REMEDIAL LAW: [ G.R. No.

210302, August 27, 2020 ]

INTEGRATED MICRO ELECTRONICS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. STANDARD INSURANCE

CO., INC., RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: Service upon domestic private juridical entity. — When the defendant is a corporation,
partnership, or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with juridical personality, service
may be made by the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-
house counsel.

REMEDIAL LAW: GR No. 241363, September 16, 2020]

TERESITA RAMOS vs. ANNABELLE ROSELL

DOCTRINE: Newly-discovered evidence may be admissible in evidence, if the offering party exercised
reasonable diligence in seeking to locate the evidence before or during the trial but he failed to secure it.

REMEDIAL LAW: PERFECTO VELASQUEZ JR. vs. LISONDRA LAND INC. (GR No. 231290)

DOCTRINE: However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a
given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt
such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position - that the lower court had
jurisdiction.

REMEDIAL LAW: G.R. No. 228795, December 1, 2020]

Angeles vs. COA

DOCTRINE: Under Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, an aggrieved party may file a petition for
review on certiorari within thirty (30) days from notice of the Commission on Audit’s (COA’s) judgment.
The petition must show when notice of the assailed judgment or order or resolution was received, when
the motion for reconsideration was filed, and when notice of its denial was received.
 REMEDIAL LAW: [G.R. No. 238203, September 3, 2020]

Ang vs CA

DOCTRINE: One who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply strictly with the requirements of
the rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. The grant of any extension for
filing a Petition for Review under Rule 42 is discretionary and subject to the condition that the full
amount of the docket and lawful fees is paid before the expiration of the reglementary period.

REMEDIAL LAW:[G.R. No. 217138. August 27, 2020]

VITARICH CORPORATION VS DAGMIL

DOCTRINE: The court emphasizes that it is within the discretionary power of the trial court to permit
the defendant to file an answer and be heard on the merits, even after the reglementary period for filing
the responsive pleading has expired. The rule is that the answer should be admitted when it is filed before
a declaration of default, provided there is no showing that the defendant intends to delay the proceedings
and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff.

REMEDIAL LAW:[G.R. No. 250542. October 10, 2022]

HEIRS OF PIO TEJADA AND SOLEDAD TEJADA, REPRESENTED BY PIO DOMINGO

TEJADA, PETITIONERS VS. GARRY B. HAY, IN SUBSTITUTION OF MYRNA L. HAY,
REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT GOMERCINDO* LITONG, RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: Courts allow bona fide amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and treat
motions for leave to file amended pleadings with liberality. The guiding principle is to determine cases
based on their real facts, affording complete relief to all parties while ensuring that such amendments are
not intended to delay the proceedings.

REMEDIAL LAW: [G.R. No. 204420, October 7, 2020]

Heirs of Bastida vs. Heirs of Fernandez

DOCTRINE: Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the
same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, with the expectation that
one or the other court would render a favorable disposition. It exists when the following requisites concur:
(1) the parties to the action are the same or at least representing the same interests in both actions; (2)
there is a substantial identity in the causes of action and reliefs sought, with the relief being founded on
the same facts; and (3) the result of the first action is determinative of the second in any event, regardless
of which party is successful or whether the judgment in one would amount to res judicata or constitute
litis pendentia.

REMEDIAL LAW:[GR No. 197147, February 3, 2021]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF GLORIA NOVELO

VDA. DE CEA [Diana Gozum vs. Norma Pappas]

DOCTRINE: Administrators are required to be residents, not citizens, of the Philippines.

REMEDIAL LAW: [GR No. 232053, July 16, 2020]

REPUBLIC vs. ANNABELLE ONTUCA

DOCTRINE: The term "substantial" means something that is important or essential, while clerical or
typographical error refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work that is harmless and
innocuous.

REMEDIAL LAW:[G.R. No. 233068. November 9, 2020.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. MERLE M. MALIGAYA, also known as

"MERLY M. MALIGAYA-SARMIENTO", respondent.

DOCTRINE: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, contesting the Regional Trial Court's (RTC)
Decision dated December 14, 2016, in Special Proceedings No. NC-2016-2599, which permitted the
rectification of entries in the birth certificate concerning the first name and date of birth.

REMEDIAL LAW: [G.R. No. 221384, November 9, 2020]

Galacgac vs. Bautista

DOCTRINE: The Court may dismiss a complaint for unlawful detainer based on lack of cause of action
if the plaintiff's supposed act of tolerance is not present right from the start of the defendant's possession.
 REMEDIAL LAW: [G.R. No. 229274, June 16, 2021]

DBP VS LBP

DOCTRINE: Just compensation must be valued at the time of the taking or when the landowner was
deprived of the use and benefit of the property. Further, interest may be awarded in favor of the
landowner in case of delay in payment.

REMEDIAL LAW: [GR No. 238462, May 12, 2021]

ELENA R. QUIAMBAO vs. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

DOCTRINE: The bank cannot validly foreclose a mortgage based on non-payment of the unsecured
PNs.

REMEDIAL LAW: [G.R. No. 219511, December 02, 2020]

Collado vs Dela Vega

DOCTRINE: An acquittal will not bar a civil action in the following cases: (1) when the acquittal is
based on reasonable doubt, as only a preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases; (2) when the
court declares that the accused's liability is not criminal but only civil in nature; and (3) when the civil
liability does not arise from or is not based upon the criminal act for which the accused was acquitted.

REMEDIAL LAW: [ G.R. No. 236618, August 27, 2020 ]

JCLV REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PHIL GALICIA

MANGALI, RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: A private complainant cannot question the order granting the demurrer to evidence in a
criminal case absent grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process. The interest of the offended party
is limited only to the civil aspect of the case.
 REMEDIAL LAW: [GR No. 247611, January 13, 2021]

PEOPLE vs. JANET LIM-NAPOLES

DOCTRINE: Bail is accorded to a person in the custody of the law who may be allowed provisional
liberty upon filing a security to guarantee his or her appearance before any court.

REMEDIAL LAW: NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NPC), ET AL. vs. COMMISSION

ON AUDIT

(GR No. 218052)

DOCTRINE: The perfection of an appeal within the period permitted by the law is not only mandatory
but also jurisdictional.

REMEDIAL LAW: REPUBLIC vs. EULALIA T. MANEJA

(GR No. 209052)

DOCTRINE: There can be no execution until and unless the judgment has become final and executory.

REMEDIAL LAW: CHARNNEL SHANE THOMAS vs. RACHEL TRONO, REPUBLIC

(GR No. 241032)

DOCTRINE: Due process requires that those with an interest in the subject matter in litigation be
notified and afforded an opportunity to defend their interests.

REMEDIAL LAW: KAIZEN BUILDERS, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MEGALOPOLIS

PROPERTIES, INC.) AND CECILLE F. APOSTOL, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS
AND THE HEIRS OF OFELIA URSAIS, RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: It is the policy of the courts to consolidate cases involving similar parties and affecting
closely related subject matters. The purpose of this rule is to settle the issues expeditiously and to avoid
the multiplicity of suits and the possibility of conflicting decisions.
 REMEDIAL LAW: CIR VS COMELEC (MAY 2021)

DOCTRINE: The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies states that every opportunity must
be given to the administrative body to resolve the matter and exhaust all options for a resolution under the
remedy provided by statute before bringing an action in or resorting to the courts of justice.

REMEDIAL LAW: THOMAS VS TRONO (MARCH 2021)

DOCTRINE: Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the grounds for annulment of judgment
are: (1) extrinsic fraud; and (2) lack of jurisdiction. Jurisprudence, however, recognizes a third ground -
denial of due process of law. This is the principle of the immutability of judgment. In the interest of
society as a whole, litigation must come to an end except if there are: (1) corrections of clerical errors; (2)
so-called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever
circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision, rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
None of these exceptions exist in this case. Finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the
reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected, or motion for reconsideration, or a new trial is
filed. The trial court need not even pronounce its finality, as the same becomes final by operation of law.

REMEDIAL LAW: VELASQUEZ JR. VS LISONDRA (AUGUST 2020)

DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be waived or acquired through consent or
estoppel. However, a party may be estopped from challenging jurisdiction if they actively participated in
the proceedings before a court or tribunal without raising the issue of jurisdiction.

REMEDIAL LAW: CIR vs East Asia Utilities

DOCTRINE: Forum shopping occurs when the following elements are present: (a) identity of parties, or
at least parties representing the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief
sought, with the relief being based on the same facts; and (c) a judgment rendered in one case would
amount to res judicata in the other.
 REMEDIAL LAW: CSC vs Dampilag

DOCTRINE: In administrative proceedings, the quantum of evidence required is only substantial, or

such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if
other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.

REMEDIAL LAW: [G.R. No. 199972. August 15, 2022]

LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, JESSE M. ROBREDO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND ALL PERSONS ACTING
UNDER THEIR CONTROL AND DIRECTION, INCLUDING THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER SPECIAL 5TH
DIVISION, AND MERIDIEN VISTA GAMING CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 206118]

GAMES AND AMUSEMENTS BOARD (GAB), PETITIONER, VS. MERIDIEN VISTA GAMING
CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: The resolution of two legal cases: G.R. No. 199972, a Petition for Certiorari filed by Leila
M. De Lima and the late Jesse M. Robredo challenging certain resolutions of the Court of Appeals; and
G.R. No. 206118, a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Games and Amusement Board
contesting specific resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The former is filed under Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court, while the latter is under Rule 45.

REMEDIAL LAW: [G.R. No. 190517. July 27, 2022]

METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO., PETITIONER, VS. RADIO PHILIPPINES

NETWORK, INC., INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING CORP., AND BANAHAW
BROADCASTING CORPORATION, THRU THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS,
RESPONDENTS

DOCTRINE: All disputes between the parties are considered resolved and addressed at the moment a
judgment is rendered final; further action is limited to directing the execution of the decision.
 REMEDIAL LAW: [G.R. No. 256177. June 27, 2022]

PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE INSURANCE

COMPANY, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CLEARWATER INSURANCE COMPANY,
RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: The court addresses Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation's Petition for Review on
Certiorari, challenging the Court of Appeals' decision dated June 19, 2020, and resolution dated February
24, 2021, in CA-G.R. SP No. 149206.

REMEDIAL LAW: [ G.R. No. 244374. February 15, 2022 ]

PUREGOLD PRICE CLUB, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND RENATO M.
CRUZ, JR., RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: The court emphasizes that procedural rules should not be regarded as insignificant
technical details that can be disregarded at the discretion of a party for their convenience.

REMEDIAL LAW: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. TERESITA I.

SALINAS, RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: The recorded date of submission for a court pleading sent via registered mail is confirmed
by either the date stamped on the envelope or the date specified in the registry receipt.

REMEDIAL LAW: SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION,Petitioner versus CENTRAL

AZUCARERA DE BAIS~ INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 253821

DOCTRINE: The distinction between pure questions of law and factual issues is crucial in determining
the appropriate legal remedies for the aggrieved party.
 REMEDIAL LAW: SPS. MARIANO & RAQUEL CORDERO vs. LEONILA OCTAVIO

(GR No. 241385)

DOCTRINE: The courts have always tried to maintain a healthy balance between the strict enforcement
of procedural laws and the guarantee that every litigant be given the full opportunity for the just
disposition of his cause.

REMEDIAL LAW: SPS. CATALINO & ANITA POBLETE vs. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS
AND MORTGAGE BANK

(GR No. 228620)

DOCTRINE: The Court is vested with the inherent authority to effect the necessary consequence of the
judgment. However, it should be limited to explaining a vague or equivocal part of the judgment which
hampers its proper and full execution.

REMEDIAL LAW: VITARICH CORPORATION vs. FEMINA DAGMIL (GR No. 217138)

DOCTRINE: It is the avowed policy of the law to accord both parties every opportunity to pursue and
defend their cases openly and to relegate technicalities to the background in the interest of substantial
justice.
LABOR LAW: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (HRET) vs. DAISY
B. PANGA-VEGA

(GR No. 22236)

DOCTRINE: The paramount consideration of RA 9710 is the empowerment of women.

LABOR LAW: FREDDIE B. LAURENTE vs. HELENAR CONST. & JOEL ARGARIN

(GR No. 243812)

DOCTRINE: What determines regular employment is not an employment contract, written or otherwise,
but the nature of the job.

LABOR LAW: OSCAR ORTIZ vs. FOREVER RICHSONS TRADING CORP.

(GR No. 238289)

DOCTRINE: In labor-contracting, there is no contracting and no contractor; it is only the employer’s

representatives who gather and supply people for the employer.

LABOR LAW: PAL MARITIME CORPORATION vs. DARWIN D. DALISAY

(GR No. 218115)

DOCTRINE: The falsity or non-disclosure of the truth must be for a malicious purpose or coupled with
the intent to deceive and profit from deception.

LABOR LAW: ABELARDO SALAZAR vs. ALBINA SIMBAJON, ET AL.

(GR No. 202374)

DOCTRINE: The posting of an appeal bond is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional.
 LABOR LAW: REGGIE ZONIO vs. 1st QUANTUM LEAP SECURITY AGENCY AND
ROMULO Q. PAR

(GR No. 224944)

DOCTRINE: In claims for overtime pay and premium pay for holidays and rest days, the burden is
shifted to the employee, as these are not incurred in the normal course of business.

LABOR LAW: [G.R. No. 229429, November 9, 2020]

NOEL M. MANRIQUE, PETITIONER, VS. DELTA EARTHMOVING, INC., ED ANYAYAHAN,

AND IAN HANSEN, RESPONDENTS

DOCTRINE: In terminating managerial employees based on a loss of trust and confidence, proof beyond
reasonable doubt is not required. The mere existence of a basis for believing that such an employee has
breached the trust of their employer is enough. This degree of proof differs from that of a rank-and-file
employee, which requires proof of involvement in the alleged events, and mere uncorroborated assertions
by the employer will be insufficient. Despite the less stringent degree of proof involving managerial
employees, jurisprudence is firm that loss of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal has never been
intended to afford an occasion for abuse due to its subjective nature. The grounds for dismissal must be
genuine, not a mere afterthought intended to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith.

LABOR LAW: [G.R. No. 240882, September 16, 2020]

WILFREDO T. MARIANO, PETITIONER, VS. G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT AND/OR

VIRGILIO FLORIDA, JR., RESPONDENTS

DOCTRINE: Dismissal from employment has two facets: first, the legality of the act of dismissal, which
constitutes substantive due process; and second, the legality of the manner of dismissal, which constitutes
procedural due process. The burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the disciplinary action
was made for a lawful cause or that the termination of employment was valid.

LABOR LAW: [G.R. No. 229372, August 27, 2020]

MARYVILLE MANILA, INC., PETITIONER, VS. LLOYD C. ESPINOSA, RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: The obligation imposed by the mandatory reporting requirement under Section 20(B)(3) of
the 1996 POEA-SEC is not solely on the seafarer. It requires the employer to likewise act on the report,
and in this sense, it partakes of the nature of a reciprocal obligation.
 LABOR LAW: ABRENICA ET AL VS COA (SEPTEMBER 2021)

DOCTRINE: There is no dispute that our public health workers are entitled to hazard allowances under
Section 21 of RA No. 7305. The computation of the hazard allowance due should, in turn, be based on the
corresponding basic salary attached to the position of the employee concerned.

LABOR LAW: BACABAC VS NYK FIL SHIPMANAGEMENT (JULY 2021)

DOCTRINE: It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the
employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the
establishment or, at the very least, the aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had.

LABOR LAW: BLUE MANILA INC. VS JAMIAS (JANUARY 2021)

DOCTRINE: Under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard

Employment Contract (SEC), a seafarer may claim disability benefits for an injury or illness that
manifests during the term of their contract. If the illness or injury falls under the first scenario, the
employer is liable for medical treatment and sickness allowance. The employer’s obligation to provide
medical attention extends to all existing illnesses complained of or diagnosed during the mandatory pre-
employment medical examination (PEME).

LABOR LAW: DOEHLE-PHILMAN MANNING VS GATCHALIAN (FEBRUARY 2021)

DOCTRINE: A seafarer’s entitlement to disability benefits is governed by medical findings as well as by

law and contract. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract
(POEA-SEC) provides the mechanism and procedure for claiming disability benefits. The company-
designated doctor’s assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to work or disability grading prevails, unless the
seafarer contests it and seeks a second opinion from a doctor of his choice. If there is a disagreement
between the findings of two doctors, the parties may jointly refer the matter to a third doctor, whose
decision is final and binding.
 LABOR LAW: DORELCO EMPLOYEES UNION VS DON ORESTES ROMUALDEZ
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE (MARCH 2021)

DOCTRINE: Under Article 276 of the Labor Code, the award or decision of a voluntary arbitrator
becomes final and executory after 10 calendar days from notice. Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides
that an appeal from the judgment or final orders of voluntary arbitrators must be made within 15 days
from notice. The court has clarified that the 10-day period in Article 276 is for filing a motion for
reconsideration, while the 15-day period in Rule 43 is for appealing to the CA.

LABOR LAW: DUSOL VS LAZO (JANUARY 2021)

DOCTRINE: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by considering the

elements of selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and the employer’s power
to control the employee’s conduct. The sharing of profits does not establish a partnership if the amounts
received are in the nature of wages. Control over the employee’s conduct, not only as to the result of the
work but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it, is a crucial factor in determining an
employment relationship.

LABOR LAW: VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS PHILS VS MARGIN (SEPTEMBER 2020)

DOCTRINE: In an illegal dismissal case, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the
dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. The employer must also observe procedural due process,
which includes giving the employee notice and an opportunity to be heard.

LABOR LAW: Bicol Isarog Transport System, Inc., v. Relucio

DOCTRINE: In order to effect a valid dismissal on the ground of just cause, the employer must
substantially comply with the following standards of due process: (a) a first written notice—containing
the specific cause or grounds for termination under Article 297 of the Labor Code, and company policies,
if any; a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as the basis for the charge; and a
directive to submit a written explanation within a reasonable period; (b) after serving the first notice, the
employer should afford the employee ample opportunity to be heard and to defend themselves; and (c)
after determining that termination of employment is justified, the employer shall serve the employee a
written notice of termination indicating that all circumstances involving the charge against the employee
have been considered, and the grounds have been established to justify the severance of their
employment.
 LABOR LAW: Fil Expat Placement Agency vs. Cudal Lee

DOCTRINE: The employee is considered to have been illegally terminated because he or she is forced to
relinquish the job due to the employer's unfair or unreasonable treatment. The test of constructive
dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up
his position under the circumstances.

LABOR LAW: Home Credit Mutual Building and Loan Association v. Prudente

DOCTRINE: As a rule, "practice" or "custom" is not a source of a legally demandable or enforceable

right. In labor cases, however, benefits that were voluntarily given by the employer and ripened into
company practice are considered rights and are subject to the non-diminution rule. To be considered a
company practice, the employer must consistently and deliberately grant the benefit over a long period of
time. It requires an indubitable showing that the employer agreed to continue giving the benefit, knowing
fully well that the employee is not covered by any provision of law or agreement for its payment. The
burden to establish that the benefit has ripened into a company practice rests with the employee.

LABOR LAW: [G.R. No. 252720, August 22, 2022]

RICO PALIC CONJUSTA, PETITIONER, VS. PPI HOLDINGS, INC. (FORMERLY

PHILIPPINE PIZZA, INC.), JORGE L. ARANETA (OWNER), ATALIAN GLOBAL SERVICES
(FORMERLY CONSOLIDATED BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC./CBMI), AND JUAN
MANOLO ORTAÑEZ (OWNER), RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: Previous declarations about a company being an independent job contractor can't solely
determine its status in another case. Each case needs its own assessment to decide if the entity is a
genuine job contractor or a labor-only contractor.

LABOR LAW: [G.R. No. 220657. March 16, 2022]

CELESTINO M. JUNIO, PETITIONER, VS. PACIFIC OCEAN MANNING, INC., MEGA

CHEMICAL TANKER, AND ERLINDA S. AZUCENA, RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: According to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard

Employment Contract (SEC), a seafarer is eligible for disability benefits if the injury or illness is work-
related and occurred during the employment contract period. Additionally, the seafarer must undergo a
post-employment medical examination within three days as a mandatory reporting requirement. This case
pertains to the disability benefits of an employee who suffered injury and other medical conditions while
working on board.
 LABOR LAW: LOUE B. MUTIA, PETITIONER, VS. C.F. SHARP CREW MGT., INC.,
NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINES, M/V NORWEGIAN JADE, AND JUAN JOSE P. ROCHA,
RESPONDENTS

DOCTRINE: Seafarers' concealment of pre-existing illnesses bars their claim for disability benefits.
Section 20 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract
(POEA-SEC) applies if the seafarer suffers from a pre-existing condition or injury. Intentionally
concealing the injury or disease and concealing a pre-existing illness or injury must have a causal or
reasonable connection with the illness or injury suffered during the seafarer’s contract. In the absence of
the conditions mentioned above, employers remain liable for work-related injury or disease to their
workers.

LABOR LAW: [ G.R. No. 251150. March 16, 2022 ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REGINA WENDELINA

BEGINO Y ROGERO A.K.A "WENG FABULAR" A.K.A "REGINA BEGINO" AND DARWIN
AREVALO Y TOMAS (AT LARGE), ACCUSED, REGINA WENDELINA BEGINO Y ROGERO
A.K.A "WENG FABULAR" A.K.A "REGINA BEGINO" ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DOCTRINE: Illegal large-scale recruiting, as described by Republic Act No. 8042, occurs when the
perpetrator lacks the requisite authorization, engages in prohibited actions, and recruits three or more
people, causing significant damage to the victims.

LABOR LAW: ABELARDO SALAZAR, PETITIONER, VS. ALBINA SIMBAJON, GEMMA

MAGAHIS, REBECCA OBOZA, MARILOU MARCELINO, FLORIAN EMPREMIADO,
JOEBANE ASOMBRADO, ARNOLD LIGOY LIGOY, RAUL GALONIA, LITO ESPEJON,
MARINO GAMALONG, MELODY CAGNAYO, WILMA TAN, ANALYN CAGNAYO,
ANNALIZA ALIWAG, AND TIRSO LIGOY LIGOY, RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: The appeal bond in legal cases involving monetary awards is mandatory and jurisdictional.
This case includes allegations of unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, non-
payment of wages, alleged harassment, and termination of employees upon forming a union. It also
involves Labor Case Article 233.
 LABOR LAW: [ G.R. No. 227655. April 27, 2022 ]

SKANFIL MARITIME SERVICES, INC., AND/OR CROWN SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC.,

AND/OR JOSE MARIO C. BUNAG, PETITIONERS, VS. ALMARIO M. CENTENO,
RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: The Court addresses the petition through certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Skanfil Maritime Services, Inc. (Skanfil), Crown Shipmanagement, Inc., and Jose Mario C. Bunag
challenge the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) issued on July 27, 2016, and its Resolution dated
October 14, 2016, in CA-G.R. SP No. 144697.

LABOR LAW: U R EMPLOYED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND PAMELA T.

MIGUEL, PETITIONERS, VS. MIKE A. PINMILIW, MURPHY P. PACYA, SIMON M.
BASTOG, AND RYAN D. AYOCHOK, RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: The case involves the interpretation and application of the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipino Act of 1995, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 10022. The law aims to improve the
standard of protection and promotion of the welfare of migrant workers, their families, and overseas
Filipinos in distress. This includes the right to claim actual, moral, exemplary, and any form of damages
that occurred during the employer-employee relationship involving Filipino workers in overseas
deployment.

LABOR LAW: URC v UNIVERSAL CORPORATION, ROBINA Versus ROBERTO DE

GUZMAN MAGLALANG,

G.R. No. 255864

DOCTRINE: This Court addresses Universal Robina Corporation's (URC) Petition for Review on
Certiorari, which challenges the Court of Appeals' decisions in CA-G.R. SP No. 155421, dated September
15, 2020, and February 8, 2021.

LABOR LAW: PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL) -versus- FREDERICK YANEZ,

G.R. No. 214662

DOCTRINE: In this case, Philippine Airlines Inc. (PAL) questions the validity of the Court of Appeals
(CA) decision that declared Frederick Yañez's suspension invalid. The CA ruled that PAL failed to follow
the specific procedures outlined in the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (RA No. 7877) when
charging Yañez with sexual harassment. The court noted that PAL lacked rules and regulations for
investigating sexual harassment cases and failed to provide the relevant code of discipline in the
administrative charge. The court further emphasized that any policy or rule created by PAL must be in
consonance with the law and cannot stand on its own.

LABOR LAW: NOEL MANRIQUE vs. DELTA EARTHMOVING INC. (GR No. 229429)

DOCTRINE: In terminating managerial employees based on the loss of trust and confidence, proof
beyond a reasonable doubt is not required.

LABOR LAW: PHILIPPINE NAVY GOLF CLUB, ET AL vs. MERARDO C. ABAYA (GR No.
229429)

DOCTRINE: The exclusionary clause applies only to areas that are being used or earmarked for public
or quasi-public purposes.

LABOR LAW: TRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY AND/OR GOODWOOD SHIP

MANAGEMENT, AND/OR ROBERT ESTANIEL vs. MAGNO UTANES (GR No. 236498)

DOCTRINE: A seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in the Pre-
Employment Medical Examination (PEME) shall be liable for misrepresentation and disqualified from
any compensation and benefits.

LABOR LAW: JULIAN TUPPIL ET AL vs. LBP SERVICE CORP. (GR No. 228407)

DOCTRINE: Contracts of employment for a fixed period terminate on their own at the end of such a
period.

LABOR LAW: VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC. vs.

LAURENCE C. MARGIN (GR No. 216599)

DOCTRINE: The employer has the burden of proving that an employee's dismissal from service was for
a just or authorized cause.
 POLITICAL LAW: MRM ASSET HOLDINGS 2, INC vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

(GR No. 202761)

DOCTRINE: Courts generally decline jurisdiction or dismiss cases on the ground of mootness.

POLITICAL LAW: JUAN NGALOB, ET AL. vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

(GR No. 238882)

DOCTRINE: The basic rule is that the burden of proving the validity or legality of the grant of
allowance, benefits, or compensation lies with the government agency or entity granting them or the
employee claiming them.

POLITICAL LAW: SEFYAN MOHAMED vs. REPUBLIC

(GR No. 220674)

DOCTRINE: Naturalization laws are strictly construed in favor of the government and against the
applicant.

POLITICAL LAW: NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION (TransCo) vs.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT

(GR No. 246173)

DOCTRINE: Officers who participated in the approval of disallowed allowances or benefits are
presumed to have acted in good faith in the performance of their duties.

POLITICAL LAW:. ENGR. ALEX PAGUIO vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

(GR No. 223547)

DOCTRINE: Procedural rules should be treated with the utmost respect and due regard because they are
precisely designed to effectively facilitate the administration of justice.
 POLITICAL LAW: PARTIDO DEMOKRATIKO PILIPINO - LAKAS NG BAYAN (PDP
LABAN) vs. COMELEC

(GR No. 225152)

DOCTRINE: The Court recognizes that the state is interested in ensuring that the electoral process is
clean and ultimately expressive of the true will of the electorate.

POLITICAL LAW: PNOC- EXPLORATION CORP. vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

(GR No. 244461)

DOCTRINE: The general policy is to give due deference to the COA’s constitutional prerogatives in the
absence of grave abuse of discretion, not only based on the doctrine of the separation of powers but also
on their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce.

POLITICAL LAW: POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION (PSALM) vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

(GR No. 244461)

DOCTRINE: Where the law does not distinguish, neither should we.

POLITICAL LAW: FLORENTINA SOBREJUANITE-FLORES vs. PROFESSIONAL

REGULATIONS COMMISSION (PRC)

(GR No. 251816)

DOCTRINE: The State has closely regulated the practice of all branches of medicine to protect the
health and safety of the public from the potential deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance among
practitioners.
 POLITICAL LAW: ANTONIETA ABELLA, ET AL. vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

(GR No. 238940)

DOCTRINE: The right to a speedy disposition of cases is not a magical invocation that can
automatically compel courts or any justice-administering agency to rule in one’s favor.

POLITICAL LAW: MAMERTO AUSTRIA vs. AAA & BBB (GR No. 205275)

DOCTRINE: Faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 14 and Article VIII of the Constitution is
indisputably a paramount component of due process and fair play.

POLITICAL LAW: AMPATUAN VS COA (DECEMBER 2021)

DOCTRINE: Liability for audit disallowances depends on the nature of the disallowance, the duties and
responsibilities of the officers involved, and their extent of participation in the disallowed transaction. The
mere position of the head of an agency does not automatically make an official personally liable for
disallowances. Liability requires a clear showing of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence on the part of
the official.

POLITICAL LAW: ANCHETA ET AL VS COA (FEBRUARY 2021)

DOCTRINE: The case involves the interpretation and application of Republic Act No. 6758, also known
as the Salary Standardization Law. The law provides that all allowances, except for certain specified ones,
shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates. Additional compensation not integrated into the
salary rates may be authorized for incumbents as of July 1, 1989. The law also establishes the principle of
non-diminution of pay. The case also clarifies that local water districts (LWDs), including SWD, are
government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) subject to the provisions of RA No. 6758.

POLITICAL LAW: ARCENA VS COA (FEBRUARY 2021)

DOCTRINE: The court emphasized that procedural rules should be treated with the utmost respect and
due regard, as they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases and ensure the efficient
administration of justice. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the law. The court also recognized the COA’s exclusive authority to
define the scope of its audit, establish auditing rules and regulations, and examine and settle all accounts
pertaining to government funds and properties.

POLITICAL LAW: Brasales vs Borja (June 2021)

DOCTRINE: The court has exclusive power of discipline and supervision over all court personnel.
Violations of reasonable office rules and regulations are classified as a light offense punishable by
reprimand for the first offense, suspension of one to thirty days for the second offense, and dismissal from
service for the third offense.

POLITICAL LAW: DBP VS COA (MARCH 2021)

DOCTRINE: The COA is the sole agency that examines, audits, and settles all accounts pertaining to the
entire bureaucracy, including private entities that receive public funds. The COA also faces a steady
influx of petitions for money claims and requests for relief from accountability.

POLITICAL LAW: AES Watch et el vs COMELEC

DOCTRINE: Judicial review may be exercised only when the person challenging the act has the
requisite legal standing, which refers to a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that they have
sustained or will sustain direct injury due to its enforcement.

POLITICAL LAW: [G.R. No. 207853, March 20, 2022]

CLARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, AND GOVERNANCE

COMMISSION FOR GOCCS (GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS), PETITIONER-INTERVENOR, VS. ASSOCIATION OF CDC
SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL UNION, RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: Renegotiation of government employment terms and conditions requires the President's
approval and compliance with relevant laws. Contracts violating the law are null and void.
 POLITICAL LAW: [G.R. No. 243968, March 22, 2022 ]

ANGELO CASTRO DE ALBAN, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

(COMELEC), COMELEC LAW DEPARTMENT, AND COMELEC EDUCATION AND
INFORMATION DEPARTMENT, RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: The focus of this Petition for Certiorari is the constitutionality of the Commission on
Elections' (Comelec) authority to motu proprio refuse to give due course to or cancel the Certificate of
Candidacy (CoC) of a nuisance candidate under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) and the
proper interpretation of its provision pertaining to the candidate's bona fide intention to run for public
office.

POLITICAL LAW: ARMANDO G. ESTRELLA & LYDA CHUA vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

(GR No. 252079)

DOCTRINE: Competitive public bidding aims to protect the public interest by providing them with the
best possible advantages and preventing suspicions of favoritism and anomalies.

POLITICAL LAW: [G.R. No. 254830. June 27, 2022]

ENGR. JOSE S. DELA CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. FIRST BUKIDNON ELECTRIC

COOPERATIVE, INC. (FIBECO), RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: The jurisdiction of the National Electrification Administration (NEA) over administrative
matters involving electric cooperative general managers.

POLITICAL LAW: [ G.R. Nos. 235965-66. February 15, 2022 ]

RENE C. FIGUEROA, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION,

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR AND PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION,
RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: An accused has no duty to bring himself to trial, and if excessive and vexatious delays fall
short of the constitutional guarantee of a prompt resolution of cases, he must be spared the ordeal and
expense of a full-fledged trial.
 POLITICAL LAW: [ G.R. No. 252411. February 15, 2022 ]

METRO LAUNDRY SERVICES, REPRESENTED BY ROWELA T. TINDOG, HEIR OF

PROPRIETOR, MS. ELIZABETH T. TINDOG, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION
PROPER, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND THE CITY OF MANILA, RESPONDENTS

DOCTRINE: This case involves a Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 64 and Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court. The petition challenges the Commission on Audit (COA) Proper Decision No. 2020-043,
dated January 10, 2020.

POLITICAL LAW: [ G.R. No. 253724. February 15, 2022 ]

PELAGIO T. RICALDE, OLIVER B. BUTALID, EFREN V. LEAÑO, BOBBY G. FONDEVILLA,

AND ESTELLA F. JIMENEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO, COMMISSIONER JOSE A. FABIA,
COMMISSIONER ROLAND C. PONDOC, DIRECTOR MA. CORAZON S. GOMEZ,
SUPERVISING AUDITOR MANUEL A. BAES, AND AUDIT TEAM LEADER LIBRADA R.
SANTELICES, RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court, in conjunction with Rule 65, seeks judicial review
of the Commission on Audit (COA) Proper Decision No. 2020-263 [2], which upheld with modification
the COA National Government Sector (NGS) audit.

POLITICAL LAW: NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI) vs. CONRADO M.

NAJERA (GR No. 237522)

DOCTRINE: The burden to establish charges rests upon the complainant.

POLITICAL LAW: SOCIAL HOUSING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC. vs.

SOCIAL HOUSING FINANCE ASSOCIATION

(GR No. 237729)

DOCTRINE: A law must authorize the benefit before it may be granted to government officials or
employees.
 POLITICAL LAW: ARTURO SULLANO vs. PEOPLE (GR No. 232147)

DOCTRINE: Objects falling within the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to
have the view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence.

POLITICAL LAW: RICARDO TRINIDAD vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (GR No.
227440)

DOCTRINE: No less than the Constitution sanctifies the principle that public office is a public trust and
enjoins all public officers and employees to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency.
 CRIMINAL LAW: JOEL MACASIL vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN

(GR No. 226898)

DOCTRINE: The Court cannot overemphasize the admonition to agencies tasked with preliminary
investigation to shield the innocent from precipitate, spiteful, and burdensome prosecution.

CRIMINAL LAW: PEOPLE vs. ROBERTO G. CAMPOS

(GR No. 252212)

DOCTRINE: The perpetrator is not personally known to a witness but can be reasonably identified.

CRIMINAL LAW: PEOPLE vs. CARLO DIEGA

(GR No. 255389)

DOCTRINE: An accused is responsible not only for the rape he personally committed but also for the
other counts of rape that his co-conspirators perpetrated, even if they remain unidentified or at large.

CRIMINAL LAW: PEOPLE vs. JERRICO JUADA

(GR No. 252276)

DOCTRINE: In the prosecution of criminal offenses, conviction is not always based on direct evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW: PEOPLE vs. LEO ILAGAN

(GR No. 244295)

DOCTRINE: The presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by law enforcers cannot prevail
over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent.
 CRIMINAL LAW: LEONIDES QUIAP vs. PEOPLE

(GR No. 229183)

DOCTRINE: The Court cannot tolerate the lax approach of law enforcers in handling the very corpus
delicti of the crime.

CRIMINAL LAW: LUIS QUIOGUE vs. BENITO ESTACIO

(GR No. 218530)

DOCTRINE: There is no such thing as a presumption of bad faith in cases involving violations of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

CRIMINAL LAW: FRANKLIN REYES JR. vs. PEOPLE

(GR No. 244545)

DOCTRINE: The presence of insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of
the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

CRIMINAL LAW: JASPER TAN vs. PEOPLE

(GR No. 232611)

DOCTRINE: Failure to comply with the safeguards provided by law in implementing the search warrant
makes the search unreasonable.

CRIMINAL LAW: Cacdac vs Mercado (June 2021)

DOCTRINE: The case establishes that for the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be present, the
attack must have been made in a manner that ensures the victim’s inability to defend himself or retaliate.
Contradictory testimonies and the location of the wound led the court to conclude that treachery was not
proven.
 CRIMINAL LAW: [G.R. No. 239215. July 12, 2022]

RANDY MICHAEL KNUTSON, ACTING ON BEHALF OF MINOR RHUBY SIBAL

KNUTSON, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ELISA R. SARMIENTO-FLORES, IN HER CAPACITY
AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 69, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TAGUIG
CITY, AND ROSALINA SIBAL KNUTSON, RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: The legal pursuit to determine the eligibility of individuals as defined by criminal law can
be intricate. An example of such complexity is whether the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004, also known as Republic Act (RA) No. 9262, permits a father to seek protection and
custody orders when the mother is accused of committing violence against their child.

[ G.R. No. 229265. February 15, 2022 ]

SILVINO B. MATOBATO, SR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RESPONDENT.

CRIMINAL LAW: [G.R. No. 229624]

WALTER B. BUCAO AND CIRILA A. ENGBINO, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE

SANDIGANBAYAN-SPECIAL FIFTH DIVISION AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: A public official may still be held accountable under the "threefold liability rule" even if
they are found not guilty of any crimes. If the acquittal is solely civil, the dismissal of the criminal case
does not terminate the civil obligation, and the offense for which the accused is found not guilty does not
give rise to civil liability. The preponderance of the evidence is the required standard of proof to prove
civil culpability.

CRIMINAL LAW: [ G.R. No. 250852. October 10, 2022 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOHN FRANCIS SUALOG,

ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DOCTRINE: The core issue in the appeal before this Court, assailing the Court of Appeals-Cebu City's
(CA) Decision 1 dated May 31, 2019, in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 02515, is the presence of qualifying
circumstances raising the killing to the category of murder.
 CRIMINAL LAW: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JERRIE
ARRAZ Y RODRIGUEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DOCTRINE: This case involves trafficking in persons, rape, and the violation of the "Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012," Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364 (Expanded
Anti-Trafficking Act of 2012).

CRIMINAL LAW: ARLENE HOMOL Y ROMOROSA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: The case involves estafa, which encompasses unfaithfulness or grave abuse of confidence.

CRIMINAL LAW: LEO ABUYO Y SAGRIT, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: Self-defense and defense of relatives clearly state that a person has the right to repel
unlawful aggression committed by others towards one’s life or loved ones.

CRIMINAL LAW: [ G.R. No. 216453. March 16, 2022 ]

OLIGARIO TURALBA Y VILLEGAS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: The case involves a conviction for Carnapping, defined and penalized under Republic Act
(RA) No. 6539.

CRIMINAL LAW: TAHIRA S. ISMAEL AND AIDA U.AJIJON, Petitioners, versus PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. Nos. 234435-36

DOCTRINE: The prosecution in a criminal case does not have to implead all individuals who are
indispensable in the consummation of the offense charged. Failure to include necessary parties in the
information does not violate the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusations against them. This is a Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court, challenging the Decision dated August 2, 2017, and the Resolution dated September 19, 2017, of
the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 28278 and 28279.
CRIMINAL LAW: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,-versus-MILO
LEOCADIO y LABRADOR, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 227396

DOCTRINE: Rape with homicide perpetrated against a child is a heinous crime that not only causes
physical harm and violates the victim's honor but also inflicts lasting outrage upon society. One such
illustration is present in this appeal I assailing Decision 2 dated September 15, 2015, of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06148.

CRIMINAL LAW: PEOPLE vs. DIEGO FLORES (GR No. 26471)

DOCTRINE: The non-compliance with the required procedure created a serious gap in the chain of
custody.

CRIMINAL LAW: PEOPLE vs. JEMUEL PADUA (GR No. 244287)

DOCTRINE: In the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the
very corpus delicti of the offenses, and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.

CRIMINAL LAW: PEOPLE vs. ZAINODIN GANDAWALI, ET AL (GR No. 242516)

DOCTRINE: The presence of insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of
the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

CRIMINAL LAW: PEOPLE vs. MARVIN BALBAREZ (GR No. 246999)

DOCTRINE: If the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution
must allege and prove not only the reasons for their absence but also the fact that earnest efforts were
made to secure their attendance.

CRIMINAL LAW: PEOPLE vs. RONALD LAGUDA (GR No. 244843)

DOCTRINE: Conspiracy occurs when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
 CRIMINAL LAW: PEOPLE vs. NICO MAZO AND JOEY DOMDOMA (GR No. 242273)

DOCTRINE: The presence of insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of
the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

CRIMINAL LAW: PEOPLE vs. ROWENA BUNIEL AND ROWENA SIMBULAN (GR No.
243796)

DOCTRINE: Police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their noncompliance but must, in
fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and
that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable.

CRIMINAL LAW: PEOPLE vs. XXX (GR No. 243988)

DOCTRINE: A "love affair" neither justifies rape nor serves as a license for lust.
 TAXATION LAW: METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM (MWSS)
vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL

(GR No. 215955)

DOCTRINE: The tax-exempt status of a government instrumentality is not lost when it grants the
beneficial use of its real property to a taxable person.

TAXATION LAW: NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NPC) vs. PROVINCE OF

PAMPANGA

(GR No. 230648)

DOCTRINE: The power of taxation is sometimes called the power to destroy; it should be exercised
with caution to minimize injury to the proprietary rights of the taxpayer when levying taxes, fees, and
charges.

TAXATION LAW: [ G.R. Nos. 225750-51, July 28, 2020 ]

KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) may compromise an assessment when there
is reasonable doubt about the validity of the claim against the taxpayer, or the financial position of the
taxpayer clearly shows an inability to pay the tax.

TAXATION LAW: CIR vs FILMINERA

DOCTRINE: To qualify as zero-rated export sales, a Value Added Tax (VAT)-registered taxpayer
selling goods to a Board of Investments (BOI)-registered enterprise must provide proof of actual
exportation.
 TAXATION LAW: [G.R. No. 215159. July 05, 2022 ]

CHEVRON HOLDINGS, INC. (FORMERLY CALTEX ASIA LIMITED), PETITIONER, VS.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: The Court will not reject a request for a refund of unutilized input Value-Added Tax
(VAT) on zero-rated sales simply because the taxpayer lacks "excess" input VAT from the output VAT,
as the law does not mandate such a requirement for eligibility. The Court may not construe a statute that
is free from doubt; neither can we impose conditions nor limitations when none are provided for. The
appeal filed as a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court challenges the
Decision dated May 6, 2014, and the Amended Decision dated October 28, 2014, of the Court of Tax
Appeals (CTA) En Banc in CTA EB No. 940.

TAXATION LAW: PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Petitioner vs.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT Respondent.

G.R. No. 218068

DOCTRINE: This Petition for Certiorari, filed under Rule 64 and Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court,
challenges the Commission on Audit's (COA) Decision No. 2012-1202 dated August 2, 2012, and
Resolution dated March 9, 2015, in COA CP Case No. 2012-025

TAXATION LAW: UNIMASTERS CONGLOMERATION INCORPORATED, PETITIONER,

VS. TACLOBAN CITY GOVERNMENT, PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE,
PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY, AND THE PROVINCE OF LEYTE, RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: Co-ownership of a property involving government entities and private corporations

requires careful consideration of contractual agreements to establish individual liabilities and
responsibilities. A Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed on September 26, 2014, pursuant to Rule 45
of the Rules of Court. This petition aims to overturn Decision dated August 22, 2014, issued in CTA EB
No. 901 by the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc.

TAXATION LAW: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. PHILEX MINING CORP.

(GR No. 230016)

DOCTRINE: When the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, they must be given
their literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.
 CIVIL LAW: NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs. BENGUET ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC.

(GR No. 218378)

DOCTRINE: Unjust enrichment, as provided under the Civil Code, is not a catch-all provision that can
be conveniently invoked when a party has suffered a loss.

CIVIL LAW: DANILO SANTIAGO JIMENEZ ET AL vs. DAMIAN F. JIMENEZ

(GR No. 228011)

DOCTRINE: As an innocent mortgagee with a superior lien, its rights to foreclose on the property are
reserved.

CIVIL LAW: HERMELINA RAMA & BABY RAMA LAURON vs. SPS. NORGA & SPS. RAMA

(GR No. 219556)

DOCTRINE: The required written notice by the seller is mandatory and indispensable for the 30-day
redemption period to commence.

CIVIL LAW: BELINDA ALEXANDER vs. SPS. ESCALONA

(GR No. 238940)

DOCTRINE: The absence of consent renders the contract void and inexistent.

CIVIL LAW: CENTRAL BAY RECLAMATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

COMMISSION ON AUDIT

(GR No. 252940)

DOCTRINE: It is basic that an assignor or seller cannot assign or sell something he does not own at the
time the ownership or the rights to ownership are to be transferred to the assignee or buyer.
 CIVIL LAW: [ G.R. No. 237449, December 02, 2020 ]

IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF AIDA A. BAMBAO, LINDA A. KUCSKAR,

PETITIONER, VS. COSME B. SEKITO, JR., RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: ART. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made
with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the formalities
observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes.

In international law, the party seeking the application of a foreign law to a dispute or case bears the
burden of proving the foreign law. The foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded
and proved, as the judge or labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. They are presumed
to know only domestic or forum law.

CIVIL LAW: Alba vs. Arollado

DOCTRINE: Prescription of actions is interrupted when (1) they are filed before the court, (2) when
there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, or (3) when there is any written acknowledgment
of the debt by the debtor.

CIVIL LAW: Banico v. Stager

DOCTRINE: The lawyer's mistake in drafting the written instrument will not prevent its reformation if
the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties show that their true intention was not disclosed in
the document.

CIVIL LAW: Commoner Lending Corporation vs Sps Villanueva

DOCTRINE: It is settled that the literal meaning shall govern when the terms of a contract are clear and
leave no doubt as to the parties' intention. The courts have no authority to alter the agreement or make a
new contract for the parties. Their duty is confined to the interpretation of the terms and conditions that
the parties have made for themselves without regard to their wisdom or folly. The courts cannot supply
material stipulations or read into the contract words that it does not contain. It is only when the contract is
vague and ambiguous that the courts are permitted to interpret the agreement and determine the intention
of the parties.
 CIVIL LAW: DAR Employees Association vs COA

DOCTRINE: Without a doubt, receiving public funds without a valid basis or justification is already an
undue benefit that gives rise to the obligation to return. The civil law principles of solutio indebiti and
unjust enrichment found this obligation. The recipients' good faith or bad faith is immaterial in the
determination of their liability.

CIVIL LAW: [G.R. No. 244076, March 16, 2022]

FELIX CHINGKOE AND ROSITA CHINGKOE, PETITIONERS, VS. FAUSTINO CHINGKOE

AND GLORIA CHINGKOE, RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: The presumption of regularity accorded to notarized documents in the case can be
overturned with clear and convincing evidence. This includes a deed of absolute sale over real property;
pleadings can reveal imperfections and mistakes in writing documents.

CIVIL LAW: [G.R. No. 250618. July 20, 2022]

JENNIFER A. DEDICATORIA, PETITIONER, VS. FERDINAND M. DEDICATORIA AND

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: Psychological incapacity as a basis for declaring a marriage null and void under Article 36
of the Family Code is a legal concept, not a medical one.

CIVIL LAW: [G.R. No. 241370. April 20, 2022]

MUNICIPALITY OF BAKUN, BENGUET, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY MAYOR FAUSTO T.

LABINIO, PETITIONER, VS. MUNICIPALITY OF SUGPON, ILOCOS SUR, HEREIN
REPRESENTED BY MAYOR FERNANDO C. QUITON,* SR., RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: In cases involving property disputes, the sufficiency of evidence and the clarity of border
definitions are critical considerations in determining ownership.
 CIVIL LAW: [G.R. No. 230711. August 22, 2022]

CAROLYN T. MUTYA-SUMILHIG, PETITIONER, VS. JOSELITO T. SUMILHIG AND

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: Psychological incapacity, for the purposes of nullity under Article 36, must be present at
the time of marriage, even if it becomes noticeable only after the wedding. It refers to a lasting aspect of a
spouse's personality that renders them unable to comprehend and fulfill their essential marital
responsibilities. Witness testimonies indicating consistent behaviors can be considered evidence.

CIVIL LAW: [ G.R. No. 203992. August 22, 2022 ]

ANTONIO S. QUIOGUE, JR., PETITIONER, VS. MARIA BEL B. QUIOGUE AND THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. It includes a Petition
for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, in which the petitioner alleges psychological incapacity as grounds
for annulling the marriage.

CIVIL LAW: [ G.R. No. 190057. October 17, 2022 ]

SPOUSES ADOLFO B. VELARDE AND ANTONINA T. VELARDE, SPOUSES ROMULO B.

VELARDE AND JEAN T. VELARDE, BELLA B. VELARDE, BENEDICTO B. VELARDE,
ISABELLE V. DIAZ, AND CARMELITA B. VELARDE, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF
CONCEPCION CANDARI, RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: When a contract is properly signed and executed, it is assumed to be valid unless there are
specific allegations and evidence of fraud. If someone wants to challenge the legitimacy of the contract,
they have to provide clear and convincing proof of any irregularities. This Court resolves the Petition for
Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court (Rules), assailing the Decision
dated October 30, 2008, and the Resolution dated September 29, 2009, of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 72998.

CIVIL LAW: ROWENA PATENIA-KINATAC-AN, ET AL. vs. ENRIQUETA PATENIA-

LAPINED ABO-ABO, ET AL (GR No. 238325)

DOCTRINE: The donation of an immovable property must be made in a public document.

 CIVIL LAW: PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE (PMO) vs. MARIANO
NOCOM (GR No. 250477)

DOCTRINE: If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting
parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.

CIVIL LAW: STRONG FORT WAREHOUSE CORPORATION vs.

REMEDIOS T. BANTA (GR No. 222369 & 222502)

DOCTRINE: A mortgage is merely an accessory agreement and does not affect the principal contract of
the loan.
 COMMERCIAL LAW: BPI VS LCL CAPITAL (SEPTEMBER 2021)

DOCTRINE: The computations of the redemption price in cases where the mortgagee is a bank are
governed by Section 78 of Republic Act No. 337, also known as the General Banking Act. This provision
mandates that the redemption price shall consist of the principal obligation, interest at the rate specified in
the mortgage, expenses of foreclosure, and other related costs. The redemption price must be based on the
amount due under the mortgage deed, not the bid price. Real estate taxes are chargeable against the
mortgagor who had actual or beneficial use and possession of the property, regardless of ownership.
 ETHICS: HAGONOY WATER DISTRICT, ET AL vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

(GR No. 247228)

DOCTRINE: Palpable disregard of laws and pertinent directives amounts to gross negligence.

ETHICS: DANILO SANCHEZ vs. ATTY. DINDO ANTONIO PEREZ

(AC No. 12835)

DOCTRINE: A lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary in nature and imbued with the utmost trust and
confidence.

ETHICS: [ A.C. No. 12456, September 08, 2020 ]

IN RE: ORDER DATED OCTOBER 27, 2016 ISSUED BY BRANCH 137, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, MAKATI IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14-765, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MARIE
FRANCES E. RAMON, RESPONDENT.

DOCTRINE: SECTION 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by the Supreme Court; grounds
therefor.— A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

ETHICS: [A.C. No. 12709, September 8, 2020]

LILIA YUSAY-CORDERO,COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JUANITO AMIHAN, JR.,

RESPONDENT

DOCTRINE: If a member of the Philippine Bar notarizes a document without authorization or

commission, they may be subjected to disciplinary action. Performing notarial acts without such a
commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, specifically the Notarial Law.
 ETHICS: YUSAY-CORDERO VS AMIHAN (A.C. NO. 12709, SEPTEMBER 2020)

DOCTRINE: Notarization ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document, converting a private
document into a public one. It is a substantial engagement of public interest, and the protection of that
interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as a notary public. A lawyer
who notarizes a document without the required commission is guilty of violating the lawyer’s oath and
engaging in deliberate falsehood, prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ETHICS: Bukidnon Coop Bank vs Atty. Arnado

DOCTRINE: Rule 10.01 states that "[a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in the Supreme Court (SC), nor shall he mislead or allow the SC to be misled by an artifice."

ETHICS: Capinpin vs. Espiritu

DOCTRINE: Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the legal profession of unworthy
members of the bar and preserve its nobility and honor. While the Supreme Court has the power to
discipline lawyers through these proceedings, it does so vigilantly to uphold its preservative principle.
Substantial evidence is the proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases.

ETHICS: Costenoble vs Atty Alvarez

DOCTRINE: When a lawyer agrees to act as counsel, he guarantees that he will exercise that reasonable
degree of care and skill demanded by the character of the business he undertakes to protect the clients'
interests and take all necessary steps or perform all necessary acts. A lawyer's neglect of a legal matter
entrusted to him/her constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable.
Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the
lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client. It makes him answerable not just to his client
but also to the legal profession, the court, and society.

ETHICS: [ A.M. No. MTJ-21-001] [FORMERLY A.M. No. 20-12-45-MTCC]. December 6, 2022
Espinosa Case OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE
RUFINO S. FERRARIS, JR., BRANCH 7, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, DAVAO
CITY, AND VIVIAN N. ODRUÑA, CLERK OF COURT III, SAME COURT, RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: The public's trust in the judicial system significantly relies on the courts' efficient and
timely handling of cases and related matters. Individuals working on tasks related to the administration of
justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, are required to carry out their responsibilities with
the highest efficiency and responsibility. This dedication is vital for maintaining public trust in the
judiciary.

ETHICS: JOEL PILAR vs. ATTY. CLARENC BALLICUD (A.C. No. 12792)

DOCTRINE: A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by the written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

ETHICS: NAPOLEON S. QUITAZOL vs. ATTY. HENRY S. CAPELA (AC No. 12072)

DOCTRINE: A lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him constitutes inexcusable negligence for
which he must be held administratively liable.

ETHICS: RE: ORDER - LUIS ALFONSO BENEDICTO VS. ATTY. JOHN MARK TAMAÑO

(A.C. No. 12274)

DOCTRINE: The notary public's failure to make the proper entry or entries in the notarial register
concerning his notarial acts is a ground for the revocation of his commission or the imposition of
appropriate administrative sanctions.

ETHICS: SYLVIA R. RIVERA vs. ATTY. BAYANI DALANGIN

(AC No. 12724)

DOCTRINE: Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach to promote the public's faith in the legal profession.

ETHICS: SALVACIO C. ROMO vs. ATTY. ORHEIM T. FERRER (AC No. 12833)

DOCTRINE: A lawyer is a trustee of all client's funds and properties that may come into his possession.
The failure to render an accounting upon demand deserves administrative sanctions.
 ETHICS: PEDRO SALAZAR vs. ATTY. ARMAND DURAN

(AC No. 7035)

DOCTRINE: Every lawyer is enjoined to obey the laws of the land, refrain from doing any falsehood in
or out of court, or consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself according to the best of
his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts and to his clients.

ETHICS: ROSALINA TAGHOY vs. CONSTANTINE TECSON III (AC No. 12446)

DOCTRINE: Lawyers must always serve their clients with competence and diligence.

ETHICS: MA. HERMINA TIONGSON vs. ATTY. MICHAEL L. FLORES (AC No. 12424)

DOCTRINE: The lawyer and client alike must only employ fair, honest, and honorable means to
advance their interests.

ETHICS: LILIA YUSAY-CORDERO vs. ATTY. JUANITO AMIHAN JR. (AC No. 12709)

DOCTRINE: Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time
when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary
action.