Professional Documents
Culture Documents
the court may determine……. its adequacy for allowance of relief on the
basis of the averments contained in the body of the pleading
“may grant relief although there is no prayer because the prayer is not even
considered an essential part of a pleading.
Case/s:
Vda. De Manalo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 349 SCRA 136.
Barnuevo vs. Fuster, 29 Phil. 600
Case/s:
Carvajal vs. CA, 280 SCRA 351[1997]
Constructive Dismissal
Case/s:
Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc. vs. Catinoy, 359 SCRA 686, G.R. No. 143204
Escheat
Case/s:
In Re: Estate of Lao Sayco, 21 PHIL 445.
Case/s:
The Heirs of Anacleto B. Nieto vs. The Municipality of Meycauayan
Bulacan 540 SCRA 100 [1997]
Motion for Reconsideration
Case/s:
1. PNB VS. PANEDA 515 SCRA 639, 647-649
2. BA Finance Corporation vs. Pineda 119 SCRA 493, 503
3. Luzon Brokerage vs. CA, 176 SCRA 483, 491, as reiterated in Fernan vs.
Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 546, 551
While a descriptive term or phrase may not be registered as a trademark or trade name by
itself, it may be used as part of a coined word or mark, and as a consequence, may lose its
generic or descriptive element. The coined word may then be registered as trademark or
tradename. For instance, the word “pas” is generic or descriptive and may not, by itself,
be registered as a mark. However, as used to form the coined word “Salompas”, “pas”
loses its descriptive property and the resulting coined word can be monopolized and
registered as a trademark.
Case/s:
Marvez Commerical Co. Inc. vs. Petra Hawpia & Co., 18 SCRA 1178 (1966).
2.
x x x one who pleads payment has the burden of proving
it. The reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel
files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar
documents which will show that overtime, differentials,
service incentive leave, and other claims of workers have
been paid are not in the possession of the worker but in
the custody and absolute control of the employer. Thus,
the burden of showing with legal certainty that the
obligation has been discharged with payment falls on the
debtor, in accordance with the rule that one who pleads
payment has the burden of proving it. x x x”1
Case/s:
1. Jimenez et al., vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 116960, April 2, 1996.
2. Dansart Security Force & Allied Services Company vs. Bagoy, 622
SCRA 694, G.R. No. 168495, July 2, 2010
Possession; Recovery
The action to recover property pertains to the owner of the thing, and he
may proceed not only against the person in actual possession but against
anyone unlawfully detaining it. The possessor has the presumption of title in his
favor, but if the plaintiff can prove his title as owner and establish the identity of
the property claimed as his, he will be entitled to recover the property, even if the
possession seems legalized by a conveyance.
Case/s:
Mendoza vs. Fulgencio, 8 PHIL. 243; Cleto vs. Salvador, 11 PHIL. 416; Vargas
vs. Egamino, 12 PHIL. 56; Samson vs. Salvilla, 12 Phil. 497; Peres vs. Cortes,
15 PHIL. 211; Salacup vs. Rambac, 17 PHIL. 21; Cid vs. Peralta, 24 PHIL. 142
Presumption of Death
1
Dansart Security Force & Allied Services Company vs. Bagoy, 622 SCRA 694, G.R. No. 168495, July 2,
2010.
death . . . ." . . . it is assumed that no evidence can be produced. . . . Since
the facts are unknown and unknowable, the law may apply the law of
fairness appropriate to the different legal situation that arises." (IX
Wigmore on Evidence, 1940 ed., 483.)
Case/s:
Joaquin vs. Navarro (93 PHIL 257)
2. The generally accepted rule that a symbol or figure which represents something
in universal use by the public generally or by a particular class of people may not be
exclusively be appropriated as a trademark is not absolute. The rule is generally
applicable only when the symbol or figure is used by itself. However, it the symbol or
figure is used in combination with other distinguishing elements, the design as a whole
may be exclusively appropriated and registered as a trademark.
Case/s:
1. Inchausti & Co. vs. Song Fo & Co., 21 PHIL. 272 (1912); Ong Ai Gui v. Director of
Patents, 96 PHIL. 673.
2. Forbes, Munn & Co. vs. Ang San To, 40 PHIL. 272 (1919).
Seventy-one years ago, in Alonso v. Villamor, 30 this Court described the nature and object of litigation and in the
process laid down the standards by which judicial contests are to be conducted in this jurisdiction. It said:
A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and
skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other. It
is, rather a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the
court the facts in issue and then brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all
imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done on the
merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality,
when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance
and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There should be no
vested right in technicalities. . . .
This case illustrates the application of the legal precept that the law aids the vigilant, not
those who slumber on their rights. Vigilantibus, sed non dormientibus jura subverniunt. 2
ALCARAZ VS. JUDGE ASDALA, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2272, Feb 16, 2011.
The Rules of Court require every written motion, except those that the court
may act upon without prejudicing the rights of an adverse party, to be set for
hearing by its proponent.[36] When a motion ought to be heard, the same rules
prescribe that it must be served to the adverse party with a notice of
hearing.[37]
The substance of a notice of hearing is, in turn, laid out in Section 5 of
Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. The provision states:[38]
Section 5. Notice of hearing. The notice of hearing shall
be addressed to all the parties concerned, and shall specify the
time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten
(10) days after the filing of the motion. (Emphasis supplied)
In the case at bench, it is clear that the notice of hearing in Emelitas
motion for execution pending appeal did not comply with the foregoing
standards.
First. Rather than being addressed to the adverse party, the notice of
hearing in Emelitas motion was directed to the Branch Clerk of Court. Such
gaffe actually contradicts a basic purpose of the notice requirementi.e., to
inform an adverse party of the date and time of the proposed hearing.
Second. The notice of hearing did not specify a date and time of hearing. In
fact, there was nothing in the notice that even suggests that the proponent
intended to set a hearing with the trial court in the first place. As may be
observed, the notice is merely an instruction for the clerk of court to submit
the motion for the consideration and approval of the trial court immediately
upon receipt or at any time convenient with the said court. The notice of
hearing in Emelitas motion does not, in reality, give any kind of notice.
2
Salandanan vs. CA, G.R. No. 127783, June 05, 1998
Jurisprudence had been categorical in treating a litigious motion
without a valid notice of hearing as a mere scrap of paper.[39] In the classic
formulation of Manakil v. Revilla,[40] such a motion was condemned as:
x x x [n]othing but a piece of paper filed with the court. It presented no
question which the court could decide. The court had no right to
consider it, nor had the clerk any right to receive it without a
compliance with Rule 10 [now Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15]. It was not,
in fact, a motion. It did not comply with the rules of the court. It did not
become a motion until x x x the petitioners herein fixed a time for hearing
of said alleged motion. (Emphasis supplied).
An important aspect of the above judicial pronouncement is the absence of
any duty on the part of the court to take action on a motion wanting a valid
notice of hearing. After all, the Rules of Court places upon the movant, and
not with the court, the obligations both to secure a particular date and time
for the hearing of his motion[41] and to give a proper notice thereof on the
other party.[42] It is precisely the failure of the movant to comply with these
obligations, which reduces an otherwise actionable motion to a mere scrap
of paper not deserving of any judicial acknowledgment.
We note at the outset that the Ninth Division of the appellate court, in CA-G.R. SP No. 75185, already
affirmed theSeptember 5, 2002 Decision of the NLRC that petitioner was illegally dismissed but
modified the ruling and awarded backwages to the petitioner. Later, the Fourth Division of the CA,
in CA-G.R. SP No. 79408, rendered another decision inconsistent with the earlier ruling of its
coordinate division. The Fourth Division merely affirmed the NLRC September 5, 2002 Decision, and
did not award backwages to the petitioner.
This conflict in the decisions of the different divisions of the appellate court would have been avoided
had the two certioraripetitions been consolidated or had the Fourth Division, when apprised of the
earlier ruling, remained consistent with the Ninth Division's pronouncements. The various divisions of
the CA are, in a sense, coordinate courts, and, pursuant to the policy of judicial stability, a division of
the appellate court should not interfere with the decision of the other divisions of the court, otherwise
confusion will ensue and may seriously hinder the administration of justice
Petitioners are now before this Court contending that respondent judge
committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in refusing to act on their Motion to Inhibit.
Eventually, after the present petition was filed with this Court, respondent
judge issued an Order[3] dated August 9, 2002 denying the petitioners Motion
to Inhibit for lack of just and valid reason.
Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court, provides:
SEC. 1. Disqualification of judges. No judge or judicial officer
shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife, or child is
pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor, or otherwise, or in
which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree,
computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he
has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or
in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or
decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all
parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify
himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than
those mentioned above.
In People v. Kho,[4] this Court held that the foregoing Rule contemplates two
kinds of inhibitions compulsory and voluntary. The first paragraph provides
that compulsory disqualification conclusively presumes that the judge
cannot actively or impartially sit on a case. The second paragraph, in turn,
leaves to the judges discretion whether he should desist from sitting in a case
for other just and valid reasons. A judge, however, does not enjoy a wide
latitude in the exercise of his discretion to inhibit himself from hearing a
case, as the inhibition must be for just and valid causes.[5]
In 1964, this Court, in People v. Gomez[6] and Mateo, Jr. v. Villaluz,[7] held
that a judge may voluntarily inhibit himself on grounds other than those
mentioned in paragraph 1, Section 1, Rule 137 and these grounds include
bias and partiality. In Pimentel v. Salonga,[8] the Court laid the following
guideposts for voluntary inhibition of judges:
A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation.
But when suggestion is made of record that he might be induced
to act in favor of one party or with bias or prejudice against a
litigant arising out of circumstance reasonably capable of inciting
such a state of mind, he should conduct a careful self-
examination. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the
peoples faith in the courts of justice is not impaired. A salutary
norm is that he reflects on the probability that a losing party might
nurture at the back of his mind the thought that the judge had
unmeritoriously tilted the scales of justice against him.
In a long line of cases,[9] this Court has unceasingly re-affirmed the standards
laid down in Pimentel.
It may be recalled that at the onset of the proceedings, petitioners sought a
change of venue in Criminal Cases Nos. 1316-P and 1317-P from Palayan
City to Metro Manila, due to fear for their lives and those of their
witnesses. The prosecution also pointed out that the RVG has the capability
of pressuring respondent judge. Despite its pending request for change of
venue, respondent judge opted to continue with the
proceedings. Significantly, the grounds specified by movants in their Motion
to Inhibit are obviously meritorious.
Under the foregoing circumstances, the Salonga doctrine that judicial
discretion should be exercised in a way that the peoples faith in courts of
justice should not be impaired becomes relevant. Given the prosecutions
apparent lack of faith in respondent judge, she was placed in a difficult
position. Should she acquit the accused, her decision will appear to be
tainted with bias. Such a situation is highly detrimental, not only to the
image of the trial court, but to the integrity of the judicial system. Like
Caesars wife, a judge must be beyond suspicion and that he should maintain
nothing less than cold neutrality and impartiality. Otherwise, the wisest
course for a judge would be to disqualify himself.Thus, respondent judge
should have inhibited herself from further hearing Criminal Cases Nos.
1316-P and 1317-P
The refusal of the respondent judge to disqualify himself and his insistence to hear the criminal case in
the face of the express prohibition contained in section 1 of Rule 137, to our mind, constitute grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
RESTITUTION IN MALVERSATION
Besides, the Court is convinced that there is no sufficient evidence to show a prima facie case against
petitioner.
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the failure of a public officer to have duly
forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly
authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to
personal uses. Hence, an accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is
no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in his accounts
which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily (De Guzman vs. People, 119 SCRA 337). This is
because the law establishes a presumption that mere failure of an accountable officer to produce
public funds which have come into his hands on demand by an officer duly authorized to examine his
accounts is prima facie evidence of conversion. However, the presumption is merely prima facie and a
rebuttable one. The accountable officer may overcome the presumption by proof to the contrary. If he
adduces evidence showing that, in fact, he has not put said funds or property to personal use, then
that presumption is at an end and the prima facie case destroyed (US vs. Catolico, 18 Phil. 504).
In the case at bar, petitioner successfully overthrew the presumption of guilt. He satisfactorily proved
that not a single centavo of the missing funds was used by him for his own personal interest, a fact
conceded by the Tanodbayan 'the bulk of the reported shortage actually referred to the items
disallowed by the Audit Team representing cash advances extended to co-employees. In fact,
evidence disclosed that the itemized list of the cash advances (Annex "B " of Motion for Re-
Investigation and/or Reconsideration, p. 31, Rollo) was verified and found to be correct by an Auditing
Examiner, Petitioner explained that the granting of the cash advances was done in good faith, with no
intent to gain and borne out of goodwill considering that it was a practice tolerated in the office. Such
being the case, negligence evidentiary of malice or intent to defraud the government cannot be
imputed to him. Also to be considered is the circumstance that the actual cash shortage was only
P1.74 which, together with the disallowed items, was fully restituted within a reasonable time from date
of audit,
Moreover, while it is true that novation does not extinguish criminal liability, it may however, prevent
the rise of criminal liability as long as it occurs prior to the filing of the criminal information in court.
Thus, in Gonzales vs. Serrano ( 25 SCRA 64, 69 [1968]) We held that: têñ.£îhqwâ£
As pointed out in People vs. Nery, novation prior to the filing of the criminal
information — as in the case at bar — may convert the relation between the parties
into an ordinary creditor-debtor relation, and place the complainant in estoppel to
insist on the original transaction or "cast doubt on the true nature" thereof.
Again, in the latest case of Ong vs. Court of Appeals (L-58476, 124 SCRA 578, 580-581 [1983] ), this
Court reiterated the ruling in People vs. Nery ( 10 SCRA 244 [1964] ), declaring that: têñ.£îhqwâ£
The novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the filling of the criminal information
in court by the state prosecutors because up to that time the original trust relation
may be converted by the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor situation, thereby
placing the complainant in estoppel to insist on the original trust. But after the justice
authorities have taken cognizance of the crime and instituted action in court, the
offended party may no longer divest the prosecution of its power to exact the criminal
liability, as distinguished from the civil. The crime being an offense against the state,
only the latter can renounce it (People vs. Gervacio, 54 Off. Gaz. 2898; People vs.
Velasco, 42 Phil. 76; U.S. vs. Montanes, 8 Phil. 620).
It may be observed in this regard that novation is not one of the means recognized by
the Penal Code whereby criminal liability can be extinguished; hence, the role of
novation may only be to either prevent the rise of criminal habihty or to cast doubt on
the true nature of the original basic transaction, whether or not it was such that its
breach would not give rise to penal responsibility, as when money loaned is made to
appear as a deposit, or other similar disguise is resorted to (cf. Abeto vs. People, 90
Phil. 581; U.S. vs. Villareal, 27 Phil. 481).
In the case at bar, there is no dispute that petitioners Guingona and Martin executed a promissory
note on June 17, 1981 assuming the obligation of the bank to private respondent David; while the
criminal complaint for estafa was filed on December 23, 1981 with the Office of the City Fiscal. Hence,
it is clear that novation occurred long before the filing of the criminal complaint with the Office of the
City Fiscal.