GARVIDA vs.

SALES
G.R. 124893, April 18, 1997
Puno, J.:

FACTS: On March 16, 1996, Lynette Garvida applied for registration as member
and voter of the Katipunan ng Kabataan of Barangay San Lorenzo, Bangui, Ilocos Norte.
However, her application was denied by the Board of Election Tellers since she exceeded
the age limit. She then filed a “Petition for Inclusion as Registered Kabataan Member and
Voter” with the Municipal Trial Court which was granted by the said court. Then, on April
23, 1996, Garvida filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Chairman,
Sangguniang Kabataan, Barangay San Lorenzo, Municipality of Bangui, Province of
Ilocos Norte. On the same date, Election Officer Dionisio Rios, per advise of Provincial
Election Supervisor Noli Pipo, disapproved petitioner’s certificate of candidacy again due
to her age. Petitioner then appealed to COMELEC Regional Director Filemon Asperin
who set aside the order of respondents and allowed petitioner to run. Earlier and without
knowledge of COMELEC officials, private respondent and petitioner’s rival Florencio
Sales Jr. filed with the COMELEC en banc a “Petition of Denial and/or Cancellation of
Certificate of Candidacy” via facsimile and registered mail on April 29, 1996. And, on May
2, 1996 respondent Riso issued a memorandum to petitioner informing her of her
ineligibility and giving hr 24 hours why her certificate of candidacy should not be
disapproved. Also on the same date, the COMELEC en banc issued an order directing
the Board Election Tellers and Board of Canvassers to suspend the proclamation of
petitioner in the event she won in the election. This is why on May 6, 1996, Election Day,
Garvida was not proclaimed the winner. She was only proclaimed on June 2, 1996. Said
proclamation was “without prejudice to any further action by the Commission on Elections
or any other interested parties.
ISSUES: Whether or not COMELEC erred in the cancellation of her candidacy on
the ground that she has exceeded the age limit and whether COMELEC en banc acted
within its jurisdiction in cancelling her certificate of candidacy.
RULING: Petition dismissed. Lynette Garvida is declared ineligible for being over
the age qualification for candidacy in the May 6, 1996 elections of the Sangguniang
Kabataan. The general rule is that an elective official of the Sangguniang Kabataan must
not be more than 21 years old on the day of his election. The only exception is when the
official reaches the age of 21 years during his incumbency.
 DABALOS VS. RTC BRANCH 59 of Angeles City, Pampanga
G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013
Perlas-Bernabe, J.:

FACTS: Dabalos had willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously used personal violence
against the complainant whom he had a dating relationship with. The said violence
constituted the pulling of hair, punching the complainant's back, shoulder, and left eye
which have demeaning and degrading effects on the complainant's intrinsic worth and
dignity as a human being, in violation of Section 5 (a) of the Republic Act 9262. In Dabalos'
defense, he averred that the relationship had already ceased at the time of the alleged
incident.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9262 be construed when the dating relationship was
not the proximate cause of the violence?
RULING: Yes. The law provides that any act can be considered as a crime of
violence against women through physical harm when it is committed against a woman or
her child and the woman is the offender's wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had
sexual or dating relationship or with whom he has a common child, and when it results in
or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering.
Applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not distinguish,
neither should the courts, the punishable acts refer to all acts of violence against women
with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship. It did not distinguish
that the act of violence should be a consequence of such relationship.
 AMADORA VS. CA
GR No. L47745, April 15, 1988
Cruz, J.:
: Alfredo Amadora, while in the auditorium of the school, was mortally hit by a gun
by Pablito Daffon resulting to the former’s death. Daffon was convicted of homicide
through reckless imprudence. The victim’s parents, herein petitioners, filed a civil action
for damages against Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rectors, high school principal,
dean of boys, the physics teacher together with Daffon and 2 other students. Complaints
against the students were dropped. Respondent Court absolved the defendants
completely and reversed CFI Cebu’s decision for the following reasons: 1. Since the
school was an academic institution of learning and not a school of arts and trades 2. That
students were not in the custody of the school since the semester has already ended 3.
There was no clear identification of the fatal gun, and 4. In any event, defendants
exercised the necessary diligence through enforcement of the school regulations in
maintaining discipline. Petitioners on othe other hand claimed their son was under school
custody because he went to school to comply with a requirement for graduation
(submission of Physics reports).

ISSUE: Whether or not Collegio de San Jose-Recoletos should be held liable.

RULING: The time Alfredo was fatally shot, he was in the custody of the authorities
of the school notwithstanding classes had formally ended when the incident happened.
It was immaterial if he was in the school auditorium to finish his physics requirement.
What was important is that he was there for a legitimate purpose. On the other hand, the
rector, high school principal and the dean of boys cannot be held liable because none of
them was the teacher-in-charge as defined in the provision. Each was exercising only a
general authority over the students and not direct control and influence exerted by the
teacher placed in-charge of particular classes.
In the absence of a teacher- in charge, dean of boys should probably be held liable
considering that he had earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from a student and later
returned to him without taking disciplinary action or reporting the matter to the higher
authorities. Though it was clear negligence on his part, no proof was shown to necessarily
link this gun with the shooting incident.
Collegio San Jose-Recoletos cannot directly be held liable under the provision
because only the teacher of the head of school of arts and trade is made responsible for
the damage caused by the student. Hence, under the facts disclosed, none of the
respondents were held liable for the injury inflicted with Alfredo resulting to his death.
Petition was denied.