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy
detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful
or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of
from the person entitled thereto. personal freedom. xxx The essential object and purpose
of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner
of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary,
while the Rule on the Writ of Amparo states:
and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is
illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action
Section 1. Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is sufficient.
is a remedy available to any person whose right to life,
liberty and security is violated or threatened with
In passing upon a petition for habeas corpus, a court or
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official
judge must first inquire into whether the petitioner is
or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
being restrained of his liberty. If he is not, the writ will be
refused. Inquiry into the cause of detention will proceed
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced only where such restraint exists. If the alleged cause is
disappearances or threats thereof. thereafter found to be unlawful, then the writ should be
granted and the petitioner discharged. Needless to state,
Our decisions on the propriety of the issuance of these if otherwise, again the writ will be refused.
writs reiterate the foregoing rules. In Lourdes D. Rubrico,
Jean Rubrico Apruebo, and Mary Joy Rubrico Carbonel v. While habeas corpus is a writ of right, it will not issue as
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, a matter of course or as a mere perfunctory operation on
P/Dir. Gen. Avelino Razon, Maj. Darwin Sy a.k.a Darwin the filing of the petition. Judicial discretion is called for in
Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. Angelo its issuance and it must be clear to the judge to whom
Cuaresma, a certain Jonathan, P/Supt. Edgar B. Roquero, the petition is presented that, prima facie, the petitioner
Arsenio C. Gomez, and Office of the Ombudsman, we is entitled to the writ. It is only if the court is satisfied
qualified: that a person is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty
will the petition for habeas corpus be granted. If the
The privilege of the writ of amparo is envisioned basically respondents are not detaining or restraining the applicant
to protect and guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and of the person in whose behalf the petition is filed, the
security of persons, free from fears and threats that petition should be dismissed.
vitiate the quality of this life. It is an extraordinary writ
conceptualized and adopted in light of and in response to In the cases at bar, the question before the CA was
the prevalence of extra-legal killings and enforced correctly limited to which hospital, the NCMH or a
disappearances. Accordingly, the remedy ought to be medical facility of accused’s own choosing, accused
resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal Guisande should be referred for treatment of a supposed
sought by the Amparo Rule be diluted and mental condition. In addition, we note that it was
undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo procedurally proper for the RTC to ask the NCMH for a
petitions for purposes less than the desire to separate opinion on accused’s mental fitness to be
secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the arraigned and stand trial. Be that as it may, the CA
basis of unsubstantiated allegations. allowed the transfer of accused to St. Clare’s Medical
Center under the custody of Dr. Rene Yat, who was
In the recent Nurhida Juhuri Ampatuan v. Judge Virgilio required periodically to report on his evaluation, every
V. Macaraig, RTC, Manila, Branch 37, Director General fifteen (15) days, to the RTC Mandaluyong City, although
Avelino Razon, Jr., Director Geary Barias, PSSupt. Co Yee in the same breath, the CA also ordered the continuation
M. Co, Jr., and Police Chief Inspector Agapito Quimson, of the arraignment and trial of the accused for Qualified
we intoned: Theft before the same trial court. In other words,
Guisande remained in custody of the law to answer for
the non-bailable criminal charge against her, and was
The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, simply allowed to pursue medical treatment in the
therefore, is that the individual seeking such relief is hospital and from a doctor of her choice.
illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or place
under some form of illegal restraint. If an individual’s
liberty is restrainted via some legal process, the writ of Certainly, with the dismissal of the non-bailable case
habeas corpus is unavailing. Fundamentally, in order to against accused Guisande, she is no longer under peril to
justify the grant of the writ of habeas corpus, the be confined in a jail facility, much less at the NCMH.
restraint of liberty must be in the nature of an illegal and Effectively, accused Guisande’s person, and treatment of
involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. any medical and mental malady she may or may not
have, can no longer be subjected to the lawful processes
of the RTC Mandaluyong City. In short, the cases have
In general, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to now been rendered moot and academic which, in the
determine whether or not a particular person is legally often cited David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, is defined as “one
held. A prime specification of an application for a writ of that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue
358
of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon No. 6657 clearly and categorically states that the said
would be of no practical use or value.” mode of appeal should be adopted.”
Finally, the Resolutions of the CA and Assistant City However, in a Resolution issued by the Court en banc,
Prosecutor Escobar-Pilares, unmistakably foreclose the dated March 20, 2003, which ruled on the motion for
justiciability of the petitions before this Court. In CA- reconsideration filed by the LBP, the Court clarified that
G.R. SP No. 00039, the CA said: its decision in De Leon shall apply only to cases appealed
from the finality of the said Resolution. The Court held:
We are also not swayed by [David So’s] argument that
[petitioners] advanced lies to this Court when they stated x x x LBP pleads that the subject Decision should at least
in their petition that Elena was facing two (2) non- be given prospective application considering that more
bailable offenses. During the hearing on the petition for than 60 similar agrarian cases filed by LBP via ordinary
habeas corpus/writ of amparo, the counsel for [David So] appeal before the Court of Appeals are in danger of being
stated that Elena was facing only one (1) non-bailable dismissed outright on technical grounds on account of
offense to which [petitioners] did not anymore object. our ruling herein. This, according to LBP, will wreak
Besides, the number of non-bailable offenses is not even financial havoc not only on LBP as the financial
material in the instant case for habeas corpus/writ of intermediary of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
amparo as the only issue to be determined here was Program but also on the national treasury and the
whether or not Elena’s confinement at NCMH was lawful. already depressed economic condition of our country.
Thus, in the interest of fair play, equity and justice, LBP
stresses the need for the rules to be relaxed so as to give
Finally, the issue in the verified petition, of whether
substantial consideration to the appealed cases.
[petitioners] were in contempt of court, is rendered moot
and academic considering that this Court had already
rendered its open court Order on December 8, 2009, xxxx
which was favorable to [David So], and it was only later
that the latter raised the issue of contempt.
On account of the absence of jurisprudence interpreting
Sections 60 and 61 of RA 6657 regarding the proper way
Finding no merit in [David So’s] verified petition for to appeal decisions of Special Agrarian Courts, as well as
contempt against [Judge Tacla, Dr. Vicente and the the conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeals thereon,
NCMH], and there being no other objections made by the LBP cannot be blamed for availing of the wrong mode.
parties against Our March 17, 2010 Resolution, the Based on its own interpretation and reliance on [a ruling
instant petition for habeas corpus/writ of amparo is issued by the CA holding that an ordinary appeal is the
declared CLOSED and TERMINATED. SO ORDERED. proper mode], LBP acted on the mistaken belief that an
ordinary appeal is the appropriate manner to question
decisions of Special Agrarian Courts.
David E. So, on behalf of his daughter Maria Elena So
Guisande vs. Hon. Esteban A. Tacla, Jr. etc., et al. / Hon.
Esteban A. Tacla, Jr., etc., et al. vs. David E. So, on Hence, in the light of the aforementioned circumstances,
behalf of his daughter Maria Elena So Guisande, G.R. we find it proper to emphasize the prospective application
Nos. 190108, 190473. October 19, 2010. of our Decision dated September 10, 2002. A prospective
application of our Decision is not only grounded on equity
and fair play, but also based on the constitutional tenet
that rules of procedure shall not impair substantive
rights.
Other Proceedings
xxxx
We hold that our Decision, declaring a petition for review

Appeal; petition for review is correct mode of as the proper mode of appeal from judgments of Special
appeal from decisions of Special Agrarian Courts . Agrarian Courts, is a rule of procedure which affects
substantive rights. If our ruling is given retroactive
Petitioners contend that the proper mode or remedy that application, it will prejudice LBP’s right to appeal because
should have been taken by the LBP in assailing the pending appeals in the Court of Appeals will be dismissed
Decision of the RTC, acting as a Special Agrarian Court, is outright on mere technicality thereby sacrificing the
a petition for review and not an ordinary appeal. The substantial merits thereof. It would be unjust to apply a
Court does not completely agree. This same issue was new doctrine to a pending case involving a party who
squarely addressed and settled by the Court in Land already invoked a contrary view and who acted in good
Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon, wherein it was ruled faith thereon prior to the issuance of said doctrine.
that a petition for review is indeed the correct mode of
appeal from decisions of Special Agrarian Courts. xxxx
Therein, the Court held that “Section 60 of Republic Act
359
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration dated Westmont Investment Corporation vs. Farmix Fertilizer
October 16, 2002 and the supplement to the motion for Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 165876, October 4, 2010
reconsideration dated November 11, 2002 are PARTIALLY
GRANTED. While we clarify that the Decision of this Court
dated September 10, 2002 stands, our ruling therein that
a petition for review is the correct mode of appeal from
decisions of Special Agrarian Courts shall apply only to Intra-Corporate Controversies; pre-trial and
cases appealed after the finality of this Resolution. SO judgment before pre-trial.
ORDERED.
Further, the conduct of a pre-trial is mandatory under the
In the present case, the LBP filed its Notice of Appeal on Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate
September 1, 1998. Thus, pursuant to the ruling that De Controversies. Rule 4, Section 1 of the Interim Rules
Leon shall be applied prospectively from the finality of provides:
this Court’s Resolution dated March 20, 2003, the appeal
of the LBP, which was filed prior to that date, could, thus, Section 1. Pre-trial conference; mandatory nature.
be positively acted upon. Jorge L. Tiangco, et al. vs. Land
Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 153998, October 6,
2010 – Within five (5) days in Rule 3 hereof, whichever comes
later, the court shall issue and serve an order
immediately setting the case for pre-trial conference and
directing the after the period for availment of, and
compliance with, the modes of discovery prescribed
Intra-Corporate Controversies; motion for parties to submit their respective pre-trial briefs. The
reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. parties shall file with the court and furnish each other
copies of their respective pre-trial brief in such manner
as to ensure its receipt by the court and the other party
Rule 1 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-
at least five (5) days before the date set for pre-trial.
Corporate Controversies specifically prohibits the filing of
motions for reconsideration, to wit:
Rule 4, Section 4 further states:
Sec. 8. Prohibited pleadings. – The following pleadings
are prohibited: Sec. 4. Judgment before pre-trial.
(1) Motion to dismiss; – If, after submissionof the pre-trial briefs, the court
determines that, upon consideration of the pleadings, the
affidavits and other evidence submitted by the parties, a
(2) Motion for a bill of particulars;
judgment may be rendered, the court may order the
parties to file simultaneously their respective memoranda
(3) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of within a non-extendible period of twenty (20) days from
judgment or order, or for re-opening of trial; receipt of the order. Thereafter, the court shall render
judgment, either full or otherwise, not later than ninety
(90) days from the expiration of the period to file the
(4) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
memoranda.
affidavits or any other paper, except those filed due to
clearly compelling reasons. Such motion must be verified
and under oath; and However, the RTC never ordered the submission of the
parties’ pre-trial briefs. Neither were they made to
submit their memoranda. Earlier in the proceedings, both
(5) Motion for postponement and other motions of similar
parties were ordered to submit their memoranda on the
intent, except those filed due to clearly compelling
issue of whether the RTC should proceed with the hearing
reasons. Such motion must be verified and under oath.
of the case on the merits. Both parties agreed that it
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
should. They believed that the case was not yet ripe for
final disposition and that the RTC should proceed to hear
With the above proscription, the RTC in the first place the case on the principal prayer for the nullification of the
should not have issued the December 3, 2003 Order Amended By-laws of the Foundation. Thus, petitioners
denying the UOB Group’s motion for reconsideration, said:
which WINCORP adopted. The remedy of an aggrieved
party like WINCORP is to file a petition for certiorari
Therefore, in so far as the Petitioners [herein
within sixty (60) days from receipt of the assailed order
respondents] are concerned, there appears to be three
and not to file a motion for reconsideration, the latter
remaining matters that needs (sic) to be resolved: the
being a prohibited pleading. Here, WINCORP should have
nullification of the by-laws, the proscription from the
filed the petition for certiorari before the CA on or before
enforcement of the recently amended by-laws by the
January 12, 2004. It was, however, filed only on
respondents and the matter of the attorney’s fees.
February 13, 2004. With that, the CA should have
Petitioners [herein respondents] may have presented
dismissed the petition outright for being filed late.
360
evidence on the first two but the third cause of action The fact that the [respondents] were able to secure
does not appear to have been ventilated as yet. There is [TCTs over the property] did not operate to vest upon
also the matter of the compulsory counterclaim of the them ownership of the property. The Torrens system
Respondents [herein petitioners], which was not yet does not create or vest title. It has never been
likewise heard. This would verily take this case out of recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership x x x If
that classification of being ready for final resolution or the [respondents] wished to assert their
disposition of the intra-corporate dispute. ownership, they should have filed a judicial action
for recovery of possession and not merely to have the
land registered under their respective names. x x x
On the other hand, respondents said:
Certificates of title do not establish ownership. (Emphasis
supplied)
However, the SEC has not ruled yet on the parties’
respective formal offer of Exhibits relative to the
A registration proceeding is not a conclusive adjudication
injunction issue; and was yet to hear the main case
of ownership. In fact, if it is later on found in another
where one of the main reliefs prayed for was the
case (where the issue of ownership is squarely
declaration of the nullity of the assailed amended By-
adjudicated) that the registrant is not the owner of the
laws.
property, the real owner can file a reconveyance case
and have the title transferred to his name.
Likewise, the Judgment of the RTC is bereft of any
justification for dispensing with the pre-trial and trial.
Given that a registration proceeding (such as the
There was no discussion of any agreement by the parties
certification of ancestral lands) is not a conclusive
to dispense with the trial and submit the case for
adjudication of ownership, it will not constitute litis
resolution based on the pleadings filed. In fact, because
pendentia on a reivindicatory case where the issue is
there was no pre-trial, it remains unclear exactly what
ownership. or litis pendentia to be a ground for the
issues are to be resolved by the trial court. Manuel D.
dismissal of an action, the following requisites must
Recto, et al. vs. Bishop Federico O. Escaler, S.J., et al.,
concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties
G.R. No. 173179, October 20, 2010.
who represent the same interests in both actions; (b)
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity
with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two
Registration proceeding (application for issuance of cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in
Certificate of Ancestral Land Title); does not the pending case, regardless of which party is successful,
constitute litis pendentia over reivindicatory case. would amount to res judicata in the other case.” The
third element is missing, for any judgment in the
certification case would not constitute res judicata or be
The application for issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral conclusive on the ownership issue involved in the
Land Title pending before the NCIP is akin to a reivindicatory case. Since there is no litis pendentia,
registration proceeding. It also seeks an official there is no reason for the reivindicatory case to be
recognition of one’s claim to a particular land and is also suspended or dismissed in favor of the certification case.
in rem. The titling of ancestral lands is for the purpose of
“officially establishing” one’s land as an ancestral land.
Just like a registration proceeding, the titling of ancestral Moreover, since there is no litis pendentia, we cannot
lands does not vest ownership upon the applicant but agree with petitioners’ contention that respondent
only recognizes ownership that has already vested in the committed forum-shopping. Settled is the rule that
applicant by virtue of his and his predecessor-in- “forum shopping exists where the elements of litis
interest’s possession of the property since time pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one
immemorial. As aptly explained in another case: case will amount to res judicata in the other.” Delfin
Lamsis, et al. vs. Margarita Semon Dong-e, G.R. No.
173021, October 20, 2010.
It bears stressing at this point that ownership should
not be confused with a certificate of title.
Registering land under the Torrens system does not
create or vest title because registration is not a mode
of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely an Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
evidence of ownership or title over the particular property Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages;
described therein. Corollarily, any question involving scope.
the issue of ownership must be threshed out in a
separate suit x x x The trial court will then conduct a
Petitioner insists that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC governs this
full-blown trial wherein the parties will present their
case. Her stance is unavailing. The Rule on Declaration
respective evidence on the issue of ownership of the
of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
subject properties to enable the court to resolve the said
Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
issue. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
which the Court promulgated on March 15, 2003, is
explicit in its scope. Section 1 of the Rule, in fact, reads:
Likewise apropos is the following explanation:
361
Section 1. Scope – This Rule shall govern petitions for trial declared unlawful. On the contrary, the NCMH, a
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and well-reputed government forensic facility, albeit not held
annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code in high regard by petitioner So’s and accused Guisande’s
of the Philippines. family, had assessed Guisande fit for trial.
The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily. The Rules on the Writs of Habeas Corpus and Amparo are
clear; the act or omission or the threatened act or
omission complained of – confinement and custody for
The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves
habeas corpus and violations of, or threat to violate, a
no room for doubt. The coverage extends only to those
person’s life, liberty, and security for amparo cases –
marriages entered into during the effectivity of the
should be illegal or unlawful.
Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988. The
rule sets a demarcation line between marriages covered
by the Family Code and those solemnized under the Civil Rule 102 of the Rules of Court on Habeas Corpus
Code. provides:
The Court finds Itself unable to subscribe to petitioner’s Sec. 1. To what habeas corpus extends. – Except as
interpretation that the phrase “under the Family Code” in otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers to the word “petitions” corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or
rather than to the word “marriages.” A cardinal rule in detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty,
statutory construction is that when the law is clear and or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld
free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for from the person entitled thereto.
construction or interpretation. There is only room for
application. As the statute is clear, plain, and free from
while the Rule on the Writ of Amparo states:
ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and
applied without attempted interpretation. This is what is
known as the plain-meaning rule or verba legis. It is Section 1. Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo
expressed in the maxim, index animi sermo, or “speech is a remedy available to any person whose right to life,
is the index of intention.” Furthermore, there is the liberty and security is violated or threatened with
maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or “from the violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official
words of a statute there should be no departure.” or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
Cynthia S. Bolos vs. Danilo T. Bolos, G.R. No. 186400,
October 20, 2010. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof.
Our decisions on the propriety of the issuance of these

Writ of Amparo. writs reiterate the foregoing rules. In Lourdes D. Rubrico,
Jean Rubrico Apruebo, and Mary Joy Rubrico Carbonel v.
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon,
As correctly pointed out by the OSG, the petition for the
P/Dir. Gen. Avelino Razon, Maj. Darwin Sy a.k.a Darwin
writs of habeas corpus and amparo was based on the
Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. Angelo
criminal case for Qualified Theft against petitioner So’s
Cuaresma, a certain Jonathan, P/Supt. Edgar B. Roquero,
daughter, Guisande. To recall, petitioner So claimed that
Arsenio C. Gomez, and Office of the Ombudsman, we
the conditions and circumstances of his daughter’s,
qualified:
accused Guisande’s, confinement at the NCMH was “life
threatening”; although Guisande was accused of a non-
bailable offense, the NCMH could not adequately treat The privilege of the writ of amparo is envisioned basically
Guisande’s mental condition. Thus, to balance the to protect and guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and
conflicting right of an accused to medical treatment and security of persons, free from fears and threats that
the right of the prosecution to subject to court processes vitiate the quality of this life. It is an extraordinary writ
an accused charged with a non-bailable offense, the CA conceptualized and adopted in light of and in response to
directed the transfer of Guisande from the NCMH to St. the prevalence of extra-legal killings and enforced
Clare’s Medical Center, while noting that because of the disappearances. Accordingly, the remedy ought to be
peculiarities of this case, there was a deviation from the resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal
regular course of procedure, since accused Guisande sought by the Amparo Rule be diluted and
should have been confined in jail because she was undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo
charged with a non-bailable offense. Notably, nowhere in petitions for purposes less than the desire to
the transcript of the CA hearing on December 3, 2009, secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the
nor in the Order recited in open court by Justice Pizarro, basis of unsubstantiated allegations.
is there an affirmation of petitioner So’s claim that the
confinement of accused Guisande at the NCMH was In the recent Nurhida Juhuri Ampatuan v. Judge Virgilio
illegal. Neither were the respective acts performed by V. Macaraig, RTC, Manila, Branch 37, Director General
respondents Judge Tacla and Dr. Vicente in ascertaining Avelino Razon, Jr., Director Geary Barias, PSSupt. Co Yee
the mental condition of accused Guisande to withstand
362
M. Co, Jr., and Police Chief Inspector Agapito Quimson, Theft before the same trial court. In other words,
we intoned: Guisande remained in custody of the law to answer for
the non-bailable criminal charge against her, and was
simply allowed to pursue medical treatment in the
The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ,
hospital and from a doctor of her choice.
therefore, is that the individual seeking such relief is
illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or place
under some form of illegal restraint. If an individual’s Certainly, with the dismissal of the non-bailable case
liberty is restrainted via some legal process, the writ of against accused Guisande, she is no longer under peril to
habeas corpus is unavailing. Fundamentally, in order to be confined in a jail facility, much less at the NCMH.
justify the grant of the writ of habeas corpus, the Effectively, accused Guisande’s person, and treatment of
restraint of liberty must be in the nature of an illegal and any medical and mental malady she may or may not
involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. have, can no longer be subjected to the lawful processes
of the RTC Mandaluyong City. In short, the cases have
now been rendered moot and academic which, in the
In general, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to
often cited David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, is defined as “one
determine whether or not a particular person is legally
that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue
held. A prime specification of an application for a writ of
of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon
habeas corpus, in fact, is an actual and effective, and not
would be of no practical use or value.”
merely nominal or moral, illegal restraint of liberty. The
writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy
and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful Finally, the Resolutions of the CA and Assistant City
restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of Prosecutor Escobar-Pilares, unmistakably foreclose the
personal freedom. xxx The essential object and purpose justiciability of the petitions before this Court. In CA-
of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner G.R. SP No. 00039, the CA said:
of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary,
and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is
We are also not swayed by [David So’s] argument that
illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action
[petitioners] advanced lies to this Court when they stated
is sufficient.
in their petition that Elena was facing two (2) non-
bailable offenses. During the hearing on the petition for
In passing upon a petition for habeas corpus, a court or habeas corpus/writ of amparo, the counsel for [David So]
judge must first inquire into whether the petitioner is stated that Elena was facing only one (1) non-bailable
being restrained of his liberty. If he is not, the writ will be offense to which [petitioners] did not anymore object.
refused. Inquiry into the cause of detention will proceed Besides, the number of non-bailable offenses is not even
only where such restraint exists. If the alleged cause is material in the instant case for habeas corpus/writ of
thereafter found to be unlawful, then the writ should be amparo as the only issue to be determined here was
granted and the petitioner discharged. Needless to state, whether or not Elena’s confinement at NCMH was lawful.
if otherwise, again the writ will be refused.
Finally, the issue in the verified petition, of whether
While habeas corpus is a writ of right, it will not issue as [petitioners] were in contempt of court, is rendered moot
a matter of course or as a mere perfunctory operation on and academic considering that this Court had already
the filing of the petition. Judicial discretion is called for in rendered its open court Order on December 8, 2009,
its issuance and it must be clear to the judge to whom which was favorable to [David So], and it was only later
the petition is presented that, prima facie, the petitioner that the latter raised the issue of contempt.
is entitled to the writ. It is only if the court is satisfied
that a person is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty
Finding no merit in [David So’s] verified petition for
will the petition for habeas corpus be granted. If the
contempt against [Judge Tacla, Dr. Vicente and the
respondents are not detaining or restraining the applicant
NCMH], and there being no other objections made by the
of the person in whose behalf the petition is filed, the
parties against Our March 17, 2010 Resolution, the
petition should be dismissed.
instant petition for habeas corpus/writ of amparo is
declared CLOSED and TERMINATED. SO ORDERED.
In the cases at bar, the question before the CA was
correctly limited to which hospital, the NCMH or a
David E. So, on behalf of his daughter Maria Elena So
medical facility of accused’s own choosing, accused
Guisande vs. Hon. Esteban A. Tacla, Jr. etc., et al. / Hon.
Guisande should be referred for treatment of a supposed
Esteban A. Tacla, Jr., etc., et al. vs. David E. So, on
mental condition. In addition, we note that it was
behalf of his daughter Maria Elena So Guisande, G.R.
procedurally proper for the RTC to ask the NCMH for a
Nos. 190108, 190473. October 19, 2010.
separate opinion on accused’s mental fitness to be
arraigned and stand trial. Be that as it may, the CA
allowed the transfer of accused to St. Clare’s Medical
Center under the custody of Dr. Rene Yat, who was
required periodically to report on his evaluation, every
fifteen (15) days, to the RTC Mandaluyong City, although
in the same breath, the CA also ordered the continuation
of the arraignment and trial of the accused for Qualified Evidence
363
In this case, it was respondents who instituted Civil Case

No. 01-1564 seeking the annulment of the extrajudicial
foreclosure of their mortgaged properties on the ground
Actual damages; evidence required.
of non-compliance with the requirements of the law on
the posting of the notices of sale. Thus, the burden falls
As to Rudlin’s counterclaim for reimbursement of its upon respondents to prove the fact of non-compliance;
expenses in repairing the defective waterproofing, not a but respondents miserably failed in this regard.
single receipt was presented by Rudlin to prove that such Respondents did not present any evidence at all to
expense was actually incurred by it. Under the Civil establish that the notices of sale were not posted as
Code, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only required under Section 3 of Act No. 3135, as amended.
for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly Instead, respondents merely focused on how Notary
proved. The award of actual damages must be based on Public Magpantay’s Certificate of Posting was worded,
the evidence presented, not on the personal knowledge and emphasized on technicalities and semantics.
of the court; and certainly not on flimsy, remote, Respondents insist that the phrase “on the 15 th day of
speculative and nonsubstantial proof. The testimony of November 1999, I have caused the posting of three (3)
Rodolfo J. Lagera on the total cost allegedly spent by copies of Notice of Sale” in the Certificate of Posting
Rudlin in repairing the waterproofing works does not meant that Notary Public Magpantay posted the notices
suffice. A court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures for only one day, i.e., on November 15, 1999. This is a
or guesswork as to the fact of damage but must depend rather specious interpretation of the aforequoted phrase.
upon competent proof that they have indeed been It is more logical and reasonable to understand the same
suffered by the injured party and on the basis of the best phrase as to mean that the notices were posted
evidence obtainable as to the actual amount thereof. It beginning November 15, 1999 until the issuance of the
must point out specific facts that could provide the gauge certificate on December 9, 1999. There is also no basis
for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages to require the notary public’s certificate to exactly state
were borne. Financial Building Corporation vs.. Rudlin that the notices of sale were posted at “public places.”
International Corporation, et al./Rudlin International Notary Public Magpantay’s use of the words “conspicuous
Corporation, et al. vs. Financial Building Corporation, places” in his certificate already satisfactorily complies
G.R. No. 164186/G.R. No. 164347. October 4, 2010 with the legal requirement for posting. The adjective
“public” may refer to that which is “exposed to general
view,” and “conspicuous” is a synonym thereof.
Burden of proof in action to annul foreclosure Moreover, it bears to stress that the Certificate of Posting
proceedings. is actually evidence presented by the petitioner to
establish that copies of the Notice of Sale were indeed
posted as required by Act No. 3135, as amended.
It is an elementary rule that the “burden of proof is the Without presenting their own evidence of the alleged lack
duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue of posting, respondents contented themselves with
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the challenging the contents of said certificate. As plaintiffs
amount of evidence required by law.” In Cristobal v. in Civil Case No. 01-1564, respondents must rely on the
Court of Appeals, the Court explicitly ruled that strength of their own evidence and not upon the
foreclosure proceedings enjoy the presumption of weakness of the petitioner’s. In addition, despite any
regularity and that the mortgagor who alleges absence of defect in the posting of the Notice of Sale, the Court
a requisite has the burden of proving such fact, to wit: reiterates its ruling in previous jurisprudence that the
publication of the same notice in a newspaper of general
Further, as respondent bank asserts, a mortgagor who circulation is already sufficient compliance with the
alleges absence of a requisite has the burden of requirement of the law. Century Savings Bank vs.
establishing that fact. Petitioners failed in this regard. Spouses Danilo T. Samonte and Rosalinda M. Samonte,
Foreclosure proceedings have in their favor the G.R. No. 176212, October 20, 2010.
presumption of regularity and the burden of evidence to
rebut the same is on the petitioners. As well said by the
respondent appellate court:
Burden of proof in civil case.

“. . . Under the circumstances, there is a basis for
presuming that official duty has been regularly performed
by the sheriff. Being a disputable presumption, the same Nevertheless, we further declare that the Court of
is valid unless controverted by evidence. The Appeals erred in already awarding moral and exemplary
presumption has not been rebutted by any convincing damages in respondent’s favor when the parties have not
and substantial evidence by the appellee who has the yet had the chance to present any evidence before the
onus to present evidence that appellant has not complied RTC-Branch 227. In civil cases, he who alleges a fact has
with the posting requirement of the law. In the absence the burden of proving it by a preponderance of evidence.
therefore of any proof to the contrary, the presumption It is incumbent upon the party claiming affirmative relief
that official duty has been regularly performed stays.” from the court to convincingly prove its claim. Bare
(Emphases supplied.) allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence are not
364
equivalent to proof under our Rules. In short, mere causes for termination, termination procedures, etc.).
allegations are not evidence. Being the law intended by the parties (lex loci
intentiones) to apply to the contract, Saudi Labor Laws
should govern all matters relating to the termination of
At this point, the finding of the Court of Appeals of bad
the employment of Gran.
faith and malice on the part of petitioners has no factual
basis. Good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad
faith has the duty to prove the same. Good faith refers In international law, the party who wants to have a
to the state of the mind which is manifested by the acts foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of
of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention proving the foreign law. The foreign law is treated as a
to abstain from taking an unconscionable and question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the
unscrupulous advantage of another. Bad faith, on the judge or labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a
other hand, does not simply connote bad judgment to foreign law. He is presumed to know only domestic or
simple negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or forum law.
some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a
breach of known duty due to some motive or interest or
Unfortunately for petitioner, it did not prove the pertinent
ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. Malice
Saudi laws on the matter; thus, the International Law
connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to
doctrine of presumed-identity approach or processual
duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and
presumption comes into play. Where a foreign law is not
unjustifiable harm.
pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the
presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours.
We cannot subscribe to respondent’s argument that there Thus, we apply Philippine labor laws in determining the
is no more need for the presentation of evidence by the issues presented before us. (emphasis and underscoring
parties since petitioners, in moving for the dismissal of supplied) ATCI Overseas Corporation, et al. vs. Ma.
respondent’s complaint for damages, hypothetically Josefa Echin, G.R. No. 178551. October 11, 2010
admitted respondent’s allegations. The hypothetical
admission of respondent’s allegations in the complaint
Foreign law; no judicial notice of foreign law.
only goes so far as determining whether said complaint
should be dismissed on the ground of failure to state a
cause of action. A finding that the complaint sufficiently The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign
states a cause of action does not necessarily mean that laws, hence, they must not only be alleged; they must be
the complaint is meritorious; it shall only result in the proven. To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it
reinstatement of the complaint and the hearing of the must present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24
case for presentation of evidence by the parties. and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court which
Ermelinda Manaloto, et al. vs. Ismael Veloso III, G.R. No. reads:
171365, October 6, 2010.
SEC. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public
Foreign law; burden of proof; processual documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19,
presumption. when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by
an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the
officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his
As to petitioners’ contentions that Philippine labor laws
deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
on probationary employment are not applicable since it
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the
was expressly provided in respondent’s employment
custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a
contract, which she voluntarily entered into, that the
foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
terms of her engagement shall be governed by prevailing
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general,
Kuwaiti Civil Service Laws and Regulations as in fact
consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in
POEA Rules accord respect to such rules, customs and
the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
practices of the host country, the same was not
foreign country in which the record is kept, and
substantiated. Indeed, a contract freely entered into is
authenticated by the seal of his office. (emphasis
considered the law between the parties who can establish
supplied)
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may
deem convenient, including the laws which they wish to
govern their respective obligations, as long as they are SEC. 25. What attestation of copy must state. —
not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for
or public policy. It is hornbook principle, however, that the purpose of the evidence, the attestation must state,
the party invoking the application of a foreign law has the in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the
burden of proving the law, under the doctrine of original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be.
processual presumption which, in this case, petitioners The attestation must be under the official seal of the
failed to discharge. The Court’s ruling in EDI- attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a
Staffbuilders Int’l., v. NLRC illuminates: court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
In the present case, the employment contract signed by To prove the Kuwaiti law, petitioners submitted the
Gran specifically states that Saudi Labor Laws will govern following: MOA between respondent and the Ministry, as
matters not provided for in the contract (e.g. specific represented by ATCI, which provides that the employee
365
is subject to a probationary period of one (1) year and No. 79, Series of 2005, Amendments to the Regulations
that the host country’s Civil Service Laws and Regulations on Inter Partes Proceedings. x x x
apply; a translated copy (Arabic to English) of the
termination letter to respondent stating that she did not
In reversing such finding, the CA cited Sec. 2.4 of BLA
pass the probation terms, without specifying the grounds
Memorandum Circular No. 03, Series of 2005, which
therefor, and a translated copy of the certificate of
states:
termination, both of which documents were certified by
Mr. Mustapha Alawi, Head of the Department of Foreign
Affairs-Office of Consular Affairs Inslamic Certification Section 2.4. In all cases, failure to file the documentary
and Translation Unit; and respondent’s letter of evidences in accordance with Sections 7 and 8 of the
reconsideration to the Ministry, wherein she noted that in rules on summary proceedings shall be construed as a
her first eight (8) months of employment, she was given waiver on the part of the parties. In such a case, the
a rating of “Excellent” albeit it changed due to changes in original petition, opposition, answer and the supporting
her shift of work schedule. documents therein shall constitute the entire evidence for
the parties subject to applicable rules.
These documents, whether taken singly or as a whole, do
not sufficiently prove that respondent was validly The CA concluded that Shen Dar needed not formally
terminated as a probationary employee under Kuwaiti offer its evidence but merely needed to attach its
civil service laws. Instead of submitting a copy of the evidence to its position paper with the proper markings,
pertinent Kuwaiti labor laws duly authenticated and which it did in this case.
translated by Embassy officials thereat, as required under
the Rules, what petitioners submitted were mere The IP Code provides under its Sec. 10.3 that the
certifications attesting only to the correctness of the Director General of the IPO shall establish the procedure
translations of the MOA and the termination letter which for the application for the registration of a trademark, as
does not prove at all that Kuwaiti civil service laws differ well as the opposition to it:
from Philippine laws and that under such Kuwaiti laws,
respondent was validly terminated. Thus the subject
certifications read: Section 10. The Bureau of Legal Affairs. The Bureau of
Legal Affairs shall have the following functions:
xxxx
xxxx
This is to certify that the herein attached translation/s

from Arabic to English/Tagalog and or vice versa 10.3. The Director General may by Regulations establish
was/were presented to this Office for review and the procedure to govern the implementation of this
certification and the same was/were found to be in Section.
order. This Office, however, assumes no responsibility as
to the contents of the document/s. Thus, the Director General issued Office Order No. 79,
Series of 2005 amending the regulations on Inter Partes
This certification is being issued upon request of the Proceedings, Sec. 12.1 of which provides:
interested party for whatever legal purpose it may serve.
(emphasis supplied) ATCI Overseas Corporation, et al. Section 12. Evidence for the Parties
vs. Ma. Josefa Echin, G.R. No. 178551. October 11, 2010
12.1. The verified petition or opposition, reply if any, duly
marked affidavits of the witnesses, and the documents
submitted, shall constitute the entire evidence for the
Formal Offer of evidence; not required in petitioner or opposer. The verified answer, rejoinder if
proceedings before Bureau of Legal Affairs of any, and the duly marked affidavits and documents
Intellectual Property Office. submitted shall constitute the evidence for the
respondent. Affidavits, documents and other evidence not
submitted and duly marked in accordance with the
Preliminarily, it must be noted that the BLA ruled that preceding sections shall not be admitted as evidence.
Shen Dar failed to adduce evidence in support of its
allegations as required under Office Order No. 79, Series
of 2005, Amendments to the Regulations on Inter Partes The preceding sections referred to in the above provision
Proceedings, having failed to formally offer its evidence refer to Secs. 7.1, 8.1 and 9 which, in turn, provide:
during the proceedings before it. The BLA ruled:
Section 7. Filing of Petition or Opposition
At the outset, we note petitioner’s failure to adduce any
evidence in support of its allegations in the Petition for 7.1. The petition or opposition, together with the
Cancellation. Petitioner did not file nor submit its marked affidavits of witnesses and originals of the documents
evidence as required in this Bureau’s Order No. 2006-157 and other requirements, shall be filed with the Bureau,
dated 25 January 2006 in compliance with Office Order provided, that in case of public documents, certified
366
copies shall be allowed in lieu of the originals. The 179461 pleads the same allegations. The Court cannot
Bureau shall check if the petition or opposition is in due take judicial notice of the alleged “tagging” of petitioners.
form as provided in the Regulations particularly Rule 3,
Section 3; Rule 4, Section 2; Rule 5, Section 3; Rule 6,
Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three
Section 9; Rule 7, Sections 3 and 5; Rule 8, Sections 3
material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of
and 4. For petition for cancellation of layout design
common and general knowledge; (2) it must be
(topography) of integrated circuits, Rule 3, Section 3
well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or
applies as to the form and requirements. The affidavits,
uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the
documents and other evidence shall be marked
limits of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide
consecutively as “Exhibits” beginning with the letter “A”.
in determining what facts may be assumed to be
judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said
Section 8. Answer that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public
records and facts of general notoriety. Moreover, a
judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to a
8.1. Within three (3) working days from receipt of the
reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1) generally
petition or opposition, the Bureau shall issue an order for
known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court;
the respondent to file an answer together with the
or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination
affidavits of witnesses and originals of documents, and at
by resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot
the same time shall notify all parties required to be
reasonably be questionable.
notified in the IP Code and these Regulations, provided,
that in case of public documents, certified true copies
may be submitted in lieu of the originals. The affidavits Things of “common knowledge,” of which courts take
and documents shall be marked consecutively as judicial matters coming to the knowledge of men
“Exhibits” beginning with the number “1”. generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life,
or they may be matters which are generally accepted by
mankind as true and are capable of ready and
Section 9. Petition or Opposition and Answer must be
unquestioned demonstration. Thus, facts which are
verified¾ Subject to Rules 7 and 8 of these regulations,
universally known, and which may be found in
the petition or opposition and the answer must be
encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are
verified. Otherwise, the same shall not be considered as
judicially noticed, provided, they are of such universal
having been filed.
notoriety and so generally understood that they may be
regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of
In other words, as long as the petition is verified and the every person. As the common knowledge of man ranges
pieces of evidence consisting of the affidavits of the far and wide, a wide variety of particular facts have been
witnesses and the original of other documentary evidence judicially noticed as being matters of common
are attached to the petition and properly marked in knowledge. But a court cannot take judicial notice
accordance with Secs. 7.1 and 8.1 abovementioned, of any fact which, in part, is dependent on the
these shall be considered as the evidence of the existence or non-existence of a fact of which the
petitioner. There is no requirement under the court has no constructive knowledge. (emphasis and
abovementioned rules that the evidence of the parties underscoring supplied.)
must be formally offered to the BLA. In any case, as a
quasi-judicial agency and as stated in Rule 2, Sec. 5 of
No ground was properly established by petitioners for the
the Regulations on Inter Partes Proceedings, the BLA is
taking of judicial notice. Petitioners’ apprehension is
not bound by technical rules of procedure. The evidence
insufficient to substantiate their plea. That no specific
attached to the petition may, therefore, be properly
charge or proscription under RA 9372 has been filed
considered in the resolution of the case. E.Y. Industrial
against them, three years after its effectivity, belies any
Sales, Inc. and Engracio Yap vs. Shen Dar Electricity
claim of imminence of their perceived threat emanating
Machinery Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 184850, October 20, 2010.
from the so-called tagging. Southern Hemisphere
Engagement Network, Inc. etc., et al. vs. Anti-
Terrorism council, et al./Kilusang Mayo Uno etc., et
al. Vs. Hon. Eduardo Ermita, et al./Bagong
Judicial Notice. Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), et al. vs. Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, etc., et al./Karapatan, et al. vs.
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, etc., et al./The
BAYAN, GABRIELA, KMP, MCCCL, COURAGE, Integrated Bar of the Philippines etc. et al. vs.
KADAMAY, SCW, LFS, Anakbayan, PAMALAKAYA, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, et al./Bagong
ACT, Migrante, HEAD and Agham, petitioner- Alyansang Makabayan-Southern Tagalog, et al. vs.
organizations in G.R. No. 178581, would like the Court to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, etc., et al., G.R. Nos.
take judicial notice of respondents’ alleged action of 178552, 178554, 178581, 178890, 179157,
tagging them as militant organizations fronting for the 179461.October 5, 2010
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed
wing, the National People’s Army (NPA). The tagging,
according to petitioners, is tantamount to the effects of Parol Evidence Rule; evidence of written
proscription without following the procedure under the agreement.
law. The petition of BAYAN-ST, et al. in G.R. No.
367
On the issue of the correct total contract price, we hold enable the court to make a proper interpretation of the
that Rudlin failed to substantiate its claim that the instrument.” Under the fourth exception, however,
contract price stated in the Construction Agreement Rudlin’s evidence is admissible to show the existence of
(P6,933,268.00) was not the true contract price because such other terms agreed to by the parties after the
it had an understanding with FBC’s Jaime B. Lo that they execution of the contract. But apart from the Bar Chart
would decrease said amount to a mutually acceptable and Cash Flow Chart prepared by FBC, and the testimony
amount. Under the general rule in Section 9 of Rule 130 of Rodolfo J. Lagera, no competent evidence was
of the Rules of Court, when the terms of an agreement adduced by Rudlin to prove that the amount of
were reduced in writing, as in this case, it is deemed to P6,006,965.00 stated therein as contract price was the
contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of actual decreased amount that FBC and Rudlin found
such terms can be admitted other than the contents mutually acceptable. As to the affidavits executed by
thereof. Rudlin argues that under Section 9, Rule 130, a Architect Quezon and his associate Roberto R. Antonio,
party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the same do not serve as competent proof of the
the terms of the written agreement if it is put in issue in purported actual contract price as they did not testify
the pleading, “[t]he failure of the written agreement to thereon. Significantly, the June 5, 1986 Letter-
express the true intent and the agreement of the parties Agreement did not at all mention the total contract price.
thereto.” Assuming as true Rudlin’s claim that Exhibit “7” Likewise, there is nothing in the various letters sent by
failed to accurately reflect an intent of the parties to fix Rudlin to FBC while construction was in progress and
the total contract price at P6,006,965.00, Rudlin failed to even subsequent to the execution of the said Letter-
avail of its right to seek the reformation of the instrument Agreement indicating that Rudlin corrected the contract
to the end that such true intention may be expressed. price of P6,933,268.00 which FBC had repeatedly
mentioned in its letters and documents. Financial
Building Corporation vs.. Rudlin International
Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal
Corporation, et al./Rudlin International Corporation, et
agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict
al. vs. Financial Building Corporation, G.R. No.
or defeat the operation of a valid contract. Section 9 of
164186/G.R. No. 164347. October 4, 2010
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states:
Positive testimony stronger than negative

SEC. 9. Evidence of written agreements.—When the
testimony.
terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and
there can be, between the parties and their successors- Contrary to the dissent’s view, the sworn statements of
in-interest, no evidence of such terms other than the Maligaya Feedmill’s customers and former employees
contents of the written agreement. that Mitra did not and could not have resided at the
mezzanine portion of the Feedmill cannot be given full
evidentiary weight, since these statements are in nature
However, a party may present evidence to modify,
of negative testimonies that do not deserve weight and
explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if
credence in the face of contrary positive evidence,
he puts in issue in his pleading:
particularly, Carme E. Caspe’s testimony, cited above,
that Mitra did indeed transfer residence in a process that
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the was accomplished, not in a single move, but through an
written agreement; incremental process that started in early 2008. It is well-
settled in the rules of evidence that positive testimony is
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the stronger than negative testimony. Abraham Kahlil B.
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto; Mitra vs. Commission on Elections, Antonio V. Gonzales
and Orlando R. Balbon, Jr., G.R. No. 191938, October 19,
2010.
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
Presumptions; conclusive presumption; tenant

(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties estopped from denying title of landlord.
or their successors-in-interest after the execution of the
written agreement.
Finally, the Court agrees with the RTC that respondents
are already estopped from challenging the validity of the
The term “agreement” includes wills. foreclosure sale, after entering into a Contract of Lease
with petitioner over one of the foreclosed properties. The
Rudlin cannot invoke the exception under (a) or (b) of title of the landlord is a conclusive presumption as
the above provision. Such exception obtains only where against the tenant or lessee. According to Section 2(b),
“the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, “[t]he tenant is not
that the contractual intention of the parties cannot be permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of
understood from a mere reading of the instrument. In the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant
such a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of between them.” The juridical relationship between
the contract, of the relations of the parties to each other, petitioner as lessor and respondents as lessees carries
and of the facts and circumstances surrounding them with it a recognition of the lessor’s title. As lessees, then
when they entered into the contract may be received to respondents are estopped to deny their landlord’s title, or
368
to assert a better title not only in themselves, but also in when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the
some third person while they remain in possession of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same
leased premises and until they surrender possession to must not involve an examination of the probative value
the landlord. This estoppel applies even though the of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.
lessor had no title at the time the relation of lessor and The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the
lessee was created, and may be asserted not only by the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is
original lessor, but also by those who succeed to his title. clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence
The Court quotes with approval the following findings of presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the
the RTC: test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not
the appellation given to such question by the party
raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court
Further, this Court upholds the validity of the
can determine the issue raised without reviewing or
extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding under the equitable
evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of
principle of estoppel. [Herein respondents’] admitted
law; otherwise it is a question of fact. Republic of the
execution of the Contract of Lease alone establishes that
Philippines vs. Angelo B. Malabanan, et al., G.R. No.
they do not have any cause of action or are estopped
169067, October 6, 2010
from impugning the validity of the subject extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings. In the Contract of Lease,
[respondents’] clearly acknowledge that the subject
extrajudicial foreclosure sale was conducted in
accordance with Act No. 3135, as amended; that they
Question of law distinguished from question of fact.
failed to redeem the foreclosed properties within the
redemption period; and that [petitioner] has valid and
legal right and title as absolute owner of the foreclosed In Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., the Court
properties. [Respondents] failed to mention or question elucidated on the distinction between questions of law
the validity of the Contract of Lease in their Complaint. and fact:
There being no evidence presented that [respondents]
executed the Contract of Lease by mistake or through The distinction between questions of law and questions of
violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud, fact is settled. A question of law exists when the doubt
[respondents] are bound by the stipulations therein and or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state
to the consequences thereof. Century Savings Bank vs. of facts. A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on
Spouses Danilo T. Samonte and Rosalinda M. Samonte, the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Though this
G.R. No. 176212, October 20, 2010. delineation seems simple, determining the true nature
and extent of the distinction is sometimes problematic.
For example, it is incorrect to presume that all cases
where the facts are not in dispute automatically involve
purely questions of law.
Presumptions; disputable presumption;
suppression of evidence.
There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of
being resolved without need of reviewing the probative
Incidentally, the dissent’s invocation of the adverse
value of the evidence. The resolution of the issue must
presumption of suppression of evidence is erroneous,
rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of
since it does not arise when the evidence is at the
circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a
disposal of both parties. In the present case, the
review of the evidence presented, the question posed is
required proofs of commercial transactions the dissent
one of fact. If the query requires a re-evaluation of the
cites are public documents which are at the disposal of
credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of
both parties; they are not solely under the custody of
surrounding circumstances and their relation to each
Mitra and can be easily obtained from the municipal
other, the issue in that query is factual. Our ruling in
offices of Aborlan had the private respondents been
Paterno v. Paterno [G.R. No. 63680, 23 March 1990, 183
minded to do so. The bottom line is that no such
SCRA 630] is illustrative on this point:
evidence was ever presented in this case, and none can
and should be considered at this point. Abraham Kahlil
B. Mitra vs. Commission on Elections, Antonio V. Such questions as whether certain items of evidence
Gonzales and Orlando R. Balbon, Jr., G.R. No. 191938, should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected
October 19, 2010. as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on
one side or the other are clear and convincing and
adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without
doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body of
proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in
Question of law distinguished from question of fact. relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party,
may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether
or not certain documents presented by one side should
And in Leoncio v. De Vera, this Court has differentiated a
be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as
question of law from a question of fact. A question of law
to their spurious character by the other side; whether or
arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a
not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of
certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact
369
such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs Appeal; argument raised for first time on appeal.
weight – all these are issues of fact.
The petitioners now claim that the Motion for
It is true that Maxicorp did not contest the facts alleged Reconsideration, filed by the respondent on May 18, 1993
by petitioners. But this situation does not automatically from the September 18, 1992 Order of the RTC, was filed
transform all issues raised in the petition into questions out of time. The petitioners make this claim to justify
of law. The issues must meet the tests outlined in their contention that the subsequent rulings of the RTC,
Paterno. including the June 2, 1993 and October 1, 1993 Orders,
are barred by res judicata.
The main issue in the case at bar is whether the
extrajudicial foreclosure sale of respondents’ mortgaged We reject this belated claim as the petitioners raised this
properties was valid. The resolution of said issue, only for the first time on appeal, particularly, in their
however, is dependent on the answer to the question of Memorandum. In fact, the petitioners never raised this
whether the legal requirements on the notice of sale were issue in the proceedings before the court a quo or in the
complied with. Necessarily, the Court must review the present petition for review.
evidence on record, most especially, Notary Public
Magpantay’s Certificate of Posting, to determine the
As a rule, a party who deliberately adopts a certain
weight and probative value to accord the same. Non-
theory upon which the case is tried and decided by the
compliance with the requirements of notice and
lower court will not be permitted to change the theory on
publication in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a factual
appeal. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments
issue. The resolution thereof by the lower courts is
not brought to the attention of the lower court need not
binding and conclusive upon this Court. However, this
be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing
rule is subject to exceptions, as when the findings of the
court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such
trial court and the Court of Appeals are in conflict. Also, it
late stage. It would be unfair to the adverse party who
must be noted that non-compliance with the statutory
would have no opportunity to present further evidence
requisites could constitute a jurisdictional defect that
material to the new theory, which it could have done had
would invalidate the sale. Century Savings Bank vs.
it been aware of it at the time of the hearing before the
Spouses Danilo T. Samonte and Rosalinda M. Samonte,
trial court. Thus, to permit the petitioners in this case to
G.R. No. 176212, October 20, 2010.
change their theory on appeal would thus be unfair to the
respondent and offend the basic rules of fair play, justice
and due process. Spouses Ernesto and Vicenta Topacio
vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No.
157644, November 17, 2010.
Appeal; findings of administrative agency.

NOVEMBER 2010 CASES
All told, Nacu was rightfully found guilty of grave

Civil Procedure
misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service, and penalized with dismissal
Appeal; argument raised for first time on appeal. from the service and its accessory penalties. The general
rule is that where the findings of the administrative body
As a last ditch effort, petitioner asserts that the property are amply supported by substantial evidence, such
is a road right of way; thus, it cannot be subject of a writ findings are accorded not only respect but also finality,
of execution. The argument must be rejected because it and are binding on this Court. It is not for the reviewing
was raised for the first time in this petition. In the trial court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the
court and the CA, petitioner’s arguments zeroed in on the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its own
alleged conjugal nature of the property. It is well settled judgment for that of the administrative agency on the
that issues raised for the first time on appeal and not sufficiency of evidence. Irene K. Nacu, etc. vs. Civil
raised in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. 187752, November
estoppel. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments 23, 2010.
not brought to the attention of the trial court ought not
to be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be Appeal; findings of fact of Court of Appeals; when
raised for the first time on appeal. To consider the reviewable by Supreme Court.
alleged facts and arguments raised belatedly would
amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play,
Respondents To Chip, Yap and Balila next argue that the
justice, and due process. Evangeline D. Imani vs.
instant petition raises questions of fact, which are not
Metroplitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 187023,
allowed in a petition for review on certiorari. They,
November 17, 2010.
therefore, submit that the factual findings of the Court of
Appeals are binding on this Court. Section 1, Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition
filed thereunder shall raise only questions of law, which
must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises
370
when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain the specific evidence on which they are based are
state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted
doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. by evidence on record. Notably, none of these
For a question to be one of law, the same must not exceptions is attendant in this case. Sps. Mariano and
involve an examination of the probative value of the Emma Bolaños vs. Roscef Zuñga Bernarte, et al., G.R.
evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The No. 180997, November 17, 2010.
resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law
provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is
Appeal; notice of appeal; disallowance due to
clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence
improper substitution of counsel.
presented, the question posed is one of fact.
Given the foregoing, we are bound to deny a liberal

The above rule, however, admits of certain exceptions,
application of the rules on substitution of counsel and
one of which is when the findings of the Court of Appeals
resolve definitively that GOODLAND’s notice of appeal
are contrary to those of the trial court. As will be
merits a denial, for the failure of Atty. Mondragon to
discussed further, this exception is attendant in the case
effect a valid substitution of the counsel on record.
at bar. Cebu Bionic Builders Supply, Inc. and Lydia Sia
Substantial justice would be better served if the notice of
vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No.
appeal is disallowed. In the same way that the appellant
154366, November 17, 2010
in Pioneer was not permitted to profit from its own
manipulation of the rules on substitution of counsel, so
Appeal; findings of fact of lower courts. too can GOODLAND be not tolerated to foster vexatious
delay by allowing its notice of appeal to carry on. Asia
United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc., G.R. No.
As a rule, the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought
188051, November 22, 2010.
to it from the CA is limited to the review and revision of
errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court.
The issues raised by petitioners are questions of fact Appeal; questions that may be decided; assignment
necessarily calling for a reexamination and reevaluation of error.
of the evidence presented at the trial. A question of fact
arises when the doubt or difference pertains to the truth
SCP further contends that the CA denied it its right to
or falsehood of alleged facts, or when the query
procedural and substantive due process, because it
necessarily solicits calibration of the whole evidence,
granted a relief entirely different from those sought for
considering the credibility of witnesses, the existence and
by the parties and on which they were neither heard nor
relevance of specific circumstances, and their relation to
given the opportunity to be heard. Respondent BDO-
one another and to the whole situation. The Court has
EPCIB, on the other hand, maintains that the CA has the
consistently ruled that findings of fact of trial courts are
power to grant such other appropriate relief as may be
entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed,
consistent with the allegations and proofs when a prayer
except for strong and valid reasons, because the trial
for general relief is added to the demand of specific
court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of
relief. SCP’s contention deserves merit.
witnesses while testifying. It is not a function of this
Court to analyze and weigh evidence all over again. The
factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court Sec. 8, Rule 51 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
are final and conclusive; hence, they are binding on this expressly provides:
Court. The Court will not disturb such factual findings
unless there are compelling or exceptional reasons. No SEC. 8. Questions that may be decided.
such reasons exist in this case. Constancia G. Tamayo,
et al. vs. Rosalia Abad Señora, et al., G.R. No. 176946,
November 15, 2010. – No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the
subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed
from or the proceedings therein will be considered unless
Appeal; findings of fact of trial court. stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or
dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in
Indeed, the findings of the trial court, with respect to the the brief, save as the court pass upon plain errors and
operative facts and the credibility of witnesses, especially clerical errors.
when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the
highest degree of deference and respect by this Court, Essentially, the general rule provides that an assignment
except when: (1) the findings of a trial court are of error is essential to appellate review and only those
grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or assigned will be considered, save for the following
conjectures; (2) a lower court’s inference from its factual exceptions: (1) grounds not assigned as errors but
findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) matters
(3) there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain
of facts; (4) the findings of the court go beyond the or clerical errors within the contemplation of the law; (3)
issues of the case or fail to notice certain relevant facts matters not assigned as errors on appeal but
which, if properly considered, will justify a different consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just
conclusion; (5) there is misapprehension of facts; and (6) decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve
the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of
371
the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal to enter an order which exceeds the scope of the relief
justice; (4) matters not specifically assigned as errors on sought by the pleadings, to wit:
appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of
record having some bearing on the issue submitted which
The Court of Appeals erred in ordering DBP to return to
the parties failed to raise or which the lower court
respondent “the P1,000,000.00” alleged down payment,
ignored; (5) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but
a matter not raised in respondent’s Petition for Review
closely related to an error assigned; and (6) matters not
before it. In Jose Clavano, Inc. v. Housing and Land Use
assigned as errors on appeal but which the determination
Regulatory Board, this Court held:
of a question properly assigned is dependent. None of
these exceptions exists in this case.
“x x x It is elementary that a judgment must
conform to, and be supported by, both the
Notably, the prayer portion of the BDO-EPCIB petition in
pleadings and the evidence, and must be in
CA-G.R. SP No. 101881 only sought for the following
accordance with the theory of the action on which
reliefs:
the pleadings are framed and the case was tried.
The judgment must be secundum allegata et
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable probate.” (Italics in original.)
Court that the Decision dated 03 December 2007 of the
Court a quo, or the approved Rehabilitation Plan, be
Due process considerations justify this requirement. It is
MODIFIED accordingly, thus:
improper to enter an order which exceeds the
scope of relief sought by the pleadings, absent
1. Under its Phase 1, the articles of incorporation and notice which affords the opportunity to be heard
by laws of SCP be accordingly amended to accommodate with respect to the proposed relief. The fundamental
the additional equity of Php3.0 Billion. purpose of the requirement that allegations of a
complaint must provide the measure of recovery is to
prevent surprise to the defendant. (Emphasis supplied.)
2. Under Phase 2, the present stockholders and/or the
Rehabilitation Receiver shall offer for sale to acceptable
investors SCP’s stocks, through negotiated sale or Thus, this Court cannot sustain the ruling of the CA
bidding for an amount not less than Php3.0 Billion, which insofar as it granted a relief not prayed for by the BDO-
is equivalent to approximately 64% of SCP; and EPCIB. Steel Corporation of the Philippines vs. Equitable
PCI Bank, Inc./DEG-Deutsche Investitions-Und
Entwicklungsgesellschaft MBH vs. Equitable PCI Bank,
3. Under Phase 3, there shall be an immediate
Inc., G.R. No. 190462G.R. No. 190538, November 17,
conversion of debt to common shares in the required
2010.
amount of Php3.0 Billion, which is equivalent to
approximately 64% of SCP, pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the Recommended Rehabilitation Plan.
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are Appeal; scope of review; exceptions.
likewise prayed for.
As a general rule, a petition for review under Rule 45 of
It is very plain in the language of the prayers of BDO- the Rules of Court covers questions of law only.
EPCIB that it only requested the CA to modify the Questions of fact are not reviewable and passed upon by
existing rehabilitation plan. It never sought the this Court in its exercise of judicial review. The distinction
termination of the rehabilitation proceedings. Thus, between questions of law and questions of fact has been
given the factual backdrop of the case, it was well defined. A question of law exists when the doubt
inappropriate for the CA, motu proprio, to terminate the or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state
proceedings. The appellate court should have proceeded of facts. A question of fact, on the other hand, exists if
to resolve BDO-EPCIB’s appeal on its merits instead of the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged
terminating the proceedings, a result that has no ground facts.
in its pleadings in the CA.
The rule, however, admits of exceptions, namely: (1)
In Abedes v. Court of Appeals, this Court emphasized the when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations,
difference of appeals in criminal cases and in civil cases surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made
by saying, “Issues not raised in the pleadings, as is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when
opposed to ordinary appeal of criminal cases where the there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the
whole case is opened for review, are deemed waived judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when
or abandoned.” Essentially, to warrant consideration on the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making
appeal, there must be discussion of the error assigned, its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of
else, the error will be deemed abandoned or waived. both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are
contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the
findings are conclusions without citation of specific
This Court even went further in Development Bank of the
evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set
Philippines v. Teston, in which it held that it is improper
372
forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main The general rule is that in petitions for review on
and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and certiorari, the Court will not re-examine the findings of
(10) when the findings of fact are premised on the fact of the appellate court except (a) when the latter’s
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises
evidence on record. or conjectures; (b) when its inference is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (c) when there is a
grave abuse of discretion; (d) when its findings of fact
The aforementioned exceptions, particularly the seventh
are conflicting; and (e) when it goes beyond the issues of
exception, finds relevance in the case at bench since the
the case. Citibank fails to convince the Court that the
findings of the CA are clearly in conflict with that of the
case falls under any of the exceptions. Hence, the
trial court. For this reason, the Court is constrained to
findings of fact should no longer be reviewed. Citibank,
reevaluate the evidence adduced by both parties to
N.A. vs. Atty. Ernesto S. Dinopol, G.R. No. 188412,
resolve the issues which boil down to whether or not
November 22, 2010.
Losin is liable to Vitarich and, if so, to what extent.
Vitarich Corporation vs. Chona Losin, G.R. No. 181560,
November 15, 2010. Appeal; scope of review by Supreme Court.
Appeal; scope of review by Supreme Court. After going over the records, the Court finds no cogent
reason to disturb the findings of the CA on the matter of
WSIRI’s claim for commissions. As this Court has ruled in
The Court finds no solid reason to disturb the findings of
a long line of cases, the Supreme Court is not a trier of
the CA. Verily, the evaluation and calibration of the
facts. Its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising
evidence necessarily involves consideration of factual
errors of law imputed to the lower court, the latter’s
issues – an exercise that is not appropriate for a petition
findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by
for review on certiorari under Rule 45. This rule provides
this Court. Ledesco Development Corp. vs. Worldwide
that the parties may raise only questions of law, because
Standard International Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 173339.
the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Generally, the
November 24, 2010.
Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the
evidence introduced in, and considered by, the tribunals
below. When supported by substantial evidence, the Certiorari; grant or denial of postponement is
findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on matter of discretion.
the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless
the case falls under any of the following recognized
“As a rule, the grant or denial of a motion for
exceptions: (1) when the conclusion is a finding
postponement is addressed to the sound discretion of the
grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and
court which should always be predicated on the
conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly
consideration that more than the mere convenience of
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) where there is a
the courts or of the parties, the ends of justice and
grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is
fairness should be served thereby.” Furthermore, this
based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the
discretion must be exercised intelligently.
findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of
Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues
of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of In this case, the Court is of the view that the CTA gave
both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are enough opportunity for Milwaukee to present its rebuttal
contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings evidence. Records reveal that when Milwaukee
of fact are conclusions without citation of specific requested for resetting on September 5, 2005 and
evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set October 26, 2005, its motions were granted by the CTA.
forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners’ main As a matter of fact, by January 16, 2006, Milwaukee was
and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and already able to partially present its rebuttal evidence.
(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are Thus, when the CTA called on Milwaukee to continue its
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and presentation of rebuttal evidence on February 27, 2006,
contradicted by the evidence on record. it should have been prepared to do so. It cannot be said
that the CTA arbitrarily denied Milwaukee’s supposed
simple request of resetting because it had already given
Unfortunately for the Sevillas, they fail to convince this
the latter several months to prepare and gather its
Court that any of the above exceptions applies in this
rebuttal evidence.
case. For this reason, the Court cannot but respect the
findings and conclusions of the lower court. It is
precluded from making further investigation on the facts Milwaukee tried to reason out that if only the CIR gave
of the case without violating established rules of an advance notice that it would be waiving its right to
procedure. Sps. Eliseo Sevilla and Erna Sevilla vs. Hon. cross-examine its witness, then it could have “rushed the
Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 150284, November 22, collation and sorting of its rebuttal documentary
2010. exhibits.” The Court, however, is not persuaded.
Appeal; scope of review by Supreme Court. As stated earlier, Milwaukee was given more than ample
time to collate and gather its evidence. It should have
been prepared for the continuance of the trial. True, the
373
incident on said date was for the cross-examination of policy dictate, when the broader interests of justice so
Milwaukee’s witness but it could be short; it could be require, when the writs issued are null, or when the
lengthy. Milwaukee should have prepared for any questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of
eventuality. It is discretionary on the part of the court to judicial authority. Petitioner has not alleged, much less
allow a piece-meal presentation of evidence. If it decides proven, that this case calls for the Court’s authority to
not to allow it, it cannot be considered an abuse of invoke the exceptions.
discretion. “As defined, discretion is a faculty of a court
or an official by which he may decide a question either
The right to appeal is not a natural right nor is it a part of
way, and still be right.”
due process; it is merely a statutory privilege that must
be exercised in the manner, and according to procedures,
Accordingly, Milwaukee’s right to due process was not laid down by law. Perfection of an appeal within the
transgressed. The Court has consistently reminded statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory
litigants that due process is simply an opportunity to be but also jurisdictional; failure to do so renders the
heard. The requirement of due process is satisfactorily questioned decision final and executory, and deprives the
met as long as the parties are given the opportunity to appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the judgment or
present their side. In the case at bar, Milwaukee was final order, much less to entertain the appeal.
precisely given the right and the opportunity to present
its side. It was able to present its evidence-in-chief and
Thus, given the factual milieu of this case, the trial court
had its opportunity to present rebuttal evidence.
had already lost jurisdiction to act on the motion for
Milwaukee Industries Corp. vs. Corp. of Appeals and
clarification. When the decision became final and
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 173815,
executory, not even this Court could have changed the
November 24, 2010.
trial court’s disposition absent any showing that the case
fell under one of the recognized exceptions. Victoria L.
Certiorari; grave abuse of discretion. Teh vs. Natividad Teh Tan, Teh Ki Tiat and Jacinta Sia,
G.R. No. 181956, November 22, 2010.
Our review of the records, particularly the CA decision,
indicates that the CA did not determine the presence or Certiorari; interlocutory orders of Bureau of Legal
absence of grave abuse of discretion in the RTC decision Affairs of Intellectual Property Office (BLA-IPO).
before it. Given that the petition before the CA was a
petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the
As to the second issue raised, the Court, is not persuaded
Rules of Court, it appears that the CA instead incorrectly
by petitioner’s argument that, pursuant to the doctrine of
reviewed the case on the basis of whether the RTC
primary jurisdiction, the Director General of the IPO and
decision on the merits was correct. To put the case in its
not the CA has jurisdiction to review the questioned
proper perspective, the task before us is to examine the
Orders of the Director of the BLA-IPO.
CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly
determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of
discretion in the RTC decision before it. Stated It is true that under Section 7(b) of RA 8293, otherwise
otherwise, did the CA correctly determine whether the known as the Intellectual Property Code of the
RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to Philippines, which is the presently prevailing law, the
lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling on the case? As Director General of the IPO exercises exclusive appellate
discussed below, our review of the records and the CA jurisdiction over all decisions rendered by the Director of
decision shows that the RTC did not commit grave abuse the BLA-IPO. However, what is being questioned before
of discretion in issuing an alias writ of possession in favor the CA is not a decision, but an interlocutory order of the
of the respondent. Spouses Ernesto and Vicenta Topacio BLA-IPO denying respondents’ motion to extend the life
vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. of the preliminary injunction issued in their favor. RA
157644, November 17, 2010. 8293 is silent with respect to any remedy available to
litigants who intend to question an interlocutory order
issued by the BLA-IPO. Moreover, Section 1(c), Rule 14
Certiorari; improper where appeal is available.
of the Rules and Regulations on Administrative
Complaints for Violation of Laws Involving Intellectual
The Court reiterates that a special civil action for Property Rights simply provides that interlocutory orders
certiorari is a limited form of review and is a remedy of shall not be appealable. The said Rules and Regulations
last recourse. The general rule is that a writ of certiorari do not prescribe a procedure within the administrative
will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to machinery to be followed in assailing orders issued by the
the aggrieved party. It cannot be allowed when a party BLA-IPO pending final resolution of a case filed with
to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the them. Hence, in the absence of such a remedy, the
availability of that remedy. Certiorari is not a substitute provisions of the Rules of Court shall apply in a
for a lapsed or lost appeal, especially if the party’s own suppletory manner, as provided under Section 3, Rule 1
negligence or error in the choice of remedy occasioned of the same Rules and Regulations. Hence, in the present
such loss or lapse. case, respondents correctly resorted to the filing of a
special civil action for certiorari with the CA to question
the assailed Orders of the BLA-IPO, as they cannot
The few significant exceptions recognized by the Court
appeal therefrom and they have no other plain, speedy
are when public welfare and the advancement of public
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. This
374
is consistent with Sections 1 and 4, Rule 65 of the Rules exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (b) such
of Court, as amended. Phil Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess
Inc and Pfizer (Phil.) Inc., G.R. No. 167715, November of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
17, 2010. amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (c) there
is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law. Without jurisdiction
Certiorari; requirement of motion for
denotes that the tribunal, board, or officer acted with
reconsideration; exceptions.
absolute lack of authority. There is excess of jurisdiction
when the public respondent exceeds its power or acts
On the second ground, Pineda questions DepEd’s failure without any statutory authority. Grave abuse of
to move for reconsideration before going to the CA on discretion connotes such capricious and whimsical
certiorari. exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or
excess of jurisdiction; otherwise stated, power is
The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
condition sine qua non before a petition for certiorari may passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such
lie, its purpose being to grant an opportunity for the exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an
court a quo to correct any error attributed to it by a re- evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to
examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
case. There are, however, recognized exceptions contemplation of law. Milwaukee Industries Corp. vs.
permitting a resort to the special civil action for certiorari Corp. of Appeals and Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
without first filing a motion for reconsideration. In the G.R. No. 173815, November 24, 2010.
case of Domdom v. Sandiganbayan, it was written:
Consolidation; consolidation of appeals in Court of
The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined Appeals.
exceptions, such as where the order is a patent nullity
because the court a quo had no jurisdiction; where the Petitioner SCP argues that the CA deviated from its own
questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been Internal Rules when it failed to consolidate the four (4)
duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are appeals arising from the same decision of the
the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower rehabilitation court. In fact, it points out to the fact that
court; where there is an urgent necessity for the CA-G.R. SP No. 101913 had already been consolidated
resolution of the question, and any further delay would with its own appeal in CA-G.R. SP No. 101732. However,
prejudice the interests of the Government or of the SCP says that the failure by the CA to consolidate the
petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is remaining two appeals, namely CA-G.R. SP Nos. 101880
perishable; where, under the circumstances, a motion for and 101881, with its own appeal indicates not only a
reconsideration would be useless; where the petitioner deviation from the rules but also a disobedience to their
was deprived of due process and there is extreme plain language and obvious intent. On the other hand,
urgency for relief; where, in a criminal case, relief from BDO-EPCIB refutes SCP’s arguments by saying that the
an order of arrest is urgent and the grant of such relief consolidation of cases is only discretionary, not
by the trial court is improbable; where the proceedings in mandatory, upon the court. The Court agrees with SCP.
the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the
Consolidation of actions is expressly authorized under
petitioner had no opportunity to object; and where the
Sec. 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court:
issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest
is involved. (underscoring supplied)
Section 1. Consolidation. – When actions involving a
common question of law or fact are pending before the
As previously discussed, the present case concerns the
court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all
implementation or application of a DepEd policy which
the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the
had been enjoined by the RTC. Certainly, there is an
actions consolidated; and it may make such orders
urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and
concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid
any further delay would prejudice the interest of the
unnecessary costs or delay.
government. Moreover, the subject matter of the case
involves the operation of the canteen of a public
secondary school. This is of public interest for it affects Likewise, Rule 3, Sec. 3 of the 2002 Internal Rules of the
the welfare of the students, thus, justifying the relaxation CA adopts the same rule:
of the settled rule. Michelle I. Pineda vs. Court of
Appeals and the Department of Education, etc., G.R. No.
Sec. 3. Consolidation of Cases. – When related cases are
181643, November 17, 2010.
assigned to different Justices, they may be consolidated
and assigned to one Justice.
Certiorari; requisites.
(a) At the instance of a party with notice to the other
In order for a petition for certiorari to succeed, the party; or at the instance of the Justice to whom the case
following requisites must concur, namely: (a) that the is assigned, and with the conformity of the Justice to
writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or any officer whom the cases shall be consolidated, upon notice to the
375
parties, consolidation may be allowed when the cases Inc., G.R. No. 190462G.R. No. 190538, November 17,
involve the same parties and/or related questions of fact 2010.
and/or law.
Counsel; requirements for valid substitution.
(b) Consolidated cases shall pertain to the Justice –
Under Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court, for a
(1) To whom the case with the lowest docket number is substitution of attorney to be effectual, the following
assigned, if they are of the same kind; essential requisites must concur: (1) there must be a
written application for substitution; (2) it must be filed
with the written consent of the client; (3) it must be with
(2) To whom the criminal case with the lowest number is
the written consent of the attorney substituted; and (4)
assigned, if two or more of the cases are criminal and the
in case the consent of the attorney to be substituted
others are civil or special;
cannot be obtained, there must at least be proof of notice
that the motion for substitution was served on him in the
(3) To whom the criminal case is assigned and the other manner prescribed by the Rules of Court.
are civil or special; and
The courts a quo were uniform and correct in finding that
(4) To whom the civil case is assigned, or to whom the Atty. Mondragon failed to observe the prescribed
civil case with the lowest docket number is assigned, if procedure and, thus, no valid substitution of counsel was
the cases involved are civil and special. actualized. However, they took divergent postures as to
the repercussion of such non-compliance, thereby
(c) Notice of the consolidation and replacement shall be igniting the herein controversy.
given to the Raffle Staff and the Judicial Records Division.
The RTC strictly imposed the rule on substitution of
It is a time-honored principle that when two or more counsel and held that the notice of appeal filed by Atty.
cases involve the same parties and affect closely related Mondragon was a mere scrap of paper. However, relying
subject matters, they must be consolidated and jointly on our pronouncement in Land Bank of the Philippines v.
tried, in order to serve the best interests of the parties Pamintuan Development Co., the CA brushed aside the
and to settle expeditiously the issues involved. In other procedural lapse and took a liberal stance on
words, consolidation is proper wherever the subject considerations of substantial justice, viz.:
matter involved and relief demanded in the different suits
make it expedient for the court to determine all of the It is a far better and more prudent course of action for
issues involved and adjudicate the rights of the parties by the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the
hearing the suits together. The purpose of this rule is to parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends
avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression and of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality
abuse, prevent delays, clear congested dockets, and and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false
simplify the work of the trial court. In short, consolidation impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually
aims to attain justice with the least expense and vexation resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.
to the parties-litigants. It contributes to the swift Thus, substantial justice would be better served by giving
dispensation of justice, and is in accord with the aim of due course to petitioner’s notice of appeal.
affording the parties a just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of their cases before the courts. Further, it
AUB argues that the liberality applied by the Court in
results in the avoidance of the possibility of conflicting
Land Bank is incompatible with the herein controversy,
decisions being rendered by the courts in two or more
and that Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation v. De
cases, which would otherwise require a single judgment.
Dios Transportation Co., Inc., which espouses the same
In the instant case, all four (4) cases involve identical
view adopted by the RTC, is more appropriate.
parties, subject matter, and issues. In fact, all four (4)
GOODLAND, on the other hand, insists that the CA
arose from the same decision rendered by the
committed no reversible error in ordering that the notice
Rehabilitation Court. As such, it became imperative upon
of appeal be allowed in order not to frustrate the ends of
the CA to consolidate the cases. Even though
substantial justice.
consolidation of actions is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court and normally, its action in
consolidating will not be disturbed in the absence of We agree with AUB. A revisit of our pronouncements in
manifest abuse of discretion, in this instance, we find Land Bank and Pioneer is in order. In Land Bank, we
that the CA gravely erred in failing to order the held that the Department of Agrarian Reform
consolidation of the cases. By refusing to consolidate the Adjudication Board gravely abused its discretion when it
cases, the CA, in effect, dispensed a form of piecemeal denied due course to the Notice of Appeal and Notice of
judgment that has veritably resulted in the multiplicity of Entry of Appearance filed by petitioner’s new counsel for
suits. Such action is not regarded with favor, because failure to effect a valid substitution of the former counsel
consolidation should always be ordered whenever it is on record. We clarified that the new counsel never
possible. Steel Corporation of the Philippines vs. intended to replace the counsel of record because,
Equitable PCI Bank, Inc./DEG-Deutsche Investitions-Und although not so specified in the notice, they entered their
Entwicklungsgesellschaft MBH Vs. Equitable PCI Bank, appearance as collaborating counsel. Absent a formal
376
notice of substitution, all lawyers who appear before the of the writ of execution, the auction sale, and the
court or file pleadings in behalf of a client are considered certificate of sale. The issue on the conjugal nature of
counsel of the latter. We pursued a liberal application of the property, she insists, can be adjudicated by the
the rule in order not to frustrate the just, speedy, and executing court; thus, the RTC correctly gave due course
inexpensive determination of the controversy. to her motion. She asserts that it was error for the CA to
propose the filing of a separate case to vindicate her
claim. We agree with petitioner.
In Pioneer, we adopted a strict posture and declared the
notice of withdrawal of appeal filed by appellant’s new
counsel as a mere scrap of paper for his failure to file The CA explained the faux pas committed by petitioner in
beforehand a motion for the substitution of the counsel this wise:
on record. Provoking such deportment was the absence
of a special power of attorney authorizing the withdrawal
Under [Section 16, Rule 39], a third-party claimant or a
of the appeal in addition to the lack of a proper
stranger to the foreclosure suit, can opt to file a remedy
substitution of counsel. More importantly, we found that
known as terceria against the sheriff or officer effecting
the withdrawal of the appeal was calculated to frustrate
the writ by serving on him an affidavit of his title and a
the satisfaction of the judgment debt rendered against
copy thereof upon the judgment creditor. By the
appellant, thereby necessitating a rigid application of the
terceria, the officer shall not be bound to keep the
rules in order to deter appellant from benefiting from its
property and could be answerable for damages. A third-
own deleterious manipulation thereof. Asia United Bank
party claimant may also resort to an independent
vs. Goodland Company, Inc., G.R. No. 188051,
“separate action,” the object of which is the recovery
November 22, 2010.
of ownership or possession of the property seized by the
sheriff, as well as damages arising from wrongful seizure
Default; declaration of default improper where and detention of the property despite the third-party
answer filed before declaration and no prejudice claim. If a “separate action” is the recourse, the third-
caused to plaintiff. party claimant must institute in a forum of competent
jurisdiction an action, distinct and separate from the
action in which the judgment is being enforced, even
Petitioner correctly points out that the rule is that a
before or without need of filing a claim in the court that
defendant’s answer should be admitted where it is filed
issued the writ. Both remedies are cumulative and may
before a declaration of default and no prejudice is caused
be availed of independently of or separately from the
to the plaintiff. Indeed, where the answer is filed beyond
other. Availment of the terceria is not a condition sine
the reglementary period but before the defendant is
qua non to the institution of a “separate action.”
declared in default and there is no showing that
defendant intends to delay the case, the answer should
be admitted. In the case at bar, it is inconsequential that It is worthy of note that Sina Imani should have availed
the trial court declared petitioner in default on the same of the remedy of “terceria” authorized under Section 16
day that petitioner filed its Answer. As reflected above, of Rule 39 which is the proper remedy considering that
the trial court slept on petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss for he is not a party to the case against [petitioner].
almost a year, just as it also slept on respondents’ Motion Instead, the trial court allowed [petitioner] to file an
to Declare petitioner in Default. It was only when urgent motion to cancel and nullify the levy of execution
petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss the auction sale and certificate of sale over TCT No.
and to Admit Answer that it denied the Motion to Dismiss, T27957 [P](M). [Petitioner] then argue[s] that it is the
and acted on/granted respondents’ Motion to Declare ministerial duty of the levying officer to release the
petitioner in Default. This is procedurally unsound. property the moment a third-party claim is filed.
The policy of the law is to have every litigant’s case tried It is true that once a third-party files an affidavit of his
on the merits as much as possible. Hence, judgments by title or right to the possession of the property levied
default are frowned upon. A case is best decided when upon, the sheriff is bound to release the property of the
all contending parties are able to ventilate their third-party claimant unless the judgment creditor files a
respective claims, present their arguments and adduce bond approved by the court. Admittedly, [petitioner’s]
evidence in support thereof. The parties are thus given motion was already pending in court at the time that they
the chance to be heard fully and the demands of due filed the Affidavit of Crisanto Origen, the former owner,
process are subserved. Moreover, it is only amidst such dated July 27, 2005.
an atmosphere that accurate factual findings and correct
legal conclusions can be reached by the courts. San
In the instant case, the one who availed of the remedy of
Pedro Cineplex Properties, Inc. vs. Heirs of Manual
terceria is the [petitioner], the party to the main case
Humada Enaño, et al., G.R. No. 190754, November 17,
and not the third party contemplated by Section 16, Rule
2010.
39 of the Rules of Court.
Execution; annulment of writ of execution.

Moreover, the one who made the affidavit is not the
third-party referred to in said Rule but Crisanto Origen
Petitioner takes exception to the CA ruling that she who was the former owner of the land in question.
committed a procedural gaffe in seeking the annulment
377
Apparently, the CA lost sight of our ruling in Ong v. [T]he husband of the judgment debtor cannot be deemed
Tating, elucidating on the applicability of Section 16 of a “stranger” to the case prosecuted and adjudged against
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, thus: his wife.
When the sheriff thus seizes property of a third person in Thus, it would have been inappropriate for him to
which the judgment debtor holds no right or interest, and institute a separate case for annulment of writ of
so incurs in error, the supervisory power of the Court execution.
which has authorized execution may be invoked by the
third person. Upon due application by the third person,
In Spouses Ching v. Court of Appeals, we explained:
and after summary hearing, the Court may command
that the property be released from the mistaken levy and
restored to the rightful owner or possessor. What the Is a spouse, who was not a party to the suit but whose
Court can do in these instances however is limited to a conjugal property is being executed on account of the
determination of whether the sheriff has acted rightly or other spouse being the judgment obligor, considered a
wrongly in the performance of his duties in the execution “stranger?” In Mariano v. Court of Appeals, we answered
of the judgment, more specifically, if he has indeed taken this question in the negative. In that case, the CFI of
hold of property not belonging to the judgment debtor. Caloocan City declared the wife to be the judgment
The Court does not and cannot pass upon the question of obligor and, consequently, a writ of execution was issued
title to the property, with any character of finality. It can against her. Thereupon, the sheriff proceeded to levy
treat the matter only in so far as may be necessary to upon the conjugal properties of the wife and her
decide if the Sheriff has acted correctly or not. x x x. husband. The wife initially filed a petition for certiorari
with the Court of Appeals praying for the annulment of
the writ of execution. However, the petition was
xxxx
adjudged to be without merit and was accordingly
dismissed. The husband then filed a complaint with the
Upon the other hand, if the claim of impropriety on CFI of Quezon City for the annulment of the writ of
the part of the sheriff in the execution proceedings execution, alleging therein that the conjugal properties
is made by a party to the action, not a stranger cannot be made to answer for obligations exclusively
thereto, any relief therefrom may only be applied contracted by the wife. The executing party moved to
with, and obtained from, only the executing court; dismiss the annulment case, but the motion was denied.
and this is true even if a new party has been impleaded On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in Mariano, ruled that
in the suit. the CFI of Quezon City, in continuing to hear the
annulment case, had not interfered with the executing
court. We reversed the Court of Appeals’ ruling and held
The filing of the motion by petitioner to annul the
that there was interference by the CFI of Quezon City
execution, the auction sale, and the certificate of sale
with the execution of the CFI of Caloocan City. We ruled
was, therefore, a proper remedy. As further held by this
that the husband of the judgment debtor cannot be
Court:
deemed a “stranger” to the case prosecuted and
adjudged against his wife, which would allow the filing of
Certain it is that the Trial Court has plenary jurisdiction a separate and independent action.
over the proceedings for the enforcement of its
judgments. It has undeniable competence to act on
The facts of the Mariano case are similar to this case.
motions for execution (whether execution be a matter of
Clearly, it was inappropriate for petitioners to institute a
right or discretionary upon the Court), issue and quash
separate case for annulment when they could have easily
writs, determine if property is exempt from
questioned the execution of their conjugal property in the
execution, or fix the value of property claimed by third
collection case. We note in fact that the trial court in the
persons so that a bond equal to such value may be
Rizal annulment case specifically informed petitioners
posted by a judgment creditor to indemnify the sheriff
that Encarnacion Ching’s rights could be ventilated in the
against liability for damages, resolve questions involving
Manila collection case by the mere expedient of
redemption, examine the judgment debtor and his
intervening therein. Apparently, petitioners ignored the
debtors, and otherwise perform such other acts as may
trial court’s advice, as Encarnacion Ching did not
be necessary or incidental to the carrying out of its
intervene therein and petitioners instituted another
decisions. It may and should exercise control and
annulment case after their conjugal property was levied
supervision over the sheriff and other court officers and
upon and sold on execution.
employees taking part in the execution proceedings, and
correct them in the event that they should err in the
discharge of their functions. There have been instances where we ruled that a spouse
may file a separate case against a wrongful execution.
However, in those cases, we allowed the institution of a
Contrary to the CA’s advice, the remedy of terceria or a
separate and independent action because what were
separate action under Section 16, Rule 39 is no longer
executed upon were the paraphernal or exclusive
available to Sina Imani because he is not deemed a
property of a spouse who was not a party to the case. In
stranger to the case filed against petitioner:
those instances, said spouse can truly be deemed a
“stranger.” In the present case, the levy and sale on
execution was made upon the conjugal property.
378
Ineluctably, the RTC cannot be considered whimsical for redeem the property within the period provided for by
ruling on petitioner’s motion. The CA, therefore, erred law. The right acquired by the purchaser at an execution
for declaring otherwise. Evangeline D. Imani vs. sale is inchoate and does not become absolute until after
Metroplitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 187023, the expiration of the redemption period without the right
November 17, 2010. of redemption having been exercised. But inchoate
though it be, it is, like any other right, entitled to
protection and must be respected until extinguished by
redemption. Since, the Spouses Ching failed to redeem
the subject property within the period allowed by law,
they have been divested of their rights over the property.
Verily, the Bank’s “Motion to Retrieve Records, For

Issuance of Final Deed of Conveyance, To Order the
Execution; effect of levy and sale. Register of Deeds of Makati City to Transfer Title and For
Writ of Possession” was merely a consequence of the
execution of the summary judgment as the judgment in
In their petition, the Spouses Ching mainly argues that Civil Case No. 142309 had already been enforced when
the trial court gravely erred in granting the Bank’s the lot was levied upon and sold at public auction, with
motion, because the RTC no longer had jurisdiction to the Bank as the highest bidder. Sps. Alfredo and
issue the questioned Orders since the Bank failed to Encarnacion Ching vs. Family Savings Bank and Sheriff of
execute the judgment, to consolidate title, and to secure Manila / Alfredo Ching vs. Family Savings Bank and the
possession of the subject property. They maintain that Sheriff of Manila, G.R. No. 167835 and G.R. No. 188480,
the RTC erred in totally disregarding the ruling of this November 15, 2010.
Court in the cases of Ayala Investment & Development
Corp. v. Court of Appeals and Ching v. Court of Appeals.
Finally, the Spouses Ching posit that the execution sale Forum shopping.
of the subject property was void, considering that the
property was conjugal in nature and Encarnacion was not Lastly, petitioner avers that respondents are guilty of
a party to the original action. forum shopping for having filed separate actions before
the IPO and the RTC praying for the same relief. The
First, the Spouses Ching’s reliance on prescription is Court agrees.
unavailing in the case at bar. The Spouses Ching are
implying that the RTC violated Section 6, Rule 39 of the Forum shopping is defined as the act of a party against
Rules of Court, viz.: whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one
forum, of seeking another (and possibly favorable)
Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. – opinion in another forum (other than by appeal or the
A final and executory judgment or order may be special civil action of certiorari), or the institution of two
executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the
its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is same cause on the supposition that one or the other
barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be court would make a favorable disposition. The elements
enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be of forum shopping are: (a) identity of parties, or at least
enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of such parties that represent the same interests in both
its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed
the statute of limitations. for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; (c)
identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any
judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of
However, it must be noted that contrary to their which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the
allegation, the summary judgment of the RTC in Civil action under consideration.
Case No. 142309 had in fact already been enforced.
During the pendency of the case, the subject property
was already levied upon. Subsequently, after summary There is no question as to the identity of parties in the
judgment and while the case was on appeal, the RTC complaints filed with the IPO and the RTC.
granted the Bank’s motion for execution pending appeal.
Consequently, on October 10, 1983, an auction sale of Respondents argue that they cannot be held guilty of
the subject property was conducted, with the Bank forum shopping because their complaints are based on
emerging as the highest bidder. Later, a Certificate of different causes of action as shown by the fact that the
Sale in its favor was executed by the Sheriff and, said complaints are founded on violations of different
thereafter, inscribed as a memorandum of encumbrance patents. The Court is not persuaded.
on TCT No. S-3151.
Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of
It is settled that execution is enforced by the fact of levy action as the act or omission by which a party violates a
and sale. The result of such execution was that title over right of another. In the instant case, respondents’ cause
the subject property was vested immediately in the of action in their complaint filed with the IPO is the
purchaser subject only to the Spouses Ching’s right to alleged act of petitioner in importing, distributing, selling
379
or offering for sale Sulbactam Ampicillin products, acts and to overturn the letter directive of the COA of
that are supposedly violative of respondents’ right to the October 10, 1988 disapproving the sale.
exclusive sale of the said products which are covered by
the latter’s patent. However, a careful reading of the
In the instant case, the prayer of respondents in their
complaint filed with the RTC of Makati City would show
complaint filed with the IPO is as follows:
that respondents have the same cause of action as in
their complaint filed with the IPO. They claim that they
have the exclusive right to make, use and sell Sulbactam A. Immediately upon the filing of this action, issue an ex
Ampicillin products and that petitioner violated this right. parte order (a) temporarily restraining respondent, its
Thus, it does not matter that the patents upon which the agents, representatives and assigns from importing,
complaints were based are different. The fact remains distributing, selling or offering for sale Sulbactam
that in both complaints the rights violated and the acts Ampicillin products to the hospitals named in paragraph 9
violative of such rights are identical. of this Complaint or to any other entity in the Philippines,
or from otherwise infringing Pfizer Inc.’s Philippine Patent
No. 21116; and (b) impounding all the sales invoices and
In fact, respondents seek substantially the same reliefs in
other documents evidencing sales by respondent of
their separate complaints with the IPO and the RTC for
Sulbactam Ampicillin products.
the purpose of accomplishing the same objective.
B. After hearing, issue a writ of preliminary injunction

It is settled by this Court in several cases that the filing
enjoining respondent, its agents, representatives and
by a party of two apparently different actions but with
assigns from importing, distributing, selling or offering for
the same objective constitutes forum shopping. The
sale Sulbactam Ampicillin products to the hospitals
Court discussed this species of forum shopping as
named in paragraph 9 of the Complaint or to any other
follows:
entity in the Philippines, or from otherwise infringing
Pfizer Inc.’s Philippine Patent No. 21116; and
Very simply stated, the original complaint in the court a
quo which gave rise to the instant petition was filed by
C. After trial, render judgment:
the buyer (herein private respondent and his
predecessors-in-interest) against the seller (herein
petitioners) to enforce the alleged perfected sale of real (i) declaring that respondent has infringed Pfizer
estate. On the other hand, the complaint in the Second Inc.’s Philippine Patent No. 21116 and that respondent
Case seeks to declare such purported sale involving the has no right whatsoever over complainant’s patent;
same real property “as unenforceable as against the
Bank,” which is the petitioner herein. In other words, in (ii) ordering respondent to pay complainants the
the Second Case, the majority stockholders, in following amounts:
representation of the Bank, are seeking to accomplish
what the Bank itself failed to do in the original case in the
trial court. In brief, the objective or the relief being (a) at least P1,000,000.00 as actual damages;
sought, though worded differently, is the same,
namely, to enable the petitioner Bank to escape (b) P700,000.00 as attorney’s fees and
from the obligation to sell the property to litigation expenses;
respondent.
(d) P1,000,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
In Danville Maritime, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, the
Court ruled as follows:
(d) costs of this suit.
In the attempt to make the two actions appear to be

different, petitioner impleaded different respondents (iii) ordering the condemnation, seizure or forfeiture of
therein – PNOC in the case before the lower court and respondent’s infringing goods or products, wherever
the COA in the case before this Court and sought what they may be found, including the materials and
seems to be different reliefs. Petitioner asks this Court to implements used in the commission of infringement,
set aside the questioned letter-directive of the COA dated to be disposed of in such manner as may be deemed
October 10, 1988 and to direct said body to approve the appropriate by this Honorable Office; and
Memorandum of Agreement entered into by and between
the PNOC and petitioner, while in the complaint before (iv) making the injunction permanent.
the lower court petitioner seeks to enjoin the PNOC from
conducting a rebidding and from selling to other parties
In an almost identical manner, respondents prayed for
the vessel “T/T Andres Bonifacio,” and for an extension of
the following in their complaint filed with the RTC:
time for it to comply with the paragraph 1 of the
memorandum of agreement and damages. One can see
that although the relief prayed for in the two (2) (a) Immediately upon the filing of this action, issue an
actions are ostensibly different, the ultimate ex parte order:
objective in both actions is the same, that is, the
approval of the sale of vessel in favor of petitioner,
380
(1) temporarily restraining Pharmawealth, its agents, It is clear from the foregoing that the ultimate objective
representatives and assigns from importing, distributing, which respondents seek to achieve in their separate
selling or offering for sale infringing sulbactam ampicillin complaints filed with the RTC and the IPO, is to ask for
products to various government and private hospitals or damages for the alleged violation of their right to
to any other entity in the Philippines, or from otherwise exclusively sell Sulbactam Ampicillin products and to
infringing Pfizer Inc.’s Philippine Patent No. 26810. permanently prevent or prohibit petitioner from selling
said products to any entity. Owing to the substantial
identity of parties, reliefs and issues in the IPO and RTC
(2) impounding all the sales invoices and other
cases, a decision in one case will necessarily amount to
documents evidencing sales by pharmawealth of
res judicata in the other action. It bears to reiterate that
sulbactam ampicillin products; and
what is truly important to consider in determining
whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation
(3) disposing of the infringing goods outside the caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who
channels of commerce. asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to
rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the
(b) After hearing, issue a writ of preliminary injunction: same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process
creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being
rendered by the different fora upon the same issue.
(1) enjoining Pharmawealth, its agents, representatives Thus, the Court agrees with petitioner that respondents
and assigns from importing, distributing, selling or are indeed guilty of forum shopping. Phil Pharmawealth,
offering for sale infringing sulbactam ampicillin products Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc and Pfizer (Phil.) Inc., G.R. No.
to various government hospitals or to any other entity in 167715, November 17, 2010.
the Philippines, or from otherwise infringing Patent No.
26810;
(2) impounding all the sales invoices and

other documents evidencing sales by Pharmawealth of Forum shopping; sanction where forum shopping is
sulbactam ampicillin products; and not willful and deliberate.
(3) disposing of the infringing goods outside the Jurisprudence holds that if the forum shopping is not
channels of commerce. considered willful and deliberate, the subsequent case
shall be dismissed without prejudice, on the ground of
either litis pendentia or res judicata. However, if the
(c) After trial, render judgment: forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if
there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with
(1) finding Pharmawealth to have infringed Patent No. prejudice. In the present case, the Court finds that
26810 and declaring Pharmawealth to have no right respondents did not deliberately violate the rule on non-
whatsoever over plaintiff’s patent; forum shopping. Respondents may not be totally blamed
for erroneously believing that they can file separate
actions simply on the basis of different patents.
(2) ordering Pharmawealth to pay plaintiffs the Moreover, in the suit filed with the RTC of Makati City,
following amounts: respondents were candid enough to inform the trial court
of the pendency of the complaint filed with the BLA-IPO
(i) at least P3,000,000.00 as actual damages; as well as the petition for certiorari filed with the CA. On
these bases, only Civil Case No. 04-754 should be
dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia. Phil
(ii) P500,000.00 as attorney’s fees and P1,000,000.00
Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc and Pfizer (Phil.) Inc.,
as litigation expenses;
G.R. No. 167715, November 17, 2010.
(iii) P3,000,000.00 as exemplary damages; and

Injunction; preliminary injunction; requisites.
(iv) costs of this suit.

Section 3, Rule 58, of the Rules of Court lays down the
requirements for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
(3) ordering the condemnation, seizure or forfeiture of injunction, viz:
Pharmawealth’s infringing goods or products, wherever
they may be found, including the materials and
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded,
implements used in the commission of infringement, to
and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining
be disposed of in such manner as may be deemed
the commission or continuance of the acts complained of,
appropriate by this Honorable Court; and
or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either
for a limited period or perpetually;
(4) making the injunction permanent.
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-
performance of the act or acts complained of during the
381
litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; (3) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for
or the writ to prevent serious damage.
(c) That a party, court, or agency or a person is doing, As the owner, STRADEC is undoubtedly possessed of
threatening, or attempting to do, or is procuring or clear and unmistakable rights over the subject SIDC
suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in shares which respondent Yujuico pledged in favor of
violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the respondent Wong. Unless collectively restrained, the
subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to aforesaid acts will completely divest STRADEC of its
render the judgment ineffectual. shares and unfairly deprive it of participation in SIDC’s
corporate affairs pending the determination of the
validity of the impugned transfers. Given that the parties
In this connection, pertinent portions of Section 5, Rule
have already submitted their arguments for and against
58 of the same Rules provide that if the matter is of
the writ of preliminary injunction sought, STRADEC is,
extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave
however, required to put up an injunction bond pursuant
injustice and irreparable injury, a temporary restraining
to Section 1, Rule 10 of the Interim Rules. Conditioned to
order may be issued ex parte. From the foregoing, it can
answer for damages respondents may sustain as a
be inferred that two requisites must exist to warrant the
consequence of the issuance of the writ, the amount of
issuance of an injunctive relief, namely: (1) the existence
the bond is fixed at P10,000,000.00 which is equivalent
of a clear and unmistakable right that must be protected;
to the supposed loan for which STRADEC’s shares were
and (2) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ
pledged by respondent Yujuico. Strategic Alliance
to prevent serious damage. In the instant case, it is
Development Corporation vs. Star Infrastructure
clear that when the CA issued its January 18, 2005
Development Corporation Corporation, BEDE S.
Resolution approving the bond filed by respondents, the
Tabalingcos, et al., G.R. No. 187872. November 17,
latter no longer had a right that must be protected,
2010.
considering that Philippine Letters Patent No. 21116
which was issued to them already expired on July 16,
2004. Hence, the issuance by the CA of a temporary Injunction; preliminary injunction; right of patent
restraining order in favor of the respondents is not holder.
proper. In fact, the CA should have granted petitioner’s
motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari filed before it
In the first issue raised, petitioner argues that
as the only issue raised therein is the propriety of
respondents’ exclusive right to monopolize the subject
extending the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the
matter of the patent exists only within the term of the
BLA-IPO. Since the patent which was the basis for issuing
patent. Petitioner claims that since respondents’ patent
the injunction, was no longer valid, any issue as to the
expired on July 16, 2004, the latter no longer possess
propriety of extending the life of the injunction was
any right of monopoly and, as such, there is no more
already rendered moot and academic. Phil
basis for the issuance of a restraining order or injunction
Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc and Pfizer (Phil.) Inc.,
against petitioner insofar as the disputed patent is
G.R. No. 167715, November 17, 2010.
concerned. The Court agrees. Section 37 of Republic Act
No. (RA) 165, which was the governing law at the time of
Injunction; preliminary injunction; requisites. the issuance of respondents’ patent, provides:
Considering that the determination of the factual and Section 37. Rights of patentees. A patentee shall have
legal issues presented in the case can proceed the exclusive right to make, use and sell the patented
independent of those being litigated in the other cases machine, article or product, and to use the patented
filed against each other by the members of STRADEC’s process for the purpose of industry or commerce,
Board of Directors, we find that the CA finally erred in throughout the territory of the Philippines for the term
denying STRADEC’s application of a writ of preliminary of the patent; and such making, using, or selling by any
injunction to restrain (a) CTCII from further exercising person without the authorization of the patentee
proprietary rights over the subject shares; (b) SIDC and constitutes infringement of the patent.
its officers from recognizing the transfer or further
transfers of the same; (c) the implementation of the
It is clear from the above-quoted provision of law that
resolutions passed during the 20 July 2006 SIDC
the exclusive right of a patentee to make, use and sell a
stockholders’ special meeting; and (d) the SEC from
patented product, article or process exists only during the
acting on any report submitted in respect thereto. A
term of the patent. In the instant case, Philippine Letters
provisional remedy which has, for its object, the
Patent No. 21116, which was the basis of respondents in
preservation of the status quo, preliminary injunction
filing their complaint with the BLA-IPO, was issued on
may be resorted to by a party in order to preserve and
July 16, 1987. This fact was admitted by respondents
protect certain rights and interests during the pendency
themselves in their complaint. They also admitted that
of an action. By both law and jurisprudence, said
the validity of the said patent is until July 16, 2004,
provisional writ may be issued upon the concurrence of
which is in conformity with Section 21 of RA 165,
the following essential requisites, to wit: (1) that the
providing that the term of a patent shall be seventeen
invasion of the right is material and substantial; (2) that
(17) years from the date of issuance thereof. Section 4,
the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable; and,
Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that an
admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the
382
course of the proceedings in the same case, does not to those found in the H.E. and dressmaking rooms,
require proof and that the admission may be contradicted operated by the teachers, under the guise that they were
only by showing that it was made through palpable doing service to the students in the meantime that the
mistake or that no such admission was made. In the canteen was closed. x x x.”
present case, there is no dispute as to respondents’
admission that the term of their patent expired on July
Finally, while the grant or denial of a preliminary
16, 2004. Neither is there evidence to show that their
injunction is discretionary on the part of the trial court,
admission was made through palpable mistake. Hence,
grave abuse of discretion is committed when it does not
contrary to the pronouncement of the CA, there is no
maintain the status quo which is the last actual,
longer any need to present evidence on the issue of
peaceable and uncontested status which preceded the
expiration of respondents’ patent.
actual controversy. If there is such a commission, it is
correctible through a writ of certiorari. In this case, the
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court agrees with status quo ante litem or the state of affairs existing at
petitioner that after July 16, 2004, respondents no longer the time of the filing of the case was that Pineda was
possess the exclusive right to make, use and sell the already prohibited from operating the school canteen. For
articles or products covered by Philippine Letters Patent said reason, the trial court cannot make use of its
No. 21116. Phil Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc and injunctive power to change said status. Michelle I.
Pfizer (Phil.) Inc., G.R. No. 167715, November 17, 2010. Pineda vs. Court of Appeals and the Department of
Education, etc., G.R. No. 181643, November 17, 2010.
Injunction; preliminary injunction; status quo.
Judgment; finality.
At any rate, the Court finds no cogent reason for the
reversal and setting aside by the CA of the writ of A judgment becomes “final and executory” by operation
preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the RTC. The of law. Finality becomes a fact when the reglementary
very writ of preliminary injunction set aside by the CA period to appeal lapses, and no appeal is perfected within
could no longer lie for the acts sought to be enjoined had such period. In this case, petitioner herself admitted that
already been accomplished or consummated. The DepEd she did not appeal the RTC ruling, believing that
already prohibited Pineda from operating the school respondents failed to prove their cause of action.
canteen. As correctly ruled by the CA in its questioned However, her belief that she alone should be declared the
decision, since Pineda had ceased the operation of the sole beneficiary of the November 19, 1971 Deed of
school canteen since 2005, the RTC’s preliminary writ Donation has no basis in law and is, in fact, contradicted
should be set aside as there was nothing more to enjoin. by the evidence on record. A decision that has acquired
The Court agrees with the CA when it explained: finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no
longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of
A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that a
fact or law, and whether it will be made by the court that
party may resort to in order to preserve and protect
rendered it or by the highest court of the land. Once a
certain rights and interests during the pendency of an
judgment or order becomes final, all the issues between
action. Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo
the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest. No
until the merits of the case can be heard fully.
additions can be made to the decision, and no other
action can be taken on it, except to order its execution.
Status quo is defined as the last actual, peaceful, and Victoria L. Teh vs. Natividad Teh Tan, Teh Ki Tiat and
uncontested status that precedes the actual controversy, Jacinta Sia, G.R. No. 181956, November 22, 2010.
that which is existing at the time of the filing of the case.
Indubitably, the trial court must not make use of its
Judgment; finality; exceptions.
injunctive relief to alter such status.
The only exceptions to the general rule are the correction

In the case at bench, the Decision of Undersecretary
of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries
Gascon dated February 11, 2005, ordering Pineda to
which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments,
cease and desist from operating and managing the school
and cases where circumstances transpire after the finality
canteen and to revert the management thereof to the
of the decision that render its execution unjust and
Home Economics Department and to the Principal, has
inequitable. Not one of these exceptions is present in
already been partially implemented. This is evident from
this case. Nonetheless, this Court has recognized that
the allegations of Pineda in her amended petition, to wit:
even a final and executory judgment or the fallo thereof
may be clarified or rectified by an amendment when
“Earlier, in the dawn of same date, 22 February 2004 there is, in its dispositive portion, an inadvertent
(should be 2005), the guards of Lakandula High School, omission of what it should have logically decreed or
taking strict orders from respondents Mrs. Camilo and Dr. ordered based on the discussion in the body of the
Quiñones who immediately executed the assailed illegal decision. The Court must emphasize, however, that the
decision from the respondent undersecretary, prevented court’s action should be limited to explaining a vague or
the canteen workers from entering the school and the equivocal part of its decision, which hampers the proper
delivery of softdrinks such as Pop Cola to the petitioner. and full execution of its ruling. The court cannot modify
On the same date, more canteens sprouted, in addition or overturn its decision in the guise of clarifying
383
ambiguous points. In the present case, petitioner’s the branch sheriff had no authority to levy upon a
Manifestation is, for all intents and purposes, a motion property belonging to the conjugal partnership. The RTC
for reconsideration of the RTC’s decision. Consider the later rendered judgment in favor of the Spouses Ching
prayer in her Manifestation: and declared as void the levy and sale on execution upon
their conjugal property. The Bank then elevated the
decision to the CA, which decision was reversed and set
WHEREFORE, in x x x light of the aforequoted rulings of
aside by the latter on the ground that the annulment
this Honorable Court, it shows that the sole beneficiary of
case was barred by res judicata in another annulment
the Deed of Donation dated November 19, 1971 is
case. The Spouses Ching sought recourse before this
Victoria Teh.
Court, but the petition was denied and the assailed
decision of the CA was affirmed.
Consequently, it is respectfully prayed that an ORDER be
issued by this Honorable Court declaring that the sole
It is undeniable, therefore, that the disquisitions of this
beneficiary of the Deed of Donation dated November 19,
Court in the above-cited cases are controlling and should
1971, is Victoria Teh and that the Transfer Certificate of
be given great weight and consideration in the resolution
Title No. 37337 of the Registry of Deed (sic) of Quezon
of the issues raised by the Spouses Ching in the present
City be cancelled and Transferred in the name of Victoria
petition. All matters relevant to the action must, and
Teh.
should, conform to these precedent cases; otherwise,
parallel actions emanating from the same case could lead
Clearly, petitioner sought more than just a clarification of to conflicting conclusions. The winning party would not
the RTC’s decision. Her Manifestation called for a enjoy the fruits of his victory; instead, it would be an
reexamination and reevaluation of evidence already empty victory, ultimately ending in the denial of justice
considered by the RTC in its assailed judgment. Hence, on the part on the righteous litigant.
the CA did not err in holding that the RTC’s decision
bound petitioner and, consequently, in dismissing the
Third, the Spouses Ching maintain that the subject
petition for certiorari. Victoria L. Teh vs. Natividad Teh
property could not be levied upon and be sold at public
Tan, Teh Ki Tiat and Jacinta Sia, G.R. No. 181956,
auction because it is conjugal in nature. This Court, in
November 22, 2010.
G.R. No. 118830, had this to say:
Judgment; res judicata.

In any case, even without the intervention of Encarnacion
Ching in the collection case, it appears that Alfredo Ching
The doctrine of res judicata is a rule which pervades was able to raise the conjugal nature of the property in
every well-regulated system of jurisprudence and is both the trial court and appellate court. A perusal of the
founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims records reveals that petitioner Alfredo Ching filed a
of the common law, namely: (1) public policy and Motion for Reconsideration and to Quash Writ of
necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that Execution before the CFI of Manila. In the motion, he
there should be an end to litigation – republicae ut sit specifically argued that the execution was invalid for
litium, and (2) the hardship on the individual that he having been enforced upon their conjugal property.
should be vexed twice for the same cause – nemo debet Alfredo Ching raised this argument again on appeal in CA
bis vexari et eadem causa. A contrary doctrine would G.R. CV No. 02421. Evidently, due process has been
certainly subject the public peace and quiet to the will afforded to petitioners as regards the execution on their
and neglect of individuals and prefer the gratification of conjugal property.
the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the
preservation of the public tranquility and happiness.
Verily, the issue of the conjugal nature of the subject
property has been passed upon by the courts and this
In Cheng Ban Yek & Co. v. IAC, the petition arose when Court several times; it is no longer a novel contention.
Cheng Ban Yek & Co., together with Alfredo, appealed The Spouses Ching cannot, therefore, raise the same
the summary judgment in Civil Case No. 142309 to the argument again and again. The Spouses Ching could not
CA. The CA, however, affirmed in toto the judgment even raise such an argument to bar or prevent the RTC
rendered by the lower court. The matter was then from granting a writ of possession to the Bank or any
elevated before this Court via a petition for review, other motion in furtherance or as a consequence of the
docketed as G.R. No. 73708, but it was eventually issuance of such writ. From the foregoing, the Spouses
dismissed for having been filed out of time and for lack of Ching’s petition would logically fail. Sps. Alfredo and
merit. Therefore, the decision in Civil Case No. 142309 Encarnacion Ching vs. Family Savings Bank and Sheriff of
became final. Manila / Alfredo Ching vs. Family Savings Bank and the
Sheriff of Manila, G.R. No. 167835 and G.R. No. 188480,
In Spouses Alfredo and Encarnacion Ching v. Court of November 15, 2010.
Appeals, the case arose when the Spouses Ching, in an
effort to prevent the deputy sheriff from consolidating the
sale of the subject property, filed an annulment case,
Civil Case No. 8389, with the RTC of Makati City. The
Judgment; res judicata; bar by prior judgment; no
Spouses Ching sought to declare void the levy and sale
finality of judgment in absence of proper service.
on execution of their conjugal property by arguing that
384
Under the rule of res judicata, a final judgment or decree service is available in the locality of either the sender or
on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is the addressee, service may be done by ordinary mail.
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in
all later suits and on all points and matters determined in
SEC. 8. Substituted service. – If service of pleadings,
the previous suit. The term literally means a “matter
motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers
adjudged, judicially acted upon, or settled by judgment.”
cannot be made under the two preceding sections, the
The principle bars a subsequent suit involving the same
office and place of residence of the party or his counsel
parties, subject matter, and cause of action. The
being unknown, service may be made by delivering the
rationale for the rule is that “public policy requires that
copy to the clerk of court, with proof of failure of both
controversies must be settled with finality at a given
personal service and service by mail. The service is
point in time.”
complete at the time of such delivery.
The doctrine of res judicata embraces two (2) concepts:

SEC. 9. Service of judgments, final orders or resolutions.
the first is “bar by prior judgment” under paragraph (b)
–Judgments, final orders or resolutions shall be served
of Rule 39, Section 47 of the Rules of Court, and the
either personally or by registered mail. When a party
second is “conclusiveness of judgment” under paragraph
summoned by publication has failed to appear in the
(c) thereof. Res judicata applies in the concept of “bar
action, judgments, final orders or resolutions against him
by prior judgment” if the following requisites concur: (1)
shall be served upon him also by publication at the
the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the
expense of the prevailing party.
judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) the
decision must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and As a rule, judgments are sufficiently served when they
(4) there must be, between the first and the second are delivered personally, or through registered mail to
action, identity of parties, of subject matter and of the counsel of record, or by leaving them in his office
causes of action. with his clerk or with a person having charge thereof.
After service, a judgment or order which is not appealed
nor made subject of a motion for reconsideration within
The petitioners claim that res judicata under the first
the prescribed 15-day period attains finality.
concept applies in the present case because all of the
elements thereof are present. In response, the
respondent argues that res judicata did not set in as the In Philemploy Services and Resources, Inc. v. Rodriguez,
first element is lacking. We agree with the respondent. the Court ruled that the Resolution of the National Labor
Relations Commission, denying the respondent’s motion
for reconsideration, cannot be deemed to have become
The following provisions under Rule 13 of the Rules of
final and executory as there is no conclusive proof of
Court define the proper modes of service of judgments:
service of the said resolution. In the words of the Court,
“there was no proof of actual receipt of the notice of the
SEC. 2. Filing and service, defined. – x x x registered mail by the respondent’s counsel.” Based on
these findings, the Court concluded that the CA properly
acquired jurisdiction over the respondent’s petition for
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the
certiorari filed before it; in the absence of a reckoning
pleading or paper concerned. x x x
date of the period provided by law for the filing of the
petition, the Court could not assume that it was
SEC. 5. Modes of service. – Service of pleadings, improperly or belatedly filed.
motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers
shall be made either personally or by mail.
Similarly, in Tomawis v. Tabao-Cudang, the Court held
that the decision of the Regional Trial Court did not
SEC. 6. Personal service. – Service of the papers may be become final and executory where, from the records, the
made by delivering personally a copy to the party or his respondent had not received a copy of the resolution
counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his clerk or with denying her motion for reconsideration. The Court also
a person having charge thereof. If no person is found in noted that there was no sufficient proof that the
his office, or his office is not known, or he has no office, respondent actually received a copy of the said Order or
then by leaving the copy, between the hours of eight in that she indeed received a first notice. Thus, the Court
the morning and six in the evening, at the party’s or concluded that there could be no valid basis for the
counsel’s residence, if known, with a person of sufficient issuance of the writ of execution as the decision never
age and discretion then residing therein. attained finality.
SEC. 7. Service by mail. – Service by registered mail In the present case, we note that the December 16, 1986
shall be made by depositing the copy in the office, in a Dismissal Order cannot be deemed to have become final
sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his and executory in view of the absence of a valid service,
counsel at his office, if known, otherwise at his residence, whether personally or via registered mail, on the
if known, with postage fully pre-paid, and with respondent’s counsel. We note in this regard that the
instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the petitioners do not dispute the CA finding that the
sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. If no registry “records failed to show that the private respondent was
385
furnished with a copy of the said order of dismissal[.]” intent. In Manalo v. Court of Appeals (366 SCRA 752,
Accordingly, the Dismissal Order never attained finality. [2001]), the Supreme Court says:
Spouses Ernesto and Vicenta Topacio vs. Banco Filipino
Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 157644, November
xxx The requirement that all claims against the bank be
17, 2010.
pursued in the liquidation proceedings filed by the Central
Bank is intended to prevent multiplicity of actions against
the insolvent bank and designed to establish due process
and orderliness in the liquidation of the bank, to obviate
the proliferation of litigations and to avoid injustice and
Jurisdiction; adherence to jurisdiction; exceptions.
arbitrariness (citing Ong v. CA, 253 SCRA 105 [1996]).
The lawmaking body contemplated that for convenience,
Lucia’s argument, that the RTC-Iriga is vested with only one court, if possible, should pass upon the claims
jurisdiction to continue trying Civil Case No. IR-3128 until against the insolvent bank and that the liquidation court
its final disposition, evidently falls out from a strained should assist the Superintendents of Banks and regulate
interpretation of the law and jurisprudence. She his operations (citing Central Bank of the Philippines, et
contends that: al. v. CA, et al., 163 SCRA 482 [1988]).
Since the RTC-Iriga has already obtained jurisdiction over As regards Lucia’s contention that jurisdiction already
the case it should continue exercising such jurisdiction attached when Civil Case No. IR-3128 was filed with, and
until the final termination of the case. The jurisdiction of jurisdiction obtained by, the RTC-Iriga prior to the filing
a court once attached cannot be ousted by subsequent of the liquidation case before the RTC-Makati, her stance
happenings or events, although of a character which fails to persuade this Court. In refuting this assertion,
would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the respondent PDIC cited the case of Lipana v. Development
first instance, and the Court retains jurisdiction until it Bank of Rizal where it was held that the time of the filing
finally disposes of the case (Aruego Jr. v. Court of of the complaint is immaterial, viz:
Appeals, 254 SCRA 711).
It is the contention of petitioners, however, that the
When a court has already obtained and is exercising placing under receivership of Respondent Bank long after
jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed the filing of the complaint removed it from the doctrine in
to final determination of the case is not affected by a new the said Morfe Case.
legislation transferring jurisdiction over such proceedings
to another tribunal. (Alindao v. Joson, 264 SCRA 211).
This contention is untenable. The time of the filing of the
Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the
complaint is immaterial. It is the execution that will
end of the litigation (Bernate v. Court of Appeals, 263
obviously prejudice the other depositors and creditors.
SCRA 323).
Moreover, as stated in the said Morfe case, the effect of
the judgment is only to fix the amount of the debt, and
The afore-quoted cases, cited by Lucia to bolster the plea not to give priority over other depositors and creditors.
for the continuance of her case, find no application in the
case at bench.
The cited Morfe case held that “after the Monetary Board
has declared that a bank is insolvent and has ordered it
Indeed, the Court recognizes the doctrine on adherence to cease operations, the Board becomes the trustee of its
of jurisdiction. Lucia, however, must be reminded that assets for the equal benefit of all the creditors, including
such principle is not without exceptions. It is well to depositors. The assets of the insolvent banking
quote the ruling of the CA on this matter, thus: institution are held in trust for the equal benefit of all
creditors, and after its insolvency, one cannot obtain an
This Court is not unmindful nor unaware of the doctrine advantage or a preference over another by an
on the adherence of jurisdiction. However, the rule on attachment, execution or otherwise.”
adherence of jurisdiction is not absolute and has
exceptions. One of the exceptions is that when the Thus, to allow Lucia’s case to proceed independently of
change in jurisdiction is curative in character (Garcia v. the liquidation case, a possibility of favorable judgment
Martinez, 90 SCRA 331 [1979]; Calderon, Sr. v. Court of and execution thereof against the assets of RBCI would
Appeals, 100 SCRA 459 [1980]; Atlas Fertilizer not only prejudice the other creditors and depositors but
Corporation v. Navarro, 149 SCRA 432 [1987]; Abad v. would defeat the very purpose for which a liquidation
RTC of Manila, Br. Lll, 154 SCRA 664 [1987]). court was constituted as well. Lucia Barrameda Vda. De
Ballesteros vs. Rural Bank of Canaman, Inc. represented
For sure, Section 30, R.A. 7653 is curative in character by its Liquidator, The Philippine Deposit Insurance
when it declared that the liquidation court shall have Corporation, G.R. No. 176260, November 24, 2010.
jurisdiction in the same proceedings to assist in the
adjudication of the disputed claims against the Bank.
The interpretation of this Section (formerly Section 29,
R.A. 265) becomes more obvious in the light of its
Jurisdiction; doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
386
In the first place, respondents’ act of filing their provided for under the Constitution, includes the
complaint originally with the BLA-IPO is already in authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate
consonance with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. action the validity of the acts of the political
This Court has held that: departments. Judicial power also includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
[i]n cases involving specialized disputes, the practice has
to determine whether or not there has been a grave
been to refer the same to an administrative agency of
special competence in observance of the doctrine of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
primary jurisdiction. The Court has ratiocinated that it
of the Government. Hence, the CA, and not the IPO
cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a
Director General, has jurisdiction to determine whether
question which is within the jurisdiction of the
the BLA-IPO committed grave abuse of discretion in
administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that
denying respondents’ motion to extend the effectivity of
question by the administrative tribunal, where the
the writ of preliminary injunction which the said office
question demands the exercise of sound administrative
earlier issued. Phil Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc and
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience
Pfizer (Phil.) Inc., G.R. No. 167715, November 17, 2010.
and services of the administrative tribunal to determine
technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity
of ruling is essential to comply with the premises of the
regulatory statute administered. The objective of the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in
Jurisdiction; forcible entry.
determining whether it should refrain from exercising its
jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has
determined some question or some aspect of some Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No.
question arising in the proceeding before the court. It 7691, the MTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
applies where the claim is originally cognizable in the over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. The
courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the RRSP governs the remedial aspects of these suits.
claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a
regulatory scheme, has been placed within the special Under Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657, as well as Section 34
competence of an administrative body; in such case, the of Executive Order No. 129-A, the DARAB has primary
judicial process is suspended pending referral of such and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to
issues to the administrative body for its view. determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving
the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that respondents’ Reform Program, and other agrarian laws and their
initial filing of their complaint with the BLA-IPO, instead implementing rules and regulations. An agrarian dispute
of the regular courts, is in keeping with the doctrine of refers to any controversy relating to, among others,
primary jurisdiction owing to the fact that the tenancy over lands devoted to agriculture. For a case to
determination of the basic issue of whether petitioner involve an agrarian dispute, the following essential
violated respondents’ patent rights requires the exercise requisites of an agricultural tenancy relationship must be
by the IPO of sound administrative discretion which is present: (1) the parties are the landowner and the
based on the agency’s special competence, knowledge tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is
and experience. consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5)
there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of
harvest or payment of rental.
However, the propriety of extending the life of the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by the BLA-IPO in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial power is no longer a matter In the present case, the petitioner, as one of the plaintiffs
that falls within the jurisdiction of the said administrative in the MTC, made the following allegations and prayer in
agency, particularly that of its Director General. The the complaint:
resolution of this issue which was raised before the CA
does not demand the exercise by the IPO of sound 3. Plaintiffs are the registered owners of a parcel of
administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, land covered by and described in Transfer Certificate of
experience and services in determining technical and Title Numbered 34267, with an area of five (5) hectares,
intricate matters of fact. It is settled that one of the more or less situated at Bo. Soledad, Sta. Rosa, Nueva
exceptions to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is where Ecija. x x x;
the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately
have to be decided by the courts of justice. This is the
case with respect to the issue raised in the petition filed 4. That so defendant thru stealth, strategy and
with the CA. without the knowledge, or consent of administrator x x
x much more of the herein plaintiffs, unlawfully entered
and occupied said parcel of land;
Moreover, as discussed earlier, RA 8293 and its
implementing rules and regulations do not provide for a
procedural remedy to question interlocutory orders 5. Inspite of x x x demands, defendant Germino,
issued by the BLA-IPO. In this regard, it bears to refused and up to the filing of this complaint, still refused
reiterate that the judicial power of the courts, as to vacate the same;
387
6. The continuos (sic) and unabated occupancy of the Mendoza vs. Narciso Germino and Benigno Germino, G.R.
land by the defendant would work and cause prejudice No. 165676, November 22, 2010.
and irreparable damage and injury to the plaintiffs unless
a writ of preliminary injunction is issued;
7. This prejudice, damage or injury consist of

Jurisdiction; how determined.
disturbance of property rights tantamount to deprivation
of ownership or any of its attributes without due process
of law, a diminution of plaintiffs’ property rights or It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter
dominion over the parcel of land subject of this dispute, is determined by the allegations in the complaint. It is
since they are deprived of freely entering or possessing determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law.
the same; It cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement
of the parties, or acquired through or waived, enlarged or
diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the
8. The plaintiffs are entitled to the relief demanded or
acquiescence of the court. Well to emphasize, it is neither
prayed for, and the whole or part of such relief/s consist
for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the
of immediately or permanently RESTRAINING,
rule, this matter being legislative in character. Jose
ENJOINING or STOPPING the defendant or any person/s
Mendoza vs. Narciso Germino and Benigno Germino, G.R.
acting in his behalf, from entering, occupying, or in any
No. 165676, November 22, 2010.
manner committing, performing or suffering to be
committed or performed for him, any act indicative of, or
tending to show any color of possession in or about the Jurisdiction; liquidation proceeding involving bank.
tenement, premises or subject of this suit, such as
described in par. 3 of this complaint; Anent the second issue, Lucia faults the CA in directing
the consolidation of Civil Case No. IR-3128 with Special
9. Plaintiffs are ready and willing to post a bond Proceedings No. M-5290. The CA committed no error.
answerable to any damage/s should the issuance of the Lucia’s complaint involving annulment of deed of
writ x x x; mortgage and damages falls within the purview of a
disputed claim in contemplation of Section 30 of R.A.
7653 (The New Central Bank Act). The jurisdiction should
10. As a consequence of defendant’s malevolent refusal
be lodged with the liquidation court. Section 30 provides:
to vacate the premises of the land in dispute, plaintiffs
incurred litigation expenses of P1,500.00, availing for the
purpose the assistance of a counsel at an agreed Sec. 30. Proceedings in Receivership and Liquidation. –
honorarium of P5,000.00 and P250.00 per appearance/ Whenever, upon report of the head of the supervising or
not to mention the moral damages incurred due to examining department, the Monetary Board finds that a
sleepless nights and mental anxiety, including exemplary bank or quasi-bank:
damages, the award and amount of which are left to the
sound discretion of this Honorable Court. (a) is unable to pay its liabilities as they become due in
the ordinary course of business: Provided, That this shall
PRAYER not include inability to pay caused by extraordinary
demands induced by financial panic in the banking
community;
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Court that pending the resolution of the issue in this
case, a restraining order be issued RESTRAINING, (b) has insufficient realizable assets, as determined by
ENJOINING, or STOPPING the defendant or any person/s the Bangko Sentral, to meet its liabilities; or
acting in his behalf, from ENTERING OR OCCUPYING the
parcel of land, or any portion thereof, described in (c) cannot continue in business without involving
paragraph 3 of this complaint, nor in any manner probable losses to its depositors or creditors; or
committing, performing or suffering to be committed or,
performed for him, by himself or thru another, any act
indicative of, or tending to show any color of possession (d) has wilfully violated a cease and desist order under
in or about the premises subject of this suit; Section 37 that has become final, involving acts or
transactions which amount to fraud or a dissipation of the
assets of the institution; in which cases, the Monetary
THEREAFTER, making said writ of preliminary injunction Board may summarily and without need for prior hearing
PERMANENT; and on plaintiffs’ damages, judgment be forbid the institution from doing business in the
rendered ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs Philippines and designate the Philippine Deposit
the sum alleged in paragraph 10 above. Insurance Corporation as receiver of the banking
institution.
General reliefs are likewise prayed for.
For a quasi-bank, any person of recognized competence
Based on these allegations and reliefs prayed, it is clear in banking or finance may be designated as receiver.
that the action in the MTC was for forcible entry. Jose
388
The receiver shall immediately gather and take charge of Lucia’s action being a claim against RBCI can properly be
all the assets and liabilities of the institution, administer consolidated with the liquidation proceedings before the
the same for the benefit of its creditors, and exercise the RTC-Makati. A liquidation proceeding has been explained
general powers of a receiver under the Revised Rules of in the case of In Re: Petition For Assistance in the
Court but shall not, with the exception of administrative Liquidation of the Rural Bank of BOKOD (Benguet), Inc.
expenditures, pay or commit any act that will involve the v. Bureau of Internal Revenue as follows:
transfer or disposition of any asset of the institution:
Provided, That the receiver may deposit or place the
A liquidation proceeding is a single proceeding which
funds of the institution in non-speculative investments.
consists of a number of cases properly classified as
The receiver shall determine as soon as possible, but not
“claims.” It is basically a two-phased proceeding. The
later than ninety (90) days from take over, whether the
first phase is concerned with the approval and
institution may be rehabilitated or otherwise placed in
disapproval of claims. Upon the approval of the petition
such a condition that it may be permitted to resume
seeking the assistance of the proper court in the
business with safety to its depositors and creditors and
liquidation of a closed entity, all money claims against
the general public: Provided, That any determination for
the bank are required to be filed with the liquidation
the resumption of business of the institution shall be
court. This phase may end with the declaration by the
subject to prior approval of the Monetary Board.
liquidation court that the claim is not proper or without
basis. On the other hand, it may also end with the
If the receiver determines that the institution cannot be liquidation court allowing the claim. In the latter case,
rehabilitated or permitted to resume business in the claim shall be classified whether it is ordinary or
accordance with the next preceding paragraph, the preferred, and thereafter included Liquidator. In either
Monetary Board shall notify in writing the board of case, the order allowing or disallowing a particular claim
directors of its findings and direct the receiver to proceed is final order, and may be appealed by the party
with the liquidation of the institution. The receiver shall: aggrieved thereby.
(1) file ex parte with the proper regional trial court, The second phase involves the approval by the Court of
and without requirement of prior notice or any other the distribution plan prepared by the duly appointed
action, a petition for assistance in the liquidation of the liquidator. The distribution plan specifies in detail the
institution pursuant to a liquidation plan adopted by the total amount available for distribution to creditors whose
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation for general claim were earlier allowed. The Order finally disposes of
application to all closed banks. In case of quasi-banks, the issue of how much property is available for disposal.
the liquidation plan shall be adopted by the Monetary Moreover, it ushers in the final phase of the liquidation
Board. Upon acquiring jurisdiction, the court shall, upon proceeding – payment of all allowed claims in accordance
motion by the receiver after due notice, adjudicate with the order of legal priority and the approved
disputed claims against the institution, assist the distribution plan.
enforcement of individual liabilities of the stockholders,
directors and officers, and decide on other issues as may
xxx
be material to implement the liquidation plan adopted.
The receiver shall pay the cost of the proceedings from
the assets of the institution. A liquidation proceeding is commenced by the filing of a
single petition by the Solicitor General with a court of
competent jurisdiction entitled, “Petition for Assistance in
(2) convert the assets of the institution to money,
the Liquidation of e.g., Pacific Banking Corporation.” All
dispose of the same to creditors and other parties, for
claims against the insolvent are required to be filed with
the purpose of paying the debts of such institution in
the liquidation court. Although the claims are litigated in
accordance with the rules on concurrence and preference
the same proceeding, the treatment is individual. Each
of credit under the Civil Code of the Philippines and he
claim is heard separately. And the Order issued relative
may, in the name of the institution, and with the
to a particular claim applies only to said claim, leaving
assistance of counsel as he may retain, institute such
the other claims unaffected, as each claim is considered
actions as may be necessary to collect and recover
separate and distinct from the others. x x x [Emphasis
accounts and assets of, or defend any action against, the
supplied.]
institution. The assets of an institution under
receivership or liquidation shall be deemed in custodia
legis in the hands of the receiver and shall, from the It is clear, therefore, that the liquidation court has
moment the institution was placed under such jurisdiction over all claims, including that of Lucia against
receivership or liquidation, be exempt from any order of the insolvent bank. As declared in Miranda v. Philippine
garnishment, levy, attachment, or execution. [Emphasis Deposit Insurance Corporation, regular courts do not
supplied] have jurisdiction over actions filed by claimants against
an insolvent bank, unless there is a clear showing that
the action taken by the BSP, through the Monetary
xxx
Board, in the closure of financial institutions was in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
“Disputed claims” refers to all claims, whether they be The same is not obtaining in this present case.
against the assets of the insolvent bank, for specific
performance, breach of contract, damages, or whatever.
389
The power and authority of the Monetary Board to close previously tilled by Efren Bernardo, and the respondents
banks and liquidate them thereafter when public interest took possession by strategy and stealth, without their
so requires is an exercise of the police power of the knowledge and consent. In the absence of any allegation
State. Police power, however, is subject to judicial of a tenancy relationship between the parties, the action
inquiry. It may not be exercised arbitrarily or was for recovery of possession of real property that was
unreasonably and could be set aside if it is either within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The CA,
capricious, discriminatory, whimsical, arbitrary, unjust, or therefore, committed no reversible error in setting aside
is tantamount to a denial of due process and equal the DARAB decision. While we lament the lapse of time
protection clauses of the Constitution. this forcible entry case has been pending resolution, we
are not in a position to resolve the dispute between the
parties since the evidence required in courts is different
In sum, this Court holds that the consolidation is proper
from that of administrative agencies. Jose Mendoza vs.
considering that the liquidation court has jurisdiction over
Narciso Germino and Benigno Germino, G.R. No. 165676,
Lucia’s action. It would be more in keeping with law and
November 22, 2010.
equity if Lucia’s case is consolidated with the liquidation
case in order to expeditiously determine whether she is
entitled to recover the property subject of mortgage from
RBCI and, if so, how much she is entitled to receive from
the remaining assets of the bank. Lucia Barrameda Vda.
Mandamus; not available to compel grant of
De Ballesteros vs. Rural Bank of Canaman, Inc.
injunctive relief.
represented by its Liquidator, The Philippine Deposit
Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 176260, November 24,
2010. Petitioner has made an extensive, effortful and elaborate
essay on the factual aspects not only of the Petition for
Redemption, but also of the Petition for Coverage and the
Petition for Revocation of Exemption Order — particularly
on the controverted nature of Eutiquio’s possession of the
Jurisdiction; MTC not divested of jurisdiction by subject land. That issue, however, is not for this Court to
mere allegation of tenancy as defense. address, and certainly not in the instant petition which
brings only the issue of whether the Court of Appeals was
correct in declining to issue the writ of mandamus and in
Although respondent Narciso averred tenancy as an
not compelling the DARAB to resolve Eutiquio’s motion
affirmative and/or special defense in his answer, this did
for reconsideration in the Petition for Redemption and the
not automatically divest the MTC of jurisdiction over the
DAR to issue the cease-and-desist order, or writ of
complaint. It continued to have the authority to hear the
preliminary injunction prayed for, in the Petition for
case precisely to determine whether it had jurisdiction to
Redemption, Petition for Coverage and Petition for
dispose of the ejectment suit on its merits. After all,
Revocation. But perhaps as a last-ditch attempt to turn
jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set
the table in his favor following the unfavorable issuance
up by the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss.
of the February 23, 2005 DAR Order denying the “Urgent
Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent almost
Ex Parte Motion for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary
entirely upon the whims of the defendant.
Injunction/Cease-and-Desist Order” and of the April 20,
2005 DARAB Resolution denying Eutiquio’s motion for
Under the RRSP, the MTC is duty-bound to conduct a reconsideration in the Petition for Redemption, petitioner
preliminary conference and, if necessary, to receive now pursues a different theory by claiming that the DAR
evidence to determine if such tenancy relationship had, in and the DARAB have exceeded their authority and
fact, been shown to be the real issue. The MTC may even committed grave abuse of discretion and manifest
opt to conduct a hearing on the special and affirmative injustice in issuing the said order and resolution. Verily,
defense of the defendant, although under the RRSP, such petitioner is grasping at straws.
a hearing is not a matter of right. If it is shown during
the hearing or conference that, indeed, tenancy is the
Established is the procedural law precept that a writ of
issue, the MTC should dismiss the case for lack of
mandamus generally lies to compel the performance of a
jurisdiction.
ministerial duty, but not the performance of an official act
or duty which necessarily involves the exercise of
In the present case, instead of conducting a preliminary judgment. Thus, when the act sought to be performed
conference, the MTC immediately referred the case to the involves the exercise of discretion, the respondent may
DARAB. This was contrary to the rules. Besides, Section only be directed by mandamus to act but not to act in
2 of P.D. No. 316, which required the referral of a land one way or the other. It is, nonetheless, also available to
dispute case to the Department of Agrarian Reform for compel action, when refused, in matters involving
the preliminary determination of the existence of an judgment and discretion, but not to direct the exercise of
agricultural tenancy relationship, has indeed been judgment in a particular manner. However, this rule
repealed by Section 76 of R.A. No. 6657 in 1988. admits of exceptions. Mandamus is the proper remedy in
cases where there is gross abuse of discretion, manifest
Neither did the amendment of the complaint confer injustice, or palpable excess of authority.
jurisdiction on the DARAB. The plaintiffs alleged in the
amended complaint that the subject property was
390
In Valley Trading Co., Inc. v. Court of First Instance of applying a DepEd policy when he ordered the August-
Isabela, it was held that the issuance of a writ of MOA cancelled. So, what was actually being assailed by
preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound Pineda in her petition before the RTC was the
discretion of the issuing authority, conditioned on the implementation of DepEd’s existing guidelines with the
existence of a clear and positive right of the applicant nullification of the August-MOA entered into by Dr. Blas,
which should be protected. It is an extraordinary then principal of LHS. As Asec. Montesa merely took
peremptory remedy that may be availed of only upon the over the functions of Usec. Gascon, he is certainly
grounds expressly provided by law. In Government authorized to institute the petition before the CA in order
Service Insurance System v. Florendo and Searth to advance and pursue the policies of his office – DepEd.
Commodities Corp. v. Court of Appeals, it was also held Applying Rule 3, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court,
that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction as an DepEd is the real party in interest for it will surely be
ancillary or preventive remedy to secure the rights of a affected, favorably or unfavorably, by the final resolution
party in a pending case is entirely within the discretion of of the case before the RTC.
the tribunal taking cognizance of the case, limited only by
the requirement that the use of such discretion be based
Thus, it would be absurd not to recognize the legal
on ground and in the manner provided by law. Bataclan
standing of Asec. Montesa, as representative of DepEd,
v. Court of Appeals also points out that although
but consider Dr. Quiñones and Ms. Camilo as the proper
sufficient discretion is allowed in the grant of the relief,
parties when they were merely tasked to implement a
extreme caution must be taken in determining the
directive emanating from a superior official (Asec.
necessity for the grant of the relief prayed for, because it
Montesa) of the DepEd. Michelle I. Pineda vs. Court of
would necessarily affect the protective rights of the
Appeals and the Department of Education, etc., G.R. No.
parties in a case.
181643, November 17, 2010.
Clearly, the grant of an injunctive relief in this case is not

properly compellable by mandamus inasmuch as it
requires discretion and judgment on the part of both the
DAR and the DARAB to find whether petitioner has a clear Pleading; certification of non-forum shopping by
legal right that needs to be protected and that the acts of petitioner corporation.
SMPHI are violative of such right. On this score alone,
the Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for its refusal to Respondents To Chip, Yap and Balila argue that the
issue the writ of mandamus prayed for. Froilan Dejuras instant petition should be dismissed outright as the
vs. Hon. Rene C. Villa, et al., G.R. No. 173428, verification and certification of non-forum shopping was
November 22, 2010. executed only by petitioner Lydia Sia in her personal
capacity, without the participation of Cebu Bionic. The
Parties; real party in interest. Court is not persuaded.
On the first ground, Pineda argues that the CA gravely Except for the powers which are expressly conferred on it
abused its discretion in entertaining the petition for by the Corporation Code and those that are implied by or
certiorari of DepEd considering that Asec. Montesa was are incidental to its existence, a corporation has no
not the proper party to file the petition. She adds that, powers. It exercises its powers through its board of
even assuming that DepEd had the locus standi to file directors and/or its duly authorized officers and agents.
said petition before the CA, Asec. Montesa was not duly Thus, its power to sue and be sued in any court is lodged
authorized to do so. The Court cannot accommodate the with the board of directors that exercises its corporate
view of Pineda. powers. Physical acts, like the signing of documents, can
be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for
the purpose by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of
In her petition for certiorari before the RTC, Pineda
the board of directors.
impleaded Usec. Gascon, Dr. Quiñones and Ms. Camilo in
their official capacities as Undersecretary of DepEd,
Division Superintendent and Principal of Lakandula High In this case, respondents To Chip, Yap and Balila
School, respectively. Although the petition mentioned obviously overlooked the Secretary’s Certificate attached
that Usec. Gascon was merely a nominal party, it stated to the instant petition, which was executed by the
therein that Dr. Quiñones and Ms. Camilo were being Corporate Secretary of Cebu Bionic. Unequivocally stated
sued for “having been tasked to immediately carry out” therein was the fact that the Board of Directors of Cebu
his order of February 11, 2005. The Court is of the view Bionic held a special meeting on July 26, 2002 and they
that DepEd was the proper party and Usec. Gascon, Dr. thereby approved a Resolution authorizing Lydia Sia to
Quiñones and Ms. Camilo were just its representatives. elevate the present case to this Court in behalf of Cebu
Thus, they were sued in their official capacities. Bionic, to wit:
A review of Usec. Gascon’s order discloses that the Whereas, the board appointed LYDIA I. SIA to act and in
cancellation of Pineda’s August-MOA was pursuant to behalf of the corporation to file the CERTIORARI with the
DepEd’s existing guidelines on the turn over of school Supreme Court in relations to the decision of the Court of
canteens to teachers’ cooperatives, laid out in Appeals dated July 5, 2002 which reversed its
Department Order No. 95, series of 1998. He was simply owjudgment earlier promulgated on February 14, 2001
391
entitled CEBU BIONIC BUILDERS SUPPLY, INC. and LYDIA Verily, we had occasion to apply this liberality in the
SIA, (Petitioners- Appellants) –versus – THE application of procedural rules in Barnes v. Padilla where
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOSE TO we aptly declared that –
CHIP, PATRICIO YAP and ROGER BALILA (Respondents-
Appelles), docketed CA-G.R. NO. 57216.
The failure of the petitioner to file his motion for
reconsideration within the period fixed by law renders the
Whereas, on mass unanimously motion of all members of decision final and executory. Such failure carries with it
directors present hereby approved the appointment of the result that no court can exercise appellate jurisdiction
LYDIA I. SIA to act and sign all papers in connection of to review the case. Phrased elsewise, a final and
CA-G.R. NO. 57216. executory judgment can no longer be attacked by any of
the parties or be modified, directly or indirectly, even by
the highest court of the land.
Resolved and it is hereby resolve to appoint and
authorized LYDIA I. SIA to sign and file with the
SUPREME COURT in connection to decision of the Court of However, this Court has relaxed this rule in order to
Appeals as above mention. serve substantial justice considering (a) matters of life,
liberty, honor or property, (b) the existence of special or
compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d)
Cebu Bionic Builders Supply, Inc. and Lydia Sia vs.
a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence
Development Bank of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No.
of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (e) a
154366, November 17, 2010.
lack of any showing that the review sought is merely
frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be
Pleading; new issue raised in pleading which could unjustly prejudiced thereby.
have been raised in previous pleadings.
In this case, what are involved are the property rights of
Still on the second ground, Pineda points out that the the parties given that, ultimately, the fundamental issue
March 14, 2005 Order of the RTC was received by the to be determined is who among the petitioners and
DepEd on March 16, 2005 and the latter filed its petition respondents To Chip, Yap and Balila has the better right
before the CA on June 28, 2005, which was beyond the to purchase the subject properties. More importantly,
sixty (60)-day reglementary period. Going over DepEd’s the merits of the case sufficiently called for the
petition before the CA, it appears that DepEd reckoned suspension of the rules in order to settle conclusively the
the 60-day period from June 28, 2005, the date of its rights and obligations of the parties herein. Cebu Bionic
receipt of the June 7, 2005 Order of the RTC. Pineda’s Builders Supply, Inc. and Lydia Sia vs. Development
Comment and Memorandum, however, did not raise this Bank of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 154366,
procedural lapse as an issue. Instead, Pineda put forth November 17, 2010.
her own arguments in support of the two RTC orders.
The rule in pleadings and practice is that that no new
issue in a case can be raised in a pleading which by due
diligence could have been raised in previous pleadings.
Thus, it is too late in the day for Pineda to question the Procedural rules; liberal application or suspension
procedural lapse. Michelle I. Pineda vs. Court of Appeals only for persuasive reasons and only in meritorious
and the Department of Education, etc., G.R. No. 181643, cases.
November 17, 2010.
The emerging trend of jurisprudence is more inclined to
Procedural rules; liberal application; failure to file the liberal and flexible application of the Rules of Court.
motion for reconsideration seasonably excused. However, we have not been remiss in reminding the
bench and the bar that zealous compliance with the rules
is still the general course of action. Rules of procedure
First off, petitioners fault the Court of Appeals for
are in place to ensure the orderly, just, and speedy
admitting the Motion for Reconsideration of its Decision
dispensation of cases; to this end, inflexibility or
dated February 14, 2001, which was filed by respondents
liberality must be weighed. The relaxation or suspension
To Chip, Yap and Balila more than six months after
of procedural rules or the exemption of a case from their
receipt of the said decision. The motion was eventually
operation is warranted only by compelling reasons or
granted and the Court of Appeals issued its assailed
when the purpose of justice requires it. As early as
Amended Decision, ruling in favor of respondents.
1998, in Hon. Fortich v. Hon. Corona, we expounded on
these guiding principles:
Indeed, the appellate court’s Decision dated February 14,
2001 would have ordinarily attained finality for failure of
Procedural rules, we must stress, should be treated with
respondents to seasonably file their Motion for
utmost respect and due regard since they are designed to
Reconsideration thereon. However, we agree with the
facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the
Court of Appeals that the higher interest of substantial
worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival
justice will be better served if respondents’ procedural
claims and in the administration of justice. The
lapse will be excused.
requirement is in pursuance to the bill of rights inscribed
in the Constitution which guarantees that “all persons
392
shall have a right to the speedy disposition of their cases realize that the ultimate consequences that will come
before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative about should GOODLAND’s appeal proceed would in fact
bodies.” The adjudicatory bodies and the parties to a contravene substantial justice. The CA and, eventually,
case are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. this Court will just re-litigate an otherwise non-litigious
While it is true that a litigation is not a game of matter and thereby compound the delay GOODLAND
technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be attempts to perpetrate in order to prevent AUB from
prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure rightfully taking possession of the property. Asia United
to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc., G.R. No. 188051,
justice. There have been some instances wherein this November 22, 2010.
Court allowed a relaxation in the application of the rules,
but this flexibility was “never intended to forge a bastion
Procedural rules; subsequent and substantial
for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity.” A
compliance.
liberal interpretation and application of the rules of
procedure can be resorted to only in proper cases and
under justifiable causes and circumstances. The Spouses Ching contend, among other things, that
their subsequent submission of the documents, which the
CA deemed relevant and pertinent to the petition in G.R.
In Sebastian v. Hon. Morales, we straightened out the
No. 167835, constituted substantial compliance with the
misconception that the enforcement of procedural rules
Rules. Consequently, by invoking strict compliance with
should never be permitted if it would prejudice the
the Rules in dismissing the petition and denying the
substantive rights of litigants:
motion for reconsideration, the CA relied more on
technicalities than resolving the case on the merits. The
Under Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Bank, on the other hand, argues that the resolution of
Procedure, liberal construction of the rules is the the CA dismissing the petition or failure o attach all
controlling principle to effect substantial justice. Thus, relevant and pertinent leadings and documents has legal
litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on basis, totally substantiated by the facts of the case, and
their merits and not on technicalities. This does not supported by jurisprudence.
mean, however, that procedural rules are to be ignored
or disdained at will to suit the convenience of a party.
Indeed, this Court has maintained that the subsequent
Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly
and substantial compliance of a party-litigant may
administration of justice, namely, to ensure the effective
warrant the relaxation of the rules of procedure. Thus, in
enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a
Jaro v. Court of Appeals, it was elucidated that:
system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or
whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. Hence, it is a
mistake to suppose that substantive law and procedural x x x In Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz and Piglas-Kamao v.
law are contradictory to each other, or as often National Labor Relations Commission, we ruled that the
suggested, that enforcement of procedural rules should subsequent submission of the missing documents with
never be permitted if it would result in prejudice to the the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial
substantive rights of the litigants. compliance. The reasons behind the failure of petitioners
in these two cases to comply with the required
attachments were no longer scrutinized. What we found
x x x. Hence, rules of procedure must be faithfully
noteworthy in each case was the fact that petitioners
followed except only when for persuasive reasons, they
substantially complied with the formal requirements. We
may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
ordered the remand of the petitions in these cases to the
commensurate with his failure to comply with the
Court of Appeals, stressing the ruling that by precipitately
prescribed procedure. x x x.
dismissing the petitions “the appellate court clearly put a
premium on technicalities at the expense of a just
Indeed, the primordial policy is a faithful observance of resolution of the case.”
the Rules of Court, and their relaxation or suspension
should only be for persuasive reasons and only in
We cannot see why the same leniency cannot be
meritorious cases, to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
extended to petitioner. x x x
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in
not complying with the procedure prescribed. Further, a
bare invocation of “the interest of substantial justice” will If we were to apply the rules of procedure in a very rigid
not suffice to override a stringent implementation of the and technical sense, as what the Court of Appeals would
rules. have it in this case, the ends of justice would be
defeated. In Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz, where the formal
requirements were liberally construed and substantial
A reading of the CA’s Decision readily shows that the
compliance was recognized, we explained that rules of
leniency it granted GOODLAND was merely anchored on
procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the
substantial justice. The CA overlooked GOODLAND’s
decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending
failure to advance meritorious reasons to support its plea
in court. Hence, a strict and rigid application of
for the relaxation of Rule 138, Section 26. The fact that
GOODLAND stands to lose a valuable property is
substantial justice must be avoided. We further declared
inadequate to dispense with the exacting imposition of a
that:
rather basic rule. More importantly, the CA failed to
393
Cases should be determined on the merits, after full raised in a case. For these instances, Section 4, Rule 35
opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes of the Rules provides:
and defenses, rather than on technicality or some
procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice
Section 4. Case not fully adjudicated on motion. – If on
would be served better.
motion under this Rule, judgment is not rendered
upon the whole case or for all the reliefs sought
In the similar case of Piglas-Kamao v. National Labor and a trial is necessary, the court at the hearing of the
Relations Commission, we stressed the policy of the motion, by examining the pleadings and the evidence
courts to encourage the full adjudication of the merits of before it and by interrogating counsel shall ascertain
an appeal. what material facts exist without substantial controversy
and what are actually and in good faith controverted. It
shall thereupon make an order specifying the facts
In the case at bar, the CA dismissed the petition in CA-
that appear without substantial controversy,
G.R. SP No. 87217 for the Spouses Ching’s failure to
including the extent to which the amount of damages or
attach copies of all pleading and documents which the CA
other relief is not in controversy, and directing such
deemed relevant to the petition. However, in their
further proceedings in the action as are just. The facts
Motion for Reconsideration, the Spouses Ching stressed
so specified shall be deemed established, and the
that they have effectively complied and cured their
trial shall be conducted on the controverted facts
procedural lapses by submitting all the pleadings and
accordingly.
documents required by the CA in their Amended Petition.
The Spouses Ching even explained that the said
documents and pleadings were not relevant and pertinent This is what is referred to as a partial summary
to the petition, yet they still submitted them. Hence, the judgment. A careful reading of this section reveals that a
amended petition filed by the Spouses Ching should have partial summary judgment was never intended to be
been given due course by the CA. Nonetheless, this considered a “final judgment,” as it does not “[put] an
Court deems that the ends of justice would be better end to an action at law by declaring that the plaintiff
served if the issues raised by the Spouses Ching in their either has or has not entitled himself to recover the
petition before the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 87217 be remedy he sues for.” The Rules provide for a partial
resolved in the present petition. Sps. Alfredo and summary judgment as a means to simplify the trial
Encarnacion Ching vs. Family Savings Bank and Sheriff of process by allowing the court to focus the trial only on
Manila / Alfredo Ching vs. Family Savings Bank and the the assailed facts, considering as established those facts
Sheriff of Manila, G.R. No. 167835 and G.R. No. 188480, which are not in dispute. Philippine Business Bank vs.
November 15, 2010. Felipe Chua, G.R. No. 178899, November 15, 2010.
Summary judgment; partial summary judgment. Summary judgment; partial summary judgment;
certiorari.
PBB’s motion for partial summary judgment against
respondent Chua was based on Section 1, Rule 35 of the PBB also maintains that the partial summary judgment
Rules, which provides: attained finality when respondent Chua failed to file a
certiorari petition, citing the last paragraph of Section 1,
Rule 41 of the Rules as basis. We quote:
Section 1. Summary Judgment for claimant. - A party
seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-
claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time Section 1. Subject of appeal. – An appeal maybe taken
after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, from a judgment or final order that completely disposes
move with supporting affidavits, depositions or of the case, or of a particular matter therein when
admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all declared by these Rules to be appealable.
or any part thereof.
No appeal may be taken from:
A summary judgment, or accelerated judgment, is a
procedural technique to promptly dispose of cases where
x x x x
the facts appear undisputed and certain from the
pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits on
record, or for weeding out sham claims or defenses at an (g) A judgment or final order for or against one or more
early stage of the litigation to avoid the expense and loss of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims,
of time involved in a trial. When the pleadings on file cross-claims and third party complaints, while the main
show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried, case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal
the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way therefrom;
of summary judgment, that is, when the facts are not in
dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case x x x x
summarily by applying the law to the material facts.
In all the above instances where the judgment, or

The rendition by the court of a summary judgment does final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party
not always result in the full adjudication of all the issues
394
may file an appropriate special civil action under case during the pendency of the appeal. If such appeal
Rule 65. were allowed, the trial on the merits of the case would
necessarily be delayed for a considerable length of time,
and compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary
Contrary to PBB’s contention, however, certiorari was not
expenses, for one of the parties may interpose as many
the proper recourse for respondent Chua. The propriety
appeals as incidental questions may be raised by him,
of the summary judgment may be corrected only on
and interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower
appeal or other direct review, not a petition for certiorari,
court. Philippine Business Bank vs. Felipe Chua, G.R. No.
since it imputes error on the lower court’s judgment. It is
178899, November 15, 2010.
well-settled that certiorari is not available to correct
errors of procedure or mistakes in the judge’s findings
and conclusions of law and fact. As we explained in
Apostol v. Court of Appeals:
Summary judgment; partial summary judgment;
As a legal recourse, the special civil action of certiorari is interlocutory order.
a limited form of review. The jurisdiction of this Court is
narrow in scope; it is restricted to resolving errors of
After this sifting process, the court is instructed to issue
jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Indeed, as long as
an order, the partial summary judgment, which specifies
the courts below act within their jurisdiction, alleged
the disputed facts that have to be settled in the course of
errors committed in the exercise of their discretion will
trial. In this way, the partial summary judgment is more
amount to mere errors of judgment correctable by an
akin to a record of pre-trial, an interlocutory order, rather
appeal or a petition for review.
than a final judgment.
In light of these findings, we affirm the CA’s ruling that

The differences between a “final judgment” and an
the partial summary judgment is an interlocutory order
“interlocutory order” are well-established. We said in
which could not become a final and executory judgment,
Denso (Phils.) Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court that:
notwithstanding respondent Chua’s failure to file a
certiorari petition to challenge the judgment. Accordingly,
the RTC grievously erred when it issued the writ of [A] final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of
execution against respondent Chua. a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in
respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits
which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial,
In view of this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to
declares categorically what the rights and obligations of
resolve the issue raised by respondent Chua on the
the parties are and which party is in the right; or a
validity of the RTC’s appointment of a special sheriff for
judgment or order that dismisses an action on the
the implementation of the execution writ.
ground, for instance, of res judicata or prescription. Once
rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as
As a final point, we note that respondent Chua has raised deciding the controversy or determining the rights and
with this Court the issue of the propriety of the partial liabilities of the litigants is concerned. Nothing more
summary judgment issued by the RTC. Notably, remains to be done by the Court except to await the
respondent Chua never raised this issue in his petition for parties’ next move . . . and ultimately, of course, to
certiorari before the CA. It is well settled that no question cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes
will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in “final” or, to use the established and more distinctive
the proceedings below. Basic considerations of due term, “final and executory.”
process impel the adoption of this rule.
x x x x
Furthermore, this issue would be better resolved in the
proper appeal, to be taken by the parties once the court
Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the
a quo has completely resolved all the issues involved in
case, and does not end the Court’s task of adjudicating
the present case in a final judgment. If we were to
the parties’ contentions and determining their rights and
resolve this issue now, we would be preempting the CA,
liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates
which has primary jurisdiction over this issue.
that other things remain to be done by the Court, is
“interlocutory”, e.g., an order denying a motion to
Lastly, taking jurisdiction over this issue now would only dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules x x x Unlike a
result in multiple appeals from a single case which ‘final judgment or order, which is appealable, as
concerns the same, or integrated, causes of action. As we above pointed out, an ‘interlocutory order may not
said in Santos v. People: be questioned on appeal except only as part of an
appeal that may eventually be taken from the final
judgment rendered in the case.
Another recognized reason of the law in permitting
appeal only from a final order or judgment, and not from
an interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity Bearing in mind these differences, there can be no doubt
of appeals in a single action, which must necessarily that the partial summary judgment envisioned by
suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the the Rules is an interlocutory order that was never
395
meant to be treated separately from the main case. was approved by the HLURB in Resolution No. 35, s.
As we explained in Guevarra v. Court of Appeals: 1981, with a certification issued by HLURB Secretariat
OIC Carolina Casaje that the Town Plan/Zoning
Ordinance of Lipa City was approved by the National
It will be noted that the judgment in question is a “partial
Coordinating Council for Town Planning, Housing and
summary judgment.” It was rendered only with respect
Zoning.
to the private respondents’ first and second causes of
action alleged in their complaint. It was not intended to
cover the other prayers in the said complaint, nor the Furthermore, the HLURB’s Rules and Regulations
supplementary counterclaim filed by the petitioners Implementing Farmlot Subdivision Plan categorizes a
against the private respondents, nor the third-party farmlot subdivision as different from agricultural land as
complaint filed by the petitioners against the Security “it is without the intended qualities of an agricultural land
Bank and Trust Company. A partial summary and is never intended to be exclusively used for
judgment “is not a final or appealable judgment.” cultivation, livestock production and agro-forestry.”
(Moran, Vol. 2, 1970 Edition, p. 189, citing several
cases.) “It is merely a pre-trial adjudication that
Finally, the HLURB development permit and license to sell
said issues in the case shall be deemed established
were “indications of the locational viability and the non-
for the trial of the case.” (Francisco, Rules of Court,
exclusivity for agricultural purposes of the subject lots.”
Vol. II, p. 429.)
All these arguments were in fact adopted by the Office of
the President on appeal.
x x x x
We therefore deem it proper to grant temporary
The partial summary judgment rendered by the trial protection to petitioners’ prima facie right.
court being merely interlocutory and not ‘a final
judgment’, it is puerile to discuss whether the same
The consummation of acts leading to the disposition of
became final and executory due to the alleged failure to
the litigated property can make it difficult to implement
appeal said judgment within the supposed period of
this Court’s decision upon resolution of the case and can
appeal. What the rules contemplate is that the appeal
only prolong this protracted battle even more. On the
from the partial summary judgment shall be taken
other hand, respondents would not be unduly deprived of
together with the judgment that may be rendered
their livelihood as they can continue tilling the land
in the entire case after a trial is conducted on the
pending the final disposition of this case. The Court
material facts on which a substantial controversy
therefore finds that it is to the public interest to maintain
exists. This is on the assumption that the partial
the conditions prevailing before the filing of this case.
summary judgment was validly rendered, which, as
Posting of a bond by petitioners shall answer for any
shown above, is not true in the case at bar.
damages which may be sustained by respondents as a
consequence of the issuance of a TRO if the Court finally
We reiterated this ruling in the cases of Province of decides that petitioners are not entitled to it.
Pangasinan v. Court of Appeals and Government Service
Insurance System v. Philippine Village Hotel, Inc.
WHEREFORE, the motion for issuance of a temporary
Philippine Business Bank vs. Felipe Chua, G.R. No.
restraining order is GRANTED upon posting by the
178899, November 15, 2010.
petitioners of a bond in the amount of P2 Million.
Respondents are enjoined from entering into
transactions resulting in the conveyance of any part of
the properties subject of this case.
Temporary restraining order; issuance by Supreme
Court. The parties in this case are directed to maintain the
status quo and to refrain from all actions which may
affect the ownership or present possession of the
Petitioners contend that the consummation of
contested properties until further orders of this Court.
transactions conveying the contested property will affect
Heirs of Augusto Salas, Jr., represented by Teresita D.
their right to defend their title to the property thereby
Salas vs. Marciano Cabungcal, et al., G.R. No. 191545.
causing grave and irreparable injury to them. While this
November 22, 2010.
Court does not agree with that claim, we still deem it to
be more prudent to grant the requested TRO.
Petitioners have shown a prima facie right to the

exemption that they claim. Former DAR Secretary Writ of Possession; execution sale.
Pagdanganan granted petitioners’ application for
exemption upon finding that the subject lots had already
Moreover, contrary to the Spouses Ching’s contention,
been converted to non-agricultural even prior to the
this Court, in Paredes v. Court of Appeals, citing Rodil v.
effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657, due to the property’s
Benedicto, categorically held that the right of the
reclassification into farmlot subdivision through the Land
applicant or a subsequent purchaser to request for the
Use and Zoning Ordinance of Lipa City. This ordinance
issuance of a writ of possession of the land never
396
prescribes. A writ of possession is employed to enforce a In the instant case, there is no dispute that the property
judgment to recover the possession of land. It of the petitioner was sold in an execution sale in favor of
commands the sheriff to enter the land and give the respondent bank and that no redemption was made
possession of it to the person entitled under the by the former over the said property within the required
judgment. It may be issued in several instances, among one-year period. It has been held that a writ of
which is in execution sales. There was, therefore, no possession may be issued in favor of the purchaser in an
grave error on the part of the RTC in granting the execution sale when the deed of conveyance has been
motion. Sps. Alfredo and Encarnacion Ching vs. Family executed and delivered to him after the period of
Savings Bank and Sheriff of Manila / Alfredo Ching vs. redemption has expired and no redemption has been
Family Savings Bank and the Sheriff of Manila, G.R. No. made by the judgment debtor. After such period, the
167835 and G.R. No. 188480, November 15, 2010. judgment debtor would be divested of his ownership of
the property. Thus, just like in extrajudicial foreclosure,
the issuance of the writ of possession after the lapse of
Writ of possession; nature of remedy.
the period of redemption is ministerial on the part of the
court.
Alfredo is assailing the validity of the RTC Order dated
March 28, 2006, which granted the Bank’s Urgent Ex
It is the contention of the petitioner that a writ of
Parte Motion To Resolve Motion for Designation of
possession could only be validly issued upon
Another Sheriff to Serve/Enforce Writ of Possession/Court
consolidation of title and ownership in the name of the
Processes. It is to be noted that the said Order was but
purchaser. We agree. The petitioner then argues that a
an ancillary motion emanating from the writ of
valid consolidation could be obtained only upon filing of a
possession granted earlier by the RTC. Corollarily, with
separate action with the RTC acting as a cadastral court.
regard to a petition for writ of possession, it is well to
That we don’t agree. The petitioner cited the case of
state that the proceeding is ex parte and summary in
Padilla, Jr. v. Philippine Producers’ Cooperative Marketing
nature. It is a judicial proceeding brought for the benefit
Association, Inc., to support his argument. The said case
of one party only and without notice by the court to any
involved the issuance of a new title in the name of the
person adverse of interest. It is a proceeding wherein
purchaser. In fact, the primary issue therein is whether
relief is granted without giving the person against whom
in implementing the involuntary transfer of title of real
the relief is sought an opportunity to be heard.
property levied and sold on execution, it is enough for
Consequently, so too was the nature of the urgent
the executing party to file a motion with the court which
motion, it was ex-parte and summary in nature.
rendered judgment, or does he need to file a separate
action with the Regional Trial Court. There is nothing
Moreover, it is settled that the issuance of a writ of therein which states that a new title in the name of the
possession to a purchaser in a public auction is a purchaser is necessary for the validity of the writ of
ministerial act. After the consolidation of title in the possession. On the contrary, a perusal of the said case
buyer’s name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the would reveal that a purchaser, by virtue of a levy and an
property, entitlement to the writ of possession becomes a execution sale, would become the new lawful owner of
matter of right. To be sure, regardless of whether or not the property sold if not redeemed within the one-year
there is a pending action for nullification of the sale at period.
public auction, the purchaser is entitled to a writ of
possession without prejudice to the outcome of such
Following the argument of the petitioner, he might have
action. Undeniably, Alfredo failed to redeem the property
confused consolidation of title and ownership with the
within the redemption period and, thereafter, ownership
issuance or application for a new title after the
was consolidated in favor of the Bank and a new
redemption as provided for in Section 75 of Presidential
certificate of title, TCT No. 221703, was issued in its
Decree No. 1529. Title and ownership to the property is
name. It was, therefore, a purely ministerial duty for the
consolidated upon the lapse of the period of redemption.
trial court to issue a writ of possession in favor of the
It is automatic upon the failure of the judgment obligor to
Bank and issue the Order granting the motion for
exercise his right of redemption within the period allowed
designation of another sheriff to serve the writ, which is
by law. Title may be consolidated in the name of the
merely an order enforcing the writ of possession.
purchaser even without a new title issued in his name.
The term “title” as used in consolidation does not pertain
We note, with affirmation, the discussion of the CA on the to the certificate of title, or piece of paper, issued by the
matter: Register of Deeds, which is a mere evidence of
ownership. It is synonymous with ownership.
The right of the purchaser to the possession of the
property after the period of redemption has lapsed and There is neither law nor jurisprudence which requires that
no redemption was made under the old rule, has not the certificate of title to the property must first be
been changed with the advent of the 1997 Rules of Civil cancelled and a new one be issued in favor of the
Procedure. The only significant change is the time when purchaser before a valid consolidation of title and
the period of redemption period would start. Under the ownership could be said to have taken place, and before
old Rules, the redemption period would commence after a court could issue a writ of possession, or an order
the sale, while under the present Rule, the period to designating a sheriff to enforce such writ.
reckon with is the date of registration of the certificate of
sale with the proper Registry of Deeds.
397
Not even the pendency of another action with the (f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case,
appellate courts involving the validity of the writ of and affects the substantial rights of the person appealing
possession can stop the enforcement of the said writ in unless it be an order granting or denying a motion for a
the absence of any restraining order or injunctive writ new trial or for reconsideration.
from the said courts. Accordingly, considering that this
Court and the Supreme Court have not issued any
The above-quoted rule contemplates multiple appeals
temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction
during the pendency of special proceedings. A record on
against the order of the court a quo for the issuance of
appeal – in addition to the notice of appeal – is thus
writ of possession, we see no cogent reason why the said
required to be filed as the original records of the case
writ could not be effectively enforced.
should remain with the trial court to enable the rest of
the case to proceed in the event that a separate and
The RTC, therefore, acted well within its jurisdiction in distinct issue is resolved by said court and held to be
issuing the questioned order granting the urgent ex- final.
parte motion of the respondent bank which proceeds
from the writ of possession which had long been issued.
In the present case, the filing of a record on appeal was
For all the foregoing, there is no need to address the
not necessary since no other matter remained to be
other issues. Sps. Alfredo and Encarnacion Ching vs.
heard and determined by the trial court after it issued the
Family Savings Bank and Sheriff of Manila / Alfredo Ching
appealed order granting respondent’s petition for
vs. Family Savings Bank and the Sheriff of Manila, G.R.
cancellation of birth record and change of surname in the
No. 167835 and G.R. No. 188480, November 15, 2010.
civil registry.
The appellate court’s reliance on Zayco v. Hinlo, Jr. in

denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is
Special Proceedings. misplaced. In Zayco which was a petition for letters of
administration of a deceased person’s estate, the
decedent’s children appealed the trial court’s order
appointing the grandson of the decedent as administrator
of the estate. Their notice of appeal and record on
Appeal; record on appeal. appeal were denied due course by the trial court on the
ground that the appealed order is interlocutory and not
Section 1, Rule 109 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure subject to appeal. But even if the appeal were proper, it
specifies the orders or judgments in special proceedings was belatedly filed. On certiorari by the decedent’s
which may be the subject of an appeal, viz: children, the appellate court sustained the trial court. On
petition for review, this Court reversed the appellate
court, holding that “[a]n order appointing an
SECTION 1. Orders or judgments from which appeals administrator of a deceased person’s estate is a final
may be taken. – An interested person may appeal in determination of the rights of the parties in connection
special proceedings from an order or judgment rendered with the administration, management and settlement of
by a Court of First Instance or a Juvenile and Domestic the decedent’s estate,” hence, the order is “final” and
Relations Court, where such order or judgment: “appealable.” The Court also held that the appeal was
filed on time.
(a) Allows or disallows a will;
In Zayco, unlike in the present case, a record on appeal
(b) Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased was obviously necessary as the proceedings before the
person, or the distributive share of the estate to which trial court involved the administration, management and
such person is entitled; settlement of the decedent’s estate– matters covered
by Section 1 of Rule 109 wherein multiple appeals could,
and did in that case, call for them. Republic of the
(c) Allows or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim Philippines vs. Nasaida Sumera Nishina, et al., G.R. No.
against the estate of a deceased person, or any claim 186053, November 15, 2010.
presented on behalf of the estate in offset to a claim
against it;
(d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator,

trustee or guardian; Other Proceedings
(e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement Intra-corporate dispute; jurisdiction of Special
of the estate of a deceased person, or the administration Commercial Courts.
of a trustee or guardian, a final determination in the
lower court of the rights of the party appealing, except In addition to being conferred by law, it bears
that no appeal shall be allowed from the appointment of emphasizing that the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal
a special administrator; and over the case is determined by the allegations in the
398
complaint and the character of the relief sought, Even prescinding from the different factual and legal
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to milieus of said cases, the CA also failed to take into
recover all or some of the claims asserted therein. consideration the fact that, unlike the SEC which is a
Moreover, pursuant to Section 5.2 of Republic Act No. tribunal of limited jurisdiction, SCCs like the RTC are still
8799, otherwise known as the Securities Regulation competent to tackle civil law issues incidental to intra-
Code, the jurisdiction of the SEC over all cases corporate disputes filed before them. In G.D. Express
enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. Worldwide N.V. vs. Court of Appeals, this Court ruled as
902-A has been transferred to RTCs designated by this follows:
Court as SCCs pursuant to A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC
promulgated on 21 November 2000. Thus, Section 1(a),
It should be noted that the SCCs are still considered
Rule 1 of the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-
courts of general jurisdiction. Section 5.2 of R.A. No.
Corporate Controversies (Interim Rules) provides as
8799 directs merely the Supreme Court’s designation of
follows:
RTC branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over intra-
corporate disputes. Nothing in the language of the law
“SECTION 1. (a) Cases covered. — These Rules shall suggests the diminution of jurisdiction of those RTCs to
govern the procedure to be observed in civil cases be designated as SCCs. The assignment of intra-
involving the following: corporate disputes to SCCs is only for the purpose of
streamlining the workload of the RTCs so that certain
branches thereof like the SCCs can focus only on a
(1) Devices or schemes employed by, or any act of,
particular subject matter.
the board of directors, business associates, officers or
partners, amounting to fraud or misrepresentation which
may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of The designation of certain RTC branches to handle
the stockholders, partners, or members of any specific cases is nothing new. For instance, pursuant to
corporation, partnership, or association; the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 or the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, the Supreme Court has assigned
certain RTC branches to hear and decide cases under
(2) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate,
Sections 56 and 57 of R.A. No. 6657.
partnership, or association relations, between and among
stockholders, members, or associates; and between, any
or all of them and the corporation, partnership, or The RTC exercising jurisdiction over an intra-corporate
association of which they are stockholders, members, or dispute can be likened to an RTC exercising its probate
associates, respectively; jurisdiction or sitting as a special agrarian court. The
designation of the SCCs as such has not in any way
limited their jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of all
(3) Controversies in the election or appointment of
nature, whether civil, criminal or special proceedings.
directors, trustees, officers, or managers of corporations,
partnerships, or associations;
Strategic Alliance Development Corporation vs. Star
Infrastructure Development Corporation Corporation,
(4) Derivative suits; and
BEDE S. Tabalingcos, et al., G.R. No. 187872. November
17, 2010.
(5) Inspection of corporate books.” (Italics supplied)
In upholding the RTC’s pronouncement that venue was

improperly laid, the CA ruled that STRADEC’s first and
Intra-corporate dispute; relationship test and
second causes of action were not intra-corporate disputes
nature of the controversy test.
because the issues pertaining thereto were civil in
nature. In support of the foregoing conclusion, the CA
cited Speed Distributing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals An intra-corporate dispute is understood as a suit arising
where this Court essentially ruled out the existence of an from intra-corporate relations or between or among
intra-corporate dispute from an action instituted by the stockholders or between any or all of them and the
wife for the nullification of the transfer of a property corporation. Applying what has come to be known as the
between corporations of which her deceased husband relationship test, it has been held that the types of
was a stockholder. The CA also relied on this Court’s actions embraced by the foregoing definition include the
pronouncement in Nautica Canning Corporation vs. following suits: (a) between the corporation, partnership
Yumul to the effect, among others, that an action to or association and the public; (b) between the
determine the validity of the transfer of shares from one corporation, partnership or association and its
stockholder to another is civil in nature and is, therefore, stockholders, partners, members, or officers; (c)
cognizable by regular courts and not the SEC. In between the corporation, partnership or association and
addition to the fact that the first case involved a civil the State insofar as its franchise, permit or license to
action instituted against corporations by one who was not operate is concerned; and, (d) among the stockholders,
a stockholder thereof, however, STRADEC correctly partners or associates themselves. As the definition is
points out that, unlike the second case, the limited broad enough to cover all kinds of controversies between
jurisdiction of the SEC is not in issue in the case at stockholders and corporations, the traditional
bench. interpretation was to the effect that the relationship test
399
brooked no distinction, qualification or any exemption executed by respondent Yujuico was simulated since it
whatsoever. did not receive the proceeds of the loan for which its
shares in SIDC were set up as security; that irregularities
attended the notarial sale conducted by respondent
However, the unqualified application of the relationship
Caraos who sold said shares to respondent Wong; that
test has been modified on the ground that the same
the latter unlawfully transferred the same shares in favor
effectively divests regular courts of jurisdiction over
of CTCII; and, that SIDC and its officers recognized and
cases for the sole reason that the suit is between the
validated said transfers despite being alerted about their
corporation and/or its corporators. It was held that the
defects. Ultimately, the foregoing circumstances were
better policy in determining which body has jurisdiction
alleged to have combined to rid STRADEC of its shares in
over a case would be to consider not only the status or
SIDC and its right as a stockholder to participate in the
relationship of the parties but also the nature of the
latter’s corporate affairs. Strategic Alliance Development
question that is the subject of their controversy. Under
Corporation vs. Star Infrastructure Development
the nature of the controversy test, the dispute must not
Corporation Corporation, BEDE S. Tabalingcos, et al.,
only be rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate
G.R. No. 187872, November 17, 2010.
relationship, but must also refer to the enforcement of
the parties’ correlative rights and obligations under the
Corporation Code as well as the internal and intra- Intra-corporate dispute; rules of procedure.
corporate regulatory rules of the corporation. The
combined application of the relationship test and the
The rule is settled that rules of procedure ought not to be
nature of the controversy test has, consequently, become
applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they have
the norm in determining whether a case is an intra-
been adopted to help secure – not override – substantial
corporate controversy or is purely civil in character.
justice. Considering that litigation is not a game of
technicalities courts have been exhorted, time and again,
In the case at bench, STRADEC’s first and second causes to afford every litigant the amplest opportunity for the
of action seek the nullification of the loan and pledge proper and just determination of his case free from the
over its SIDC shareholding contracted by respondents constraints of technicalities. Since rules of procedure are
Yujuico, Sumbilla and Wong as well the avoidance of the mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of
notarial sale of said shares conducted by respondent justice, it is well recognized that courts are empowered
Caraos. STRADEC’s 31 July 2006 amended petition to suspend its rules, when the rigid application thereof
significantly set forth the following allegations common to tends to frustrate rather than promote the ends of
its main causes of action, to wit: justice. No less than Section 3, Rule 1 of the Interim
Rules provides that the provisions thereof are to “be
liberally construed in order to promote their objective of
XXX XXX XXX
securing a just, summary, speedy and inexpensive
determination of every action or proceeding.” Strategic
Applying the relationship test, we find that STRADEC’s Alliance Development Corporation vs. Star Infrastructure
first and second causes of action qualify as intra- Development Corporation Corporation, BEDE S.
corporate disputes since said corporation and respondent Tabalingcos, et al., G.R. No. 187872, November 17,
Wong are incorporators and/or stockholders of SIDC. 2010.
Having acquired STRADEC’s shares thru the impugned
notarial sale conducted by respondent Caraos,
Intra-corporate dispute; venue.
respondent Wong appears to have further transferred
said shares in favor of CTCII, a corporation he allegedly
formed with members of his own family. By reason of Viewed in the foregoing light and the intra-corporate
said transfer, CTCII became a stockholder of SIDC and nature of STRADEC’s first and second causes of action,
was, in fact, alleged to have been recognized as such by the CA clearly erred in upholding the RTC’s finding that
the latter and its corporate officers. To our mind, these venue therefor was improperly laid. Given that the
relationships were erroneously disregarded by the RTC question of venue is decidedly not jurisdictional and may,
when it ruled that venue was improperly laid for in fact, be waived, said error was further compounded
STRADEC’s first and second causes of action which, when the RTC handed down its first 30 August 2006
applying Section 2, Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil order even before respondents were able to file pleadings
Procedure, should have been filed either at the place squarely raising objections to the venue for said causes
where it maintained its principal place of business or of action. Pursuant to Section 5, Rule 1 of the Interim
where respondents Yujuico, Sumbilla and Wong resided. Rules, at any rate, it cannot be gainsaid that STRADEC
correctly commenced its petition before the RTC
exercising jurisdiction over SIDC’s principal place of
Considering that they fundamentally relate to STRADEC’s
business which was alleged to have been transferred
status as a stockholder and the alleged fraudulent
from Bayambang, Pangasinan to Lipa, Batangas. It
divestment of its stockholding in SIDC, the same causes
matters little that STRADEC, as pointed out by
of action also qualify as intra-corporate disputes under
respondents, also questions the validity of the 30 July
the nature of the controversy test. As part of the fraud
2005 SIDC stockholders’ annual meeting where the
which attended the transfer of its shares, STRADEC
aforesaid change in the address of its principal place of
distinctly averred, among other matters, that
business was allegedly approved. Said matter should be
respondents Yujuico and Sumbilla had no authority to
properly threshed out in the proceedings before the RTC
contract a loan with respondent Wong; that the pledge
400
alongside such issues as the validity of the transfers of lots or condominium units against the owner, developer,
STRADEC’s shares to respondents Wong and CTCII, the broker or salesman.
propriety of the recording of said transfers in SIDC’s
books, STRADEC’s status as a stockholder of SIDC, the
It is noteworthy that the HLURB in HLURB Case No. REM-
legality of the 20 July 2006 SIDC stockholders’ special
091699-10646, rendered a decision against petitioner
meeting or, for that matter, Cezar T. Quiambao’s
ordering him to pay CSDI the unpaid amount due from
authority to represent STRADEC in the case at bench.
his purchase of a condominium unit or in the alternative,
Strategic Alliance Development Corporation vs. Star
the rescission of contract with forfeiture of payments
Infrastructure Development Corporation Corporation,
made by petitioner. A writ of execution was issued
BEDE S. Tabalingcos, et al., G.R. No. 187872, November
against petitioner and his appeal was dismissed by the
17, 2010.
Office of the President. Petitioner no longer assailed this
dismissal, thus the same became final and executory.
Judgment; finality. Unable to obtain relief before the Office of the President,
petitioner filed Civil Case No. 07-0141 before the RTC of
Parañaque City. As adverted to earlier, the RTC
Finally, it must be emphasized that the decision of the
concluded that the jurisdiction over petitioner’s complaint
HLURB in HLURB Case No. REM-091699-10646, has
falls on the HLURB. This was affirmed by the Court of
already become final and executory due to the failure of
Appeals.
the petitioner to elevate the dismissal of his appeal by
the Office of the President to the Court of Appeals. It is
axiomatic that final and executory judgments can no It is a settled rule that the jurisdiction of the HLURB to
longer be attacked by any of the parties or be modified, hear and decide cases is determined by the nature of the
directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the cause of action, the subject matter or property involved
land. Romulo R. Peralta vs. Hon. Raul E. De Leon, et al., and the parties.
G.R. No. 187978, November 24, 2010.
In Civil Case No. 07-0141, petitioner prayed for the
Jurisdiction; Housing and Land Use Regulatory issuance of temporary restraining order and preliminary
Board (HLURB). injunction to restrain respondent CSDI from cancelling
the Contract to Sell, forfeiting the amortization payment,
foreclosing petitioner’s condominium units, and
Assiduous, petitioner is now before this Court via the
garnishing his bank deposits. Specifically, petitioner
present recourse raising the single issue of whether or
asked that the RTC, Branch 258:
not the Court of Appeals is correct in affirming the lack of
jurisdiction of the RTC to enjoin the implementation of
the HLURB decision that was allegedly rendered contrary 1. Immediately upon receipt of this petition, a temporary
to Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1344. We affirm restraining Order be issued and/or a Preliminary
the Court of Appeals. Injunction, pending the determination of the merits of
the case, by way of restraining defendants from forfeiting
the amortization payments, foreclosure of plaintiff’s
Generally, the extent to which an administrative agency
condominium unit, its break opening, and garnishment of
may exercise its powers depends largely, if not wholly,
plaintiff’s bank deposits at Bank of Philippine Islands,
on the provisions of the statute creating or empowering
Forbes Park branch, Makati City.
such agency. Presidential Decree No. 1344,
“Empowering the National Housing Authority to Issue
Writ of Execution in the Enforcement of its Decision under 2. To order the final and permanent injunction.
Presidential Decree No. 957,” clarifies and spells out the
quasi-judicial dimensions of the grant of jurisdiction to
3. And to order defendant-developer to pay plaintiff the
the HLURB in the following specific terms:
actual damages of his hospitalization amounting to Php
60,000.00 including the interest until fully paid, caused
Sec 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate real by the unlawful and damaging acts of defendants as
estate trade and business and in addition to its powers above shown;
provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National
Housing Authority shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to
4. To order defendant developer to pay P300,000.00 as
hear and decide cases of the following nature.
moral damages to plaintiff;
A. Unsound real estate business practices;

5. Another payment of P300,000.00 as exemplary
damages to plaintiff;
B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the
6. To pay Attorneys fees of P50,000.00 and costs of
project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman;
suit;
and
C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual

and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision
401
7. Ordering defendants to adhere to the License to Sell No. REM-091699-10646 in favor of CSDI and against him
and all its strict compliance thereto imposed on to which a Writ of Execution has been issued, partially
defendant developer. implemented by co-respondent Sheriff Lucas Eloso Eje
and to which [plaintiff] is asking this Court to issue a
temporary restraining order in order to suspend the full
We have to agree with the trial court and the Court of
implementation of said writ. While [plaintiff] claims that
Appeals that jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the
his cause of action is one of damages, the truth is his
petitioner is with the HLURB.
main objective is to have this Court enjoin the
enforcement of the writ of execution issued by the
Maria Luisa Park Association, Inc. v. Almendras, finds HLURB. Such subterfuge is easily discernible in view of
application in this case. The Court ruled: the amount of damages [plaintiff] is only claiming in this
case against that which respondent CSDI is entitled to if
The provisions of P.D. No. 957 were intended to the writ of execution is fully satisfied. This cannot be
encompass all questions regarding subdivisions and done for it is tantamount to undue interference with the
condominiums. The intention was aimed at providing for decision of a quasi-judicial body which, as above-stated,
an appropriate government agency, the HLURB, to which is vested by law and jurisprudence with exclusive
all parties aggrieved in the implementation of provisions authority to hear and decide cases between sellers and
and the enforcement of contractual rights with respect to buyers of subdivision lots and condominium units, among
said category of real estate may take recourse. The others.
business of developing subdivisions and corporations
being imbued with public interest and welfare, any The Court, therefore, hereby adopts by reference the
question arising from the exercise of that prerogative arguments of respondent CSDI relative to this Court’s
should be brought to the HLURB which has the technical lack of jurisdiction to hear and decide this case which
know-how on the matter. In the exercise of its powers, need no longer be repeated herein as it will not serve any
the HLURB must commonly interpret and apply contracts useful purpose.
and determine the rights of private parties under such
contracts. This ancillary power is no longer a uniquely
As observed in C.T. Torres Enterprises, Inc. v. Hibionada:
judicial function, exercisable only by the regular courts.
The argument that only courts of justice can adjudicate

This Court was equally explicit in Chua v. Ang, when it
claims resoluble under the provisions of the Civil Code is
pronounced that:
out of step with the fast-changing times. There are
hundreds of administrative bodies now performing this
x x x The law recognized, too, that subdivision and function by virtue of a valid authorization from the
condominium development involves public interest and legislature. This quasi-judicial function, as it is called, is
welfare and should be brought to a body, like the HLURB, exercised by them as an incident of the principal power
that has technical expertise. In the exercise of its entrusted to them of regulating certain activities falling
powers, the HLURB, on the other hand, is empowered to under their particular expertise. Romulo R. Peralta vs.
interpret and apply contracts, and determine the rights of Hon. Raul E. De Leon, et al., G.R. No. 187978, November
private parties under these contracts. This ancillary 24, 2010.
power, generally judicial, is now no longer with the
regular courts to the extent that the pertinent HLURB
Jurisdiction; HLURB.
laws provide.
In the main, petitioners assail the jurisdiction of the

Viewed from this perspective, the HLURB’s jurisdiction
HLURB, inviting attention to Rule II of the Disputes
over contractual rights and obligations of parties under
triable by HIGC/Nature of Proceedings:
subdivision and condominium contracts comes out very
clearly.
Section 1. Types of Disputes. – The HIGC or any person,
officer, body, board or committee duly designated or
We are in accord with the RTC when it held:
created by it shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide
cases involving the following:
First: On the matter of lack of jurisdiction of this Court
over this case – This Court is fully aware of the cited
xxxx
decisions of respondents particularly those which pertain
to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB) as provided for under (9) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate relations
pertinent laws to the exclusion of the regular courts and between and among members of the association of which
this is one of them. It cannot be gainsaid that while they are members; and between such association and
[plaintiff] harps on Arts. 20 and 21 of the New Civil Code the state/general public or other entity insofar as it
of the Philippines to be the basis of his cause of action for concerns its right to exist as a corporate entity.
damages before this Court, the issue of his claiming (underscoring supplied)
damages against respondent Concepts & Systems Dev’t.
Inc. (CSDI), has already been resolved in HLURB Case
402
Petitioners argue that the HLURB does not have with HLURB the so called Sta. Monica Riverside
jurisdiction over the case as it does not fall under the Homeowners Association.
category of an intra-corporate controversy, their being
non-members having been established and acknowledged
d. Harassment of the child (child abuse) of one of the
by respondent. Likewise, they argue that the case cannot
actual occupant who was deleted from the beneficiaries.
be deemed a controversy between the association and
(please refer to the medical certificate marked as Annex
the general public since the main issue does not pertain
“C”)
to respondent’s juridical personality. Petitioners add that
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, vests exclusive
jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful e. Majority of the names of officers and members as
detainer on first level courts, such as the Metropolitan submitted to HLURB are not the actual occupants (please
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit refer to the master list submitted to the City Government
Trial Courts. Planning Office marked as Annex “D”) (underscoring
supplied)
The petition is bereft of merit. Upon conferment of
quasi-judicial functions to an administrative agency, all If petitioners refuse to recognize respondent’s legitimacy,
controversies relating to the subject matter which pertain respondent will not be able to fulfill its obligation to
to its specialization are deemed included within its collect and account for the monthly amortizations with
jurisdiction. Since the HLURB is vested by law with SHFC. Individual titling would not thus be completed
jurisdiction to regulate and supervise homeowner and the laudable objectives of the CMP [Community
associations, respondent correctly lodged their complaint Mortgage Program] would not be fully attained.
with the HLURB. Republic Act No. 8763 provides:
Undoubtedly, the case is within the competence of
Section 26. Powers over Homeowners Associations. – The HLURB to decide. While the SHFC is the main
powers authorities and responsibilities vested in the government agency tasked to administer the CMP, its
Corporation (formerly Home Insurance Guaranty authority pertains only to the administrative and
Corporation) with respect to homeowners association financing aspects of the State’s social housing program
under Republic Act No. 580, as amended by executive schemes, i.e., evaluation of the community association
Order No. 535is hereby transferred to the Housing and and originator based on the submitted documents, site
Land use Regulatory Board (HLURB). (underscoring inspection, releasing of funds for land acquisition, site
supplied) development and housing assistance, collection of
monthly amortizations from community associations and
foreclosure of mortgages.
Petitioners in fact, in their reply to the complaint,
acknowledged the HLURB’s jurisdiction when they
challenged respondent’s right to exist as a corporate While a complaint for ejectment, which raises the issue of
entity, viz: who has a better right of possession, falls within the
exclusive and original jurisdiction of first level courts, the
right of possession in the present case is, however,
(5) That complainant’s statements from number 6-12 in
necessarily intertwined with a determination of rights and
reference to that of the respondents are already
privileges under a distinctive social housing concept such
terminated and non members and non program
as CMP, which falls within the expertise of the HLURB.
beneficiaries of the CMP would not hold water. At this
point, respondent in this instance, would like to
emphasize that they are not opposing the The foregoing discussions leave it unnecessary to delve
implementation of the Community Mortgage Program. on petitioners’ assigned error respecting their
They are only questioning the legitimacy and the illegal extrajudicial and summary eviction from the lots they
activities of Erlinda Manalo, highlighted hereunder, to occupy. It is settled that eviction is a necessary
wit: consequence of petitioners’ exclusion from the benefits of
the CMP. Edna Eugenio, et al. vs. Sta. Monica Riverside
Homeowners Association, G.R. No. 187751, November
a. Complainant have been collecting money since year
22, 2010.
2000 from actual occupants and occupants not covered
by the Community Mortgage Program. This is illegal for
the simple reason that she has no juridical personality in
the absence of a SEC registration. Please take note of
their half hazard (sic) registration with HLURB dated only Writ of possession; matter of right after
September 25, 2003 (please refer to the receipts of consolidation of title in name of buyer in extra-
collection marked as Annex “B”) judicial foreclosure.
b. No election to legitimize her presidency. It is a time-honored legal precept that after the
consolidation of titles in the buyer’s name, for failure of
c. Non-consultation of the majority actual occupants the mortgagor to redeem, entitlement to a writ of
on which she used the names in her intent of registering possession becomes a matter of right. As the confirmed
owner, the purchaser’s right to possession becomes
403
absolute. There is even no need for him to post a bond, considering that more than five years had elapsed from
and it is the ministerial duty of the courts to issue the its issuance, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules
same upon proper application and proof of title. To of Court, which states:
accentuate the writ’s ministerial character, the Court has
consistently disallowed injunction to prohibit its issuance
Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. –
despite a pending action for annulment of mortgage or
A final and executory judgment or order may be
the foreclosure itself.
executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of
its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is
The nature of an ex parte petition for issuance of the barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be
possessory writ under Act No. 3135 has been described enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be
as a non-litigious proceeding and summary in nature. As enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of
an ex parte proceeding, it is brought for the benefit of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by
one party only, and without notice to or consent by any the statute of limitations.
person adversely interested.
In rejecting a similar argument, the Court held in
Subsequent proceedings in the appellate courts would Paderes v. Court of Appeals that Section 6, Rule 39 of the
merely involve a reiteration of the foregoing settled Rules of Court finds application only to civil actions and
doctrines. The issue involved in the assailed RTC not to special proceedings. Citing Sta. Ana v. Menla,
issuances is conclusively determined by the above cited which extensively discussed the rationale behind the rule,
legal dictum, and it would be unnecessarily vexatious and the Court held:
unjust to allow the present controversy to undergo
protracted litigation. AUB’s right of possession is founded
In a later case [Sta. Ana v. Menla, 111 Phil. 947 (1961)],
on its right of ownership over the property which it
the Court also ruled that the provision in the Rules of
purchased at the auction sale. Upon expiration of the
Court to the effect that judgment may be enforced
redemption period and consolidation of the title to the
within five years by motion, and after five years but
property, its possessory rights over the same became
within ten years by an action (Section 6, Rule 39)
absolute. We quote with approval the pronouncement of
refers to civil actions and is not applicable to
the RTC, viz.:
special proceedings, such as land registration cases. x
xxx
As the purchaser of the property in the foreclosure sale
to which new title has already been issued, petitioner’s
We fail to understand the arguments of the appellant in
right over the property has become absolute, vesting
support of the above assignment, except in so far as it
upon it the right of possession and enjoyment of the
supports his theory that after a decision in a land
property which this Court must aid in effecting its
registration case has become final, it may not be
delivery. Under the circumstances, and following
enforced after the lapse of a period of 10 years, except
established doctrine, the issuance of a writ of possession
by another proceeding to enforce the judgment or
is a ministerial function whereby the court exercises
decision. Authority for this theory is the provision in the
neither discretion nor judgment x x x. Said writ of
Rules of Court to the effect that judgment may be
possession must be enforced without delay x x x.
enforced within 5 years by motion, and after five years
but within 10 years, by an action (Sec. 6, Rule 39). This
The law does not require that a petition for a writ of provision of the Rules refers to civil actions and is
possession be granted only after documentary and not applicable to special proceedings, such as a
testimonial evidence shall have been offered to and land registration case. This is so because a party in
admitted by the court. As long as a verified petition a civil action must immediately enforce a judgment
states the facts sufficient to entitle petitioner to the relief that is secured as against the adverse party, and
requested, the court shall issue the writ prayed for. Asia his failure to act to enforce the same within a
United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc., G.R. No. reasonable time as provided in the Rules makes the
188051, November 22, 2010. decision unenforceable against the losing party. In
special proceedings the purpose is to establish a
status, condition or fact; in land registration
proceedings, the ownership by a person of a parcel
of land is sought to be established. After the
ownership has been proved and confirmed by
judicial declaration, no further proceeding to
Writ of possession; writ issued in relation to extra- enforce said ownership is necessary, except when
judicial foreclosure of mortgage is not covered by the adverse or losing party had been in possession
rule on execution by motion or by independent of the land and the winning party desires to oust
action (Rule 39, sec. 6). him therefrom.
The petitioners finally submit that the writ of possession, Subsequently, the Court, in Republic v. Nillas, affirmed
issued by the RTC on February 16, 1984, may no longer the dictum in Sta. Ana and clarified that “Rule 39 x x x
be enforced by a mere motion, but by a separate action, applies only to ordinary civil actions, not to other or
extraordinary proceedings not expressly governed by the
404
Rules of Civil Procedure but by some other specific law or court to grant a writ of possession is ministerial; the writ
legal modality,” viz: issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper
motion and the approval of the corresponding bond. In
fact, the issuance and the immediate implementation of
Rule 39, as invoked by the Republic, applies only to
the writ are declared ministerial and mandatory under
ordinary civil actions, not to other or extraordinary
the law.
proceedings not expressly governed by the Rules of Civil
Procedure but by some other specific law or legal
modality such as land registration cases. Unlike in Thus, in Philippine National Bank v. Adil, we emphatically
ordinary civil actions governed by the Rules of Civil ruled that “once the writ of possession has been issued,
Procedure, the intent of land registration proceedings is the trial court has no alternative but to enforce the writ
to establish ownership by a person of a parcel of land, without delay.” The issuance of a writ of possession to a
consistent with the purpose of such extraordinary purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is summary and
proceedings to declare by judicial fiat a status, condition ministerial in nature as such proceeding is merely an
or fact. Hence, upon the finality of a decision adjudicating incident in the transfer of title. The trial court does not
such ownership, no further step is required to effectuate exercise discretion in the issuance thereof; it must grant
the decision and a ministerial duty exists alike on the the issuance of the writ upon compliance with the
part of the land registration court to order the issuance requirements set forth by law, and the provincial sheriff
of, and the LRA to issue, the decree of registration. is likewise mandated to implement the writ immediately.
In the present case, Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Clearly, the exacting procedure provided in Act No. 3135,
Court is not applicable to an ex parte petition for the from the moment of the issuance of the writ of
issuance of the writ of possession as it is not in the possession, leaves no room for the application of Section
nature of a civil action governed by the Rules of Civil 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which we consistently
Procedure but a judicial proceeding governed separately ruled, as early as 1961 in Sta. Ana, to be applicable only
by Section 7 of Act No. 3135 which regulates the to civil actions. From another perspective, the judgment
methods of effecting an extrajudicial foreclosure of or the order does not have to be executed by motion or
mortgage. The provision states: enforced by action within the purview of Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court. Spouses Ernesto and Vicenta Topacio vs.
Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No.
Section 7. Possession during redemption period. In any
157644, November 17, 2010.
sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser
may petition the [Regional Trial Court] where the
property or any part thereof is situated, to give him
possession thereof during the redemption period,
furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the
Evidence
property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the
debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made
without violating the mortgage or without complying with Admission.
the requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made
under oath and filed in form of an ex parte motion in the In the first issue raised, petitioner argues that
registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is respondents’ exclusive right to monopolize the subject
registered, or in special proceedings in the case of matter of the patent exists only within the term of the
property registered under the Mortgage Law or under patent. Petitioner claims that since respondents’ patent
section one hundred and ninety-four of the expired on July 16, 2004, the latter no longer possess
Administrative Code, or of any other real property any right of monopoly and, as such, there is no more
encumbered with a mortgage duly registered in the office basis for the issuance of a restraining order or injunction
of any register of deeds in accordance with any existing against petitioner insofar as the disputed patent is
law, and in each case the clerk of the court shall, upon concerned. The Court agrees. Section 37 of Republic Act
the filing of such petition, collect the fees specified in No. (RA) 165, which was the governing law at the time of
paragraph eleven of section one hundred and fourteen of the issuance of respondents’ patent, provides:
Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six, as amended
by Act Numbered Twenty-eight hundred and sixty-six,
and the court shall, upon approval of the bond, Section 37. Rights of patentees. A patentee shall have
order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the exclusive right to make, use and sell the patented
the sheriff of the province in which the property is machine, article or product, and to use the patented
situated, who shall execute said order immediately. process for the purpose of industry or commerce,
throughout the territory of the Philippines for the term
of the patent; and such making, using, or selling by any
The above-cited provision lays down the procedure that person without the authorization of the patentee
commences from the filing of a motion for the issuance of constitutes infringement of the patent.
a writ of possession, to the issuance of the writ of
possession by the Court, and finally to the execution of
the order by the sheriff of the province in which the It is clear from the above-quoted provision of law that
property is located. Based on the text of the law, we the exclusive right of a patentee to make, use and sell a
have also consistently ruled that the duty of the trial patented product, article or process exists only during the
405
term of the patent. In the instant case, Philippine Letters inadmissible in evidence. Thus, the CA was correct in
Patent No. 21116, which was the basis of respondents in disregarding the said pieces of evidence. Evangeline D.
filing their complaint with the BLA-IPO, was issued on Imani vs. Metroplitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No.
July 16, 1987. This fact was admitted by respondents 187023, November 17, 2010.
themselves in their complaint. They also admitted that
the validity of the said patent is until July 16, 2004,
Burden of proof; affirmative defense; payment.
which is in conformity with Section 21 of RA 165,
providing that the term of a patent shall be seventeen
(17) years from the date of issuance thereof. Section 4, It is worth noting that both Vitarich and Losin failed to
Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that an make a proper recording and documentation of their
admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the transactions making it difficult to reconcile the evidence
course of the proceedings in the same case, does not presented by the parties to establish their respective
require proof and that the admission may be contradicted claims. As a general rule, one who pleads payment has
only by showing that it was made through palpable the burden of proving it. In Jimenez v. NLRC, the Court
mistake or that no such admission was made. In the ruled that the burden rests on the debtor to prove
present case, there is no dispute as to respondents’ payment, rather than on the creditor to prove non-
admission that the term of their patent expired on July payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with
16, 2004. Neither is there evidence to show that their legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by
admission was made through palpable mistake. Hence, payment.
contrary to the pronouncement of the CA, there is no
longer any need to present evidence on the issue of True, the law requires in civil cases that the party who
expiration of respondents’ patent. alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. Section 1,
Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that the burden
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court agrees with of proof is the duty of a party to prove the truth of his
petitioner that after July 16, 2004, respondents no longer claim or defense, or any fact in issue by the amount of
possess the exclusive right to make, use and sell the evidence required by law. In this case, however, the
articles or products covered by Philippine Letters Patent burden of proof is on Losin because she alleges an
No. 21116. Phil Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc and affirmative defense, namely, payment. Losin failed to
Pfizer (Phil.) Inc., G.R. No. 167715, November 17, 2010. discharge that burden.
Affidavits; hearsay if affiants not presented at trial After examination of the evidence presented, this Court is
for cross-examination. of the opinion that Losin failed to present a single official
receipt to prove payment. This is contrary to the well-
settled rule that a receipt, which is a written and signed
To support her assertion that the property belongs to the
acknowledgment that money and goods have been
conjugal partnership, petitioner submitted the Affidavit of
delivered, is the best evidence of the fact of payment
Crisanto Origen, attesting that petitioner and her
although not exclusive. All she presented were copies of
husband were the vendees of the subject property, and
the list of checks allegedly issued to Vitarich through its
the photocopies of the checks allegedly issued by Sina
agent Directo, a Statement of Payments Made to Vitarich,
Imani as payment for the subject property.
and apparently copies of the pertinent history of her
Unfortunately for petitioner, the said Affidavit can hardly
checking account with Rizal Commercial Banking
be considered sufficient evidence to prove her claim that
Corporation (RCBC). At best, these may only serve as
the property is conjugal. As correctly pointed out by
documentary records of her business dealings with
Metrobank, the said Affidavit has no evidentiary weight
Vitarich to keep track of the payments made but these
because Crisanto Origen was not presented in the RTC to
are not enough to prove payment.
affirm the veracity of his Affidavit:
Article 1249, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code provides:

The basic rule of evidence is that unless the affiants
themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify on
their affidavits, such affidavits must be rejected for being The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills
hearsay. Stated differently, the declarants of written of exchange or other mercantile documents shall
statements pertaining to disputed facts must be produce the effect of payment only when they have
presented at the trial for cross-examination. Evangeline been cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor
D. Imani vs. Metroplitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. they have been impaired. [Emphasis supplied]
No. 187023, November 17, 2010.
In the case at bar, no cash payment was proved. It was
Best Evidence Rule. neither confirmed that the checks issued by Losin were
actually encashed by Vitarich. Thus, the Court cannot
consider that payment, much less overpayment, made by
In the same vein, the photocopies of the checks cannot
Losin. Vitarich Corporation vs. Chona Losin, G.R. No.
be given any probative value. In Concepcion v. Atty.
181560, November 15, 2010.
Fandiño, Jr. and Intestate Estate of the Late Don Mariano
San Pedro y Esteban v. Court of Appeals, we held that a
photocopy of a document has no probative value and is Burden of proof; allegation of forgery.
406
Instead of just discrediting the PNP Crime Lab’s findings, the ten SOS were Nacu’s. Margallo, a co-employee who
Nacu should have channeled her efforts into providing holds the same position as Nacu, also identified the
her own proof that the signatures appearing on the latter’s signatures on the SOS. Such testimony deserves
questioned SOS were forgeries. After all, whoever alleges credence. It has been held that an ordinary witness may
forgery has the burden of proving the same by clear and testify on a signature he is familiar with. Anyone who is
convincing evidence. Nacu could not simply depend on familiar with a person’s writing from having seen him
the alleged weakness of the complainant’s evidence write, from carrying on a correspondence with him, or
without offering stronger evidence to contradict the from having become familiar with his writing through
former. Irene K. Nacu, etc. vs. Civil Service Commission, handling documents and papers known to have been
et al., G.R. No. 187752, November 23, 2010. signed by him may give his opinion as to the genuineness
of that person’s purported signature when it becomes
material in the case. Irene K. Nacu, etc. vs. Civil Service
Damages for loss of earning capacity; documentary
Commission, et al., G.R. No. 187752, November 23,
evidence.
2010.
The award of damages for loss of earning capacity is

Preponderance of evidence.
concerned with the determination of losses or damages
sustained by respondents, as dependents and intestate
heirs of the deceased. This consists not of the full amount At any rate, the Court is convinced that the decision of
of his earnings, but of the support which they received or the courts below are supported by a preponderance of
would have received from him had he not died as a evidence. Section 1, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of
consequence of the negligent act. Thus, the amount Evidence provides how preponderance of evidence is
recoverable is not the loss of the victim’s entire earnings, determined:
but rather the loss of that portion of the earnings which
the beneficiary would have received. Indemnity for loss
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. –
of earning capacity is determined by computing the net
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must
earning capacity of the victim. The CA correctly modified
establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In
the RTC’s computation. The RTC had misapplied the
determining where the preponderance or superior weight
formula generally used by the courts to determine net
of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may
earning capacity, which is, to wit:
consider all the facts and circumstance of the case, the
witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their
Net Earning Capacity = life expectancy x (gross annual means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which
income – reasonable and necessary living expenses). they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they
testify, the probability of their testimony, their interest or
want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far
Life expectancy shall be computed by applying the
as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The
formula (2/3 x [80 - age at death]) adopted from the
court may also consider the number of witnesses, though
American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the Actuarial
the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater
of Combined Experience Table of Mortality. Hence, the
number.
RTC erred in modifying the formula and using the
retirement age of the members of the PNP instead of
“80.” “Preponderance of evidence” is the weight, credit, and
value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is
usually considered to be synonymous with the term
On the other hand, gross annual income requires the
“greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the
presentation of documentary evidence for the purpose of
credible evidence.” Preponderance of evidence is a
proving the victim’s annual income. The victim’s heirs
phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of
presented in evidence Señora’s pay slip from the PNP,
the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the
showing him to have had a gross monthly salary of
court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in
P12,754.00. Meanwhile, the victim’s net income was
opposition thereto. If plaintiff claims a right granted or
correctly pegged at 50% of his gross income in the
created by law, he must prove his claim by competent
absence of proof as regards the victim’s living expenses.
evidence. He must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his
Consequently, the Court sustains the award of opponent.
P1,887,847.00 as damages for loss of earning capacity.
All other aspects of the assailed Decision are affirmed.
Applying said principle in the case at bench, the factual
Constancia G. Tamayo, et al. vs. Rosalia Abad Señora, et
circumstances established by the Villareals through their
al., G.R. No. 176946, November 15, 2010.
testimonial and documentary evidences are sufficient and
convincing enough to prove that they are entitled to an
Opinion; opinion of ordinary witness on award of damages for the death of Jose Villareal
signature/handwriting. compared to the bare allegations to the contrary of the
Sevillas. These circumstances, which were earlier
In any case, the CA did not rely solely on the PNP Crime enumerated, have successfully swayed this Court to
Lab report in concluding that the signatures appearing on believe that indeed the Sevillas are liable for the death of
407
the victim to the exclusion of others except their binding and consummated. Therefore, WSIRI is entitled
henchmen. to recover from Ledesco the corresponding ten percent
(10%) commission on these sales. Ledesco Development
Corp. vs. Worldwide Standard International Realty, Inc.,
Furthermore, the Court notes that in the course of their
G.R. No. 173339, November 24, 2010.
appeal with the CA, the factual conclusions of the RTC
were never assailed by the Sevillas. Instead of
questioning the facts that would garner them a favorable Substantial evidence.
judgment, what they filed were an “urgent motion to
resolve one issue that will make all other issues moot”
Substantial evidence, the quantum of evidence required
and a “motion for reconsideration on the sole issue of the
in administrative proceedings, means such relevant
extent of the award of unliquidated damages.”
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
Consequently, with the filing of these motions, the factual
to support a conclusion. The standard of substantial
findings of the lower court were deemed admitted. Sps.
evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to
Eliseo Sevilla and Erna Sevilla vs. Hon. Court of Appeals,
believe that a person is responsible for the misconduct
et al., G.R. No. 150284, November 22, 2010.
complained of, even if such evidence might not be
overwhelming or even preponderant.
Proof of private documents.
Overall, the testimonies of the witnesses, the statements
At any rate, the CA ruling is in accordance with the rules made by Ligan during the preliminary investigation, and
and prevailing jurisprudence. Section 20 of Rule 132 of the findings of the PNP Crime Lab on its examination of
the Rules of Evidence provides: the signatures on the SOS, amounted to substantial
evidence that adequately supported the conclusion that
Nacu was guilty of the acts complained of. Petitioners’
SEC. 20. Proof of private document. – Before any private
allegations of unreliability, irregularities, and
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
inconsistencies of the evidence neither discredited nor
due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
weakened the case against Nacu. Irene K. Nacu, etc. vs.
Civil Service Commission, et al., G.R. No. 187752,
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed November 23, 2010.
or written; or
Testimony; credibility.
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker.
More specifically, petitioner-spouses’ contention, i.e., that
the subject property really belonged to Roman’s first
Any other private document need only be identified as spouse Flavia as her paraphernal property, cannot be
what it is claimed to be. sustained. This position was anchored from the
testimony of Josefina that the lot was actually bought by
Truly, the best evidence of the cancellation of a contract her maternal grandfather and given to her mother
is the original of the deed. The testimony of Brosas Flavia. Josefina’s declarations before the RTC do not
alone, without any supporting documentation, is deserve merit and weight, particularly in light of her
insufficient to prove that the sales to the Buyers had statement that she was told so by her elders way back in
indeed been withdrawn or cancelled. 1923, when at that time she was only around three (3)
years of age. Besides, such a pronouncement was not
supported by any proof, save for the lame excuse that
In Harris Sy Chua v. Court of Appeals and State the deed of sale showing the said transaction was
Financing Center, Inc., it was held that before private allegedly lost and destroyed by a typhoon at a time when
documents can be received in evidence, proof of their she was already married, claiming that she was then the
due execution and authenticity must be presented. This custodian of the supposed document. Evidence, to be
may require the presentation and examination of worthy of credit, must not only proceed from the mouth
witnesses to testify as to the due execution and of a credible witness but must be credible in itself. In
authenticity of such private documents. When there is other words, it must be natural, reasonable, and probable
no proof as to the authenticity of the writer’s signature to warrant belief. The standard as to the truth of human
appearing in a private document, such private document testimony is its conformity to human knowledge,
may be excluded. observation, and experience; the courts cannot heed
otherwise. Regretfully, petitioner-spouses’ allegations do
Failure to comply with this rule on authentication of not measure up to the yardstick of verity. Sps. Mariano
private documents resulted in the exclusion of the and Emma Bolaños vs. Roscef Zuñga Bernarte, et al.,
document sought to be admitted. G.R. No. 180997, November 17, 2010.
In this case, the disbursement vouchers referred to by Testimony; credibility.

Brosas were never presented and authenticated. Without
satisfactory proof that the buyers withdrew or cancelled The Court holds that the RTC and the CA correctly found
their purchases, the said sales are deemed current, Polloso negligent.
408
To be credible, testimonial evidence should not only why he should not be suspended from the practice of
come from the mouth of a credible witness but it should law, considering that they have distinct objects and for
also be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human each of them a different procedure is established.
experience. It should be positive and probable such that Contempt of court is governed by the procedures laid
it is difficult for a rational mind not to find it credible. If, down under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, whereas
as Pascual testified, the truck stopped when the tricycle disciplinary actions in the practice of law are governed by
bumped the motorcycle from behind, then there would Rules 138 and 139 thereof.
have been no accident. Even if the motorcycle was
nudged into the path of the truck, as she claimed, there
Thus, it was grossly improper for Judge Blancaflor to
would have been no impact if the truck itself was not
consider his July 30, 2009 Order on the contempt charge
moving, and certainly not an impact that would pin the
as the notice required in the disciplinary proceedings
motorcycle’s driver under the truck and throw the
suspending petitioners from the practice of law. Alen
motorcycle a few meters away. Constancia G. Tamayo,
Ross Rodriguez and Regidor Tulali vs. The Hon.
et al. vs. Rosalia Abad Señora, et al., G.R. No. 176946,
Bienvenido Blancaflor, etc. and People of the Philippines,
November 15, 2010.
G.R. No. 190171, March 14, 2011.
Contempt; direct contempt.

===================================
==
Direct contempt is any misbehavior in the presence of or
NONE FOR DECEMBER, JANUARY , FEBRUARY so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the
proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward
=================================== the court, offensive personalities toward others, or
===== refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to
subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully
required to do so.
MARCH 2011 CASES
Based on the foregoing definition, the act of Tulali in
filing the Ex-Parte Manifestation cannot be construed as
CIVIL PROCEDURE
contumacious within the purview of direct contempt. It
must be recalled that the subject manifestation bore
Tulali’s voluntary withdrawal from the arson case to
dispel any suspicion of collusion between him and the
accused. Its filing on the day before the promulgation of
Contempt; contempt proceedings distinguished
the decision in the pending criminal case, did not in any
from suspension proceedings.
way disrupt the proceedings before the court.
Accordingly, he should not be held accountable for his act
Contempt and suspension proceedings are supposed to which was done in good faith and without malice.
be separate and distinct. They have different objects and
purposes for which different procedures have been
Neither should Rodriguez be liable for direct contempt as
established. Judge Blancaflor should have conducted
he had no knowledge of, or participation in, the
separate proceedings. As held in the case of People v.
preparation and filing of the subject manifestation. It
Godoy, thus:
was signed and filed by Tulali alone in his capacity as the
trial prosecutor in the arson case. The attached
A contempt proceeding for misbehavior in court is complaint against Awayan was filed with the Office of the
designed to vindicate the authority of the court; on the Palawan Governor, and not with the RTC.
other hand, the object of a disciplinary proceeding is to
deal with the fitness of the court’s officer to continue in
Apparently, Judge Blancaflor’s conclusion, that the
that office, to preserve and protect the court and the
subject manifestation containing derogatory matters was
public from the official ministrations of persons unfit or
purposely filed to discredit the administration of justice in
unworthy to hold such office. The principal purpose of
court, is unfounded and without basis. There being no
the exercise of the power to cite for contempt is to
factual or legal basis for the charge of direct contempt, it
safeguard the functions of the court and should thus be
is clear that Judge Blancaflor gravely abused his
used sparingly on a preservative and not, on the
discretion in finding petitioners guilty as charged. Alen
vindictive principle. The principal purpose of the exercise
Ross Rodriguez and Regidor Tulali vs. The Hon.
of disciplinary authority by the Supreme Court is to
Bienvenido Blancaflor, etc. and People of the Philippines,
assure respect for orders of such court by attorneys who,
G.R. No. 190171, March 14, 2011.
as much as judges, are responsible for the orderly
administration of justice.
Contempt; direct contempt; penalty.
x x x. It has likewise been the rule that a notice to a
lawyer to show cause why he should not be punished for Such grave abuse of authority is likewise manifested
contempt cannot be considered as a notice to show cause from the penalty imposed on the petitioners. Under
409
Section 1, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court, direct requirements under Sections 3 and 4, Rule 71 of the
contempt before the RTC or a court of equivalent or Rules must be satisfied, to wit:
higher rank is punishable by a fine not exceeding
P2,000.00 or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days,
Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge
or both. The penalty of indefinite suspension from the
and hearing. – After a charge in writing has been filed,
practice of law and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 each
and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment
with the additional order to issue a public apology to the
thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court
Court under pain of arrest, is evidently unreasonable,
and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of
excessive and outside the bounds of the law. Alen Ross
any of the following acts may be punished for indirect
Rodriguez and Regidor Tulali vs. The Hon. Bienvenido
contempt:
Blancaflor, etc. and People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
190171, March 14, 2011.
xxx
Contempt; direct contempt; remedy of contemnor.
(d) any improper conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
In fine, having established that Judge Blancaflor
administration of justice;
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, petitioners are entitled to the
remedy of prohibition under Section 2, Rule 71 of the x x x.
Rules on Contempt which provides:
Sec. 4. How proceedings commenced. — Proceedings for
SEC. 2. Remedy therefrom. – The person adjudged in indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the
direct contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom, court against which the contempt was committed by an
but may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or order or any other formal charge requiring the
prohibition. The execution of the judgment shall be respondent to show cause why he should not be punished
suspended pending resolution of such petition, provided for contempt.
such person files a bond fixed by the court which
rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be
by and perform the judgment should the petition be commenced by a verified petition with supporting
decided against him. particulars and certified true copies of documents or
papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with
Accordingly, an order of direct contempt is not the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil
immediately executory or enforceable. The contemnor actions in the court concerned. If the contempt charges
must be afforded a reasonable remedy to extricate or arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in
purge himself of the contempt. Where the person the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact
adjudged in direct contempt by any court avails of the but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided
remedy of certiorari or prohibition, the execution of the separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the
judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of such consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal
petition provided the contemnor files a bond fixed by the action for joint hearing and decision.
court which rendered the judgment and conditioned that
he will abide by and perform the judgment should the In the present case, Judge Blancaflor failed to observe
petition be decided against him. Alen Ross Rodriguez the elementary procedure which requires written charge
and Regidor Tulali vs. The Hon. Bienvenido Blancaflor, and due hearing. There was no order issued to
etc. and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 190171, petitioners. Neither was there any written or formal
March 14, 2011. charge filed against them. In fact, Rodriguez only
learned of the contempt proceedings upon his receipt of
Contempt; indirect contempt; due process the July 30, 2009 Order, requiring him to appear before
requirements. the Court in order to clarify certain matters contained in
the said order. Tulali, on the other hand, only learned of
the proceedings when he was ordered to submit his
Petitioners also fault Judge Blancaflor for non-observance
compliance to explain how he came in possession of the
of due process in conducting the contempt proceedings.
administrative complaint against Awayan. Alen Ross
It must be emphasized that direct contempt is adjudged
and punished summarily pursuant to Section 1, Rule 71
of the Rules. Hence, hearings and opportunity to
190171, March 14, 2011.
confront witnesses are absolutely unnecessary.
Contempt; nature of contempt power.

In the same vein, the petitioners’ alleged “vilification
campaign” against Judge Blancaflor cannot be regarded
as direct contempt. At most, it may constitute indirect The power to punish a person in contempt of court is
contempt, as correctly concluded by the OSG. For inherent in all courts to preserve order in judicial
indirect contempt citation to prosper, however, the proceedings and to uphold the orderly administration of
justice. However, judges are enjoined to exercise the
410
power judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, committing forum shopping, i.e., filing multiple cases
and with the end in view of utilizing the same for based on the same cause of action, but with different
correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, prayers. As previously held by the Court, there is still
and not for retaliation or vindictiveness. It bears forum shopping even if the reliefs prayed for in the two
stressing that the power to declare a person in contempt cases are different, so long as both cases raise
of court must be exercised on the preservative, not the substantially the same issues.
vindictive principle; and on the corrective, not the
retaliatory, idea of punishment. Such power, being
There can be no determination of the validity of the
drastic and extraordinary in its nature, should not be
extrajudicial foreclosure and the propriety of injunction in
resorted to unless necessary in the interest of justice. In
the Injunction Case without necessarily ruling on the
this case, the Court cannot sustain Judge Blancaflor’s
validity of the REM, which is already the subject of the
order penalizing petitioners for direct contempt on the
Annulment Case. The identity of the causes of action in
basis of Tulali’s Ex-Parte Manifestation. Alen Ross
the two cases entails that the validity of the mortgage
will be ruled upon in both, and creates a possibility that
the two rulings will conflict with each other. This is
190171, March 14, 2011.
precisely what is sought to be avoided by the rule against
forum shopping. The substantial identity of the two
Forum shopping; identity of cause of action. cases remains even if the parties should add different
grounds or legal theories for the nullity of the REM or
should alter the designation or form of the action. The
There is forum shopping “when a party repetitively avails
well-entrenched rule is that “a party cannot, by varying
of several judicial remedies in different courts,
the form of action, or adopting a different method of
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded
presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle
on the same transactions and the same essential facts
that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice
and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same
litigated.”
issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by
some other court.” The different ways by which forum
shopping may be committed were explained in Chua v. The CA ruled that the two cases are different because the
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company: events that gave rise to them are different. The CA
rationalized that the Annulment Case was brought about
by the execution of a falsified document, while the
Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1)
Injunction Case arose from AUB’s foreclosure based on a
filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action
falsified document. The distinction is illusory. The cause
and with the same prayer, the previous case not having
of action for both cases is the alleged nullity of the REM
been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis
due to its falsified or spurious nature. It is this nullity of
pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same
the REM which Goodland sought to establish in the
cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case
Annulment Case. It is also this nullity of the REM which
having been finally resolved (where the ground for
Goodland asserted in the Injunction Case as basis for
dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases
seeking to nullify the foreclosure and enjoin the
based on the same cause of action, but with different
consolidation of title. Clearly, the trial court cannot
prayers (splitting causes of action, where the ground for
decide the Injunction Case without ruling on the validity
dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).
of the mortgage, which issue is already within the
jurisdiction of the trial court in the Annulment Case.
Common in these types of forum shopping is the identity
of the cause of action in the different cases filed. Cause
The recent development in Asia United Bank v. Goodland
of action is defined as “the act or omission by which a
Company, Inc., which involved substantially the same
party violates the right of another.”
parties and the same issue is another reason for
Goodland’s loss in the instant case. The issue that
The cause of action in the earlier Annulment Case is the Goodland committed deliberate forum shopping when it
alleged nullity of the REM (due to its allegedly falsified or successively filed the Annulment and Injunction Cases
spurious nature) which is allegedly violative of against AUB and its officers was decided with finality
Goodland’s right to the mortgaged property. It serves as therein. This ruling is conclusive on the petitioners and
the basis for the prayer for the nullification of the REM. Goodland considering that they are substantially the
The Injunction Case involves the same cause of action, same parties in that earlier case. Asia United Bank, et al.
inasmuch as it also invokes the nullity of the REM as the v. Goodland Company, Inc., G.R. No. 191388, March 9,
basis for the prayer for the nullification of the 2011.
extrajudicial foreclosure and for injunction against
consolidation of title. While the main relief sought in the
Judgment; immutability and binding effect.
Annulment Case (nullification of the REM) is ostensibly
different from the main relief sought in the Injunction
Case (nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure and Settled is the rule that a judgment that has become final
injunction against consolidation of title), the cause of and executory is immutable and unalterable; the
action which serves as the basis for the said reliefs judgment may no longer be modified in any respect,
remains the same — the alleged nullity of the REM. even if the modification is meant to correct what is
Thus, what is involved here is the third way of perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law,
411
and regardless of whether the modification is attempted of a motion for a preliminary hearing on the affirmative
to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest defenses asserted in its answer and R-II Builders’ filing of
court of the land. While there are recognized exceptions its Amended and Supplemental Complaint dated 31 July
– e.g., the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc 2007, said court issued an order dated 2 January 2008
pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, ordering the re-raffle of the case upon the finding that
void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire the same is not an intra-corporate dispute. In a
after the finality of the decision rendering its execution clarificatory order dated 1 February 2008, the same court
unjust and inequitable – none of these exceptions apply significantly took cognizance of its lack of jurisdiction
to the present case. over the case in the following wise:
There is no dispute that the November 14, 2002 At the outset, it must be stated that this Court is a
Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 65703, which is designated Special Commercial Court tasked to try and
being questioned by petitioner, had already become final hear, among others, intra-corporate controversies to the
and executory. The petition for review on certiorari filed exclusion of ordinary civil cases.
by petitioner assailing the said CA Resolution had been
denied with finality as this Court found no compelling
When the case was initially assigned to this Court, it was
reason to grant the said petition. Consequently, an entry
classified as an intra-corporate case. However, in the
of judgment was already issued by this Court on
ensuing proceedings relative to the affirmative defences
September 1, 2003.
raised by defendants, even the plaintiff conceded that
the case is not an intra-corporate controversy or even if
It has been established in the assailed CA Resolution that it is, this Court is without authority to hear the same as
the Certificate of Sale involving TCT No. T-105375 was the parties are all housed in Quezon City.
not registered with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan.
Owing to the finality of the said Resolution, the Court as
Thus, the more prudent course to take was for this Court
well as the parties therein, which includes herein
to declare that it does not have the authority to hear the
petitioner, are now bound by the said factual finding.
complaint it being an ordinary civil action. As to whether
it is personal or civil, this Court would rather leave the
The determination of the questions of fact and of law by resolution of the same to Branch 22 of this Court. (Italics
the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 65703 already attained finality, supplied).
and may not now be disputed or relitigated by a
reopening of the same questions in a subsequent
We find that, having squarely raised the matter in its
litigation between the same parties and their privies over
Rule 65 petition for certiorari and prohibition docketed as
the same subject matter.On the basis of the foregoing,
CA-G.R. SP No. 111153, HGC correctly faults the CA for
the Court finds that the RTC did not err in relying on the
not finding that Branch 24 of the Manila RTC had no
November 14, 2002 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. SP
authority to order the transfer of the case to respondent
No. 65703. Philippine Veterans Bank v. Ramon
RTC. Being outside the jurisdiction of Special
Valenzuela, G.R. No. 163530, March 9, 2011.
Commercial Courts, the rule is settled that cases which
are civil in nature, like the one commenced by R-II
Jurisdiction; court’s directive for re-raffle is Builders, should be threshed out in a regular court. With
improper where it finds that it has no jurisdiction its acknowledged lack of jurisdiction over the case,
over action. Branch 24 of the Manila RTC should have ordered the
dismissal of the complaint, since a court without subject
matter jurisdiction cannot transfer the case to another
Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to hear and
court. Instead, it should have simply ordered the
determine a cause or the right to act in a case. In
dismissal of the complaint, considering that the
addition to being conferred by the Constitution and the
affirmative defenses for which HGC sought hearing
law, the rule is settled that a court’s jurisdiction over the
included its lack of jurisdiction over the case.
subject matter is determined by the relevant allegations
in the complaint, the law in effect when the action is
filed, and the character of the relief sought irrespective of Calleja v. Panday, while on facts the other way around,
whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the i.e., a branch of the RTC exercising jurisdiction over a
claims asserted. Consistent with Section 1, Rule 141 of subject matter within the Special Commercial Court’s
the Revised Rules of Court which provides that the authority, dealt squarely with the issue:
prescribed fees shall be paid in full “upon the filing of the
pleading or other application which initiates an action or
Whether a branch of the Regional Trial Court which has
proceeding”, the well-entrenched rule is to the effect that
no jurisdiction to try and decide a case has authority to
a court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the
remand the same to another co-equal Court in order to
payment of the prescribed filing and docket fees.
cure the defects on venue and jurisdiction.
The record shows that R-II Builders’ original complaint

Calleja ruled on the issue, thus:
dated 23 August 2005 was initially docketed as Civil Case
No. 05-113407 before Branch 24 of the Manila, a
designated Special Commercial Court. With HGC’s filing
412
Such being the case, RTC Br. 58 did not have the
requisite authority or power to order the transfer of the
case to another branch of the Regional Trial Court. The
Jurisdiction; court’s inherent power to amend and
only action that RTC-Br. 58 could take on the matter was
control its process and orders.
to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Applicable, too, is what Sec. 5, Rule 135 of the Rules of

Certainly, the pronouncement of Br. 24, the Special
Court states as one of the powers of a court:
Commercial Court, in its Joint Order of 2 January 2008
that the case is not an intracorporate controversy,
amplified in its Order of 1 February 2008 that it “does not Section 5. Inherent powers of the courts.¾Every court
have the authority to hear the complaint it being an shall have power:
ordinary civil action” is incompatible with the directive for
the re-raffle of the case and to “leave the resolution of xxxx
the same to Branch 22 of this Court.” Such a directive is
an exercise of authority over the case, which authority it
had in the same breath declared it did not have. What (g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to
compounds the jurisdictional error is the fact that at the make them conformable to law and justice.
time of its surrender of jurisdiction, Br. 24 had already
acted on the case and had in fact, on 26 October 2005, Thus, the Court ruled in Mejia v. Gabayan:
issued the writ of preliminary injunction sought by herein
respondent R-II Builders. At that point, there was
absolutely no reason which could justify a re-raffle of the x x x The inherent power of the court carries with it
case considering that the order that was supposed to the right to determine every question of fact and
have caused the re-raffle was not an inhibition of the law which may be involved in the execution. The
judge but a declaration of absence of jurisdiction. So court may stay or suspend the execution of its judgment
faulty was the order of re-raffle that it left the impression if warranted by the higher interest of justice. It has the
that its previously issued preliminary injunction remained authority to cause a modification of the decision when it
effective since the case from which it issued was not becomes imperative in the higher interest of justice or
dismissed but merely transferred to another court. A re- when supervening events warrant it. The court is also
raffle which causes a transfer of the case involves courts vested with inherent power to stay the enforcement of its
with the same subject matter jurisdiction; it cannot decision based on antecedent facts which show fraud in
involve courts which have different jurisdictions exclusive its rendition or want of jurisdiction of the trial court
of the other. More apt in this case, a re-raffle of a case apparent on the record. (Emphasis supplied.)
cannot cure a jurisdictional defect.
The writ of execution sought to be implemented does not
Prescinding from the foregoing considerations, and to take into consideration the circumstances that merit a
show that the proceedings below was error upon error, modification of judgment. Given that there is a pending
we find that the CA also gravely erred in not ruling that issue regarding the execution of judgment, the RTC
respondent RTC’s (Branch 22, the regular court) should have afforded the parties the opportunity to
jurisdiction over the case was curtailed by R-II Builders’ adduce evidence to determine the period within which
failure to pay the correct docket fees. In other words, Danilo should pay monthly rentals before issuing the writ
the jurisdictionally flawed transfer of the case from of execution in the instant case. Should Danilo be unable
Branch 24, the SCC to Branch 22, the regular court, is to substantiate his claim that he vacated the premises in
topped by another jurisdictional defect which is the non- April 1994, the period to pay monthly rentals should be
payment of the correct docket fees. In its order dated 19 until June 19, 2007, the date he informed the CA that he
May 2008 which admitted R-II Builders’ Amended and had already left the premises. Danilo L. Parel v. Heirs of
Supplemental Complaint, respondent RTC distinctly ruled Simeon Prudencio, G.R. No. 192217, March 2, 2011.
that the case was a real action and ordered the re-
computation and payment of the correct docket fees. In Jurisdiction; effect of failure to pay correct docket
patent circumvention of said order, however, R-II fees.
Builders filed its 14 August 2008 motion to admit its
Second Amended Complaint which effectively deleted its
For failure of R-II Builders to pay the correct docket fees
causes of action for accounting and conveyance of title to
for its original complaint or, for that matter, its Amended
and/or possession of the entire Asset Pool and, in
and Supplemental Complaint as directed in respondent
addition to reducing the claim for attorney’s fees and
RTC’s 19 May 2008 order, it stands to reason that
seeking its appointment as a receiver, reinstated its
jurisdiction over the case had yet to properly attach.
cause of action for resolution of the DAC. Acting on said
Applying the rule that “a case is deemed filed only upon
motion as well as the opposition and motion to dismiss
payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date
interposed by HGC, respondent RTC ruled as follows in its
of filing in court” in the landmark case of Manchester
assailed 3 March 2009 order, to wit: Home Guaranty
Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, this Court
Corporation vs. R-II Builders, Inc. and National Housing
ruled that jurisdiction over any case is acquired only
Authority, G.R. No. 192649, March 9, 2011.
upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee which is
both mandatory and jurisdictional. To temper said ruling,
413
the Court subsequently issued the following guidelines in trial court’s rendition of a decision on the merits declared
Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, to be immediately executory and the CA’s denial of their
viz.: application for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or
temporary restraining order to enjoin enforcement of said
decision, the defendants questioned the sufficiency of the
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
docket fees paid a quo which supposedly failed take into
appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the
consideration the value of the shares as well as the real
prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with
properties involved for which the plaintiff additionally
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the
caused notices of lis pendens to be annotated. Finding
action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
that defendants were already estopped in questioning the
accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court
jurisdiction of the trial court on the ground of non-
may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time
payment of the correct docket fees, the Court discounted
but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
intent to defraud the government on the part of the
reglementary period.
plaintiff who can, at any rate, be required to pay the
deficiency which may be considered a lien on the
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, judgment that may be rendered, without automatic loss
third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not of the jurisdiction already acquired, in the first instance,
be considered filed until and unless the filing fee by the trial court.
prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow
payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in
The factual and legal milieus of the case at bench could
no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or
not, however, be more different. While R-II Builders
reglementary period.
styled its original complaint and Amended and
Supplemental Complaint as one primarily for the
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim resolution and/or declaration of the DAC, it
by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of simultaneously and unmistakably prayed for the
the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment conveyance, possession and control of the Asset Pool.
awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if Alongside the fact that HGC has consistently questioned
specified the same has been left for determination by the the sufficiency of the docket fees paid by R-II Builders,
court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a estoppel cannot be said to have set in since, the lapse of
lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the more than five years from the commencement of the
Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce complaint notwithstanding, it appears that the case has
said lien and assess and collect the additional fee. yet to be tried on the merits. Having admitted that its
original complaint partook the nature of a real action and
True to the foregoing guidelines, respondent RTC having been directed to pay the correct docket fees for
admitted R-II Builder’s Amended and Supplemental its Amended and Supplemental Complaint, R-II Builders
Complaint and directed the assessment and payment of is, furthermore, clearly chargeable with knowledge of the
the appropriate docket fees in the order dated 19 May insufficiency of the docket fees it paid. Unmistakably
2008. Rather than complying with said directive, manifesting its intent to evade payment of the correct
however, R-II Builders manifested its intent to evade docket fees, moreover, R-II Builders withdrew its
payment of the correct docket fees by withdrawing its Amended and Supplemental Complaint after its
Amended and Supplemental Complaint and, in lieu admission and, in lieu thereof, filed its’ Second Amended
thereof, filed its Second Amended Complaint which Complaint on the ground that said earlier pleading cannot
deleted its cause of action for accounting and conveyance be considered admitted in view of its non-payment of the
of title to and/or possession of the entire Asset Pool, docket and other fees it was directed to pay. In so
reduced its claim for attorney’s fees, sought its doing, however, R-II Builders conveniently overlooked
appointment as Receiver and prayed for the liquidation the fact that the very same argument could very well
and distribution of the Asset Pool. In upholding the apply to its original complaint for which – given its
admission of said Second Amended Complaint in admitted nature as a real action – the correct docket fees
respondent RTC’s assailed 3 March 2009 Order, however, have also yet to be paid.
the CA clearly lost sight of the fact that a real action was
ensconced in R-II Builders’ original complaint and that The importance of filing fees cannot be over-emphasized
the proper docket fees had yet to be paid in the for they are intended to take care of court expenses in
premises. Despite the latter’s withdrawal of its Amended the handling of cases in terms of costs of supplies, use of
and Supplemental Complaint, it cannot, therefore, be equipment, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, and
gainsaid that respondent RTC had yet to acquire others, computed as to man-hours used in the handling
jurisdiction over the case for non-payment of the correct of each case. The payment of said fees, therefore,
docket fees. cannot be made dependent on the result of the action
taken without entailing tremendous losses to the
In the 15 February 2011 Resolution issued in the case of government and to the judiciary in particular. For non-
David Lu v. Paterno Lu Ym, Sr., this Court, sitting En payment of the correct docket fees which, for real
Banc, had occasion to rule that an action for declaration actions, should be computed on the basis of the assessed
of nullity of share issue, receivership and corporate value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated
dissolution is one where the value of the subject matter value thereof as alleged by the claimant, respondent RTC
is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Subsequent to the should have denied admission of R-II Builders’ Second
414
Amended Complaint and ordered the dismissal of the assertion that he is a tenant, he did not present any
case. Although a catena of decisions rendered by this evidence to prove the same. To consider evidence
Court eschewed the application of the doctrine laid down presented only during appeal is offensive to the idea of
in the Manchester case, said decisions had been fair play.
consistently premised on the willingness of the party to
pay the correct docket fees and/or absence of intention
The remaining question is the nature of the action based
to evade payment of the correct docket fees. This cannot
on the allegations of the complaint. The RTC
be said of R-II Builders which not only failed to pay the
characterized it as an action for forcible entry, Wilfredo
correct docket fees for its original complaint and
having entered the property and taken over from widow
Amended and Supplemental Complaint but also clearly
Emiliana on the sly. The problem with this
evaded payment of the same by filing its Second
characterization is that the complaint contained no
Amended Complaint.
allegation that the Dionisios were in possession of the
property before Wilfredo occupied it either by force,
By itself, the propriety of admitting R-II Builders’ Second intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, an element of
Amended Complaint is also cast in dubious light when that kind of eviction suit. Nowhere in the recitation of
viewed through the prism of the general prohibition the amended complaint did the Dionisios assert that they
against amendments intended to confer jurisdiction were in prior possession of the land and were ousted
where none has been acquired yet. Although the policy from such possession by Wilfredo’s unlawful occupation
in this jurisdiction is to the effect that amendments to of the property.
pleadings are favored and liberally allowed in the interest
of justice, amendment is not allowed where the court has
Is the action one for unlawful detainer? An action is for
no jurisdiction over the original complaint and the
unlawful detainer if the complaint sufficiently alleges the
purpose of the amendment is to confer jurisdiction upon
following: (1) initially, the defendant has possession of
the court. Hence, with jurisdiction over the case yet to
property by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
properly attach, HGC correctly fault the CA for upholding
(2) eventually, however, such possession became illegal
respondent RTC’s admission of R-II Builders’ Second
upon plaintiff’s notice to defendant, terminating the
Amended Complaint despite non-payment of the docket
latter’s right of possession; (3) still, the defendant
fees for its original complaint and Amended and
remains in possession, depriving the plaintiff of the
Supplemental Complaint as well as the clear intent to
enjoyment of his property; and (4) within a year from
evade payment thereof.
plaintiff’s last demand that defendant vacate the
property, the plaintiff files a complaint for defendant’s
With the determination of the jurisdictional necessity of ejectment. If the defendant had possession of the land
the dismissal of the complaint of R-II Builders docketed upon mere tolerance of the owner, such tolerance must
as Civil Case No. 05-113407, first before Br. 24 and later be present at the beginning of defendant’s possession.
before Br. 22 both of the RTC of Manila, we no longer
find any reason to go into a discussion of the remaining
Here, based on the allegations of the amended
issues HGC proffers for resolution. In view, particularly,
complaint, the Dionisios allowed Emiliana, tenant
of its non-acquisition of jurisdiction over the case,
Romualdo’s widow, to stay on the land for the meantime
respondent RTC clearly had no authority to grant the
and leave when asked to do so. But, without the
receivership sought by R-II Builders. It needs pointing
knowledge or consent of the Dionisios, she sold her “right
out though that the prayer for receivership clearly
of tenancy” to Wilfredo. When the Dionisios visited the
indicates that the R-II Builders sought the transfer of
land in April 2002 and found Wilfredo there, they
possession of property consisting of the assets of the JVA
demanded that he leave the land. They did so in writing
from HGC to the former’s named Receiver. As already
on April 22, 2002 but he refused to leave. The Dionisios
noted, said transfer of possession was sought by
filed their eviction suit within the year. Spouses Vicente
respondent R-II Builders since the very start, overtly at
Dionisio and Anita Dionisio v. Wilfredo Linsangan, G.R.
the first two attempts, covertly in the last, the successive
No. 178159, March 2, 2011.
amendments betraying the deft maneuverings to evade
payment of the correct docket fees. Home Guaranty
Corporation vs. R-II Builders, Inc. and National Housing Jurisdiction; real actions.
Authority, G.R. No. 192649, March 9, 2011.
In upholding the foregoing order as well as its affirmance
Jurisdiction; jurisdiction over unlawful detainer in respondent RTC’s 29 September 2009 order, the CA
case determined by allegations of complaint. ruled that the case – being one primarily instituted for
the resolution/nullification of the DAC – involved an
action incapable of pecuniary estimation. While it is true,
Wilfredo points out that the MTC has no jurisdiction to
however, that R-II Builder’s continuing stake in the Asset
hear and decide the case since it involved tenancy
Pool is “with respect only to its residual value after
relation which comes under the jurisdiction of the
payment of all the regular SMPPCs holders and the Asset
DARAB. But the jurisdiction of the court over the subject
Pool creditors”, the CA failed to take into account the fact
matter of the action is determined by the allegations of
that R-II Builders’ original complaint and Amended and
the complaint. Besides, the records show that Wilfredo
Supplemental Complaint both interposed causes of action
failed to substantiate his claim that he was a tenant of
for conveyance and/or recovery of possession of the
the land. The MTC records show that aside from the
entire Asset Pool. Indeed, in connection with its second
415
cause of action for appointment as trustee in its original x x x [I]n Siapno v. Manalo, the Court disregarded the
complaint, R-II Builders distinctly sought the conveyance title/denomination of therein plaintiff Manalo’s amended
of the entire Asset Pool which it consistently estimated to petition as one for Mandamus with Revocation of Title
be valued at P5,919,716,618.62 as of 30 June 2005. In and Damages; and adjudged the same to be a real
its opposition to HGC’s motion to dismiss, R-II Builders action, the filing fees for which should have been
even admitted that the case is a real action as it affects computed based on the assessed value of the subject
title to or possession of real property or an interest property or, if there was none, the estimated value
therein. With R-II Builders’ incorporation of a cause of thereof. The Court expounded in Siapno that:
action for conveyance of title to and/or possession of the
entire Asset Pool in its Amended and Supplemental
In his amended petition, respondent Manalo prayed that
Complaint, on the other hand, no less than respondent
NTA’s sale of the property in dispute to Standford East
RTC, in its 19 May 2008 order, directed the assessment
Realty Corporation and the title issued to the latter on
and payment of docket fees corresponding to a real
the basis thereof, be declared null and void. In a very
action.
real sense, albeit the amended petition is styled as one
for “Mandamus with Revocation of Title and Damages”, it
Admittedly, this Court has repeatedly laid down the test is, at bottom, a suit to recover from Standford the realty
in ascertaining whether the subject matter of an action is in question and to vest in respondent the ownership and
incapable of pecuniary estimation by determining the possession thereof. In short, the amended petition is in
nature of the principal action or remedy sought. While a reality an action in res or a real action. Our
claim is, on the one hand, considered capable of pronouncement in Fortune Motors (Phils.), Inc. vs. Court
pecuniary estimation if the action is primarily for of Appeals is instructive. There, we said:
recovery of a sum of money, the action is considered
incapable of pecuniary estimation where the basic issue
A prayer for annulment or rescission of contract does not
is something other than the right to recover a sum of
operate to efface the true objectives and nature of the
money, the money claim being only incidental to or
action which is to recover real property. (Inton, et al., v.
merely a consequence of, the principal relief sought. To
Quintan, 81 Phil. 97, 1948)
our mind, the application of foregoing test does not,
however, preclude the further classification of actions
into personal actions and real action, for which An action to annul a real estate mortgage foreclosure
appropriate docket fees are prescribed. In contrast to sale is no different from an action to annul a private sale
personal actions where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of of real property. (Muñoz v. Llamas, 87 Phil. 737, 1950).
personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or the
recovery of damages, real actions are those which affect While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the
title to or possession of real property, or interest therein. recovery of title or possession of the property in
While personal actions should be commenced and tried question, his action for annulment of sale and his claim
where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs for damages are closely intertwined with the issue of
resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal ownership of the building which, under the law, is
defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident considered immovable property, the recovery of which is
defendant where he may be found, at the election of the petitioner’s primary objective. The prevalent doctrine is
plaintiff, the venue for real actions is the court of the that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of
place where the real property is located. real property does not operate to efface the fundamental
and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to
Although an action for resolution and/or the nullification recover said real property. It is a real action.
of a contract, like an action for specific performance, fall
squarely into the category of actions where the subject Granted that R-II Builders is not claiming ownership of
matter is considered incapable of pecuniary estimation, the Asset Pool because its continuing stake is, in the first
we find that the causes of action for resolution and/or place, limited only to the residual value thereof, the
nullification of the DAC was erroneously isolated by the conveyance and/or transfer of possession of the same
CA from the other causes of action alleged in R-II properties sought in the original complaint and Amended
Builders’ original complaint and Amended and and Supplemental Complaint both presuppose a real
Supplemental Complaint which prayed for the action for which appropriate docket fees computed on the
conveyance and/or transfer of possession of the Asset basis of the assessed or estimated value of said
Pool. In Gochan v. Gochan, this Court held that an action properties should have been assessed and paid. In
for specific performance would still be considered a real support of its original complaint’s second cause of action
action where it seeks the conveyance or transfer of real for appointment as trustee and conveyance of the
property, or ultimately, the execution of deeds of properties in the Asset Pool, R-II Builders distinctly
conveyance of real property. More to the point is the alleged as follows:
case of Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development
Corporation v. Hon. Pablo C. Formaran III where, despite
the annulment of contracts sought in the complaint, this 5.12. As the Court-appointed Trustee, R-II Builders shall
Court upheld the directive to pay additional docket fees have and exercise the same powers, rights and duties as
corresponding to a real action in the following wise, to if [it] had been originally appointed, having the principal
wit: duty of redeeming and buying back the Regular SMPPC’s
416
and thereafter liquidating the Asset Pool, which are also (a) 105 parcels of land comprising the Smokey Mountain
the end goals of the Agreement. Site, and, the Reclamation Area, consisting of the
539,471.47 square meters, and all the buildings and
improvements thereon, with their corresponding
5.12.1. R-II Builders, as the Trustee, shall have the
certificates of title;
power and right to invest, transfer, convey or assign any
of the assets of the Asset Pool, whether funds,
receivables, real or personal property, in exchange for (b) shares of stock of Harbour Center Port Terminal, Inc.
shares of stocks, bonds, securities, real or personal which are presently registered in the books of the said
properties of any kind, class or nature, provided that any company in the name of PDB for the account of the
such investment, transfer, conveyance or assignment Smokey Mountain Asset Pool; and
shall not impair the value of the Asset Pool.
(c) other documents as listed in Annex E of the Contract
5.12.2. R-II Builders, as the Trustee, shall have the of Guaranty.
power and right to sell, change, assign or otherwise
dispose of any stocks, bonds, securities, real or personal
(iv) Ordering NHA to pay the Asset Pool the amount of
properties or other assets constituting the Asset Pool.
Php1,803,729,757.88 including the direct and indirect
cost thereon as may be found by this Honorable Court to
5.12. 3. R-II Builders, as the Trustee, shall have the be due thereon;
power and right to enter into lease agreements as lessor
or any other related contract for the benefit of the Asset
(v) Making the injunction permanent;
Pool; and
(vi) Ordering HGC and the NHA to pay Attorney’s fees in

5.12.4. It is understood that the aforecited powers and
the amount of P2,000,000 and the costs of suit.
rights of R-II Builders as the court-appointed Trustee, are
non-exclusive; and is deemed to include all the rights
and powers necessary and incidental to achieve the goals Home Guaranty Corporation vs. R-II Builders, Inc. and
and objectives of the Agreement. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 192649, March 9,
2011.
From the foregoing allegations in its original complaint, it
cannot be gainsaid that R-II Builders was unquestionably
seeking possession and control of the properties in the
Asset Pool which predominantly consisted of real Mandamus; allegations in petition.
properties. Having admitted that “the case is a real
action as it affects title to or possession of real property
or (an) interest therein”, R-II Builders emphasized the Finally, the Alagars assert that PNB availed of the wrong
real nature of its action by seeking the grant of the remedy when it filed a special civil action of certiorari
following main reliefs in the Amended and Supplemental before the CA rather than one of mandamus to compel
Complaint it subsequently filed, to wit: the RTC to give due course to its notice of appeal after
the latter held that its pro forma motion for
reconsideration did not toll the period of appeal which
5. After trial on the merits, render judgment: had then already elapsed
(i) Declaring the annulment of the Deed of Assignment But a reading of PNB’s allegations in its petition in CA-
and conveyance executed by PDB in favor of HGC; or in G.R. SP 71116 shows that its action was not only for
the alternative, declaring the nullity of the said certiorari and prohibition but also for mandamus. The
instrument; bank alleged that by its whimsical, capricious and
arbitrary actions the RTC deprived the PNB of its appeal,
(ii) Appointing R-II Builders as the Trustee of the Asset leaving it with no other plain, speedy, and adequate
Pool Properties, with powers and responsibilities including remedy in the ordinary course of law. The PNB petition
but not limited to those stated in 5.12.1, 5.12.2, 5.12.3 also specifically prayed the CA to direct the trial court to
and 5.12.4 herein and those spelled out in the Re-Stated give due course to its appeal. Following the rule that the
Smokey Mountain Asset Pool Formation Trust Agreement; nature of an action is determined by the allegations of
the pleading and the character of the relief sought, it is
unmistakable that CA-G.R. SP 71116 was also a petition
(iii) Ordering HGC to render an accounting of all
for mandamus. Spouses Antonio F. Alagar and Aurora
properties of the Asset Pool transferred thereto under the
Alagar v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No.
Deed of Assignment and Conveyance and thereafter
171870, March 16, 2011.
convey title to and/or possession of the entire Asset Pool
to R-II Builders as the Trustee thereof which assets
consist of, but is not limited to the following: Mandamus; proper remedy to compel issuance of
writ of possession.
417
We rule that mandamus is a proper remedy to compel With the consolidated title, the purchaser becomes
the issuance of a writ of possession. The purpose of entitled to a writ of possession and the trial court has the
mandamus is to compel the performance of a ministerial ministerial duty to issue such writ of possession. Thus,
duty. A ministerial act is “one which an officer or tribunal “the remedy of mandamus lies to compel the
performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed performance of [this] ministerial duty.” Spouses
manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, Fernando and Angelina Edralin v. Philippine Veterans
without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment Bank, G.R. No. 168523, March 9, 2011.
upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done.”
Mediation; sanction for non-appearance. A.M. No. 01-
The issuance of a writ of possession is outlined in Section 10-5-SC-PHILJA dated October 16, 2001, otherwise
7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, which known as the Second Revised Guidelines for the
provides: Implementation of Mediation Proceedings, was issued
pursuant to par. (5), Section 5, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution mandating this Court to promulgate rules
SEC. 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this
providing for a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
Act, the purchaser may petition the Court of First
the speedy disposition of cases. Also, Section 2(a), Rule
Instance of the province or place where the
18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
property or any part thereof is situated, to give him
requires the courts to consider the possibility of an
possession thereof during the redemption period,
amicable settlement or of submission to alternative
furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the
modes of resolution for the early settlement of disputes
property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the
so as to put an end to litigations. The provisions of A.M.
debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made
No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA pertinent to the case at bench
without violating the mortgage or without complying with
are as follows:
the requirements of [this] Act. Such petition shall be
made under oath and filed in form of an ex parte
motion x x x and the court shall, upon approval of the 9. Personal appearance/Proper authorizations
bond, order that a writ of possession issue,
addressed to the sheriff of the province in which the
Individual parties are encouraged to personally appear
property is situated, who shall execute said order
for mediation. In the event they cannot attend, their
immediately.
representatives must be fully authorized to appear,
negotiate and enter into a compromise by a Special
During the period of redemption, the mortgagee is Power of Attorney. A corporation shall, by board
entitled to a writ of possession upon depositing the resolution, fully authorize its representative to appear,
approved bond. When the redemption period expires negotiate and enter into a compromise agreement.
without the mortgagor exercising his right of redemption,
the mortgagor is deemed to have lost all interest over
12. Sanctions
the foreclosed property, and the purchaser acquires
absolute ownership of the property. The purchaser’s
right is aptly described thus: Since mediation is part of Pre-Trial, the trial court shall
impose the appropriate sanction including but not limited
to censure, reprimand, contempt and such other
Consequently, the purchaser, who has a right to
sanctions as are provided under the Rules of Court for
possession after the expiration of the redemption
failure to appear for pre-trial, in case any or both of the
period, becomes the absolute owner of the
parties absent himself/themselves, or for abusive conduct
property when no redemption is made. In this
during mediation proceedings. [Underscoring supplied]
regard, the bond is no longer needed. The purchaser
can demand possession at any time following the
consolidation of ownership in his name and the To reiterate, A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA regards
issuance to him of a new TCT. After consolidation of mediation as part of pre-trial where parties are
title in the purchaser’s name for failure of the mortgagor encouraged to personally attend the proceedings. The
to redeem the property, the purchaser’s right to personal non-appearance, however, of a party may be
possession ripens into the absolute right of a confirmed excused only when the representative, who appears in
owner. At that point, the issuance of a writ of his behalf, has been duly authorized to enter into
possession, upon proper application and proof of possible amicable settlement or to submit to alternative
title becomes merely a ministerial function. modes of dispute resolution. To ensure the attendance of
Effectively, the court cannot exercise its discretion. the parties, A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA specifically
enumerates the sanctions that the court can impose upon
a party who fails to appear in the proceedings which
Therefore, the issuance by the RTC of a writ of
includes censure, reprimand, contempt, and even
possession in favor of the respondent in this case is
dismissal of the action in relation to Section 5, Rule 18 of
proper. We have consistently held that the duty of the
the Rules of Court. The respective lawyers of the parties
trial court to grant a writ of possession in such instances
may attend the proceedings and, if they do so, they are
is ministerial, and the court may not exercise discretion
enjoined to cooperate with the mediator for the
or judgment x x x
successful amicable settlement of disputes so as to
effectively reduce docket congestion.
418
Although the RTC has legal basis to order the dismissal of decision that PNB thought to be contrary to law. The
Civil Case No. 13-2007, the Court finds this sanction too latter even raised new arguments, not previously
severe to be imposed on the petitioner where the records considered by the trial court, which even the latter
of the case is devoid of evidence of willful or flagrant recognized in its assailed March 25, 2002 order. From all
disregard of the rules on mediation proceedings. There is indications, the motion for reconsideration complied with
no clear demonstration that the absence of petitioner’s requirements of Sections 1 and 2, Rule 37 of the Rules of
representative during mediation proceedings on March 1, Court. Thus, it was grave abuse of discretion for the trial
2008 was intended to perpetuate delay in the litigation of court to have simply concluded that the motion was pro
the case. Neither is it indicative of lack of interest on the forma and did not toll the running of the period to
part of petitioner to enter into a possible amicable appeal. The RTC should have given due course to PNB’s
settlement of the case. appeal. Spouses Antonio F. Alagar and Aurora Alagar v.
Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 171870, March 16,
2011.
The Court notes that Manalang was not entirely at fault
for the cancellation and resettings of the conferences. Let
it be underscored that respondents’ representative and Petition for Review; motion for extension; Court of
counsel, Atty. Miguel, came late during the January 19 Appeals’ discretion to grant or not to grant motion
and February 9, 2008 conferences which resulted in their for extension should be exercised wisely and
cancellation and the final resetting of the mediation prudently.
proceedings to March 1, 2008. Considering the
circumstances, it would be most unfair to penalize
Although it is within the CA’s discretion to grant or not to
petitioner for the neglect of her lawyer.
grant a motion for extension, such discretion should be
exercised wisely and prudently. The rules regulating the
Assuming arguendo that the trial court correctly filing of motions for extension of time to file certain
construed the absence of Manalang on March 1, 2008 as pleadings are intended to promote the speedy disposition
a deliberate refusal to comply with its Order or to be of cases in the interest of justice, not throw out such
dilatory, it cannot be said that the court was powerless pleadings on pure technicality.
and virtually without recourse. Indeed, there are other
available remedies to the court a quo under A.M. No. 01-
Here, on March 15, 2006 petitioner heirs filed their
10-5-SC-PHILJA, apart from immediately ordering the
motion for extension of 30 days (counted from March 21
dismissal of the case. If Manalang’s absence upset the
when the original period was to run out) within which to
intention of the court a quo to promptly dispose the case,
file their petition. If the CA would want to deny that
a mere censure or reprimand would have been sufficient
extension or shorten it to only 15 days up to April 5,
for petitioner’s representative and her counsel so as to be
2006, it had technically at least 20 days (from March 15
informed of the court’s intolerance of tardiness and laxity
to April 4) within which to so warn petitioners that they
in the observation of its order. By failing to do so and
might have a chance to finish up and file their petition.
refusing to resuscitate the case, the RTC impetuously
Yet, it did not. While the parties have no right to expect
deprived petitioner of the opportunity to recover the land
the CA to grant their motion for extension, they have a
which she allegedly paid for.
right to expect reasonableness from it.
Unless the conduct of the party is so negligent,

Technically the CA waited 44 days up to April 28, 2006
irresponsible, contumacious, or dilatory as for non-
before acting on the motion that petitioners filed on
appearance to provide substantial grounds for dismissal,
March 15, 2006. The CA knew, when it reduced to only
the courts should consider lesser sanctions which would
15 days the extension asked of it, that such reduced
still achieve the desired end. The Court has written
extension had already come to pass 23 days earlier on
“inconsiderate dismissals, even if without prejudice, do
April 5, 2006. Surely, the CA did not expect petitioners
not constitute a panacea nor a solution to the congestion
to still be able to cope with the reduced extension. Since
of court dockets, while they lend a deceptive aura of
the rules allow the CA to grant an extra 15-day extension
efficiency to records of the individual judges, they merely
“for the most compelling reason,” the CA ought to have
postpone the ultimate reckoning between the parties. In
given petitioners reasonable notice that it did not regard
the absence of clear lack of merit or intention to delay,
its ground sufficiently compelling. The CA gave petitioner
justice is better served by a brief continuance, trial on
heirs absolutely no chance to file a timely petition. What
the merits, and final disposition of the cases before the
is more, when the CA acted on the motion for extension
court. Linda M. Chan Kent v. Dionesio C. Micarez, et al.,
on April 28, 2006 the petition was already at hand,
G.R. No. 185758, March 9, 2011.
having been filed earlier on April 20. The CA cannot
pretend that it had been waiting with bated breath to
Motions; motion for reconsideration not pro forma. have a look at the petition and that, consequently, it
could only grant a shorter extension for its filing. Indeed,
the CA did not dismiss the petition outright when it did
The Alagars fail to show any reversible error in the CA’s
not get the same by April 5, its desired deadline. The CA
decision. That court’s finding that PNB’s motion for
got the petition on April 20, 2006 but waited eight days
reconsideration was not pro forma and, therefore, tolled
more or until April 28, 2006 before looking at it. So what
the running of PNB’s period to appeal, is supported by
was the point in its denying the longer extension when it
the evidence on record. The motion for reconsideration
was not ready to act promptly on the petition? Heirs of
specified the RTC’s findings and conclusions in its
419
Marilou K. Santiago, et al. v. Alfonso Aguila, G.R. No. possession based on the allegation that he had stayed on
174034, March 9, 2011. the land after Emiliana left out of the owner’s mere
tolerance and that the latter had demanded that he
leave. Indeed, Wilfredo did not find the need to file a
new answer. Spouses Vicente Dionisio and Anita Dionisio
v. Wilfredo Linsangan, G.R. No. 178159, March 2, 2011.
Pleading; effect of amendment of complaint on
cause of action.
Procedural rules; exceptions meriting relaxation of
rules.
An amended complaint that changes the plaintiff’s cause
of action is technically a new complaint. Consequently,
Moreover, there are exceptions that have been previously
the action is deemed filed on the date of the filing of such
considered by the Court as meriting a relaxation of the
amended pleading, not on the date of the filing of its
rules in order to serve substantial justice. These are: (1)
original version. Thus, the statute of limitation resumes
matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (2) the
its run until it is arrested by the filing of the amended
existence of special or compelling circumstances; (3) the
pleading. The Court acknowledges, however, that an
merits of the case; (4) a cause not entirely attributable
amendment which does not alter the cause of action but
to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
merely supplements or amplifies the facts previously
suspension of the rules; (5) a lack of any showing that
alleged, does not affect the reckoning date of filing based
the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and
on the original complaint. The cause of action,
(6) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
unchanged, is not barred by the statute of limitations
thereby. We find that Danilo’s situation merits a
that expired after the filing of the original complaint.
relaxation of the rules since special circumstances are
involved; to determine if his allegation were true would
Here, the original complaint alleges that the Dionisios allow a final resolution of the case. Danilo L. Parel v.
bought the land from Cruz on September 30, 1989; that Heirs of Simeon Prudencio, G.R. No. 192217, March 2,
Romualdo used to be the land’s tenant; that when he 2011.
died, the Dionisios allowed his widow, Emiliana, to stay
under a promise that she would leave the land upon
Procedural rules; policy for cases to be decided on
demand; that in April 2002 the Dionisios discovered on
merits rather than on technicalities.
visit to the land that Emiliana had left it and that Wilfredo
now occupied it under a claim that he bought the right to
stay from Emiliana under a “Kasunduan ng Bilihan ng It bears emphasis that the subject matter of the
Karapatan;” that the Dionisios did not know of and gave complaint is a valuable parcel of land measuring 328
no consent to this sale which had not been annotated on square meters and that petitioner had allegedly spent a
their title; that the Dionisios verbally told Wilfredo to lot of money not only for the payment of the docket and
leave the property by April 31, 2002; that their lawyer other filing fees but also for the extra-territorial service of
reiterated such demand in writing on April 22, 2002; that the summons to the respondents who are now
Wilfredo did not heed the demand; that the Dionisios permanent residents of the U.S.A. Certainly, petitioner
wanted to get possession so they could till the land and stands to lose heavily on account of technicality. Even if
demolish Wilfredo’s house on it; that Wilfredo did not the dismissal is without prejudice, the refiling of the case
give the Dionisios’ just share in the harvest; and that the would still be injurious to petitioner because she would
Dionisios were compelled to get the services of counsel have to pay again all the litigation expenses which she
for P100,000.00. previously paid for. The Court should afford party-
litigants the amplest opportunity to enable them to have
their cases justly determined, free from constraints of
The amended complaint has essentially identical
technicalities. Technicalities should take a backseat
allegations. The only new ones are that the Dionisios
against substantive rights and should give way to the
allowed Emiliana, Romualdo’s widow to stay “out of their
realities of the situation. Besides, the petitioner has
kindness, tolerance, and generosity;” that they went to
manifested her interest to pursue the case through the
the land in April 2002, after deciding to occupy it, to tell
present petition. At any rate, it has not been shown that
Emiliana of their plan; that Wilfredo cannot deny that
a remand of the case for trial would cause undue
Cruz was the previous registered owner and that he sold
prejudice to respondents.
the land to the Dionisios; and that a person occupying
another’s land by the latter’s tolerance or permission,
without contract, is bound by an implied promise to leave In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds it just and
upon demand, failing which a summary action for proper that petitioner be allowed to present her cause of
ejectment is the proper remedy. action during trial on the merits to obviate jeopardizing
substantive justice. Verily, the better and more prudent
course of action in a judicial proceeding is to hear both
To determine if an amendment introduces a different
sides and decide the case on the merits instead of
cause of action, the test is whether such amendment now
disposing the case by technicalities. What should guide
requires the defendant to answer for a liability or
judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant is to be
obligation which is completely different from that stated
given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his
in the original complaint. Here, both the original and the
complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life,
amended complaint required Wilfredo to defend his
liberty or property on technicalities. The ends of justice
420
and fairness would best be served if the issues involved ground floor of Simeon’s house. He would be paying
in the case are threshed out in a full-blown trial. Trial monthly rentals indefinitely. The RTC should have
courts are reminded to exert efforts to resolve the determined via hearing if Danilo’s allegation were true
matters before them on the merits and to adjudge them and accordingly modified the period Danilo is to be held
accordingly to the satisfaction of the parties, lest in accountable for monthly rentals.
hastening the proceedings, they further delay the
resolution of the cases. Linda M. Chan Kent v. Dionesio
Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets
C. Micarez, et al., G.R. No. 185758, March 9, 2011.
at naught the role of courts in disposing justiciable
controversies with finality. Once a judgment becomes
Procedural rules; purpose. final and executory, all the issues between the parties
are deemed resolved and laid to rest. All that remains is
the execution of the decision which is a matter of right.
Procedural rules are intended to facilitate the
Banaga v. Majaducon, however, enumerates the
administration of justice, not frustrate it. It is always
instances where a writ of execution may be appealed:
better that a case is decided on the merits rather than
disposed of because of procedural infirmities.
Considering that the case involves tenancy relations and 1) the writ of execution varies the judgment;
possession of agricultural landholding and that PARAD
and DARAB have made conflicting findings, a review of
2) there has been a change in the situation of the
the case by the CA was clearly in order. Heirs of Marilou
parties making execution inequitable or unjust;
K. Santiago, et al. v. Alfonso Aguila, G.R. No.
174034, March 9, 2011.
3) execution is sought to be enforced against property
exempt from execution;
Writ of execution; effect of compliance with writ on
petition in higher court.
4) it appears that the controversy has never been
subject to the judgment of the court;
The Alagars contend that the issue of whether the RTC
validly issued a writ of execution in the case had become
moot since PNB willingly obeyed the writ, returned the 5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough
General Luna title to the Alagars, and paid them the and there remains room for interpretation thereof; or
damages that the RTC awarded in its decision. Going
further, the Alagars argue that the full implementation of 6) it appears that the writ of execution has been
the writ foreclosed any question concerning the validity improvidently issued, or that it is defective in substance,
of the decision itself. or is issued against the wrong party, or that the
judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or
But the execution of a judgment pending an action in a the writ was issued without authority;
higher court essentially challenging its finality cannot be
deemed an abandonment of that action. The rules grant In these exceptional circumstances, considerations of
parties the right to question by special civil actions those justice and equity dictate that there be some mode
orders and rulings that inferior courts issue with grave available to the party aggrieved of elevating the question
abuse of discretion. That the PNB complied with the writ to a higher court. That mode of elevation may be either
of execution after its several attempts to stop it cannot by appeal (writ of error or certiorari), or by a special civil
be deemed a voluntary abandonment of its action before action of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus.
the CA. PNB had no choice but to obey the RTC orders,
given that the CA did not then deem it appropriate to
issue a restraining order. And PNB did not relent in The instant case falls under one of the exceptions cited
pursuing its action before the CA. Besides, the Alagars above. The fact that Danilo has left the property under
did not raise this issue of estoppel before the CA. dispute is a change in the situation of the parties that
Consequently, they cannot raise the same for the first would make execution inequitable or unjust. Danilo L.
time before the Court. Spouses Antonio F. Alagar and Parel v. Heirs of Simeon Prudencio, G.R. No.
Aurora Alagar v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 192217, March 2, 2011.
171870, March 16, 2011.
Writ of execution; instances where writ may be

appealed.
It is true that Danilo should have brought to the Court’s OTHER PROCEEDINGS
attention the date he actually left the subject premises at
an earlier time. The RTC is also correct in ruling that the
judgment involved was already final and executory.
However, it would be inequitable to order him to pay
monthly rentals “until he actually vacates” when it has
not been determined when he actually vacated the
421
Expropriation; commissioners to report on just perform their duties as commissioners, which oath shall
compensation; nature of commissioner’s duties and be filed in court with the other proceedings in the case.
functions. Evidence may be introduced by either party before
the commissioners who are authorized to
administer oaths on hearings before them, and the
]Cecilio’s last source of authority to collect payment from
commissioners shall, unless the parties consent to
the proceeds of the expropriation is the SPA executed on
the contrary, after due notice to the parties to
18 October 1996 by the Hernandezes in favor of Cecilio
attend, view and examine the property sought to
as their “true and lawful” attorney with respect to the
be expropriated and its surroundings, and may
expropriation of the Hernandez property. At the outset,
measure the same, after which either party may, by
it must be underscored that the SPA did not specify the
himself or counsel, argue the case. The
compensation of Cecilio as attorney-in-fact of the
commissioners shall assess the consequential damages to
Hernandezes.
the property not taken and deduct from such
consequential damages the consequential benefits to be
The SPA, however, must be appreciated in the light of derived by the owner from the public use or purpose of
the fact that Cecilio was appointed and acted as appraisal the property taken, the operation of its franchise by the
commissioner in the expropriation case under the corporation or the carrying on of the business of the
provisions of Section 5, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, corporation or person taking the property. But in no case
which provides: shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the
consequential damages assessed, or the owner be
SEC. 5. Ascertainment of compensation. — Upon the deprived of the actual value of his property so taken.
rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall
appoint not more than three (3) competent and Cecilio acted for the expropriation court. He cannot be
disinterested persons as commissioners to allowed to consider such action as an act for or in behalf
ascertain and report to the court the just of the defendant in the same case. Cecilio could not
compensation for the property sought to be taken. have been a hearing officer and a defendant at the
The order of appointment shall designate the time and same time. Indeed, Cecilio foisted fraud on both the
place of the first session of the hearing to be held by the Court and the Hernandezes when, after his appointment
commissioners and specify the time within which their as commissioner, he accepted the appointment by the
report shall be submitted to the court. (Emphasis ours). Hernandezes to “represent” and “sue for” them. Cornelia
M. Hernandez, substituted by Lourdes H. Castillo v.
The commissioner to be appointed is specifically required Cecilio F. Hernandez, G.R. No. 158576, March 9, 2011.
to be disinterested. As defined, such person must be
free from bias, prejudice or partiality. The record of
performance by Cecilio of his duties as commissioner
shows: (1) Order dated 13 September 1996 appointing
Cecilio and three others as court commissioners; (2)
Agreement on the course of action of the commissioners
appointed 13 September 1996 whereby respondent Extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage; special
Cecilio signed as a court commissioner; (3) Appraisal power of attorney.
Commission Report dated 10 January 1997 signed by
respondent and his fellow court commissioners; (4)
Moreover, the availability of extra-judicial foreclosure to a
Dissenting Opinion on the Lone Minority Report dated 14
mortgagee depends upon the agreement of the
February 1997 signed by respondent and two other court
contracting parties. Section 1 of Act No. 3135 provides:
commissioners; and (5) Decision dated 7 February 1997
which sets the fees of the court commissioners.
Section 1. When a sale is made under a special power
inserted in or attached to any real-estate mortgage
When Cecilio accepted the position as commissioner and
hereafter made as security for the payment of money or
proceeded to perform the duties of such commissioner
the fulfillment of any other obligation, the provisions of
until the completion of his mandate as such, he created a
the following sections shall govern as to the
barrier that prevented his performance of his duties
manner in which the sale and redemption shall be
under the SPA. Due to the nature of his duties and
effected, whether or not provision for the same is made
functions as commissioner, Cecilio became an
in the power. (Emphasis supplied.)
officer of the court. As stated in Section 5, Rule 67 of
the Rules of Court, the commissioner’s duty is to
“ascertain and report to the court the just In the case at bar, paragraph (c) of the parties’ REM
compensation for the property to be taken.” The granted Veterans Bank the special power as attorney-in-
undertaking of a commissioner is further stated under fact of the petitioners to perform all acts necessary for
the rules, to wit: the purpose of extrajudicial foreclosure under Act No.
3135. Thus, there is no obstacle preventing Veterans
Bank from availing itself of the remedy of extrajudicial
SEC. 6. Proceedings by commissioners.—Before entering
foreclosure. Spouses Fernando and Angelina Edralin v.
upon the performance of their duties, the commissioners
Philippine Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 168523, March 9,
shall take and subscribe an oath that they will faithfully
2011.
422
Moreover, the provisions cited by petitioners refer to

prescription of actions. An action is “defined as an
ordinary suit in a court of justice, by which one party
Writ of possession; non-prescription of purchaser’s
prosecutes another for the enforcement or protection of a
right.
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.” On the
other hand “[a] petition for the issuance of the writ,
Petitioners assail the CA’s ruling that the issuance of a under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is not an
writ of possession does not prescribe. They maintain that ordinary action filed in court, by which one party ‘sues
Articles 1139, 1149, and 1150 of the Civil Code regarding another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or
prescriptive periods cover all kinds of action, which prevention or redress of a wrong.’ It is in the nature of
necessarily include the issuance of a writ of possession. an ex parte motion [in] which the court hears only one
Petitioners posit that, for purposes of the latter, it is the side. It is taken or granted at the instance and for the
five-year prescriptive period provided in Article 1149 of benefit of one party, and without notice to or consent by
the Civil Code which applies because Act No. 3135 itself any party adversely affected. Accordingly, upon the filing
did not provide for its prescriptive period. Thus, Veterans of a proper motion by the purchaser in a foreclosure sale,
Bank had only five years from September 12, 1983, the and the approval of the corresponding bond, the writ of
date when the Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor, possession issues as a matter of course and the trial
to move for the issuance of a writ of possession. court has no discretion on this matter.” Spouses
Fernando and Angelina Edralin v. Philippine Veterans
Respondent argues that jurisprudence has consistently Bank, G.R. No. 168523, March 9, 2011.
held that a registered owner of the land, such as the
buyer in an auction sale, is entitled to a writ of
possession at any time after the consolidation of
ownership.
EVIDENCE
We cannot accept petitioners’ contention. We have held

Documentary evidence; interpretation of
before that the purchaser’s right “to request for the
documents according to circumstances.
issuance of the writ of possession of the land never
prescribes.” “The right to possess a property merely
follows the right of ownership,” and it would be illogical Section 13, Rule 130, Rules of Court on interpretation of
to hold that a person having ownership of a parcel of land an instrument provides:
is barred from seeking possession thereof. In Calacala v.
Republic of the Philippines, the Republic was the highest
SEC. 13. Interpretation according to circumstances – For
bidder in the public auction but failed for a long period of
the proper construction of an instrument, the
time to execute an Affidavit of Consolidation and to seek
circumstances under which it was made, including the
a writ of possession. Calacala insisted that, by such
situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it,
inaction, the Republic’s right over the land had
may be shown so that the judge may be placed in the
prescribed, been abandoned or waived. The Court’s
position of those whose language he is to interpret.
language in rejecting Calacala’s theory is illuminating:
(underscoring supplied)
[T]he Republic’s failure to execute the acts referred to by

A consideration of the circumstances under which
the petitioners within ten (10) years from the registration
Aragon’s letter-certifications were issued is thus in order.
of the Certificate of Sale cannot, in any way, operate to
restore whatever rights petitioners’ predecessors-in-
interest had over the same. For sure, petitioners have Amarnani’s letter-request of August 21, 2000 for a
yet to cite any provision of law or rule of jurisprudence, conditional certification from Aragon was granted two
and we are not aware of any, to the effect that the failure days later when Aragon issued the letter-certification
of a buyer in a foreclosure sale to secure a Certificate of addressed to respondent. Within that period, it could
Final Sale, execute an Affidavit of Consolidation of not have been possible for petitioner to even process the
Ownership and obtain a writ of possession over the application, given that Amarnani had not even complied
property thus acquired, within ten (10) years from the with the requirements as he, himself, indicated in his
registration of the Certificate of Sale will operate to bring letter-request to Aragon to “please tell [him] the
ownership back to him whose property has been requirements for the credit line so [he] c[ould] apply.”
previously foreclosed and sold. x x x
The Distributorship Agreement between respondent and
xxxx Keraj was forged on October 2, 2000 or 39 days after the
issuance of the letter-certification, long enough for
respondent to verify if indeed a bank guaranty was, to its
Moreover, with the rule that the expiration of the 1-year
impression, granted.
redemption period forecloses the obligors’ right to
redeem and that the sale thereby becomes absolute, the
issuance thereafter of a final deed of sale is at best a By respondent’s finance manager Leonora Armi
mere formality and mere confirmation of the title that is Salvador’s testimony, upon receipt of the two letter-
already vested in the purchaser. x x x certifications, she concluded that they were bank
423
guarantees considering their similarity with other bank

guarantees in favor of respondent by other distributors;
and she made inquiries with petitioner only after Keraj
defaulted in the payment of its obligation to respondent.
In light of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner could

not have conveyed that it was issuing a bank guaranty in
favor of Amarnani.
Respondent’s reliance on Aragon’s use of a “check

writer,” a machine used to input a numerical or written
value impression in the “payment amount field” of a
check that is very difficult to alter, on the left side of
each letter- certification, was misplaced, what prevails
being the wordings of the letter-certifications. Bank of
Commerce v. Goodman Fielder International Philippines,
Inc., G.R. No. 191561, March 7, 2011.
Res gestae; nature and admissibility.
Further, the Court considers a res gestae Amalia’s recital

of what she heard Alice utter when she came and rescued
her. Res gestae refers to statements made by the
participants or the victims of, or the spectators to, a
crime immediately before, during, or after its
commission. These statements are a spontaneous
reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the
occasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to
fabricate a false statement. An important consideration
is whether there intervened, between the occurrence and
the statement, any circumstance calculated to divert the
mind and thus restore the mental balance of the
declarant; and afford an opportunity for deliberation. For
spontaneous statements to be admitted in evidence, the
following must concur: 1) the principal act, the res
gestae, is a startling occurrence; 2) the statements were
made before the declarant had time to contrive or
devise; and 3) the statements concerned the occurrence
in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
Here, Fallones’ act of forcing himself into Alice is a

startling event. And Amalia happened to be just outside
his house when she heard Alice cry out “tama na, tama
na!” When Fallones opened the door upon Amalia’s
incessant knocking, Alice came out from behind him,
uttering “Amalia, may napkin na binigay si Romy o.” The
admissibility of Alice’s spontaneous statements rests on
the valid assumption that they were spoken under
circumstances where there had been no chance to
contrive. It is difficult to lie in an excited state and the
impulsiveness of the expression is a guaranty of
trustworthiness. People of the Philippines v. Romy
Fallones y Labana, G.R. No. 190341, March 16, 2011.
424

UCLASS Bar Operations 2012: Ace the Bar, Race the Car

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UCLASS Bar Operations 2012: Ace the Bar, Race the Car

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Cebu

Civil Procedure Evidence Special Proceedings and

Bar Operations 2012: Ace the Bar, Race the Car!

For Private and Personal Use Only

Civil Procedure Evidence Special Proceedings and

Bar Operations 2012: Ace the Bar, Race the Car!

For Private and Personal Use Only

Civil Procedure Evidence Special Proceedings and

Bar Operations 2012: Ace the Bar, Race the Car!

For Private and Personal Use Only

COURT DECISIONS Evidence: Conviction relating to violations of

REMEDIAL LAW The propriety of granting letters testamentary to

 The Court is guided, in acting on Amparo cases, by the

1. arrest, detention, abduction or any form of

Writ of Amparo. February 2010

such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from

Writ of Preliminary Injunction: Issuance rests also on

Mandatory preliminary Injunction. *Judge:

Mandatory preliminary Injunction: Not appropriate

Mandatory preliminary Injunction: Based solely on

West Tower Condominium Corporation, on behalf of

Civil Procedure Evidence Special Proceedings and

Bar Operations 2012: Ace the Bar, Race the Car!

For Private and Personal Use Only

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE People of the Philippines vs. Ricky Alfredo y Norman,

The Rules provided that mandamus will lie if (1) any

The Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with

The Regional Trial Court erred in appreciating the

Probable cause; definition.

Administrative cases; res judicata. Criminal procedure; probable cause.

It is settled that in a criminal case, an appeal throws the Defense; alibi.

Witnesses; presentation of informant.

The presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case

Witnesses; presentation of informant.

In People v. Ho Chua, the Supreme Court ruled that the

Evidence: Notarized deed of sale. The notarized deed of

Rehabilitation Case. On the other hand, the rehabilitation

“On the other hand, a petition for rehabilitation, the

EVIDENCE including its implementing rules and regulations, does not

In the present case, petitioner, whose marriage is still December 2010

specimen at some future time. Antonio Lejano vs. People

Thus, Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court

Inasmuch as Bokingco’s extrajudicial confession is

In the face of witness’ positive identification of the

Evidence; trial court’s determination of credibility

It is fundamental that the determination by the trial court

to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused,

EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS.

As a rule, the findings of the trial court relative to the

The failure of the prosecution to offer the testimony of

But the rule is not without exception. Under Section 35,

The HLURB has no jurisdiction to declare petitioners as JURISDICTION; PANEL OF ARBITRATORS.

An action for reconveyance respects the decree of

This arrangement is undertaken for many reasons,

Under these terms, Section 77 (a) established a cut-off

APPEAL; RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. CERTIORARI; ABUSE OF PROCESS.

Although the Supreme Court does not absolutely preclude

In implementing the involuntary transfer of title of real FORECLOSURE; REDEMPTION.

There is a difference between an amended judgment and JUDGMENT; FINALITY.

JURISDICTION; AFTER JUDGMENT.

It is well-settled that the jurisdiction of the court to

JURISDICTION; DOLE. And, as a clincher, the law explicitly provides that