!"#
!"#$ &"'!($ &"'!($#$! #$! #) *#$+ ,)-).
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
%& .''3+#- )/3: &) 1.-#- ="#(# !"#$%&$'()%$* 1+(147-&./1##0+-&; ./, )/3: ="#/ &"# #0&(.)(,+/.(: 1+(147-&./1#- ".*# 7#& &"# -&(+/2#/& 1)/,+&+)/- &".& =+33 '#(7+& +&- .''3+1.&+)/$ ;<+%&+ =+%"2&'+ >? @%+422"9 =0+&%*(%/"'9 A+-"'- @26+'/+'- <+B+8+6+'C D4!6 %")(//"%9 F'&,(%/&$6 G) E0( >0&2&**&'(/ H&2&5+'9 ="I =0+&%*(%/"'9 >+-88+-"C J('%& K+0'9 ="'#(%'(! =&$&.('/ <",(5('$C L(*? M4. :2+-+'9 N+8%&(2+ Women’s >+%$6 L(*%(/('$+$&,(C L(*? =+%2"/ :/+-+'& O+%+$(9 A+6+' <4'+ >+%$6I M&/$ L(*%(/('$+$&,(C L('+$" +%$6C Q('#(% <+%& R? =%&/"/$"5"9 =0+&%*(%/"'9 @'+B8+6+'C Q&#$"% Q&22+'4(,+9 ="',('"%9 S"4$0 @#$ T"39 ,/? A('&-'" P&5("' =? @74&'" :::9 >%(/&!('$ G) E0( L(*482&# G) E0( >0&2&**&'(/C >+74&$" T? G#0"+9 D%?9 R1(#4$&,( P(#%($+%6C @'! U2"%('#&" A? @8+!9 P(#%($+%6 G) E0( H(*+%$5('$ G) A4!-($ @'! < $ NL VWXVYZ D 2 [ VW[\ A & D]
Douglas Cagas vs. Commission on Elections and Claude Bautista G.R. No. 194139, January 24, 2012
The petitioner and respondent contested the position of Governor of the Province of Davao del Sur in the May 10, 2010 automated national and local elections. Alleging fraud, anomalies, irregularities, vote-buying and violations of election laws, rules and resolutions, Bautista filed an electoral protest. The petitioner averred as his special affirmative defenses that Bautista did not make the requisite cash deposit on time; and that Bautista did not render a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of. COMELEC First Division issued the first assailed order denying the special affirmative defenses of the petitioner. COMELEC First Division issued its second assailed order, denying the petitioners motion for reconsideration for failing to show that the first order was contrary to law. Hence the filing of a petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
_0($0(% $0( ="4%$ #+' $+B( #"-'&.+'#( ") $0( *($&$&"' )"% (&*+",*$*" ? RULING
?)$ !"# 2)*#(/+/2 '()*+-+)/ +- P(#$&"' Z9 @%$( :^ ") $0( [XYZ ="'/$&$4$&"'$ !"+- '()*+-+)/; .3&")42" +& 1)/5#(- )/ &"# @)4(& &"# ')=#( &) (#*+#= ./: ,#1+-+)/; )(,#( )( (43+/2 )5 &"# @ABCDC@; 2&5&$/ /4#0 *"3(% $" + !"#$% !(#&/&"' "% %(/"24$&"' ") $0( =G
A&"#(=+-# A&"#(=+-# -&.&#,; -&.&#,; $0( $0( ="4%$ 4%$ 0+/ '" *"3(% $" %(,& (,&(3 "' (&*+",*$*" +' +' &'$( &'$(%2 %2"# "#4 4$"% $"%6 "%!(% %!(% "% (,( (,(' + )&'+ &'+2 %(/"24$&"' &//4(! 86 + H&,&/&"' ") $0( =G
4#-&+)/; &"#(#5)(#; &".& &"# @)4(& ".- /) 94(+-,+1&+)/ &) &.<# &.<# 1)2/ 1)2/+E +E./ ./1# 1# )5 &"# &"# '#&+ '#&+&+ &+)/ )/ 5)( 5)( +!$#(&$%$( +!$#(&$%$( .--.+3+ .--.+3+/2 /2 &"# ,#/+.3 8: &"# @ABCDC@ F+(-& G+*+-+)/ )5 &"# -'#1+.3 .55+(7.&+*# ,#5#/-#- )5 &"# '#&+&+)/#($ E0( *%"*(% %(5(!6 &/ )"% $0( *($&$&"'(% $" 3+&$ )"% $0( =G
Priscilla Alma Jose vs. Ramon Javellana et al al G.R. No. 158239, January 25, 2012 Marg Margar arit ita a Mar Marqu quez ez Alma Alma Jose Jose sold sold to re resp spon onde dent nt Ramo Ramon n Jave Javell llan ana a by de deed ed of conditional sale two parcels of land located in Barangay Mallis, Guiguinto, Bulacan. They agreed that Javellana would pay P80,000.00 upon the execution of the deed and the balance of P80,000.00 upon the registration of the parcels of land under the Torrens System ( the registration being undertaken by Margarita within a reasonable period of time); and that should Margarita become incapacitated, her son and attorney-in-fact, Juvenal M. Alma Jose, and her daughter, petitioner Priscilla M. Alma Jose, would receive the payment of the balance and proceed with the application application for registration. registration. After Margarita Margarita died and with Juvenal having predeceased predeceased Margarita Margarita without issue, the vendors undertaking fell on the shoulders of Priscilla, being Margaritas sole surviving surviving heir. heir. Howe Howeve verr, Pris Prisci cill lla a did did not not comp comply ly with with th thee un under derta taki king ng to cause cause th thee registration of the properties under the Torrens System, and, instead, began to improve the properties by dumping filling materials therein with the intention of converting the parcels of land into a residential or industrial subdivision. Faced with Priscilla’s with Priscilla’s refusal refusal to comply, Javellana commenced on February 10, 1997 an action for specific performance, injunction,
ISSUE
_0($0(% "% '"$ =@ (%%(! &' '"$ "4$%&-0$26 !&/5&//&'- D+,(22+'+/ +**(+2 8(#+4/( $0( D4'( V[9 VWWW LE= "%!(% 3+/ '"$ +**(+2+82(C
HG=EL:TR !/012- 34 56/ 735130 438 8/930:1;/825130 34 56/ 38;/8 34 ;1:71::2- <2: 2 4102- 38;/8 20; 2==/2-2>-/
E0( !('&+2 ") + 5"$&"' )"% %(#"'/&!(%+$&"' ") +' "%!(% -%+'$&'- $0( !()('!&'- party’s 5"$&"' $" !&/5&// &/ '"$ +' &'$(%2"#4$"%6 84$ + )&'+2 "%!(% 8(#+4/( &$ *4$/ +' ('! $" $0( *+%$*+% 5+$$(% &',"2,(!9 "% /($$2(/ !()&'&$(26 $0( 5+$$(% $0(%(&' !&/*"/(! ")9 +/ $" 2(+,( '"$0&'- )"% $0( $%&+2 #"4%$ $" !" "$0(% $0+' $" (1(#4$( $0( "%!(%? @##"%!&'-269 $0( #2+&5&'- *+%$6 0+/ + )%(/0 *(%&"! ") [` !+6/ )%"5 '"$&#( ") $0( !('&+2 3&$0&' 30� $" +**(+2 $0( !('&+2
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
Rolando Sofio and Rufio Sofio vs. Alberto Valenzuela et al G.R. No. 157810, February 15, 2012
Respondents are the co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land Negros Occidental. In 1985, respondent learned for the first time that Rolando had been permitted by her mother to cultivate the .80 hectare portion without paying any rentals; and that the petitioners had actually expanded their Cultivation. After the petitioners refused her demand for the return of the 1.8 hectares, she lodged a complaint against Rolando with the Barangay Chairman of Ayungon, Valladolid, Negros Occidental, and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer. The parties did not reach an amicable settlement. The writ of execution was issued on January 23, 2002. The petitioners, represented by new counsel, filed in the PARAD a motion for relief from judgment, motion for reconsideration of the order dated November 27, 2001, and motion to recall writ of execution dated January 23, 2002.
:PPFR _0($0(% "% '"$ $0( *($&$&"' 54/$ 8( !('&(!? RULING:
E0( ="4%$ )&'!/ '" #+4/( $" !&/$4%8 $0( !(#&/&"' ") $0( >@L@ >@L@H H +'! +'! #+'' #+''"$ "$ 4'!" 4'!" $0( $0( !(#& !(#&/& /&"' "' 4*"' 4*"' $0( $0( -%"4 -%"4'! '!/ / #&$(! 86 $0( *($&$&"'(%/9 (/*(#&+226 +/ $0( !(#&/&"' 0+! 2"'8(#"5( )&'+2 +'! (1(#4$"%6? E0( ="4%$ 3&22 '"$ ",(%%&!( $0( )&'+2&$6 +'! &554$+8&2&$6 ") + a4!a4!-5( 5('$ '$ 8+/( 8+/(! ! "'26 "'26 "' $0( $0( '(-2 '(-2&&-(' ('#( #( ") + party’s #"4'/(2 &' $&5(26 $+B&'- +22 $0( *%"*(% %(#"4%/(/ )%"5 $0( a4!-5('$? E" a4/$&)6 +' ",(%%&!(9 $0( #"4'/(2/ '(-2&-('#( 54/$ '"$ "'26 8( -%"// 84$ 54/$ +2/" 8( /0"3' $" 0+,( !(*%&,(! $0( *+%$6 $0( %&-0$ $" !4( *%"#(//?
Nerwin Industries Corp. vs. PNOC-Energy Development Corp. G.R. No. 167057, 1670 57, April 11, 11, 2012 The National Electrification Administration (NEA) published an invitation to preotherwise ise known known as IPB IPB No. No. 80. 80. Private responden respondentt qualify and to bid for a contract, otherw emerged as the lowest bidder for all schedules/components of the contract. However, NEAs Board of Directors passed Resolution No. 32 reducing by 50% the material requirements for IBP No. 80 given 80 given the time limitations for the delivery of the materials, and with the loan closing date of October 2001 fast approaching . Private respondent protested the said 50% reduction. Nerwin filed a civil action in the RTC in Manila alleging that Requisition No. FGJ 30904R1 (an invitation to pre-qualify and to bid for wooden poles needed for its Samar Rural Electrification Project) was an attempt to subject a portion of the items covered by IPB No. 80 to another bidding; and praying that a TRO issue to enjoin respondents proposed bidding for the wooden poles. RTC issued preliminary injunction enjoining the defend def endant ant PNOC-E PNOC-EDC DC and its Chairma Chairman n of Bids and Awards wards Commit Committee tee Esther Esther R. Guerzon from continuing the holding of the subject bidding.
Respondents commenced in the CA a special civil action for certiorari , alleging that the RTC had thereby committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding that Nerwin had been entitled to the issuance of the writ of prelim prelimina inary ry injun injuncti ction on despit despitee the expres expresss prohib prohibiti ition on from from the law and from the Supreme Court; in issuing the TRO in blatant violation of the Ru Rules of Court t and and esta establ blis ishe hed d jurisprudence.
ISSUE
_0($0(% "% '"$ $0( =@ (%%(! &' !&/5&//&'$0( #+/( "' $0( 8+/&/ ") L(*? @#$ YXZ` *%"0&8&$&'$0( &//4+'#( ") $(5*"%+%6 %(/$%+&'&'- "%!(%/ +'! *%(2&5&'+%6 &'a4'#$&"'/9 (1#(*$ &) &//4(! 86 $0( P4*%(5( ="4%$9 "' -",(%'5('$ *%"a(#$/?
LFM:TNc L(*482&# @#$ T"? YXZ` (1*%(//26 *%"0&8&$/ +'6 #"4%$9 (1#(*$ $0( P4*%(5( ="4%$9 )%"5 &//4&'- +'6 $(5*"%+%6 %(/$%+&'&'- "%!(% ;ELG]9 *%(2&5&'+%6 &'a4'#$&"'9 "% *%(2&5&'+%6 5+'!+$"%6 &'a4'#$&"' $" %(/$%+&'9 *%"0&8&$ "% #"5*(2 $0( N",(%'5('$; )( ./: )5 +&- -48,+*+-+)/)( )55+1+.3-; )( ./: '#(-)/ )( #/&+&:; ="#&"#( '483+1 )( '(+*.&#; .1&+/2 4/,#( &"# N)*#(/7#/&- ,+(#1&+)/; 5()7O P.Q .1>4+(+/2; 13#.(+/2; ./, ,#*#3)'+/2 &"# (+2"&K)5 =.:; -+&# )( 3)1.&+)/ ") +'6 T+$&"'+2 N",(%'5('$ *%"a(#$M P8Q 8+,,+/2 )( .=.(,+/2 )5 . 1)/&(.1& )( '()9#1& )5 &"# ?.&+)/.3 N)*#(/7#/&M P1Q 1)77#/1+/2; '()-#14&+/2; #0#14&+/2; +7'3#7#/&+/2; )( )'#(.&+/2 ./: -41" 1)/&(.1& )( '()9#1&M P,Q &#(7+/.&+/2 )( (#-1+/,+/2 ./: -41" 1)/&(.1& )( '()9#1&M ./, P#Q 4/,#(&.<+/2 )( .4&")(+E+/2 ./: )&"#( 3.=543 .1&+*+&: /#1#--.(: 5)( -41" 1)/&(.1& )( '()9#1&$ @##"%!&'-269 + L(-&"'+2 E%&+2 ="4%$ ;LE=] $0+$ &-'"%(/ $0( /$+$4$"%6 *%"0&8&$&"' +'! &//4(/ + ELG "% + 3%&$ ") *%(2&5&'+%6 &'a4'#$&"' "% *%(2&5&'+%6 5+'!+$"%6 &'a4'#$&"' +-+&'/$ + -",(%'5('$ #"'$%+#$ "%
>0&2&**&'( G,(%/(+/ E(2(#"554'&#+$&"'/ ="%*? +'! >0&2#"5P+$ ,/? Q&#$"% @)%&#+9 N?L? T"? [Y\dVV9 D426 e9 VW[e E0( "3'(%/0&* /$%4#$4%( ") >GE=9 >J:M=GJ= &5*2&(/ $0+$ 30"(,(% 0+! #"'$%"2 ") >GE= '(#(//+%&26 0(2! [WWf #"'$%"2 ") >J:M=GGE= /0+%(/ ") /$"#B $0%"4-0 $0%(+$/ +'! &'$&5&!+$&"' +'! 3&$0"4$ +'6 ,+24+82( #"'/&!(%+$&"' +'! *2+#&'- /4#0 /0+%(/ 4'!(% $0( '+5(/ ") $0(&% +2$(% (-"/O %/,#'#/,#/& H#.3&: @)(')(.&+)/M B+,R.-+2 D./, G#*#3)'7#/&M ./, +/ &"# /.7# )5 F#(,+/./, B.(1)-; S($ %/ TJUV R@NN =.- 1(#.&#,$ !"# R@NN )8&.+/#, &"(## )4& )5 &"# -#*#/ -#.&- +/ &"# RA!@ 6).(, )5 G+(#1&)(-$ L& &"# &+7#; ?+#&) S($ =.- &"# R(#-$ )5 8)&" RA!@ ./, RW%D@ABXL!$
To keep control of the POTC and PHILCOMSAT, Nieto Jr. aligned with the PCGG to enable him to wrest 4 out of 7 seats in the POTC Board of Directors and 5 out of the 9 seats in the PHILCOMSAT Board of Directors. Government, by the PCGG, filed in the the Sand Sandig igan anba baya yan n a Compl Complai aint nt for for re-c re-con onve veya yanc nce, e, reve revers rsion ion,, acco accoun unti ting ng,, restitution and damages against Mr. Africa, et. al. The Complaint, docketed as SB Civi Civill Case Case,, alle allege ged d that that the the defe defend ndan ants ts “acted in collab collabora oratio tion n with with each each other as dummies, nominees and/or agents of defendants Pres. Marcos, et. al. in several corporations. corporations . A decade of litigation, the Republic, IRC and Mid-Pasig, and the the PCGG PCGG ente entere red d into into a comp compro romi mise se agre agreem emen entt with with Atty Atty.. Iluso Ilusori rio, o, wher whereb eby y he reco recogn gnize ized d the the owne owners rshi hip p of POTC POTC shar shares es of unde underto rtook ok to dismi dismiss ss Civil Civil Case Case as again against st him. him. Pres Pres.. Ramo Ramos s appr approv oved ed the the comp compro romis mise e agre agreem emen ent, t, and and dire direct cted ed its submis submission sion to the Sandig Sandiganb anbaya ayan n for approv approval al Mid-Pa Mid-Pasig, sig, repres represent ented ed by Salong Salonga, a, file filed d in the the Sand Sandig igan anb bayan ayan in Civi Civill Case Case-a -a Moti Motion on to Vacat acate. e. Follo Followi wing ng the the enactment enactment of R.A No. 8799, SEC Case No. 09-98-6086 09-98-6086 was transferr transferred ed to the RTC in Makati City, which City, which re-docketed it as Civil Case No. 01-840 and raffled it to Branch 138. The Sandiganbayan promulgated a resolution in SB Civil Case denying IRC and
:PPFR [] _0($0(% LE= "% P+'!&-+'8+6+' 0+/ a4%&/!&#$&"' ",(% $0( #+/(? V] _0+$ &/ $0( %(5(!6 ") $0( +--%&(,(! *+%$6g LFM:TNc
:' &'$% &'$%+I +I#" #"%* %*"% "%+$ +$( ( !&/* !&/*4$ 4$( ( &'," &',"2, 2,&' &'- + #"%* #"%*"% "%+$ +$&" &"' ' 4'!(% /(74(/$%+$&"' ") $0( >%(/&!('$&+2 ="55&//&"' "' N""! N",(%'5('$ ;>=NN] )+22/ 4'!(% $0( a4%&/!&#$&"' ") $0( L(-&"'+2 E%&+2 ="4%$ ;LE=]9 '"$ $0( P+'!&-+'8+6+' $
>%"*( >%"*(%% 5"!( 5"!( ") +**(+ +**(+22 &' &'$%+I &'$%+I#"% #"%*"% *"%+$( +$( #+/(/ #+/(/ )"% %(,&(3 4'!(% L42( \e
&/ 86 *($&$&" *($&$&"' '
E0( %42( *%",&!&'- $0+$ + *($&$&"' )"% %(,&(3 4'!(% L42( \e ") $0( L42(/ ") ="4%$ &/ $0( *%"*(% 5"!( ") +**(+2 &' &'$%+I #"%*"%+$( #"'$%",(%/&(/9 +/ (58"!&(! &' @? 4.&# (#7#,: +/ &"# )(,+/.(: 1)4(-# )5 3.=; 3+<# .''#.3 +/ ,4# 1)4(-#$ :'!((!9 $0( +**(+2 4'!(% L42( \e ") $0( L42(/ ") ="4%$ 3"42! 0+,( 8((' +!(74+$( $" %(,&(3 +'! #"%%(#$ (,(' $0( -%+,( +84/(
Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Tomas Cuenca, Marcelina Cuenca et al G.R. No. 173297, March 6, 2013 Marañon filed a complaint in the RTC against the Cuencas for the collection of a sum of money and damages. His complaint included an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. the RTC granted the application for the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment conditioned upon the posting of a bond of 1Million executed in favor of the Cuencas . Marañon amended the complaint to implead Tayactac as a defendant. Marañon posted SICI Bond No. 68427 JCL (4) No. 02370 in the amount of 1Million issued by Stronghold Insurance. 2 Days later, the RTC issued the writ of preliminary attachment. The sheriff served the writ, the summons and a copy of the complaint on the Cuencas on the same day. The sheriff levied upon the equipment and other personal property belonging to Arc Cuisine, Inc. that were found in the leased corporate office-cum-commissary or kitchen of the corporation. RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss and to Quash Writ of Preliminary Attachment, stating that the action, being one for the recovery of a sum of money and damages, was within its jurisdiction. CA remanded to the RTC for hearing and resolution of the Cuencas and Tayactac’s claim for the damages sustained from the enforcement of the writ of preliminary attachment. Cuencas and Tayactac filed a Motion to Require Sheriff to Deliver Attached Properties. RTC commanded Marañon to surrender all the attached properties to the RTC within 10 days from notice. RTC rendered its judgment on 2003, holding Marañon and Stronghold Insurance jointly and solidarily liable for damages to the
:PPFR _0($0(% "% '"$ $0( %(/*"'!('$/ +%( %(+2 *+%$&(/ &' &'$(%(/$ LFM:TNc E0( *(%/"'+2&$6 ") + #"%*"%+$&"' ;@%# =4/4&'( :'#?] &/ !&/$&'#$ +'! /(*+%+$( )%"5 $0( *(%/"'+2&$&(/ ") &$/ /$"#B0"2!(%/ ;=4('#+/ h E+6+#$+#]? J('#(9 &$/ /$"#B0"2!(%/ +%( '"$ $0(5/(2,(/ $0( %(+2 *+%$&(/ &' &'$(%(/$ $" #2+&5 +'! %(#",(% #"5*('/+$&"' )"% $0( !+5+-(/ +%&/&'- )%"5 $0( 3%"'-)42 +$$+#05('$ ") &$/ +//($/? G'26 $0( #"%*"%+$&"' &/ $0( %(+2 *+%$6 &' &'$(%(/$ )"% $0+$ *4%*"/(?
N&,(' $0( /(*+%+$( +'! !&/$&'#$ 2(-+2 *(%/"'+2&$6 ") @%# =4&/&'(9 :'#?9 $0( =4('#+/ +'! E+6+#$+# 2+#B(! $0( 2(-+2 *(%/"'+2&$6 $" #2+&5 $0( !+5+-(/ /4/$+&'(! )%"5 $0( 2(,6 ") $0( former’s *%"*(%$&(/? L11)(,+/2 &) L--#& R(+*.&+E.&+)/ !(4-& *$ @)4(& )5 L''#.3-; #*#/ ="#/ &"# 5)(#13)-4(# )/ &"# .--#&- )5 &"# 1)(')(.&+)/ =.- =()/2543 ./, ,)/# +/ 8., 5.+&" $0( /$"#B0"2!(%/ 0+! '" /$+'!&'- $" %(#",(% )"% $0(5/(2,(/ 5"%+2 !+5+-(/M )&"#(=+-#; &"#: =)43, 8# .''()'(+.&+/2 ./, ,+-&(+84&+/2 '.(& )5 &"# corporation’s .--#&- '(+)( &) &"# ,+--)34&+)/ )5 &"# 1)(')(.&+)/ ./, &"# 3+>4+,.&+)/ )5 +&- ,#8&- ./, 3+.8+3+&+#-?
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Hon. Edilberto Sandoval G. R. No. 169677, February 18, 2013 The Republic brought a complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages in the Sandiganbayan against Andres V. Genito, Jr., Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos and other defendants. The action was to recover allegedly ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, their nominees, dummies and agents. Among the properties subject of the action were two parcels of commercial land located in Tandang Sora, Quezon City, registered in the names of Mr. and Mrs. Andres V. Genito, Jr. Republic moved for the amendment of the complaint in order to implead Asian Bank as an additional defendant . The Sandiganbayan granted the motion. It appears that Asian Bank claimed ownership of the two parcels of land as registered owner. Asian Bank was also in possession of the properties by virtue of the writ of possession issued by the RTC in Quezon City. When the Republic was about to terminate its presentation of evidence against the original defendants, it moved to hold a separate trial against Asian Bank . Asian Bank sought the deferment of any action on the motion until it was first given the opportunity to test and assail the testimonial and documentary evidence the Republic had already presented against the original defendants, and contended that it would be deprived of its day in court if a separate trial were to be held against it. Republic maintained that a separate trial for Asian Bank was proper because its cause of action against Asian Bank was entirely distinct and independent from its cause of action against the original
:PPFR
_0($0(% "% '"$ P+'!&-+'8+6+' (%%(! &' %42&'- $0+$ $0( L(*482&# 3+/ ('$&$2(! $" + /(*+%+$( $%&+2 +-+&'/$ @/&+' A+'Bg LFM:TNc E0( #"4%$9 &' )4%$0(%+'#( ") #"',('&('#( "% $" +,"&! *%(a4!&#(9 5+6 "%!(% + /(*+%+$( $%&+2 ") +'6 #2+&59 #%"//#2+&59 #"4'$(%#2+&59 "% $0&%!I*+%$6 #"5*2+&'$9 "% ") +'6 /(*+%+$( &//4( "% ") +'6 '458(% ") #2+&5/9 #%"//#2+&5/9 #"4'$(%#2+&5/9 $0&%!I*+%$6 #"5*2+&'$/ "% &//4(/? A4$ + /(*+%+$( $%&+2 5+6 8( !('&(! &) + *+%$6 &/ $0(%(86 !(*%&,(! ") 0&/ %&-0$ $" 8( 0(+%! 4*"' +' &//4(
Allen Macasaet et al vs. Francisco Co, Jr. G.R. No. 156759, June 5, 2013 Respondent, a retired police officer assigned in Manila, sued AbanteTonite , a tabloid of general circulation; its Publisher; its Managing Director; its Circulation Manager; its Editors Ms. Bay, Mr. Galang and Mr. Hagos; and its Reporter Lily Reyes, claiming damages because of an allegedly libelous article petitioners published in the June 6, 2000 issue of AbanteTonite. The suit was raffled to Branch 51 of the RTC, which in due course issued summons to be served on each defendant, including AbanteTonite, at their business address. RTC Sheriff Medina proceeded to the stated address to effect the personal service of the summons on the defendants. But his efforts to personally serve each defendant in the address were futile because the defendants were then out of the office and unavailable. He returned of that day to make a 2nd attempt at serving the summons, but he was informed that petitioners were still out of the office. He decided to resort to substituted service of the summons, and explained why in his sheriff’s return. Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint through counsel’s special appearance in their behalf, alleging lack of jurisdiction over their persons because of the invalid and ineffectual substituted service of summons. They contended that the sheriff had made no prior attempt to serve the summons personally on each of them in accordance with Sec 6 and 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. They further moved to drop AbanteTonite as a defendant by virtue of its being neither a natural nor a juridical person that could be impleaded as a party in a civil action.
:PPFR _0($0(% "% '"$ $0( /455"'/ 3+/ *%"*(%26 /(%,(! 86 /48/$&$4$(! /(%,&#( ") /455"'/g LFM:TNc E" 3+%%+'$ $0( /48/$&$4$(! /(%,&#( ") $0( /455"'/ +'! #"*6 ") $0( #"5*2+&'$9 $0( /(%,&'- "))&#(% 54/$ )&%/$ +$$(5*$ $" ())(#$ $0( /+5( 4*"' $0( !()('!+'$ &' *(%/"'? G'26 +)$(% $0( +$$(5*$ +$ *(%/"'+2 /(%,&#( 0+/ 8(#"5( )4$&2( "% &5*"//&82( 3&$0&' + %(+/"'+82( $&5( 5+6 $0( "))&#(% %(/"%$ $" /48/$&$4$(! /(%,&#(?
There is no question that Sheriff Medina twice attempted to serve the summons upon each of petitioners in person at their office address, The circumstances fully warranted his conclusion . He was not expected or required as the serving officer to effect personal service by all means and at all times, considering that he was expressly authorized to resort to substituted service should he be unable to effect the personal service within a reasonable time. In that regard, what was a reasonable time was dependent on the circumstances obtaining. While we are strict in insisting on personal service on the defendant, we do not cling to such strictness should the circumstances already justify substituted service instead. It is the spirit of the procedural rules, not their letter, that governs. In reality, petitioners’ insistence on personal service by the serving officer was demonstrably superfluous. They had actually received the summonses served through their substitutes, as borne out by their filing of several pleadings in the RTC, including an answer with compulsory counterclaim ad cautelam and a
Heirs of Marcelo Sotto vs. Matilde Palicte G.R. No. 159691, June 13, 2013
Filemon Sotto’s children: Marcelo, Pascuala, Miguel, & Matilde. In June 1967, Pilar Teves & other heirs of Carmen Rallos, the deceased wife of Filemon, filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu City a complaint against the Estate of Sotto seeking to recover properties that Filemon had inherited from Carmen. The CFI rendered judgment awarding to Pilar and other heirs of Carmen. To satisfy the monetary part of the judgment, levy on execution was effected against 6 parcels of land and 2 residential houses belonging to the Estate of Sotto. Later on, Matilde redeemed 4 of the parcels of land in her own name while her sister Pascuala redeemed 1 of the 2 houses. On 1980, the Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Cebu executed a deed of redemption in favor of Matilde. Matilde filed in a motion to transfer to her name the title to the 4 properties. The CFI denied her motion and declared the deed of redemption null and void.
Matilde, declared as one of the heirs of Filemon, did not qualify as a successor-in-interest with the right to redeem the 4 properties. She appealed the adverse ruling to the Court via petition for review and on 1987, the Court, reversing the CFI’s ruling, granted the petition for review but allowed her co-heirs the opportunity to join her as co-redemptioners for a period of 6 months before the probate court would grant her motion to transfer the title to her name. On 1999, the heirs of Marcelo and Miguel, instituted the present action for partition against Matilde in the RTC of Cebu City, The Estate of Sotto, moved in the probate court to require Matilde to account for and turn over the 4 properties that allegedly belonged to the estate, presenting documentary evidence showing that Matilde had effected the redemption of the 4 properties with the funds of the estate in accordance with the express authorization of Marcelo. The probate court granted the motion, but reversed itself upon Matilde’s motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
_0($0(% "% '"$ $0( a4!-5('$ 3+/ 8+%%(! 86 %(/ a4!&#+$+? RULING:
L(/ a4!&#+$+ (1&/$/ 30(' +/ 8($3((' $0( +#$&"' /"4-0$ $" 8( !&/5&//(! +'! $0( "$0(% +#$&"' $0(/( (2(5('$/ +%( *%(/('$9 '+5(26C ;[] $0( )"%5(% a4!-5('$ 54/$ 8( )&'+2C ;V] $0( )"%5(% a4!-5('$ 54/$ 0+,( 8((' %('!(%(! 86 + #"4%$ 0+,&'- a4%&/!&#$&"' ") $0( /48a(#$ 5+$$(% +'! $0( *+%$&(/C ;e] $0( )"%5(% a4!-5('$ 54/$ 8( + a4!-5('$ "' $0( 5(%&$/C +'! ;\] $0(%( 54/$ 8( 8($3((' $0( )&%/$ +'! /48/(74('$ +#$&"'/ ;&] &!('$&$6 ") *+%$&(/ "% +$ 2(+/$ /4#0 +/ %(*%(/('$&'- $0( /+5( &'$(%(/$ &' 8"$0 +#$&"'/C ;&&] &!('$&$6 ") /48a(#$ 5+$$(%9 "% ") $0( %&-0$/ +//(%$(! +'! %(2&() *%+6(! )"%9 $0( %(2&() 8(&'- )"4'!(! "' $0( /+5( )+#$/C +'!9 ;&&&] &!('$&$6 ") #+4/(/ ") +#$&"' &' 8"$0 +#$&"'/ /4#0 $0+$ +'6 a4!-5('$ $0+$ 5+6 8( %('!(%(! &' $0( "$0(% +#$&"' 3&229 %(-+%!2(// ") 30� *+%$6 &/ /4##(//)429 +5"4'$ $" %(/ a4!&#+$+ &' $0(
!"# 5+(-& &"(## #3#7#/&- =#(# '(#-#/&$ !"# ,#1+-+)/ )5 &"# @)4(& +/ N$H$ ?)$ \\ZIV P&"# 5+(-& 1.-#Q; &"# ,#1+-+)/ )5 &"# @)4(& +/ N$H$ ?)$ T[TIYY P&"# -#1)/, 1.-#Q; &"# )(,#( ,.&#, A1&)8#( \; TJUJ )5 &"# H!@ +/ @+*+3 @.-# ?)$ HKTZZYI .- 4'"#3, 8: &"# @)4(& +/ N$H$ ?)$ T\]\U\ P&"# &"+(, 1.-#Q; ./, &"# ,#1+-+)/ +/ N$H$ ?)$ T\UV]Y P&"# 5)4(&" 1.-#Q – .33 )5 ="+1" ,#.3& =+&" Matilde’s (+2"& &) &"# 5)4( '()'#(&+#- – "., 4'"#3, Matilde’s (+2"& &) &"# 5)4( '()'#(&+#- ./, "., .33 8#1)7# 5+/.3$ P4#0 %42&'-/ 3(%( %('!(%(! &' $0( (1(%#&/( ") $0( %(/*(#$&,( courts’ a4%&/!&#$&"' ",(% $0( /48a(#$ 5+$$(%9 +'! 3(%( +!a4!&#+$&"'/ "' $0( 5(%&$/ ") $0( #+/(/$
Simplicia Abrigo and Demetrio Abrigo vs. Jimmy Flores et al G.R. No. 160786, June 17, 2013 A lot with an area of 402 square meters situated in Alaminos, Laguna inherited by both Francisco and Gaudencia Faylona from their deceased parents . The lot is declared for taxation purposes which Gaudencia managed to secure in her name alone to the exclusion of Francisco and the latter’s widow and children. It appears that after Francisco’s death, his widow and Gaudencia entered into an extrajudicial partition whereby the western half of the same lot was assigned to Francisco’s heirs while the eastern half thereof to Gaudencia. There was no actual ground partition of the lot up to and after Gaudencia’s death. It result that both the heirs of Francisco and Gaudencia owned in common the land in dispute, which co-ownership was recognized by Gaudencia herself during her lifetime. In the case of the petitioners, a small portion of their residence, their garage and poultry pens extended to the western half. Such was the state of things when, on 1988, in the RTC San Pablo City, the heirs and successors-in-interest of Francisco, among whom are the private respondents, desiring to terminate their co-ownership with the heirs of Gaudencia, filed their complaint for judicial partition in this case, which complaint was docketed a quo. In a decision, the trial court rendered judgment ordering the partition of the land in dispute in such a way that the western half thereof shall pertain to the heirs of Francisco while the eastern half, to the heirs of Gaudencia. With no further appellate proceedings having been taken by the petitioners and their other co-heirs, an Entry of Judgment was
:PPFR
_0($0(% "% '"$ $0( /+2( 86 %(/*"'!('$ D&556 U2"%(/ ") 0&/ [i\ /0+%( &' $0( 3(/$(%' *"%$&"' ") $0( \WVI/74+%( 5($(% 2"$ #"'/$&$4$(! + /4*(%,('&'- (,('$ $0+$ %('!(%(! $0( (1(#4$&"' ") $0( )&'+2 a4!-5('$ +-+&'/$ *($&$&"'(%/ &'(74&$+82($ HG=EL:TRc
G'#( + a4!-5('$ 8(#"5(/ &554$+82( +'! 4'+2$(%+82( 86 ,&%$4( ") &$/ )&'+2&$69 &$/ (1(#4$&"' /0"42! )"22"3 +/ + 5+$$(% ") #"4%/(? @ /4*(%,('&'- (,('$9 $" 8( /4))&#&('$ $" /$+6 "% /$"* $0( (1(#4$&"'9 54/$ +2$(% "% 5"!&)6 $0( /&$4+$&"' ") $0( *+%$&(/ 4'!(% $0( !(#&/&"' +/ $" %('!(% $0( (1(#4$&"' &'(74&$+82(9 &5*"//&82(9 "% 4')+&%? E0( /4*(%,('&'- (,('$
E" +##(*$ $0(&% #"'$('$&"' 3"42! 8( $" %("*(' $0( )&'+2 +'! &554$+82( a4!-5('$ &' "%!(% $" )4%$0(% *+%$&$&"' $0( 3(/$(%' *"%$&"' $0(%(86 +!a4!&#+$(! $" $0( 0(&%/ +'! /4##(//"%/I&'I &'$(%(/$ ") U%+'#&/#" U+62"'+ )"% $0( *4%*"/( ") /(-%(-+$&'- $0( j *"%$&"' /4**"/(!26 /48a(#$ ") $0( /+2( 86 D&556 U2"%(/ $ ^#(+3:; '#&+&+)/#(- 1)43, /)& +7')(& +/&) &"# .1&+)/ 5)( '.(&+&+)/ )5 &"# '()'#(&: +/ 3+&+- &"#+( ,#7./, 5)( &"# -#2(#2(.&+)/ )5 &"# _ -".(# )5 S+77: F3)(#-$ :'/$(+!9 $0(&% #"%%(#$ #"4%/( ") +#$&"' 3+/ $" &'&$&+$( &' $0( *%"*(% #"4%$ + *%"#((!&'- )"% *+%$&$&"' ") $0( 3(/$(%' *"%$&"' 8+/(! "' $0( /4**"/(! /+2( $" $0(5 86 D&556 U2"%(/?
Segundina Galvez vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 157445, April 3, 2013 L '.(1#3 )5 3./, 3)1.&#, +/ D#:&#; ="+1" 4-#, &) 8# )=/#, 8: X')4-#- C4-&.1+) ` X#24/,+/. N.3*#E$ !"#: -#'.(.&#, ./, 1)".8+&#, =+&" )&"#( '.(&/#(-$ A/ TJUT; C4-&.1+) -)3, &"# '()'#(&: &) &"#+( ,.42"&#( S)*+&. =+&")4& &"# 1)/-#/& )5 X#24/,+/.$ L5&#( &"# -.3#; S)*+&. 1)/-&+&4&#, . 7)(&2.2# )/ &"# '()'#(&: )/ TJUT &) -#14(# "#( 3)./ 5()7 R?6$ S)*+&. 5.+3#, &) '.: "#( )83+2.&+)/ ? >TA 0+! $0( *%"*(%$6 (1$%+a4!&#&+226 )"%(#2"/(!? :' $0( ('/4&'- )"%(#2"/4%( /+2(9 R?6 =.&"# "+2"#-& 8+,,#($ !"# '()'#(&: 8#1.7# PNB’s .1>4+(#, .--#&$ A/ TJJY; (#-')/,#/&- X')4-#- W)/)(+) ./, X4-./. B)/&.a) '4(1".-#, &"# '()'#(&: 5()7 R?6$ E0( <"'$+k"/ $%&(! $" -($ $0( +#$4+2 *"//(//&"' ") $0( *%"*(%$69 84$ P(-4'!&'+ %()4/(! $" ,+#+$(? <"'$+k"/ /4(! P(-4'!&'+ )"% %(#",(%6 ") "3'(%/0&* +'!
Segundina countered that the sale of the property by Eustacio to Jovita & to PNB & Montaños was null and void for having been done without her consent and the Montaños were also buyers in bad faith. MTC ruled in favor of the Montaños, holding that the sale by Eustacio to Jovita was merely voidable, not null and void; that because Segundina had not brought an action for the annulment of the sale within 10 years from the date of the transaction, the sale remained valid; that Segundina did not establish that the foreclosure proceedings, auction sale, and the acquisition of the property by the Montaños were void; and in view of the valid acquisition of the property by PNB during the foreclosure sale, the subsequent sale to the Montaños was also valid. Segundina appealed to the CA by petition for review, which was dismissed. CA ruled that a cursory perusal of the instant petition for review shows that no copies of pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations thereof were attached as annexes in violation of Sec 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
ISSUE
_0($0(% "% #"5*2+&'$?
'"$
=@
(%%(!
&'
!&/5&//&'-
$0(
RULING:
E0( 5(%( )+&24%( $" +$$+#0 #"*&(/ ") *2(+!&'-/ +'! "$0(% 5+$(%&+2 *"%$&"'/ ") $0( %(#"%! +/ 3"42! /4**"%$ $0( +22(-+$&"'/ /0"42! '"$ #+4/( $0( "4$%&-0$ !&/5&//+2 ") + *($&$&"' )"% %(,&(3? E0( +22(-+$&"'/ ") $0( *($&$&"' 54/$ 8( (1+5&'(! $" !($(%5&'( $0( /4))&#&('#6 ") $0( +$$+#05('$/ +**('!(! $0(%($"?
SRP? !"# ,+-7+--.3 )5 Segundina’s '#&+&+)/ 5)( (#*+#= 4')/ &"# 2()4/, -&.&#, +/ &"# .--.+3#, (#-)34&+)/- =.- 8.-#, )/ X#1&+)/ [; H43# ]Y )5 &"# TJJI H43#- )5 @+*+3 R()1#,4(# ? %& +- -#&&3#, &".& &"# petitioner’s )+&24%( $" +**('! $0( *2(+!&'-/ +'! *(%$&'('$ !"#45('$/ $" $0( *($&$&"' #+' 8( %(#$&)&(! 86 $0( /48/(74('$ )&2&'- ") + 5"$&"' )"% %(#"'/&!(%+$&"' $" 30� &/ +$$+#0(! $0( "5&$$(! *2(+!&'-/ +'! !"#45('$/ +/ %(74&%(! 86 $0( =@? !"# 5)(#2)+/2 (43+/2- -")= &".& $0( 5(%( )+&24%( $" +$$+#0 #"*&(/ ") $0( *2(+!&'-/ +'! "$0(% 5+$(%&+2 *"%$&"'/ ") $0( %(#"%! +/ 3"42! /4**"%$ $0( +22(-+$&"'/ ") $0( *($&$&"' )"% %(,&(3 &/ '"$ '(#(//+%&26 )+$+2 +/ $" 3+%%+'$ $0( "4$%&-0$ !('&+2 ") !4( #"4%/( 30(' $0( #2(+%26 2(-&82( !4*2&#+$( "%&-&'+2/ "% $%4( #"*&(/ ") $0( a4!-5('$/ "% )&'+2 "%!(%/ ") 8"$0 2"3(% #"4%$/9 #(%$&)&(! #"%%(#$ 86 $0( #2(%B ") #"4%$ ") $0( LE=9 +'! "$0(% +$$+#05('$/ ") $0(
Roberto Bordomeo, Jayme Sarmiento and Gregorio Barredo vs. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 161596, February 20, 2013
%R% C7'3):##- b/+)/KL--)1+.&#, D.8)( b/+)/; (#'(#-#/&+/2 &"# =)(<#(-; "., . 8.(2.+/+/2 ,#.,3)1< =+&" &"# %R% 7./.2#7#/&$ !"+,#.,3)1< (#-43&#, +/ &"# b/+)/ -&.2+/2 . -&(+<# ./, %R% )(,#(+/2 . 3)1<)4&$ @)$(% +//45&'- a4%&/!&#$&"' ",(% $0( !&/*4$(; GADC X#1(#&.(: !)((#- (#/,#(#, . ,#1+-+)/ ,+-7+--+/2 &"# Union’s 1)7'3.+/& .2.+/-& &"# @)7'./: 5)( 4/5.+( 3.8)( '(.1&+1# &"()42" (#54-.3 &) 8.(2.+/$ H#-)3*+/2 &"# '.(&+#-’ #/-4+/2 (#-'#1&+*# 7)&+)/- 5)( (#1)/-+,#(.&+)/ )( 13.(+5+1.&+)/; X#1(#&.(: !)((#- (#/,#(#, ./)&"#( (43+/2 )(,#(+/2 &"# %R% &) (#+/-&.&# &) &"#+( 5)(7#( ')-+&+)/- =+&" 5433 8.1<=.2#- (#1<)/#, 5()7 U G#1#78#( TJUJ 4/&+3 .1&4.33: (#+/-&.&#, =+&")4& 3)-- )5 -#/+)(+&: (+2"&./, )&"#( 8#/#5+&- &"# “affected =)(<#(-”? :>: +//+&2(! $0( &//4+'#(/ ") P(#%($+%6 E"%%(/ !&%(#$26 &' $0&/ ="4%$ $0%"4-0 + *($&$&"' )"% #(%$&"%+%&9 84$ $0( ="4%$ !&/5&//(! &$/ *($&$&"' "' $0( -%"4'! $0+$ '" -%+,( +84/( ") !&/#%($&"' 0+! +$$('!(! $0( &//4+'#( ") $0( +//+&2(!
ISSUE
_0($0(% "% '"$ $0( *($&$&"'(% +,+&2(! ") $0( *%"*(% %(5(!6g HG=EL:TRc @/ +' (1$%+"%!&'+%6 %(5(!69 #(%$&"%+%& #+''"$ %(*2+#( "% /4**2+'$ +' +!(74+$( %(5(!6 &' $0( "%!&'+%6 #"4%/( ") 2+39 2&B( +' +**(+2 &' !4( #"4%/(? :$ &/ $0( &'+!(74+#6 ") + %(5(!6 &' $0( "%!&'+%6 #"4%/( ") 2+3 $0+$ !($(%5&'(/ 30($0(% #(%$&"%+%& #+' 8( + *%"*(% +2$(%'+$&,( %(5(!6?
TG? @' +**(+2 86 *($&$&"' )"% %(,&(3 "' #(%$&"%+%& 4'!(% L42( \` ") $0( L42(/ ") ="4%$9 $" 8( $+B(' $" $0&/ ="4%$ 3&$0&' [` !+6/ )%"5 '"$&#( ") $0( a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
Special People, Inc. Foundation vs. Nestor Canda et al G.R. No. 160932, January 14, 2013 The petitioner was a proponent of a water-resource development and utilization project in Barangay Jimilia-an in Loboc, Bohol that would involve the tapping and purifying of water from the Loboc River, and the distribution of the purified water to the residents of Loboc and 6 other municipalities. The petitioner applied for a Certificate of Non-Coverage with the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Region 7, seeking to be exempt from the requirement of the Environmental Compliance Certificate. Upon evaluating the nature and magnitude of the environmental impact of the project, respondent Nestor M. Canda, then Chief of EMB in Bohol, rendered his findings that Initial Environmental Examination is required. RD Lipayon required the petitioner to submit the following documents to enable the EMB to determine whether the project was within an environmentally critical area or not. The petitioner failed to secure a certification from the Regional Office of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau to the effect that the project area was not located along a fault line/fault zone or a critical slope because RO-MGB did not have the data and expertise to render such finding. According to PHIVOLCS, the project site was approxima. RD Lipayon’s letter declared that the project was within an environmentally critical area,tely 18 kilometers west of the East Bohol Fault and that the petitioner was not entitled to the CNC. Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus and damages in the RTC in
:PPFR ;[] _0($0(% $0( +**(+2 !&%(#$26 $" $0&/ ="4%$ )%"5 $0( LE= 3+/ *%"*(%C ;V] _0($0(% $0( *($&$&"' )"% 5+'!+54/ 3+/ $0( #"%%(#$ %(#"4%/(?
HG=EL:TR E0( *(%(5*$"%6 3%&$ ") 5+'!+54/ &/ +' (1$%+"%!&'+%6 %(5(!6 $0+$ &/ &//4(! "'26 &' (1$%(5( '(#(//&$69 +'! $0( "%!&'+%6 #"4%/( ") *%"#(!4%( &/ *"3(%2(// $" +))"%! +' +!(74+$( +'! /*((!6 %(2&() $" "'( 30" 0+/ + #2(+% 2(-+2 %&-0$ $" $0( *(%)"%5+'#( ")
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
Petitioner’s appeal is improper under Rule 45, Rules of Court
!"+- .''#.3 8: 1#(&+)(.(+ +- 8#+/2 &.<#/ 4/,#( H43# ]\; H43#- )5 @)4(&; =")-# X#1&+)/ T #0'(#--3: (#>4+(#- &".& &"# '#&+&+)/ -".33 (.+-# )/3: >4#-&+)/- )5 3.= ="+1" 74-& 8# ,+-&+/1&3: -#& 5)(&"$ S($9 $0( *($&$&"'(% 0(%(86 %+&/(/ + 74(/$&"' ") )+#$ 30"/( %(/"24$&"' &/ !(#&/&,( &' $0&/ +**(+2? E0+$ &//4( ") )+#$ #"'#(%'/ 30($0(% "% '"$ $0( *($&$&"'(% (/$+82&/0(! $0+$ &$/ *%"a(#$ 3+/ '"$ 2"#+$(! &' +' (',&%"'5('$+226 #%&$&#+2 +%(+? U"% $0&/ %(+/"'9 $0( ="4%$ &/ #"'/$%+&'(! $" !('6 !4( #"4%/( $" $0( *($&$&"' )"% %(,&(3?
L(*482&# ") $0( >0&2&**&'(/ ,/? <+'&2+ R2(#$%&# ="5*+'6 N?L? T"? VW[Z[`9 H(#(58(% [[9 VW[e G=GL 0+! ('$(%(! &'$" $0( #"'$%+#$ )"% $0( /+2( ") (2(#$%&#&$6 "' T",(58(% V[9 [XX\$ !"# @XC =)43, 8# #55#1&+*# 5)( TZ :#.(- -&.(&+/2 5()7 S./4.(: T; TJJ\$ b/,#( &"# @XC; ?LRA@AH =.)83+2#, &) -4''3: ./, BCHLD@A =.- )83+2#, &) '4(1".-# . 7+/+747 *)347# )5 #3#1&(+1 ')=#( ./, #/#(2: 5()7 TJJ\ 4/&+3 YZZ] .& &"# (.&#.''()*#, 8: &"# C/#(2: H#243.&)(:$ L '()*+-+)/ )5 &"# @XC (#>4+(#, BCHLD@A &) '.: 7+/+747 7)/&"3: 1".(2#- #*#/ +5 &"# .1&4.3 *)347# )5 &"# ')=#( ./, #/#(2: ,(.=/ 5()7 ?LRA@AH 5#33 8#3)= &"# -&.&#, 7+/+747 >4./&+&+#-$ BCHLD@A ,(#= 5()7 ?LRA@AH #3#1&(+1 ')=#( ./, #/#(2: 3#-&"./ &"# 7+/+747 >4./&+&+#- -&+'43.&#, +/ &"# @XC ? G=GL /(%,(! "'
MERALCO and NAPOCOR agreed to submit their dispute to mediation. The mediation resulted in the execution on 2003 of a settlement covered the charges being imposed by NAPOCOR and the National Transmission Corporation all of the CSE. MERALCO therein agreed to pay to NAPOCOR and reciprocated by agreeing to give credit for the delayed completion of the transmission facilities. Two years after the case was submitted, the OSG, representing herein petitioner, filed in the ERC a motion for leave to intervene with motion to admit its attached opposition . This prompted MERALCO to initiate on 2009 in the RTC in Pasig an action for declaratory relief . On 2010, the pre-trial was held, but the Presiding Judge of the RTC ultimately reset it through the second assailed order due to the non-appearance of the representative of the OSG. Petitioner brought in the CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with an application for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, alleging that respondent RTC Judge had committed grave abuse of discretion.
:PPFR
_0($0(% "% '"$ $0( !(#&/&"' 0+/ 8((' 5""$ +'! +#+!(5&# +'! 30($0(% "% '"$ LE= #"55&$$(! -%+,( +84/( ") !&/#%($&"' HG=EL:TRc
E0( &'$(%,('&'- %('!&$&"' 86 $0( $%&+2 #"4%$ ") + !(#&/&"' "' $0( 5(%&$/ ") $0( #+/( %('!(%/ 5""$ +'! +#+!(5&# $0( %(/"24$&"' ") +'6 &//4( %+&/(! "' #(%$&"%+%& +-+&'/$ &'$(%2"#4$"%6 "%!(%/ /($$&'- $0( *%(I $%&+2 +'! !(#2+%&'- $0( *($&$&"'(% $" 0+,( 3+&,(! &$/ %&-0$ $" *%(/('$ &$/ (,&!('#(? E0( %(/"24$&"' ") $0( &//4(9 0+,&'- 8((' *%((5*$(! 86 $0( !(#&/&"' &' $0( 5+&' +#$&"'9 #(+/(! $" 0+,( +'6 *%+#$&#+2 ,+24(
Teodoro Reyes vs. Ettore Rossi G.R. No. 159823, February 18, 2013
Petitioner Teodoro A. Reyes and Advanced Foundation Construction Systems Corporation represented· by its Executive Project Director, respondent Ettore Rossi, executed a deed of conditional sale involving the purchase by Reyes of equipment consisting of a Warman Dredging Pump HY 300A. The parties agreed therein that Reyes would pay. Reyes complied, but in January 1998, he requested the restructuring of his obligation under the deed of conditional sale by replacing the four post-dated checks with nine post, dated checks that would include interest rate. Reyes issued and delivered the following nine post-dated checks in drawn against the United Coconut Planters Bank. Two of the checks were denied payment ostensibly upon Reyes’ instructions to stop their payment, while the third was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Reyes commenced an action for rescission of contract and damages in the RTC, sought judgment declaring the deed of conditional sale “rescinded and of no further force and effect,” and ordering Advanced Foundation to return the down payment. Rossi charged Reyes with five counts of estafa and five counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati for the dishonor of Checks. Reyes argued that the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati should suspend the proceedings because of the pendency in the RTC of the civil action for rescission of contract that posed a prejudicial
:PPFR
_0($0(% "% '"$ $0( #&,&2 +#$&"' )"% %(/#&//&"' ") $0( #"'$%+#$ ") /+2( %+&/(! + *%(a4!&#&+2 74(/$&"' $0+$ %(74&%(! $0( /4/*('/&"' ") $0( #%&5&'+2 *%"/(#4$&"' )"% ,&"2+$&"' ") A+$+/ >+58+'/+ A2-? VV LFM:TNc LFM:TN
E0( %(/#&//&"' ") + #"'$%+#$ ") /+2( &/ '"$ + *%(a4!&#&+2 74(/$&"' $0+$ 3&22 3+%%+'$ $0( /4/*('/&"' ") $0( #%&5&'+2 *%"#((!&'-/ #"55('#(! $" *%"/(#4$( $0( 846(% )"% ,&"2+$&"'/ ") $0( A"4'#&'- =0(#B/ M+3 ;A+$+/ >+58+'/+ A2-? VV] +%&/&'- )%"5 $0( !&/0"'"% ") $0( #0(#B/ $0( 846(% &//4(! &' #"''(#$&"' 3&$0 $0( /+2(?
Rafael Consing Jr. vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 161075, July 15, 2013 Petitioner negotiated and obtained for himself and his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz various loans from Unicapital Inc. The loans were secured by a real estate mortgage constituted on a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite registered under the name of de la Cruz . In accordance with its option to purchase the mortgaged property, Unicapital agreed to purchase one-half of the property. Payment was effected by off-setting the amounts due to Unicapital under the promissory notes of de la Cruz and paying, The other half of the property was purchased by Plus Builders, Inc., a joint venture partner of Unicapital. Before Unicapital and Plus Builders could develop the property, they learned that the title to the property was really in the names of Po Willie Yu and Juanito Tan Teng, the parties from whom the property had been allegedly acquired by de la Cruz and Consing . The title held by De la Cruz appeared to be spurious. On its part, Unicapital demanded the return of the total amount that had been paid to and received by de la Cruz and Consing, but the latter ignored the demands. On July 1999, Consing filed Civil Case in the Pasig City RTC for injunctive relief, thereby seeking to enjoin Unicapital from proceeding against him for the collection of the money on the ground that he had acted as a mere agent of his mother . On the same date, Unicapital initiated a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification of public document against Consing and de la Cruz in
:PPFR _0($0(% "% '"$ $0(%( &/ + *%(a4!&#&+2 74(/$&"' 8($3((' $0( $3" #+/(/g LFM:TNc @' &'!(*('!('$ #&,&2 +#$&"' 8+/(! "' )%+4! &'&$&+$(! 86 $0( !()%+4!(! *+%$6 !"(/ '"$ %+&/( + *%(a4!&#&+2 74(/$&"' $" /$"* $0( *%"#((!&'-/ &' + *('!&'- #%&5&'+2 *%"/(#4$&"' ") $0( !()('!+'$ )"% (/$+)+ $0%"4-0 )+2/&)&#+$&"'? E0&/ &/ 8(#+4/( $0( %(/42$ ") $0( &'!(*('!('$ #&,&2 +#$&"' &/ &%%(2(,+'$ $" $0( &//4( ") -4&2$ "% &''"#('#( ") $0( +##4/(!?
%& +- =#33 -#&&3#, &".& . 1+*+3 .1&+)/ 8.-#, )/ ,#5.7.&+)/; 5(.4, ./, '":-+1.3 +/94(+#- 7.: 8# +/,#'#/,#/&3: +/-&+&4&#, '4(-4./& &) L(&+13# [[ )5 &"# @+*+3 @),#; ./, ,)#- /)& )'#(.&# .- . '(#94,+1+.3 >4#-&+)/ &".& =+33 94-&+5: &"# -4-'#/-+)/ )5 .
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Hon. Judge Agaputo Hontanosas Jr, G.R. No. 157163, June 25, 2014
Respondents commenced Civil Case No. CEB-26468 against petitioner alleging that the respondents had obtained a loan from the petitioner, and had executed promissory notes binding themselves, jointly and severally, to pay the sum borrowed; that as security for the payment of the loan, they had constituted real estate mortgages on several parcels of land in favor of the petitioner; and that they had been made to sign a continuing surety agreement and a chattel mortgage on their Mitsubishi Pajero. The respondents’ obligation to the petitioner had reached 17million, but they had only been able to pay 13million because they had been adversely affected by the economic turmoil in Asia in 1997. The petitioner required them to issue postdated checks to cover the loan under threat of foreclosing on the mortgages. Thus, the complaint sought a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction to stay the threatened foreclosure.
On June 6, 2001, the petitioner filed its answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaim, as well as its opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. Also on June 6, 2001 the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss reiterating its affirmative defenses. The RTC denied the petitioner’s motion to dismiss for being unmeritorious, but granted the respondents’ application for preliminary injunction. Dissatisfied, the petitioner assailed the orders of the RTC by petition for certiorari in the CA. The CA rendered the adverse decision under review affirming the decision rendered by the RTC. Hence, this appeal.
:PPFRP
T? _0($0(% "% '"$ $0( &//4+'#( ") $0( 3%&$ ") *%(2&5&'+%6 &'a4'#$&"' +-+&'/$ $0( *($&$&"'(%9 &$/ +-('$/ +'! %(*%(/('$+$&,(/9 3+/ &' "%!(% g HG=EL:TRc :'a4'#$&"' /0"42! '"$ &//4( (1#(*$ 4*"' + #2(+% /0"3&'$0+$ $0( +**2&#+'$ 0+/ + %&-0$ &' (//( $" 8( *%"$(#$(!9 +'! $0+$ $0( +#$/ /"4-0$ $" 8( ('a"&'(! +%( ,&"2+$&,( ") /4#0 %&-0$? @ *%(2&5&'+%6 &'a4'#$&"' /0"42! '"$ !($(%5&'( $0( 5(%&$/ ") + #+/(9 "% !(#&!( #"'$%",(%$(! )+#$/9 )"%9 8(&'- + *%(,('$&,( %(5(!69 &$ "'26 /((B/ $" *%(,('$ $0%(+$('(! 3%"'-9 )4%$0(% &'a4%69 +'! &%%(*+%+82( 0+%5 "% &'a4/$&#( 4'$&2 $0( %&-0$/ ") $0( *+%$&(/ #+' 8( /($$2(!?
J(&%/ ") <+%#(2" P"$$" ,/? <+$&2!( >+2&#$( N?L? T"? [`XdX[9 U(8%4+%6 [Z9 VW[\ U"% $0( -%"4'! $" 8( ())(#$&,(9 $0( &'/4))&#&('#6 ") $0( #"5*2+&'$ 54/$ +**(+% "' $0( )+#( ") $0( #"5*2+&'$9 +'! '"30(%( (2/(? :$ 3&22 8( 4')+&% $" $0( *2+&'$&))9 &'!((!9 $" !($(%5&'( $0( /4))&#&('#6 ") 0&/ #+4/( ") +#$&"' )%"5 )+#$/ "4$/&!( ") $0"/( *2(+!(! &' $0( #"5*2+&'$?
Herminia Acbang vs. Hon. Jimmy Luczon, Jr, G.R. No. 164246, January 15, 2014
Respondent Spouses Lopez commenced an ejectment suit against the petitioner, her son Benjamin Acbang, Jr. and his wife Jean in the MTC of Alcala. The defendants did not file an answer; hence, the MTC rendered its decision on in favor of Spouses Lopez. The petitioner appealed to the RTC. Spouses Lopez moved for the execution of the decision pending appeal in the RTC, alleging that the defendants had not filed a supersedeas bond to stay the execution. The Acbangs opposed the motion insisting that the failure of the Spouses Lopez to move for the execution in the MTC constituted a waiver of their right to the immediate execution. Judge Luczon granted the motion for immediate execution. The opposition of spouses Lopez on the appeal taken by the Acbangs is hereby denied because under the rules the losing party may appeal the case even if they did not post their supercedeas bond.
The petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied by the RTC. The petitioner then brought the petition for prohibition directly in this Court, submitting that Judge Luczon thereby committed grave error in granting the motion for immediate execution of the Spouses Lopez without first fixing the supersedeas bond as prayed for by the Acbangs. It appears that the RTC rendered its decision in Civil Case on 2004, finding that the petitioner had not received the summons, that the non-service of the summons on her resulted in the MTC not acquiring jurisdiction over her; and that the MTC’s decision in Civil Case No. 64 dated January 14, 2004 was void as far as she was concerned. The MTC of Alcala is Ordered to reopen the case and served the summons to Herminia Acbang and conduct the proceedings without any delay. In the petition, the petitioner insists that the Spouses Lopez’s motion for execution pending appeal should be filed before she posted a supersedeas bond.
:PPFR _0($0(% "% '"$ 4'!(% $0( #&%#45/$+'#(/9 $0( 3%&$ ") (1(#4$&"' 3&22 &//4( 4*"' 5"$&"' ") $0( *2+&'$&))? LFM:TNc E" /$+6 $0( &55(!&+$( (1(#4$&"' ") $0( a4!-5('$ &' +' (a(#$5('$ #+/(9 $0( !()('!+'$ 54/$ *(%)(#$ +' +**(+29 )&2( + /4*(%/(!(+/ 8"'!9 +'! *(%&"!&#+226 !(*"/&$ $0( %('$+2/ 8(#"5&'- !4( !4%&'- $0( *('!('#6 ") $0( +**(+2? G$0(%3&/(9 $0( 3%&$ ") (1(#4$&"' 3&22 &//4( 4*"' 5"$&"' ") $0( *2+&'$&))?
Isabelita Vinuya et al vs. Honorable Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo et al G.R. No. 162230, August 12, 2014
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, praying that the Court reverse its decision of April 28, 2010, and grant their petition for certiorari. Petitioners argue that our constitutional and jurisprudential histories have rejected the Court’s ruling that the foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive Branch are unlimited; that under the relevant jurisprudence & constitutional provisions, such prerogatives are proscribed by international human rights and international conventions of which the Philippines is a party; that the Court, in holding that the Chief Executive has the prerogative whether to bring petitioners’ claims against Japan, has read the foreign policy powers of the Office of the President in isolation from the rest of the constitutional protections that expressly textualize international human rights; that the foreign policy prerogatives are subject to obligations to promote international humanitarian law as incorporated into the laws of the land through the Incorporation Clause.
The petitioners added that the status and applicability of the generally accepted principles of international law within the Philippine jurisdiction would be uncertain without the Incorporation Clause, and that the clause implied that the general international law forms part of Philippine law only insofar as they are expressly adopted; that in its rulings in The Holy See, v. Rosario, Jr. and U.S. v. Guinto the Court has said that international law is deemed part of the Philippine law as a consequence of Statehood; that by virtue of the Incorporation Clause, the Philippines is bound to abide by the erga omnes obligations arising from the jus cogens norms embodied in the laws of war and humanity that include the principle of the imprescriptibility of war crimes; that the crimes committed against petitioners are proscribed under international human rights law as there were undeniable violations of jus cogens norms; that the need to punish crimes against the laws of humanity has long become jus cogens norms, and that international legal obligations prevail over national legal norms; that the Court’s invocation of the political doctrine in the instant case is misplaced; and that the Chief Executive has the constitutional duty to afford redress and to give justice to the victims of the comfort women system in the Philippines.
Petitioners pray that the Court reconsider its April 28, 2010 decision, and declare: (1) that the rapes, sexual slavery, torture and other forms of sexual violence committed against the Filipina comfort women are crimes against humanity and war crimes under customary international law; (2) that the Philippines is not bound by the Treaty of Peace with Japan, insofar as the waiver of the claims of the Filipina comfort women against Japan is concerned; (3) that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Executive Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to espouse the claims of Filipina comfort women; and (4) that petitioners are entitled to the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the respondents. Petitioners also pray that the Court order the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Executive Secretary to espouse the claims of Filipina comfort women for an official apology, legal compensation and other forms of reparation from Japan. In their Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners stress that it was highly improper for the April 28, 2010 decision to lift commentaries from at least three sources without proper attribution – an article published in 2009 in the Yale Law Journal of International Law; a book published by the Cambridge University Press in 2005; and an article published in 2006 in the Western Reserve Journal of International Law – and make it appear that such commentaries supported its arguments for dismissing the petition, when in truth the plagiarized sources even made a strong case in favour
:PPFR _0($0(% "% '"$ $0( 5,+",# !,* 2&(,#3"/&*$+",# $#/ 6.77%&1&#+$% 5,+",# !,* 2&(,#3"/&*$+",# /0"42! 8( -%+'$(!g LFM:TNc TG ? E0( %&-0$ $" )&2( + /*(#&+2 #&,&2 +#$&"' ") #(%$&"%+%& &/ '(&$0(% + '+$4%+2 %&-0$ '"% +' (//('$&+2 (2(5('$ ") !4( *%"#(//C + 3%&$ ") #(%$&"%+%& &/ + *%(%"-+$&,( 3%&$9 '(,(% !(5+'!+82( +/ + 5+$$(% ") %&-0$9 +'! '(,(% &//4(! (1#(*$ &' $0( (1(%#&/( ") a4!&#&+2 !&/#%($&"'? J('#(9 0( 30" /((B/ + 3%&$ ") #(%$&"%+%& 54/$ +**26 )"% &$ "'26 &' $0( 5+''(% +'! /$%&#$26 &' +##"%!+'#( 3&$0 $0( *%",&/&"'/ ") $0( 2+3
>($&$&"'(%/ 3(%( %(74&%(! $" /0"3 &' $0(&% *($&$&"' "% (&*+",*$*" $0+$ $0( +//+&2(! +#$ 3+/ (&$0(% a4!&#&+2 "% 74+/&Ia4!&#&+2 &' #0+%+#$(%$ X#1&+)/ T; H43# V\ )5 &"# ,-.!/ &0 1&-$# (#>4+(#- -41" -")=+/2$ !"# '#&+&+)/ -".33 8# .11)7'./+#, 8: . 1#(&+5+#, &(4# 1)': )5 &"# 94,27#/&; )(,#(; )( (#-)34&+)/ -489#1& &"#(#)5; 1)'+#- )5 .33 '3#.,+/2- ./, ,)147#/&- (#3#*./& ./, '#(&+/#/& &"#(#&); ./, . -=)(/ 1#(&+5+1.&+)/ )5 /)/K5)(47 -")''+/2 .- '()*+,#, +/ &"# &"+(, '.(.2(.'" )5 X#1&+)/ [; H43# ]V$ W)=#*#(; '#&+&+)/#(- ,+, /)& 7.<# -41" . -")=+/2$
P+&'$ <+%6 =%4/+!( $" @22(,&+$( >",(%$6 ") A%($0(' U"4'!+$&"' :'#? ,/? J"'? E("!"%" L&(2 N?L? T"? [Zd`WY9 D+'4+%6 [V9 VW[` R#&+&+)/#( 13.+7#, +/ +&- '#&+&+)/ 5)( (#1)/-&+&4&+)/ &".& &"# )(+2+/.3 1)': )5 A@! ?)$ TVZJ "., 8##/ 84(/& ./, 3)-& +/ &"# 5+(# &".& 24&&#, &"# c4#E)/ @+&: H#2+-&#( )5 G##,- +/ &"# 3.&# UZ’s$ %/+&+.33:; (#-')/,#/& S4,2# 2.*# ,4# 1)4(-# &) &"# '#&+&+)/; 84& .5&#( &"# '(#3+7+/.(: "#.(+/2; "# ,+-7+--#, &"# '#&+&+)/ 5)( (#1)/-&+&4&+)/ &"()42" &"# 5+(-& .--.+3#, )(,#($ R#&+&+)/#( 7)*#, 5)( (#1)/-+,#(.&+)/ )5 &"# ,+-7+--.3$ H!@ ,#/+#, &"# 7)&+)/ 5)( (#1)/-+,#(.&+)/ 5)( 3.1< )5 ./: 1)2#/& )( 94-&+5+.83# 2()4/, &) (#1)/-+,#($ R#&+&+)/#( 5+3#, . '#&+&+)/ 5)( 1#(&+)(.(+
:PPFR
_0($0(% "% '"$ $0( LE= -%+,(26 +84/(! &$/ !&/#%($&"' +5"4'$&'- $" 2+#B "% (1#(// ") &$/ a4%&/!&#$&"' &' !&/5&//&'- &$/ *($&$&"' )"% %(#"'/$&$4$&"' "' $0( 8+/&/ ") $0( %(#"55('!+$&"' ") $0( ML@ +'! $0( "**"/&$&"' ") $0( L(*482&# +'! $0( F> !(/*&$( 0+,&'- &'&$&+226 -&,(' !4( #"4%/( $" $0( *($&$&"' )"% %(#"'/$&$4$&"' HG=EL:TRc @ *($&$&"' )"% $0( a4!&#&+2 %(#"'/$&$4$&"' ") + E"%%('/ $&$2( )+22/ 4'!(% $0( (1#24/&,( "%&-&'+2 a4%&/!&#$&"' ") $0( L(-&"'+2 E%&+2 ="4%$ +'! 54/$ /$%&#$26 #"5*26 3&$0 $0( %(74&%(5('$/ *%(/#%&8(! &' L(*482&# @#$ T"? VdC "$0(%3&/(9 $0( *($&$&"' /0"42! 8( !&/5&//(!
b/,#( X#1&+)/ TY )5 H#'483+1 L1& ?)$ YV; &"# 3.= )/ &"# 94,+1+.3 (#1)/-&+&4&+)/ )5 . !)((#/- &+&3#; &"# H#2+)/.3 !(+.3 @)4(& P.&"# -411#--)( )5 &"# @)4(& )5 F+(-& %/-&./1#Q "., &"# "%&-&'+2 +'! (1#24/&,( a4%&/!&#$&"' $" +#$ "' $0( *($&$&"' )"% a4!&#&+2 %(#"'/$&$4$&"' ") $&$2(? L- )5 &"#/; &"#(#5)(#; $0( #"%%(#$ %(#"4%/( )"% $0( *($&$&"'(% 3+/ $" +**(+2 $" $0( ="4%$ ") @**(+2/ 86 '"$&#( ") +**(+2 3&$0&' [` !+6/ )%"5 '"$&#( ") $0( !('&+2 ") &$/ 5"$&"' )"% %(#"'/&!(%+$&"'$ 6: .33)=+/2 &"# '#(+), )5 .''#.3 &) #3.'-# =+&")4& &.<+/2 .1&+)/; +& ->4./,#(#, +&- (+2"& &) .''#.3$ %&- '(#-#/& (#-)(& &) 1#(&+)(.(+ +- +7'#(7+--+83#; 5)( ./ #0&(.)(,+/.(: (#7#,: 3+<# 1#(&+)(.(+ 1.//)& 8# . -48-&+&4&# 5)( . 3)-& .''#.3$
Republic of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Saturnino Borbon and Court of Appeals G.R. No.165354, January 12, 2015
NAPOCOR entered a property located in Batangas City in order to construct and maintain transmission lines for the 230 KV Mahabang Parang-Pinamucan Power Transmission Project. Respondents heirs of Saturnino Q. Borbon owned the property which was registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9696 of the Registry of Deeds of Batangas. NAPOCOR filed a complaint for expropriation in the RTC Batangas City seeking the acquisition of an easement of right of way over a portion of the property alleging that it had negotiated with the respondents for the acquisition of the easement but they had failed to reach any agreement; and that, nonetheless, it was willing to deposit the amount of P9,790.00 representing the assessed value of the portion sought to be expropriated. It prayed for the issuance of a writ of possession upon deposit to enable it to enter and take possession and control of the affected portion of the property; to demolish all improvements existing thereon; and to commence construction of the transmission line project. It likewise prayed for the appointment of three commissioners to determine the just compensation to be paid.
The respondents filed a motion to dismiss averred that NAPOCOR had not negotiated with them before entering the property and that the entry was done without their consent in the process, they tendered no objection to NAPOCOR’s entry provided it would pay just compensation not only for the portion sought to be expropriated but for the entire property whose potential was greatly diminished, if not totally lost, due to the project. In the pre-trial conference, the RTC directed the parties to submit the names of their nominees to sit in the panel of commissioners within 10 days from the date of the pre-trial. The RTC constituted the panel of three commissioners. The parties then submitted their respective objections to the reports. The RTC adopted the recommendation contained in the joint report and ordered NAPOCOR to pay the respondents just compensation for the whole area. The CA AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that NAPOCOR shall pay only for the occupied 6,326 square meters of the subject real property at the rate of P550.00 per square meter and to pay legal interest therefrom until fully paid. Hence, appeal by NAPOCOR to the SC. During the pendency of the appeal, NAPOCOR filed a Motion to Defer Proceedings stating that negotiations between the parties were going on with a view to the amicable settlement of the case. On January 3, 2014, NAPOCOR filed a Manifestation and Motion to Discontinue Expropriation Proceedings, informing that the parties failed to reach an amicable agreement and that the dismissal or discontinuance of the expropriation
:PPFR _0($0(% "% '"$ $0( (1*%"*%&+$&"' *%"#((!&'-/ 5+6 8( !&/#"'$&'4(! "% !&/5&//(! *('!&'- +**(+2? HG=EL:TRiLFM:TNc
E0( (1*%"*%&+$"% 30" 0+/ $+B(' *"//(//&"' ") $0( *%"*(%$6 /48a(#$ ") (1*%"*%&+$&"' &/ "82&-(! $" *+6 %(+/"'+82( #"5*('/+$&"' $" $0( 2+'!"3'(% )"% $0( *(%&"! ") /4#0 *"//(//&"' +2$0"4-0 $0( *%"#((!&'-/ 0+! 8((' !&/#"'$&'4(! "' $0( -%"4'! $0+$ $0( *482&# *4%*"/( )"% $0( (1*%"*%&+$&"' 0+! 5(+'30&2( #(+/(!?
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
Fortune Life Insurance Company Inc. vs. Commission on Audit January 27, 2015 | G.R. No. 213525
Respondent Provincial Government of Antique and the petitioner executed a memorandum of agreement concerning the life insurance coverage of qualified barangay secretaries, treasurers and tanod, the former obligating P4,393,593.60 for the premium payment, and subsequently submitting the corresponding disbursement voucher to COA-Antique for pre-audit. The latter office disallowed the payment for lack of legal basis under Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code). Respondent LGU appealed but its appeal was denied. Consequently, the petitioner filed its petition for money claim in the COA. On November 15, 2012, the COA issued its decision denying the petition. The petitioner received a copy of the COA decision on December 14, 2012, and filed its motion for reconsideration on January 14, 2013. However, the COA denied the motion, the denial being received by the petitioner on July 14, 2014.
:PPFR _0($0(% "% '"$ U%(/0 *(%&"! 4'!(% T(6*(/ +**2&(/ $" *($&$&"' )"% #(%$&"%+%& 4'!(% L42( d\ HG=EL:TR E0( %(-2(5('$+%6 *(%&"!/ 4'!(% L42( \V +'! L42( d\ +%( !&))(%('$? :' $0( )"%5(%9 $0( +--%&(,(! *+%$6 &/ +22"3(! [` !+6/ $" )&2( $0( *($&$&"' )"% %(,&(3 )%"5 %(#(&*$ ") $0( +//+&2(! !(#&/&"' "% )&'+2 "%!(%9 "% )%"5 %(#(&*$ ") $0( !('&+2 ") + 5"$&"' )"% '(3 $%&+2 "% %(#"'/&!(%+$&"'? :' $0( 2+$$(%9 $0( *($&$&"' &/ )&2(! 3&$0&' eW !+6/ )%"5 '"$&#( ") $0( a4!-5('$ "% )&'+2 "%!(% "% %(/"24$&"' /"4-0$ $" 8( %(,&(3(!?
U%(/0 >(%&"! L42( 4'!(% T(6*(/ 3&22 '"$ +**26 $" $0( *($&$&"' )"% #(%$&"%+%& 4'!(% L42( d\ ") $0( L42(/ ") ="4%$ !"# '#&+&+)/#( ')-+&- &".& &"# 5(#-" '#(+), (43# .''3+#8#1.4-# +&- H43# V] '#&+&+)/ +- .<+/ &) . '#&+&+)/ 5)( (#*+#= 8()42"& 4/,#( H43# ]Y )5 &"# H43#- )5 @)4(&M "#/1#; 1)/5)(7.83: =+&" &"# 5(#-" '#(+), (43#; &"# '#(+), &) 5+3# . H43# V] '#&+&+)/ -")43, .3-) 8# (#1<)/#, 5()7 &"# (#1#+'& )5 &"# )(,#( ,#/:+/2 &"# 7)&+)/ 5)( (#1)/-+,#(.&+)/ )( &"# 7)&+)/ 5)( /#= &(+.3$ !"# petitioner’s ')-+&+)/ 1.//)& 8# -4-&.+/#,$ E0(%( &/ '" *+%&$6 8($3((' $0( *($&$&"' )"% %(,&(3 4'!(% L42( \V +'! $0( *($&$&"' )"% #(%$&"%+%& 4'!(% L42( d\?
Berlinda Oribello vs. Court of Appeals and Remedios Oribello August 5, 2015 | G.R. No. 163504 Before RTC of La Union was an action for partition and damages involving twelve parcels of land. Eight was in the name of Toribio Oribello, two in the names of Toribio and Rosenda Oribello, one in the names of Toribio and and Berlinda Padilla Oribello, and one in the names of Toribio and Ma. Emilia Oribello. Toribio was twice married. His first wife was Emilia. Toribio's marriage to Emilia was dissolved pursuant to the decision of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, U.S.A. Toribio married appellee before the municipal mayor of Agoo, La Union. He died intestate on August 18, 1993. Instituted on May 27, 1997 by Remedios Oribello, represented by her natural father Alfredo Selga, against appellee, the action was anchored on the theory that appellant is an adopted daughter of Toribio. Denying that appellant is an adopted daughter of Toribio, appellee averred in her answer that the decree of adoption was fraudulently secured by Alfredo. RTC rendered its Judgment after trial. CA vacated and remanded the case to the lower court.
:PPFR _0($0(% "% '"$ %(/*"'!('$ 3+/ +82( $" *%",( $0+$ /0( 3+/ ('$&$2(! $" *+%$&$&"' HG=EL:TRc
E" +##"%! 3&$0 $0( '+$4%( ") $0( %(5(!6 ") a4!&#&+2 *+%$&$&"'9 $0(%( +%( $3" /$+-(/ !()&'(! 4'!(% L42( dX ") $0( L42(/ ") ="4%$? E0( )&%/$ %(2+$(/ $" $0( !($(%5&'+$&"' ") $0( %&-0$/ ") $0( *+%$&(/ $" $0( *%"*(%$6 0(2! &' #"55"'? E0( /(#"'! #"'#(%'/ $0( *06/&#+2 /(-%(-+$&"' ") (+#0 *+%$6l/ a4/$ /0+%( &' $0( *%"*(%$6 0(2! &' #"55"'? E0( /(#"'! /$+-( '((! '"$ 8( -"'( &'$" /0"42! $0( *+%$&(/ +-%(( "' $0( *06/&#+2 *+%$&$&"'?
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
The City of Iloilo, represented by Hon. Mayor Jerry Treñas vs. Hon. Judge Rene Honrado, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 29 Iloilo City and JPV Motor Vehicle Emission Testing and Car Care Center, G.R. No. 160399, December 9, 2015
The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) issued Department Order No. 2002-31 with the subject "AUTHORIZATION OF PRIVATE EMISSION TESTING CENTERS". Item No. 2 of Department Order No. 2002-31 stated that “To ensure that "cut throat" or "ruinous" competition, that may result to the degradation of level of service of the project is avoided, authorization of PETC should strictly be rationalized taking into consideration the vehicle population expected to be serviced in the area. As basis, 1 PETC lane shall be authorized for every 15,000 registered vehicles in an LTO Registering District JPV Motor Vehicle Emission Testing and Car Care Center (JPV), a partnership authorized to operate a PETC in Iloilo City, was granted a capacity of four lanes that could cater to 15,000 motor vehicles per lane for the total capacity of 60,000 motor vehicles. At the time JPV filed the complaint to prevent the petitioner from acting on the pending application for the operation of another Private Emission Testing Center in Iloilo City.
Accordingly, JPV averred in its complaint that there was no need for another PETC because it already had the capability to serve all the registered motor vehicles in Iloilo City pursuant to Department Order No. 2002-31. Through its answer, the petitioner contested the injunctive relief being sought by JPV, insisting that such relief, if issued, would result into a monopoly on the part of JPV in the operation of a PETC; that the writ of injunction would prevent the exercise by the City Mayor of his discretionary power to issue or not to issue business permits; and that JPV did not establish the existence of its right in esse to be protected by the writ of injunction. Grahar Emission Testing Center , another PETC operator with a pending application for a business/mayor's permit to operate its own PETC in Iloilo City, sought leave of court to intervene. Although it allowed the intervention of Grahar on June 24, 2003, the RTC nonetheless issued the assailed order granting the application of JPV for the writ of preliminary injunction.
:PPFR
_0($0(% "% '"$ LE= (%%(! &' -%+'$&'- $0( +**2&#+$&"' ") $0( 3%&$ ") *%(2&5&'+%6 &'a4'#$&"' HG=EL:TRc @ *%(2&5&'+%6 &'a4'#$&"' &/ +' "%!(% -%+'$(! +$ +'6 /$+-( ") +' +#$&"' "% *%"#((!&'- *%&"% $" $0( a4!-5('$ "% )&'+2 "%!(% %(74&%&'- + *+%$6 "% + #"4%$9 +' +-('#69 "% + *(%/"' $" %()%+&' )%"5 + *+%$*+% +#$ "% +#$/? :$/ (//('$&+2 %"2( &/ *%(/(%,+$&,( ") $0( %&-0$/ ") $0( *+%$&(/ &' "%!(% $" *%"$(#$ $0( +8&2&$6 ") $0( #"4%$ $" %('!(% + 5(+'&'-)42 !(#&/&"'9 "% &' "%!(% $" -4+%! +-+&'/$ + #0+'-( ") #&%#45/$+'#(/ $0+$ 3&22 0+5*(% "% *%(,('$ $0( -%+'$&'- ") $0( *%"*(% %(2&() +)$(% $0( $%&+2 "' $0(
E0( -%+'$&'- +5"4'$(! $" $0( *%(a4!-5('$ ") $0( 5(%&$/ ") $0( #+/(9 /"5($0&'- $0( LE= #"42! '"$ ,+2&!26 !" $ %& .''.(#/&3: 5)(2)& &".& &"# 54/1&+)/ )5 &"# =(+& )5 '(#3+7+/.(: +/94/1&+)/ =.- '"$ $" !($(%5&'( $0( 5(%&$/ ") $0( #+/(9 "% $" !(#&!( #"'$%",(%$(! $+#$/9 8(#+4/( +' &'$(%2"#4$"%6 &'a4'#$&"' 3+/ 84$ + *%(2&5&'+%6 +'! *%(*+%+$"%6 "%!(% $0+$ /$&22 2""B(! $" + )4$4%( )&'+2 0(+%&'- ; ./,; .3&")42" 1)/'3.&+/2 =".& &"# (#-43& )5 &".& "#.(+/2 =)43, 8#; +& -")43, /)& -#&&3# =".& &"# (#-43& -")43, 8#$ !"4-; &"# H!@ ,+, /)& #0#(1+-# +&- 8()., ,+-1(#&+)/ -)4/,3: 8#1.4-# &$ 82+$+'$26 ,&"2+$(! $0( %&-0$ $" 8( 0(+%! ") $0( *($&$&"'(%9 30"/( %&-0$ $" /48/$+'$&+$( &$/ !()('/( ") $0( *"3(% $" %(-42+$( 84/&'(//(/ 3&$0&' &$/ $(%%&$"%&+2 a4%&/!&#$&"' /0"42! 8( )4226 %(#"-'&.(! $ %& .3-) *+)3.&#, &"# (+2"& &) 8# "#.(, )5 &"# +/&#(*#/)( N(.".(; =")-# +/&#(*#/&+)/ +/ &"# -4+& =.- 2(./&#, )/3: )/ &"# -.7# ,.&# )5 S4/# Y]; YZZ[$ !) -&(#-:#& .2.+/; &"# 7.+/ (#3+#5 1)43, /)& 8# (#-)3*#, =+&")4& (#1#+*+/2 &"#
Heirs of Arturo Garcia I vs. Municipality of Iba, Zambales G. R. No. 162217, July 22, 2015
The late Melecio R. Bueno was the tenant-farmer beneficiary of an agricultural land located in Poblacion, Iba, Zambales. On October 18, 1999, he brought an ejectment suit in the MTC of Iba against the Municipality of Iba, Province of Zambales, claiming that in 1983, the Municipality of Iba had constructed the public market on a substantial portion of his land without his consent; and that his repeated demands for the Municipality of Iba to vacate the property had remained unheeded. After due proceedings, the MTC ruled in favor of Bueno. Hence, the Municipality of Iba filed its notice of appeal, but the MTC denied due course to the notice of appeal. Thus, the Municipality of Iba filed its petition for certiorari in the RTC in Iba, Zambales to assail the denial of due course by the MTC. The case was assigned to Branch 69 which ultimately granted the petition for certiorari. The petitioners, who meanwhile substituted Bueno upon his death, moved for the reconsideration of the judgment granting the petition for certiorari, but the RTC denied their motion for reconsideration. Aggrieved, the petitioners appealed to the CA by petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court
:PPFR _0($0(% $0( !&/5&//+2 &/ *%"*(% )"% 8(&'- '"$ $0( *%"*(% 5"!( ") +**(+2
HG=EL:TR @' +**(+2 8%&'-/ 4* )"% %(,&(3 +'6 (%%"% ") a4!-5('$ #"55&$$(! 86 + #"4%$ 3&$0 a4%&/!&#$&"' ",(% $0( /48a(#$ ") $0( /4&$ +'! ",(% $0( *(%/"'/ ") $0( *+%$&(/9 "% +'6 (%%"% #"55&$$(! 86 $0( #"4%$ &' $0( (1(%#&/( ") &$/ a4%&/!&#$&"' +5"4'$&'- $" '"$0&'5"%( $0+' +' (%%"% ") a4!-5('$?
R4(-4./& &) P(#$&"' V9 L42( \[ )5 &"# H43#- )5 @)4(& ="+1" -&.&#- &".& “xxx $0( +**(+2 $" $0( ="4%$ ") @**(+2/ &' #+/(/ !(#&!(! 86 $0( L(-&"'+2 E%&+2 ="4%$ &' $0( (1(%#&/( ") &$/ "%&-&'+2 a4%&/!&#$&"' /0+22 8( $+B(' 86 )&2&'- + '"$&#( ") +**(+2 xxx”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l %(/"%$ $" $0( *($&$&"' )"% %(,&(3 4'!(% L42( \V 3+/ 3%"'-$ W#/1#; &"# @L ,+, /)& #(( +/ ,#/:+/2 ,4# 1)4(-# &) &"# '#&+&+)/ 5)( (#*+#=$
Bpi Family Savings Bank vs. Sps. Benedicto & Teresita Yujuico G.R. No. 175796, July 22, 2015 City of Manila filed a complaint against the respondents for the expropriation of five parcels of land located in Tondo, Manila and registered in the name of respondent Teresita Yujuico. Two of the parcels of land, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 261331 and TCT No. 261332, were previously mortgaged to Citytrust Banking Corporation, the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, under a First Real Estate Mortgage Contract. Manila RTC rendered its judgment declaring the five parcels of land expropriated for public use. The judgment became final and executory on January 28, 2001 and was entered in the book of entries of judgment. The petitioner subsequently filed a Motion to Intervene in Execution with Partial Opposition to Defendant’s Request to Release, but the RTC denied the motion for having been “filed out of time.” Hence, the petitioner decided to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage constituted on the two parcels of land subject of the respondents’ loan. After holding the public auction, the sheriff awarded the two lots to the petitioner as the highest bidder at P10,000,000.00. Claiming a deficiency amounting to P18,522.155.42, the petitioner sued the respondents to recover such deficiency in the Makati RTC (Civil Case No. 03-450). The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, namely: that the suit was barred by res judicata; that the complaint stated no
:PPFR _0($0(% "% '"$ =@ (%%(! 30(' &$ %42(! $0( #+/( )&2(! 86 A>: /0"42! 8( !&/5&//(! "' $0( -%"4'! ") &5*%"*(% ,('4(
HG=EL:TR @' +#$&"' $" %(#",(% $0( !()&#&('#6 +)$(% (1$%+a4!&#&+2 )"%(#2"/4%( ") + %(+2 *%"*(%$6 5"%$-+-( &/ + *(%/"'+2 +#$&"' 8(#+4/( &$ !"(/ '"$ +))(#$ $&$2( $" "% *"//(//&"' ") %(+2 *%"*(%$69 "% +'6 &'$(%(/$ $0(%(&'?
N+*#/ &"# 5)(#2)+/2; &"# '#&+&+)/#( 1)((#1&3: 8()42"& &"# 1.-# +/ &"# B.<.&+ H!@ 8#1.4-# <+B+$& 3+/ $0( *2+#( 30(%( $0( 5+&' "))&#( ") $0( *($&$&"'(% 3+/ 2"#+$(!? B)(#)*#( &"# @)4(& .2(##, =+&" &"# H!@ &".& +& =)43, 8# +7'()'#( &) ,+-7+-- &"# 1.-# )/ &"# 2()4/, )5 +7'()'#( *#/4#; .--47+/2 &".& &"# *#/4# "., 8##/ +7'()'#(3: 3.+,; 1)/-+,#(+/2 &".& &"# (#-')/,#/&- "., /)& (.+-#, -41" 2()4/, +/ &"#+( B)&+)/ &) G+-7+--$ d# 4/,#(-1)(# &".& +/ 1+*+3 '()1##,+/2-; *#/4# +'()1#,4(.3; /)& 94(+-,+1&+)/.3; ./, 7.: 8# =.+*#, 8: &"# ,#5#/,./& +5 /)& -#.-)/.83: (.+-#, #+&"#( +/ . 7)&+)/ &) ,+-7+-- )( +/ &"# ./-=#($ P(#$&"' [9 L42( X ") $0( L42(/ ") ="4%$ &"4- #0'(#--3: -&+'43.&#- &".& ,#5#/-#- ./, )89#1&+)/- /)& '3#.,#, #+&"#( +/ . 7)&+)/ &) ,+-7+-- )( +/ &"# ./-=#( .(# ,##7#, =.+*#,$
Grace Insigne et al vs. Abra Valley Colleges Inc. G.R. No. 204089, July 29, 2015
Petitioners Grace Borgoña Insigne et. al. are siblings of the full blood. Respondent Francis Borgoña is their older half-blood brother. The petitioners are the children of the late Pedro Borgoña by his second wife, Teresita Valeros, while Francis was Pedro’s son by his first wife, Humvelina Avila. In his lifetime, Pedro was the founder, president and majority stockholder of respondent Abra Valley Colleges, Inc. a stock corporation. After Pedro’s death, Francis succeeded him as the president of Abra Valley. On March 26, 2002, the petitioners, along with their brother Romulo Borgoña and Elmer Reyes, filed a complaint (with application for preliminary injunction) and damages in the RTC against Abra Valley praying, among others, that the RTC direct Abra Valley to allow them to inspect its corporate books and records, and the minutes of meetings, and to provide them with its financial statements. Due to Abra Valley’s failure to file its responsive pleading within the reglementary period provided in the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies,
:PPFR _0($0(% $0( ="4%$ &/ #"%%(#$ 30(' &$ %42(! $0+$ $0( 84%!(' ") *%",&'- $0( /$"#B "3'(%/0&* 2&(/ 3&$0 $0( *($&$&"'(%/g _0($0(% $0( 2"3(% #"4%$ *%"*(%26 !&/5&//(! $0( #+/( "' $0( ground of the petitioners’ failure $" #"5*26 3&$0 $0( "%!(% &//4(! 86 $0( LE= $" *%"!4#( /$"#B #(%$&)&#+$(/g HG=EL:TR :' #&,&2 #+/(/9 $0( *+%$6 0+,&'- $0( 84%!(' ") *%"") 54/$ (/$+82&/0 0&/ #+/( 86 + *%(*"'!(%+'#( ") (,&!('#(? E04/9 $0( *+%$69 30($0(% $0( *2+&'$&)) "% $0( !()('!+'$9 30" +//(%$/ $0( +))&%5+$&,( ") +' &//4( 8(+%/ $0( "'4/ $" *%",( 0&/ +//(%$&"' &' "%!(% $" "8$+&' + )+,"%+82( a4!-5('$? U%"5 $0( *2+&'$&)) $0( 84%!(' $" *%",( 0&/ *"/&$&,( +//(%$&"'/ '(,(% *+%$/?
b/,#( &"# 1+(147-&./1#-; $0( !&/5&//+2 ") $0( #+/( "' $0( 8+/&/ $0+$ e&"# ,)147#/&- '(#-#/&#, .(# /)& X&)1< @#(&+5+1.&#- .- 8)3,3: .//)4/1#, 8: &"# plaintiff’s 1)4/-#3; 0('#(9 *2+&'$&))/ )+&2(! $" #"5*26 3&$0 $0( "%!(% ") $0( ="4%$ !+$(! <+%#0 Y9 VW[We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petitioners’ '(),41&+)/ )5 &"# -&)1< 1#(&+5+1.&#- 3+/ %('!(%(! /4*(%)24"4/ 86 $0(&% /485&//&"' ") "$0(% #"5*($('$ 5(+'/ ") (/$+82&/0&'- $0(&% /0+%(0"2!&'-/ &'
Nilo Chiongian vs. Victoria Benitez-Lirio et al G.R. No. 162692, August 26, 2015
The late Vicente Benitez was married to Isabel Chipongian, the petitioner's sister. Isabel had predeceased Vicente, who died on November 13, 1989. The couple had no offspring. On July 20, 1982, after the death of Isabel, Vicente and the petitioner had executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement respecting the estate of Isabel, whereby the latter waived all his rights to the estate of Isabel in favor of Vicente. According to the petitioner, however, Vicente executed an affidavit on the same date whereby he affirmed that the waiver did not extend to the paraphernal properties of Isabel. Upon the death of Vicente, Victoria Benitez Lirio (Victoria), a sister of Vicente, and Feodor Benitez Aguilar (Feodor), a nephew of Vicente, initiated proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Vicente in RTC. RTC appointed Feodor the administrator of Vicente’s estate and issued the letters of administration to Feodor. The petitioner intervened in Special Proceedings No. SP-797. Feodor countered with the request that he be allowed to continue to administer all the properties left by Vicente, including the paraphernal properties of Isabel. Petitioner specifically moved for the exclusion of the paraphernal properties of Isabel from Vicente’s estate. However, he withdrew the motion even before the RTC could rule on it. Instead, he filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and Admi Complaint-in-Interventi
:PPFR
_0($0(% "% '"$ $0( *($&$&"'(% $&5(26 )&2(! 0&/ +**(+2 HG=EL:TRc
>4%/4+'$ $" P(#? V;+]9 L42( \[9 $0( *%"*(% 5"!( ") +**(+2&'- + a4!-5('$ "% )&'+2 "%!(% &' /*(#&+2 *%"#((!&'-/ &/ 86 '"$&#( ") +**(+2 +'! %(#"%! "' +**(+2? F'!(% P(#$&"' e ") L42( \[9 + *+%$6 30" 3+'$/ $" +**(+2 + a4!-5('$ "% )&'+2 "%!(% &' /*(#&+2 *%"#((!&'-/ 0+/ eW !+6/ )%"5 '"$&#( ") $0( a4!-5('$ "% )&'+2 "%!(% 3&$0&' 30� $" *(%)(#$ +' +**(+2 8(#+4/( 0( 3&22 8( )&2&'- '"$ "'26 + '"$&#( ") +**(+2 84$ +2/" + %(#"%! "' +**(+2 $0+$ 3&22 %(74&%( $0( +**%",+2 ") $0( $%&+2 #"4%$ 3&$0 '"$&#( $" $0( +!,(%/( *+%$6? E0( *(%&"! ") +**(+2 /0+22 8( &'$(%%4*$(! 86 + $&5(26 5"$&"' )"% '(3 $%&+2 "%
Rogelio Baronda vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 161006, October 14, 2015
Respondent Hideco Sugar Milling Co., Inc. employed the petitioner as a mud press truck driver with a daily salary of P281.00. He hit HIDECO’s transmission lines while operating a dump truck, causing a total factory blackout from 9:00 pm until 2:00 am of the next day. Power was eventually restored but the restoration cost HIDECO damages. Following the incident, HIDECO served a notice of offense requiring him to explain the incident within three days from notice. He complied. The management conducted its investigation, and, finding him guilty of negligence, recommended his dismissal. Resident manager served a termination letter and informed him of the decision to terminate his employment effective at the close of office hours of that day. Hence, HIDECO no longer allowed him to report to work on the next day. Petitioner, along with another employee also dismissed by HIDECO, filed in the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board in Tacloban City a complaint for illegal dismissal against HIDECO. Voluntary Arbitrator Lopez, Jr. handled the case and eventually rendered
Petitioner filed his manifestation with motion for the issuance of the writ of execution in the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator, praying for the execution of the decision, and insisting on being entitled to backwages and other benefits. HIDECO opposed the petitioner’s motion for execution and simultaneously presented its own motion for execution to enforce the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator directing the petitioner to pay the actual damages. The Voluntary Arbitrator dismissed petitioner’s motion and granted HIDECO’s motion for execution. Petitioner filed another motion for execution praying that a writ of execution requiring HIDECO to pay to him unpaid waged, 13th month pay and bonuses; which was granted by the Voluntary Arbitrator. HIDECO instituted a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals averring that the Voluntary Arbitrator had acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Hence, the filing of petition for
:PPFR _0($0(% "% '"$ *($&$&"' )"% #(%$&"%+%& 3+/ $0( *%"*(% %(5(!6? HG=EL:TR E0( %(&'/$+$(5('$ +/*(#$ ") $0( Q"24'$+%6 @%8&$%+$"%l/ +3+%! "% !(#&/&"' &/ &55(!&+$(26 (1(#4$"%6 )%"5 &$/ %(#(&*$ 86 $0( *+%$&(/?
HIDECO’s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’s (#-)(& &) &"# #0&(.)(,+/.(: #>4+&.83# (#7#,: )5 1#(&+)(.(+ ,+, /)& #0+-& ,4# &) &"# .*.+3.8+3+&: )5 .''#.3; )( )&"#( )(,+/.(: (#7#,+#- +/ 3.= &) ="+1" W%GC@A .&"# .22(+#*#, '.(&: 1)43, (#-)(&$
National Housing Authority vs. Ernesto Roxas G.R. No. 171953, October 21, 2015
The NHA is charged, among others, with the development of the Dagat-dagatan Development Project in Navotas, Manila. Roxas applied for commercial lots in the said project for the use of his business of buying and selling gravel, sand and cement products. The NHA approved his application and issued the order or payment respecting the lots. Later on, NHA issued the notice of award for the lots in favor of Roxas. The latter completed his payment for the subject lots on 1991. NHA conducted a final subdivision project survey, causing the increase in the area of the subject lots. The NHA informed Roxas about the increase in the area of the subject lots, and approved the award of additional area to him. Although Roxas desired to purchase the increased area, the purchase must be in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the order of payment and notice of award issued to him.
After NHA rejected his appeal, Roxas commenced an action for specific performance and damages, with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. He amended the complaint to compel the NHA to comply with the terms and conditions of the order of payment and the notice of award. NHA countered that Roxas’ prayer to include in the original contract the increase in lot measurement was contrary to its existing rules and regulation and at the very least, his right in the additional area was limited only to first refusal. The RTC ruled against NHA. Roxas filed his motion for the issuance of the writ of execution which was granted by the RTC. NHA filed its petition for certiorari. It contends that the money judgment awarded to Roxas could not be covered by motion for execution but should have been first filed in the COA . The CA dismissed NHA’s petition and ruled that NHA was a government owned and controlled corporation whose funds were not exempt from garnishment or execution; and ruled that Roxas did not need to first file his claim in the COA.
:PPFR
_0($0(% "% '"$ $0( 5"'(6 a4!-5('$ +3+%!(! &' )+,"% ") L"1+/ /0"42! 8( )&%/$ )&2(! 8()"%( $0( =G@? HG=EL:TRc
E0( T+$&"'+2 J"4/&'- @4$0"%&$69 + -",(%'5('$I "3'(! +'! #"'$%"22(! #"%*"%+$&"' #%(+$(! +'! (1&/$&'4'!(% >%(/&!('$&+2 H(#%(( T"? Z`Z9[ 5+6 /4( +'! 8( /4(!? J"3(,(%9 '" #"4%$ /0"42! &//4( + 3%&$ ") (1(#4$&"' 4*"' +'6 5"'($+%6 a4!-5('$ %('!(%(! +-+&'/$ $0( TJ@ 4'2(// /4#0 5"'($+%6 a4!-5('$ &/ )&%/$ /485&$$(! $" +'! *+//(! 4*"' 86 $0( ="55&//&"' "' @4!&$?
Fernando Medical Enterprises Inc. vs. Wesleyan University Philippines G.R. No. 207970, January 20, 2016
The petitioner, a domestic corporation dealing with medical equipment and supplies, delivered to and installed medical equipment and supplies at the respondent’s hospital. The respondent paid only P67,357,683.23 of its total obligation of P123,901,650.00, leaving unpaid the sum of P54,654,195.54. However, on 2009, the petitioner and the respondent, respectively represented by Rafael P. Fernando and Guillermo T. Maglaya, Sr., entered into an agreement, whereby the former agreed to reduce its claim to only P50,400,000.00, and allowed the latter to pay the adjusted obligation on installment basis within 36 months. Respondent notified the petitioner that its new administration had reviewed their contracts and had found the contracts defective and rescissible due to economic prejudice or lesion; and that it was consequently declining to recognize the February 11, 2009 agreement because of the lack of approval by its Board of Trustees.
!"# .4,+& 94(+-,+1&+)/ )5 &"# @%L #0&#/,- &) .33 2)*#(/7#/&K )=/#, )( –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a4!-5('$/ ") $0( #"4%$$ !"# 54/1&+)/- ./, '483+1 -#(*+1#- )5 &"# X&.&# 1.//)& 8# .33)=#, &) 8# '.(.3:E#, )( ,+-(4'&#, 8: &"# ,+*#(-+)/ )5 '483+1 54/, 5()7 &"#+( 3#2+&+7.&# ./, -'#1+5+1 )89#1&-; ./, .- .''()'(+.&#, 8: 3.=$ !"# ,+-84(-#7#/&- )5 '483+1 54/,74-& 8# 1)*#(#, 8: &"# 1)((#-')/,+/2 .''()'(+.&+)/ .- (#>4+(#, 8:
U(%'+'!" <(!&#+2 R'$(%*%&/(/ :'#? ,/? _(/2(6+' F'&,(%/&$6 >0&2&**&'(/9 N?L? T"? VWZXZW9 D+'4+%6 VW9 VW[d9 ARLP@<:T9 D? $%& '&()()*+&,- . /*0&1()2 2*,'*,.()*+ /&.3)+4 5)(% 0&/)2.3 &67)'0&+( .+/ 17''3)&1- /&3)8&,&/ (* .+/ )+1(.33&/ 0&/)2.3 &67)'0&+( .+/ 17''3)&1 .( (%& respondent’s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
G4# &) &"# respondent’s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
:PPFR
H&! the CA commit reversible error in affirming the RTC’s denial of the petitioner’s motion )"% a4!-5('$ "' $0( *2(+!&'-/g HG=EL:TRc
E0( $%&+2 #"4%$ 5+6 %('!(% + a4!-5('$ "' $0( *2(+!&'-/ 4*"' 5"$&"' ") $0( #2+&5&'- *+%$6 30(' $0( !()('!&'*+%$6l/ +'/3(% )+&2/ $" $('!(% +' &//4(9 "% "$0(%3&/( +!5&$/ $0( 5+$(%&+2 +22(-+$&"'/ ") $0( +!,(%/( *+%$6l/ *2(+!&'-? U"% $0+$ *4%*"/(9 "'26 $0( *2(+!&'-/ ") $0( *+%$&(/ &' $0( +#$&"' +%( #"'/&!(%(!? :$ &/ (%%"% )"% $0( $%&+2 #"4%$ $" !('6 $0( 5"$&"' )"% a4!-5('$ "' $0( *2(+!&'-/ 8(#+4/( $0( !()('!&'*+%$6l/ *2(+!&'- &' +'"$0(% #+/( /4**"/(!26 $('!(%(! +' &//4(
!"# (#-')/,#/& ,#/+#, '.(.2(.'"- /)$ V; I ./, U )5 &"# 1)7'3.+/& “for 3.1< )5 2(+!&'-/9 $0( $%&+2 #"4%$ #"42! %(26 "'26 "' $0( +'/3(% ") $0( %(/*"'!('$ )&2(! &' =&,&2 =+/( T"? WXI[VV[[d? F'!(% P(#$&"' [9 L42( e\ ") $0( L42(/ ") ="4%$9 $0( +'/3(% 3+/ $0( /"2( 8+/&/ )"% +/#(%$+&'&'- 30($0(% $0( complaint’s 5+$(%&+2 +22(-+$&"'/ 3(%(
Tung Hui Chung and Tong Hong Chung vs. Shih Chi Huang G.R. No. 170679, March 9, 2016
On September 6, 2001, the petitioners, both Australian citizens, filed in RTC Manila an amended complain to recover from the respondent a sum of money and damages with writ of attachment. The suit, docketed as Civil Case No. 01-101260, involved the contract to sell the respondent, as the vendor, undertook to deliver to the petitioners, as the vendees, shares of stock in Island Information and Technology, Inc. a publicly listed corporation. The petitioners alleged that under the provisions of the contract to sell, the equivalent shares of stock in the corporation should be their value as of February 22, 2001, the date corresponding to the five-day period prior to the end of the fourth month after October 30, 2000, the date of the signing of the contract to sell; that according to the Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc, the shares of the corporation, which stood for the open, high, low and closing prices on February 22, 2001, had the equivalent of 177,925,320 shares of stock; and that the respondent failed to deliver the shares of stock corresponding to the agreed amount on the date fixed by the contract. RTC issued an amended order granting the petitioners’ application for the writ of preliminary attachment. The parties filed their Joint Motion for Approval of a Compromise Agreement which was signed by the respondent and by Eduard Alcordo, as the attorney-in-fact of the petitioners, with the assistance of their respective counsels, stipulating that the parties agreed to settle their respective claims and counterclaims, and acknowledged therein his obligation, was filed and granted by the Court. But the respondent did not pay the second installment despite demand. Instead, he filed in the CA a petition for annulment of judgment thereby seeking to nullify the amended order granting the application for the writ of attachment, and the order
:PPFR
_0($0(% "% '"$ a4!&#&+2 #"5*%"5&/( +-%((5('$ #"42! '" 2"'-(% 8( +//+&2(! $0%"4-0 #(%$&"%+%& HG=EL:TRc
@ #"5*%"5&/( +-%((5('$ 0+/ $0( ())(#$ +'! +4$0"%&$6 ") %(/ a4!&#+$+ 8($3((' $0( *+%$&(/9 +'! &/ &55(!&+$(26 )&'+2 +'! (1(#4$"%69 4'2(// %(/#&'!(! 4*"' -%"4'!/ $0+$ ,&$&+$(! #"'/('$? G'#( /$+5*(! 3&$0 a4!&#&+2 &5*%&5+$4%9 &$ &/ 5"%( $0+' + 5(%( #"'$%+#$ 8($3((' $0( *+%$&(/? @'6 ())"%$ $" +''42 $0( a4!-5('$ 8+/(! "' #"5*%"5&/( "' $0( -%"4'! ") (1$%&'/&# )%+4! 54/$ *%"#((! &' +##"%!+'#( 3&$0 L42( \Z ") $0( L42(/ ") ="4%$?
Andrew Fyfe et al vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc G.R . NO. 160071, June 6, 2016
In 1998, the respondent underwent rehabilitation proceedings in the Securities and Exchange Commission which issued an order dated July 1, 1998 decreeing, among others, the suspension of all claims for payment against the respondent. To convince its creditors to approve the rehabilitation plan, the respondent decided to hire technical advisers. This led the respondent through its then Director Virata to consult with people in the industry, and in due course came to meet Peter W. Foster, formerly of Cathay Pacific Airlines. Foster, along with Michael R. Scantlebury, negotiated with the respondent on the details of a proposed technical services agreement. Foster and Scantlebury subsequently organized Regent Star Services Ltd. under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. Petitioner and respondent entered into Technical Service Agreement wherein under its terms, penalties shall be payable by the terminating party. Respondent sent notice to petitioner terminating the TSA for lack of confidence and wants to offset the penalty from its advance payment. Petitioner denied the refund and claim for offset and proposed to submit the issue to arbitration pursuant to their TSA.
The Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. rendered judgment in favor to the petitioner. Respondent filed an Application to Vacate Arbitral Award in RTC Makati in view of the SEC Order that respondent is under a state of suspension of payment . The petitioner filed MTD on the ground that (a) lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners due to the improper service of summons; (b) the application did not state a cause of action; and (c) the application was an improper remedy because the respondent should have filed an appeal in the CA pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. RTC granted the application to vacate arbitral award. Petitioner appealed to CA by notice of appeal. Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Sec. 29 of arbitration law limited appeals to a review on certiorari upon questions of law. CA rendered judgment in favor of respondent. Hence this appeal by the petitioners.
:PPFRc
d"#&"#( )( /)& &"# '#&+&+)/ 5)( (#*+#= -")43, 8# ,+-7+--#, 5)( 1)/&.+/+/2 . ,#5#1&+*# *#(+5+1.&+)/g1#(&+5+1.&+)/M *#(+5+1.&+)/g1#(&+5+1.&+)/M PYQ ="#&"#( )( /)& &"# @L #((#, +/ ,+-7+--+/2 &"# .''#.3 )5 &"# '#&+&+)/#(5)( 8#+/2 ./ +/.''()'(+.&# +/.''()'(+.&# (#7#,: $ HG=EL:TR !"#(# =.- -455+1+#/& 1)7'3+./1# =+&" &"# (43# )/ *#(+5+1.&+)/ ./, 1#(&+5+1.&+)/ .2.+/-& 5)(47 -")''+/2$ !"# XRLX RL- +/,+*+,4.33: -+2/#, 8: &"# '#&+&+)/#(- *#-&#, +/ &"#+( 1)4/-#3 &"# .4&")(+&:; .7)/2 )&"#(-; e&) ,) ./, '#(5)(7 )/ 7: 8#".35 ./: .1& ./, ,##, (#3.&+/2 &) &"# 1.-#; ="+1" +& 1)43, 3#2.33: ,) ./, '#(5)(7; +/134,+/2 ./: .''#.3- )( 54(&"#( 3#2.3 '()1##,+/2-$e '()1##,+/2-$e
D"/( P+'&#" ,/? >("*2( ") $0( >0&2&**&'(/ N?L? T"? [XYZ`e9 <+%#0 V`9 VW[` R#&+&+)/#( X./+1./ ./, 6.&+>4+/ =#(# 1)/*+1&#, 5)( ^+)3.&+)/ )5 X#1&+)/ TZ[ )5 H#'483+1 L1& ?)$ IJ]Y )&"#(=+-# 4#/&3 @)/-#>4#/&3:; :; Sanico’s #"4' #"4'/( /(22 )&2( )&2(! ! + '"$& '"$&# #( ") +**( +**(+2 +2 &' $0( $0( <=E=? E0('9 LE= "%!(%(! P+'&#" $" )&2( 0&/ 5(5"%+'!45 "' +**(+2? P+'&#" !&! '"$ #"5*26C 0('#(9 $0( LE= !&/5&//(! $0( +**(+2 "' $0( -%"4'! ") )+&24%( $" )&2( + 5(5"%+'!45 "' +**(+2 3&$0 *%(a4!&#($ L&&:$ @.a#&#; ./)&"#( 3.=:#( .1&+/2 5)( X./+1); 5+3#, . BH *+-KhK*+- &"# ,+-7+--.3 )5 &"# .''#.3; -&.&+/2 &".& X./+1) "., /)& 5+3#, &"# 7#7)(./,47 )/ .''#.3 8#1.4-# "# "., 8##/ 8#-#& =+&" '()83#7- ,4# &) "+- wife’s ,#8+3+&.&+/2 wife’s ,#8+3+&.&+/2 +33/#--; .- =#33 =#33 .- "+"+- 5+(5+(-&& 1)4/ 1)4/-# -#3; 3; L&&: L&&:$$ Baring’s )=/ 7#,+1. 7#,+1.33 1)/,+& 1)/,+&+)/ +)/ ="+1" ="+1" 1.4-#, "#( &) 5)(2#& ")= -"# 2)& &"+- 1.-# ./, =")7 &) 1)/&.1& .- '(+/1+'.3
:PPFR d"#&"#( @L 1)77+&&#, (#*#(-+83# #(()( +/ /)& /433+5:+/2 &"# RTC’s )(,#( ,+-7+--+/2 &"# .''#.3 5)( 5.+34(# &) 5+3# . 7#7)(./,47f HG=EL:TRc !"# 5.+34(# &) 5+3# &"# 7#7)(./,47 )/ .''#.3 +- . 2()4/, 5)( &"# H!@ &) ,+-7+-- &"# .''#.3 A?Di +/ 1+*+3 1.-#-$ !"# -.7# (43# ,)#- /)& .''3: +/ 1(+7+/.3 1.-#-; 8#1.4-# X#1&+)/ JP1Q H43# TYY; +7')-#- )/ &"# H!@ &"# ,4&: &) ,#1+,# &"# .''#.3 “on &"# 8.-+- )5 &"# #/&+(# (#1)(, )5 &"# 1.-# ./, )5 -41" 7#7)(./,. )( 8(+#5- .7.: ".*# 8##/ filed” 4')/ &"# -487+--+)/ )5 &"# .''#33.&# 7#7)(./,. )( 8(+#5-; )( 4')/ &"# #0'+(.&+)/ )5 &"# '#(+), &) 5+3# &"# -.7#$
H!@ ,#/+#, &"# BH$ @LO L55+(7#,$ %/ &"# 7#./&+7#; (#-')/,#/& 5+3#, ./ C0 R.(&# B)&+)/ 5)( C/&(: )5 S4,27#/&; ="+1" &"# H!@ .4&")(+E#, &"# +--4./1#$ X./+1) 5+3#, ./ )7/+84- 7)&+)/ &) (#1.33 &"# )(,#( ./, &) >4.-" &"# #/&(: )5 94,27#/&; 84& &"# H!@ ,#/+#,$ !"# #/&(: )5 94,27#/& =.- +--4#,M &"# =(+& )5 #0#14&+)/M ./, &".& #0#14&+)/ -.3#- 1)*#(+/2 -#*#(.3 '#(-)/.3 '()'#(&+#- )5 &"# '#&+&+)/#( =#(# 7.,#; ./, &"# 1#(&+5+1.&#- )5 -.3# =#(# +--4#, +/ 5.*)( )5 !#/+)$
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. vs. Antonino Tobias III G.R. No. 177780, January 25, 2012
Tobias opened a savings/current account for and in the name of Adam Merchandising, his frozen meat business. METROBANK next proceeded to appraise the property Tobias offered as collateral. His loan was restructured to 5-years upon his request. He defaulted. Thus, the mortgage was foreclosed, and the property was sold to METROBANK as the lone bidder. METROBANK requested the Presidential Anti- Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) to investigate. PAOCTF concluded that TCT No. M-16751 and the tax declarations submitted by Tobias were fictitious. PAOCTF recommended the filing against Tobias of a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification of public documents. The City Prosecutor of Malabon still found probable cause against Tobias, and recommended his being charged. Tobias appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
E0(' @#$&'- P(#%($+%6 ") D4/$&#( &//4(! + %(/"24$&"' !&%(#$&'- $0( 3&$0!%+3+2 ") $0( &')"%5+$&"' )&2(! +-+&'/$ E"8&+/? =@ *%"542-+$(! &$/ !(#&/&"'9 !&/5&//&'METROBANK’s *($&$&"' )"% (&*+",*$*" 86 0"2!&'- $0+$ $0( *%(/45*$&"' ") +4$0"%/0&* 5&-0$ 8( !&/*4$(! $0%"4-0 + /+$&/)+#$"%6 (1*2+'+$&"'
Sps. Augusto Dacudao and Ofelia Dacudao G.R. No. 188056, January 8, 2013
Petitioners - residents of Bacaca Road, Davao City - were among the investors whom Celso G. Delos Angeles Jr. and his associates in the Legacy Group of Companies allegedly defrauded through the Legacy Group's "buy back agreement" that earned them check payments that were dishonored. After their written demands for the return of their investments went unheeded, they initiated a number of charges for syndicated estafa against Delos Angeles, Jr., et al. in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Davao City. Secretary of Justice issued DOJ Order No. 182 directing all Regional State Prosecutors, Provincial Prosecutors, and City Prosecutors to forward all cases already filed against Delos Angeles, Jr., et al. to the Secretariat of the DOJ Special Panel in Manila for appropriate action. Aggrieved by such turn of events, petitioners have directly come to the Court via petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, ascribing to respondent Secretary of Justice grave abuse of discretion in issuing DO No. 182. They claim that DO No. 182 violated their right to due process, their right to the equal protection of the laws, and their right to the speedy disposition of cases. They insist that DO No. 182 was an obstruction of justice and a violation of the rule against enactment of laws with retroactive
:PPFRP
;[]
H&! *($&$&"'(%/ *%"*(%26 8%&'- $0(&% *($&$&"' )"% #(%$&"%+%&9 *%"0&8&$&"' +'! 5+'!+54/ !&%(#$26 $" $0( ="4%$g
;V] H&! %(/*"'!('$ P(#%($+%6 ") D4/$&#( #"55&$ -%+,( +84/( ") !&/#%($&"' &' &//4&'- HG T"? [YVg
;e] H&! HG T"? [YV +'! HGD <(5"%+'!45 !+$(! <+%#0 V9 VWWX violate petitioners’ constitutionally guaranteed %&-0$/g
>($&$&"'(%/ 0+,( 4'!426 !&/%(-+%!(! $0( 0&(%+%#06 ") #"4%$/ 86 #"5&'- !&%(#$26 $" $0( ="4%$ 3&$0 $0(&% *($&$&"' )"% #(%$&"%+%&9 *%"0&8&$&"' +'! 5+'!+54/ 3&$0"4$ $('!(%&'$0(%(&' +'6 /*(#&+29 &5*"%$+'$ "% #"5*(22&'- %(+/"' $" a4/$&)6 $0( !&%(#$ )&2&'- ") $0( *($&$&"'$ d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
F)( . -'#1+.3 1+*+3 .1&+)/ 5)( 1#(&+)(.(+ &) '()-'#(; &"#(#5)(#; &"# 5)33)=+/2 (#>4+-+&#- 74-& 1)/14(; /.7#3:O P.Q +& 74-& 8# ,+(#1&#, .2.+/-& . &(+84/.3; 8).(, )( )55+1#( #0#(1+-+/2 94,+1+.3 )( >4.-+K94,+1+.3 54/1&+)/-M P8Q &"# &(+84/.3; 8).(,; )( )55+1#( 74-& ".*# .1&#, =+&")4& )( +/ #01#-- )5 94(+-,+1&+)/ )( =+&" 2(.*# .84-# )5 ,+-1(#&+)/ .7)4/&+/2 &) 3.1< )( #01#-- )5 94(+-,+1&+)/M ./, P1Q &"#(# +- /) .''#.3 /)( ./: '3.+/; -'##,:; ./, .,#>4.&# (#7#,: +/ &"# )(,+/.(: 1)4(-# )5 3.=$ !"# 84(,#/ )5 '())5 3+#- )/ '#&+&+)/#(&) ,#7)/-&(.&# &".& &"# .--.+3#, )(,#( =.- +--4#, =+&")4& )( +/ #01#-- )5 94(+-,+1&+)/ )( =+&" 2(.*# .84-# )5 ,+-1(#&+)/ .7)4/&+/2 &) 3.1< )( #01#-- )5 94(+-,+1&+)/$ S($9 *($&$&"'(%/ 0+,( '"$ /0"3' + #"5*2&+'#( 3&$0 $0( %(74&/&$(/? :'/$(+!9 $0( P(#%($+%6 ") D4/$&#( 3"42! +**(+% $" 8( '"$ (1(%#&/&'- +'6 a4!&#&+2 "% 74+/&Ia4!&#&+2 )4'#$&"'/ 8#1.4-# "+- >4#-&+)/#, +--4./1#- =#(# )-&#/-+83: +/&#/,#, &) #/-4(# "+- subordinates’ #55+1+#/1: ./, #1)/)7: +/ &"# 1)/,41& )5 &"# '(#3+7+/.(: +/*#-&+2.&+)/ )5 .33 &"# 1.-#+/*)3*+/2 &"# D#2.1: N()4'$ E0( )4'#$&"' &',"2,(! 3+/ *4%(26 (1(#4$&,(
Anna Patula vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012
Petitioner was charged with estafa in the RTC Dumaguete City. The said accused, being then a saleswoman of Footluckers Chain of Stores, Inc., having collected and received the total sum of P131,286.97 from several customers of said company under the express obligation to account for the proceeds of the sales and deliver the collection to the said company, but far from complying with her obligation and after a reasonable period of time despite repeated demands therefore, and she failed to deliver the said collection to the said company but instead, misappropriated the proceeds of the sale to her own use and benefit. Go had requested the store auditor to audit petitioner after some customers had told him that they had already paid their accounts but the office ledger had still reflected outstanding balances for them. She discovered in the course of her audit that the amounts appearing on the original copies of receipts in the possession of around 50 customers varied from the amounts written on the duplicate copies of the receipts petitioner submitted to the office.
:PPFR
_0($0(% "% '"$ $0( )+&24%( ") $0( &')"%5+$&"' )"% &3+$!$ $" +22(-( $0( )+2/&)&#+$&"' ") $0( !4*2&#+$( %(#(&*$/ &//4(! 86 *($&$&"'(% $" 0(% #4/$"5(%/ ,&"2+$(! *($&$&"'(%/ %&-0$ $" 8( &')"%5(! ") $0( '+$4%( +'! #+4/( ") $0( +##4/+$&"'C HG=EL:TRc @' +##4/(! #+''"$ 8( #"',&#$(! ") +' "))('/( $0+$ &/ '"$ #2(+%26 #0+%-(! &' $0( #"5*2+&'$ "% &')"%5+$&"'? E" #"',&#$ 0&5 ") +' "))('/( "$0(% $0+' $0+$ #0+%-(! &' $0( #"5*2+&'$ "% &')"%5+$&"' 3"42! 8( ,&"2+$&,( ") $0( ="'/$&$4$&"'+2 %&-0$ $" 8( &')"%5(! ") $0( '+$4%( +'! #+4/( ") $0( +##4/+$&"'?
Datu Ampatuan, Jr. vs. Sec. Leila de Lima G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013
On November 23, 2009, when 57 innocent civilians were massacred in Municipality of Ampatuan, Maguindanao Province. Among the principal suspects was petitioner, then the Mayor of the Municipality of Datu Unsay. Inquest proceedings were conducted against petitioner. DOJ resolved to file the corresponding informations for murder against petitioner, and to issue subpoena to several persons. 41 informations for murder were also filed against petitioner. Secretary of Justice Devanadera transmitted her letter to Chief Justice Puno requesting the transfer of the venue of the trial of the Maguindanao massacre from Cotabato City to Metro Manila, either in Quezon City or in Manila, to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The Court granted the request for the transfer of venue. Dalandag was admitted into the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ. QC RTC issued its amended pre-trial order, wherein Dalandag was listed as one of the Prosecution witnesses. petitioner, through counsel, wrote to respondent Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima and Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Richard Fadullon to request the inclusion of Dalandag in the informations for murder considering that Dalandag had already confessed his participation in the massacre through his two sworn declarations.
:PPFR _0($0(% "% '"$ $0( *($&$&"'(% 5+6 #"5*(2 $0( %(/*"'!('$/ $0%"4-0 5+'!+54/ $" *%"/(#4$( H+2+'!+-g LFM:TNc :' 5+$$(%/ &',"2,&'- $0( (1(%#&/( ") a4!-5('$ +'! !&/#%($&"'9 5+'!+54/ #+''"$ 8( 4/(! $" !&%(#$ $0( 5+''(% "% $0( *+%$*+% 3+6 $0( a4!-5('$ +'! !&/#%($&"' +%( $" 8( (1(%#&/(!? ="'/(74('$269 $0( P(#%($+%6 ") D4/$&#( 5+6 8( #"5*(22(! 86 3%&$ ") 5+'!+54/ $" +#$ "' + 2($$(%I%(74(/$ "% + 5"$&"' $" &'#24!( + *(%/"' &' $0( &')"%5+$&"'9 84$ 5+6 '"$ 8( #"5*(22(! 86 3%&$ ") 5+'!+54/ $" +#$ &' + #(%$+&' 3+69 &?(?9 $" -%+'$ "% !('6 /4#0 2($$(%I%(74(/$ "% 5"$&"'?
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
Ray Vivo vs. PAGCOR G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013 Petitioner was employed by respondent PAGCOR on 1986, and was PAGCOR’s Managing Head of its Gaming Department at the time of his dismissal from office. On February 21, 2002, he received a letter from Teresita S. Ela, the Senior Managing Head of PAGCOR’s HR Department, advising that he was being administratively charged with gross misconduct, rumor-mongering, conduct prejudicial to the interest of the company, and loss of trust and confidence; that he should submit a written explanation of the charges; and that he was at the same time being placed under preventive suspension. On 2002, the petitioner’s counsel, replying to Ela’s letter, assailed the propriety of the show-cause memorandum as well as the basis for placing the petitioner under preventive suspension. On March 2002, the petitioner received the summons for him to attend an admin inquiry, instructing him to appear before PAGCOR’s Corporate Investigation Unit on March 15, 2002.8 At the petitioner’s request, however, the inquiry was conducted at his residence on said date. He was also furnished the memorandum of charges that recited the accusations against him and indicated
The memorandum of charges was based on the statements of PAGCOR personnel who had personal knowledge of the accusations against him. when his counsel requested to be furnished copies of the statements, PAGCOR rejected the request on the ground that he had already been afforded the sufficient opportunity to confront, hear, and answer the charges against him during the administrative inquiry. The petitioner was then allowed to submit his answer on March 26, 2002. The petitioner received the letter dated May 15, 2002 from Ela informing him of the resolution of the PAGCOR Board of Directors in its May 14, 2002 meeting to the effect that he was being dismissed from the service. After the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration vis-à-vis the resolution of the PAGCOR Board of Directors dismissing him from the service was denied, he appealed his dismissal to the CSC. CSC ruled that PAGCOR violated his right to due process.
:PPFR
_0($0(% "% '"$ *($&$&"'(% 3+/ !(*%&,(! ") !4( *%"#(// HG=EL:TR
E0( (//('#( ") !4( *%"#(// &/ $" 8( 0(+%!9 +'!9 +/ +**2&(! $" +!5&'&/$%+$&,( *%"#((!&'-/9 $0&/ 5(+'/ + )+&% +'! %(+/"'+82( "**"%$4'&$6 $" (1*2+&' one’s /&!(9 "% +' "**"%$4'&$6 $" /((B + %(#"'/&!(%+$&"' ") $0( +#$&"' "% %42&'- #"5*2+&'(! ")? @!5&'&/$%+$&,( !4( *%"#(// #+''"$ 8( )4226 (74+$(! 3&$0 !4( *%"#(// &' &$/ /$%&#$ a4!&#&+2 /('/(9 )"% &' $0( )"%5(% + )"%5+2 "% $%&+2 $6*( 0(+%&'- &/ '"$ +23+6/ '(#(//+%69 +'! $(#0'&#+2 %42(/ ") *%"#(!4%( +%( '"$ /$%&#$26 +**2&(!?
Marie Callo-Claridad vs. Philip Esteban and Teodora Esteban G.R. No. 191567, March 20, 2013
The petitioner is the mother of the late Chase Callo Claridad, whose lifeless but bloodied body was discovered in the evening of February 27, 2007 between vehicles parked at the carport of a residential house located at Ferndale Homes, Quezon City. Allegedly, Chase had been last seen alive with respondent Philip Ronald P. Esteban less than an hour before the discovery of his lifeless body. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City dismissed the complaint. The OCP observed that there was lack of evidence, motive, and circumstantial evidence sufficient to charge Philip with homicide, much less murder; that the circumstantial evidence could not link Philip to the crime; that several possibilities would discount Philip’s presence at the time of the crime, including the possibility that there were more than one suspect in the fatal stabbing of Chase; that Philip was not shown to have any motive to kill Chase; that their common friends attested that the two had no ill-feelings towards each other; that no sufficient evidence existed to charge Teodora with the crime, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory; and that the allegation that Teodora could have been the female person engaged in a discussion with a male person inside the car with plate JTG 333 was unreliable being mere hearsay. Secretary of Justice
:PPFR d"#&"#( &"# @L 1)77+&&#, . (#*#(-+83# #(()( +/ 4'")3,+/2 &"# ,#1+-+)/ )5 &"# X#1(#&.(: )5 S4-&+1# 5+/,+/2 &".& &"#(# =.- /) '()8.83# 1.4-# &) 1".(2# R"+3+' ./, !#),)(. =+&" 74(,#( 5)( &"# <+33+/2 )5 @".-#$
HG=EL:TR 75! '!#!$8()%#(&) &0 9$&:%:.! +%-/! #& 0(.! % +$(8()%. +&89.%()# &$ ()0&$8%#(&) () +&-$# (/ !"+.-/(6!.* ;(#5() #5! +&89!#!)+! &0 #5! <"!+-#(6! =!9%$#8!)#> #5$&-45 #5! ?!+$!#%$* &0 @-/#(+!2 75! +&-$#/ +%))&# ()#!$0!$! () /-+5 '!#!$8()%#(&)> !"+!9# -9&) % +.!%$ /5&;()4 #5%# #5! ?!+$!#%$* &0 @-/#(+! +&88(##!' 4$%6! %:-/! &0 '(/+$!#(&) %8&-)#()4 #& .%+A &$ !"+!// &0 B-$(/'(+#(&)2
San Miguel Properties, Inc. vs. Sec. Hernando Perez G.R. No. 166836, September 4, 2013
Petitioner San Miguel Properties Inc, a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate business, purchased in 1992, 1993 and April 1993 from B.F. Homes, Inc. then represented by Atty. Orendain as its duly authorized rehabilitation receiver appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission 130 residential lots situated in its subdivision BF Homes Parañaque. The transactions were embodied in three separate deeds of sale. The TCTs covering the lots bought under the first and second deeds were fully delivered to San Miguel Properties, but 20 TCTs covering purchased under the third deed of sale, executed in April 1993 and for which San Miguel Properties paid the full price were not delivered to San Miguel Properties. On its part, BF Homes claimed that it withheld the delivery of the 20 TCTs for parcels of land purchased under the third deed of sale because Atty. Orendain had ceased to be its rehabilitation receiver at the time of the transactions after being meanwhile replaced as receiver by FBO Network Management, Inc. on 1989 pursuant to an order from the SEC. BF Homes refused to deliver the 20 TCTs despite demands. Thus, San Miguel Properties filed a complaint-affidavit in the OCP of Las Piñas City chargin respondent directors and officers of BF Homes with nondelivery of titles in violation of Sec 25, in relation to Sec 39, both of PD No. 957. At the same time, San Miguel Properties sued BF Homes for specific performance in the HLURB (HLURB Case
:PPFR _0($0(% $0( JMFLA +!5&'&/$%+$&,( #+/( 8%"4-0$ $" #"5*(2 $0( !(2&,(%6 ") $0( E=E/ #"42! 8( + %(+/"' $" /4/*('! $0( *%"#((!&'-/ "' $0( #%&5&'+2 #"5*2+&'$ )"% $0( ,&"2+$&"' ") P(#$&"' V` ") >H T"? X`Z "' $0( -%"4'! ") + *%(a4!&#&+2 74(/$&"'? HG=EL:TRc E0( *('!('#6 ") +' +!5&'&/$%+$&,( (+/( )"% /*(#&)&# *(%)"%5+'#( 8%"4-0$ 86 $0( 846(% ") %(/&!('$&+2 /48!&,&/&"' 2"$/ &' $0( J"4/&'- +'! M+'! F/( L(-42+$"%6 ?A"+%! ;::MFLJ] $" #"5*(2 $0( /(22(% $" !(2&,(% $0( $%+'/)(% #(%$&)&#+$( ") $&$2( ;E=E/] ") $0( )4226 *+&! D"$/ &/ *%"*(%26 #"'/&!(%(! + -%"4'! $" /4/*('! + #%&5&'+2 *%"/(#4$&"' )"% ,&"2+$&"' ") P(#$&"[[ V` ") >%(/&!('$&+2 H(#%(( TM]? X`Z[ "' $0( -%"4'! ") + *%(a4!&#&+2 74(/$&"'? E0( +!5&'&/$%+$&,( !($(%5&'+$&"' &/ + 2"-&#+2 +'$(#(!('$ ") $0( %(/"24$&"' ") $0( #%&5&'+2 #0+%-(/ 8+/(! "' '"'I
People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Gonzales G.R. No. 182417 April 3, 2013
An informant reported to the Provincial Drug Enforcement Group based in Camp General Alejo Santos, Malolos, Bulacan, that Gonzales was engaging in illegal drug pushing. On June 13, 2003, Police Chief Inspector Morales planned to mount a buy bust operation against Gonzales, and designated PO1 Dimla, Jr. to act as the poseur buyer and PO2 Chan to serve as the backup/arresting officer. PO1 Dimla marked with his own initials “ED” each of the two P100.00 bills to be used as the buy-bust money, and then recorded the marked bills in the police blotter. At noontime of that same day, PO1 Dimla and PO2 Chan met with the informant at San Rafael, Bulacan, and the three of them proceeded to Banca-Banca, San Rafael, Bulacan, where the house of Gonzales was located.
After PO2 Chan posted himself beyond possible view of the suspect, PO1 Dimla and the informant approached Gonzales, with the informant introducing PO1 Dimla to Gonzales as a buyer of shabu worth P200.00. Gonzales handed to PO1 Dimla a plastic sachet containing white substances, and in turn PO1 Dimla handed the two marked P100.00 bills to Gonzales. At that point, PO1 Dimla removed his cap, the pre-arranged signal, in reaction to which PO2 Chan then rushed forward and arrested Gonzales. PO1 Dimla then immediately marked the plastic sachet with his initials “ED.” The Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office certified that the contents the plastic sachet were 0.194 gram of shabu. RTC convicted Gonzales of the crime charged.
:PPFR
_0($0(% "% '"$ $0( >%"/(#4$&"' 3+/ +82( $" *%",( 0&/ -4&2$ )"% ,&"2+$&"' ") P(#$&"' `9 @%$( :: ") L(*482&# @#$ T"? X[d` 8(6"'! %(+/"'+82( !"48$? HG=EL:TR
E0( P$+$(9 +'! '" "$0(% *+%$69 0+/ $0( %(/*"'/&8&2&$6 $" (1*2+&' $0( 2+*/(/ &' $0( *%"#(!4%(/ $+B(' $" *%(/(%,( $0( #0+&' ") #4/$"!6 ") $0( !+'-(%"4/ !%4-/? _&$0"4$ $0( (1*2+'+$&"' 86 $0( P$+$(9 $0( (,&!('#( ") $0( #"%*4/ !(2&#$& &/ 4'%(2&+82(9 +'! $0( +#74&$$+2 ") $0( +##4/(! /0"42! )"22"3 "' $0( -%"4'! $0+$ 0&/ -4&2$ 0+/
People of the Philippines vs. Arnold Tapere G.R No. 178065, February 20, 2013
Arnold P. Tapere was charged with, tried for and found guilty of illegally selling shabu in violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) by the RTC which sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. At around 7:30 p.m. on September 2, 2002, elements of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency arrested Tapere for selling shabu to a poseur buyer during a buy-bust operation conducted against him in Purok San Antonio, Iligan City. Prior to the buy-bust operation, Tapere was already included in the PDEA’s drug watch list as a drug pusher. In order to determine the veracity of the report of Salgado, PDEA agents conducted an investigation and surveillance of the activities of Tapere on August 30, 31, and September 1, 2002, during which a test buy confirmed the veracity of the report. With the positive result of the test buy, the agents decided to conduct a buy-bust operation against Tapere on September 2, 2002. Consonant with their standard procedure, the agents first secured a certification from the OCP regarding the buy-bust money to be used during the buy-bust operation.
The team posted themselves within view of the target place. With each agent being strategically posted, Salgado was signaled to approach Tapere according to the plan. Salgado went towards Tapere. The agents saw two conversing for a brief while before Salgado handed money to Tapere. In turn, Tapere took a small heatsealed plastic sachet from his pocket and gave it to Salgado. After accepting the sachet, Salgado made the prearranged signal of scratching his head to signify the consummation of the transaction. The agents rushed towards Tapere, introduced themselves as PDEA agents, and placed him in custody. They searched him and recovered the P100.00 bill from his right pocket. At that point, he voluntarily produced three more sachets of shabu from his pocket and handed them to SPO2 Bastatas. RTC rendered judgment convicting Tapere as charged.
:PPFR d"#&"#( )( /)& "+- .''(#"#/-+)/ =.- &"# '(),41& )5 ./ +/-&+2.&+)/; /)& #/&(.'7#/&M ./, &".& "# -")43, 1)/-#>4#/&3: 8# .1>4+&&#, 8#1.4-# +/-&+2.&+)/ =../ .8-)34&)(: 1.4-#$ HG=EL:TR C) %++-/!' %$$!/#!' '-$()4 % 6%.(' !)#$%98!)# &9!$%#(&) (/ )&# !)#(#.!' #& %) %+D-(##%. &) #5! 4$&-)' #5%# 5(/ %$$!/# $!/-.#!' 0$&8 ()/#(4%#(&)2
People of the Philippines vs. Noel Bartolome G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013
On August 10, 2003, at around 1:00 a.m., an informant went to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Unit in Caloocan City to report the illicit drug dealings of the accused on Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. During the pre-operation briefing, the buybust team designated PO1 Borban Paras as the poseur-buyer. Paras was given a P100.00 bill that he marked with his initials BP. It was agreed that the informant would drop a cigarette butt in front of the suspect to identify him to Paras; and that Paras would scratch his head to signal to the buy-bust team that the transaction with the suspect had been consummated. Paras went towards the suspect and said to him: Pre pa-iskor nga. The suspect responded: “Pre, piso na lang tong hawak magkano ba kukunin mo?” Paras replied: “Ayos na yan, piso lang naman talaga ang kukunin ko”, after which he handed the marked ₱100.00 bill to the suspect, who in turn drew out a plastic sachet containing white substances from his pocket and gave the sachet to Paras. With that, Paras scratched his head to signal the consummation of the sale. As the other members of the team were approaching, Paras grabbed the suspect. RTC convicted Bartolome of the crime of illegal sale of methampethamine hydrochloride or shabu in violation of Sec 5, Art II of R.A. No. 9165
:PPFR d"#&"#( )( /)& &"# .114-#, 74-& 8# .1>4+&&#,
HG=EL:TR C :-*E:-/# &9!$%#(&) 5%/ :!!) $!+&4)(F!' () #5(/ B-$(/'(+#(&) %/ % .!4(#(8%#! 0&$8 &0 !)#$%98!)# &0 #5! +-.9$(#2 G# (/ '(/#()+# 0$&8 ()/#(4%#(&)> () #5%# #5! %++-/!' ;5& (/ !$;(/! )&# 9$!'(/9&/!' #& +&88(# #5! +$(8! (/ !)#(+!' &$ .-$!' &$ #%.A!' ()#& +&88(##()4 #5! +$(8!2 H5(.! !)#$%98!)# (/ .!4%.> ()/#(4%#(&) (/ )
People of the Philippines vs. PO2 Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez G.R. No. 175602, February 13, 2013
The two accused were tried for three counts of murder by the RTC IN Quezon City. On January 20, 2005, after trial, the RTC convicted them as charged, prescribed on each of them the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count, and ordered them to pay to the heirs of each victim actual damages, civil indemnity, and moral damages. The CA upheld the RTC, subject to the modification that each of the accused pay to the heirs of each victim civil indemnity, moral damages, temperate damages, and exemplary damages, plus costs of suit. The two accused then came to the Court on final appeal, but on May 9, 2007, Edwin Valdez filed a motion to withdraw appeal, which the Court granted, thereby deeming Edwin’s appeal closed and terminated. Court promulgated its judgment on the appeal of PO2 Valdez, finding him guilty of three counts of homicide, instead of three counts of murder, and meting on him for each count of homicide the indeterminate sentence of 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Edwin sent to the Court Administrator a letter, where he pleaded for the application to him of the judgment promulgated on the ground that the judgment would be beneficial to him as an accused.
:PPFR d"#&"#( )( /)& &"# 94,27#/& '()7432.&#, 7.: 8# 2(./&#, &) C,=+/$
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
Herminio Disini vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 169823-24, September 11, 2013
The Office of the Ombudsman filed two informations dated June 30, 2004 charging Disini in the Sandiganbayan with corruption of public officials, penalized under Article 212 in relation to Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and with a violation of Sec 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019 also known as the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act. Disini filed a motion to quash, alleging that the criminal actions had been extinguished by prescription, and that the 63 informations did not conform to the prescribed form. The Prosecution opposed the motion to quash. Disini voluntarily submitted himself for arraignment to obtain the Sandiganbayan’s favorable action on his motion for permission to travel abroad. He then entered a plea of not guilty to both informations. Sandiganbayan (First Division) promulgated its assailed resolution denying the motion to quash.
:PPFR d"#&"#( )( /)& X./,+2./8.:./ ".- 94(+-,+1&+)/ )*#( &"# 1.-#$ HG=EL:TR 75! ?%)'(4%):%*%) 5%/ !"+.-/(6! &$(4()%. B-$(/'(+#(&) &6!$ #5! +$(8()%. %+#(&) ()6&.6()4 9!#(#(&)!$ )&#;(#5/#%)'()4 #5%# 5! (/ % 9$(6%#! ()'(6('-%. +&)/('!$()4 #5%# 5(/ +$(8()%. 9$&/!+-#(&) (/ ()#(8%#!.* $!.%#!' #& #5! $!+&6!$* &0 (..E4&##!) ;!%.#5 &0 #5! K%$+&/!/> #5!($ (88!'(%#! 0%8(.*> /-:&$'()%#!/ %)' +.&/! %//&+(%#!/2
People of the Philippines vs. Rudy Nuyok G.R. No. 195424, June 15, 2015
AAA, having been born on May 5, 1992 to the Spouses ABC and DEF as evidenced by her certificate of live birth, was 13 years old when the accused committed the rapes in June, July, August and September of 2005. At the time, she resided in the house of her grandmother, BBB, in Malalag, Davao del Sur. The accused, her paternal uncle, also lived in the same house. At 9:00 o’clock in the evening of June 25, 2005, as AAA was about to sleep, the accused laid down beside her. Sensing fear, she tried to escape, but he pulled her by the hair, slapped her, and punched her in the stomach, rendering her unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, she noticed that her sando was already raised up to her neck, and her panties had blood. She felt pain in her vagina. She saw the accused putting on his pants.
He warned her not to reveal the incident to anyone, threatening to kill her and her family if she did so. Despite her fear she related the incident to BBB and her elder sister CCC, but her report fell on deaf ears. He raped her again in July 2005. He overpowered her and succeeded in gratifying his lust. The accused committed the third rape in August 2005. AAA again told BBB and CCC about the rape immediately afterwards, but BBB and CCC did not do anything except to promise to AAA that they would be more wary of him from then on. On her part, AAA just waited for them to help her, but that help never came. The fourth rape took place one evening in September 2005. The accused roused AAA from sleep and threatened her with a scythe. He removed her shorts and panties, and had carnal
:PPFR d"#&"#( )( /)& &"# .114-#, +- 24+3&: )5 &"# 5+(-& (.'#$ HG=EL:TR ,%9! +%) :! +&88(##!' () % +$%89!' ';!..()4 '!/9(#! #5! 9$&:%:.! 9$!/!)+! &0 !$ &++-9%)#/ :!+%-/! /!+.-/(&) (/ )&# %) !.!8!)# &0 #5! +$(8!2 G#/ +&88(//(&) +%) :! !/#%:.(/5!' :* +($+-8/#%)#(%. !6('!)+! !6!) (0 #5! 6(+#(8> :!()4 #5! /&.! ;(#)!//> ;%/ $!)'!$!' -)+&)/+(&-/ '-$()4 (#/ +&88(//(&)2
Bernardo Mesina vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 162489, June 17, 2015
An information was filed in the RTC charging the petitioner with qualified theft. Upon his motion, he was granted a reinvestigation. On September 17, 1998, after the reinvestigation, an amended information was filed charging him instead with malversation of public funds. RTC found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of malversation. CA affirmed the RTC’s decision, with modification as to the amount of fine imposed.
:PPFR d"#&"#( )( /)& 8)&" H!@ ./, @L +- 1)((#1& +/ /)& 7.<+/2 &"# .114-#, 3+.83# 5)( &"# (#-&+&4&+)/ )5 &"# 7+-.''()'(+.&#, .7)4/&$ HG=EL:TR L)'!$ #5! .%;> #5! +(6(. .(%:(.(#* &0 #5! 9!#(#(&)!$ 8%* ()6&.6! $!/#(#-#(&)> $!9%$%#(&) &0 #5! '%8%4! +%-/!'> %)' ()'!8)(0(+%#(&) 0&$ +&)/!D-!)#(%. '%8%4!/2
People of the Philippines vs. Alvin Esugon G.R. No. 195244, June 22, 2015
The information charged the appellant with robbery with homicide. Carl or Muymoy, 5year old son of the victim, testified that on the night of the incident, he, his younger sister Cheche, and his mother and father, were sleeping on the ground floor of their house. He saw appellant, whom he calls “ Nonoy,” enter their house and stab her mother with a knife, while he (Carl) peeped through a chair. Although there was no light at the ground floor, there was light upstairs. After his mother got stabbed, his father chased the appellant. Carl saw blood come out of his mother’s lower chest. His father then brought her to the hospital. Carl positively identified the appellant, a neighbor who often goes to their house, as the one who stabbed his mother. On cross-examination, he related that the assailant took money from his father’s pocket. He likewise admitted that he did not see very well the perpetrator because there was no light. Upon being asked by the trial court, Carl stated that although there was no light when his mother was stabbed, he was sure of what he saw since there was light at their second floor, which illumined the ground floor through the stairway.
:PPFR d"#&"#( )( /)& &"# +,#/&+5+1.&+)/ )5 &"# .''#33./& .- &"# '#('#&(.&)( )5 &"# ()88#(: =+&" ")7+1+,# =.- 1(#,+83# ./, 1)7'#&#/&$ HG=EL:TR <6!$* +5(.' (/ 9$!/-8!' D-%.(0(!' #& :! % ;(#)!//2 75! 9%$#* +5%..!)4()4 #5! +5(.'M/ +&89!#!)+* %/ % ;(#)!// 5%/ #5! :-$'!) &0 /-:/#%)#(%#()4 5(/ +5%..!)4!2
Horacio Salvador vs. Lisa Chua G.R. No. 212865, July 15, 2015
The petitioner and his wife Marine! Salvador were charged in the RTC with estafa penalized under Art 315 (a) of the RPC docketed as Criminal Case No. R-PSY-08-04689-CR.3. On March 30, 2011, the date scheduled for the promulgation of the judgment, their counsel moved for the deferment of the promulgation inasmuch as the petitioner was then suffering from hypertension. RTC then issued a warrant for the petitioner’s arrest. He was apprehended on April 7, 2011, or eight days from the promulgation of the judgment finding him guilty. The petitioner filed his Motion for Leave to file Notice of Appeal dated April 13, 2011, and attached thereto the medical certificate dated March 30, 2011 purportedly issued by Dr. David, certifying that the petitioner had submitted himself to a medical consultation at the Rizal Medical Center on March 30, 2011 and had been found to be suffering from hypertension. In his order dated July 1, 2011, RTC Judge Dela Cruz initially denied the petitioner’s Motion for Leave to file Notice of Appeal on the ground of non-compliance with Sec 6, Rule 120 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the respondent, who was the complainant in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-08-04689-CR, filed her Motion for Execution dated July 29, 2011 for the issuance of the writ of execution on the civil aspect. The petitioner opposed it and that he be allowed to post bail pending appeal. Meanwhile, the case was re-raffled to Judge Mendiola. In his order, Judge Mendiola denied the Prosecution's Motion for Reconsideration, and fixed bail for the provisional liberty of the petitioner. Consequently, the respondent commenced a special civil
:PPFR d"#&"#( &"# '#&+&+)/#( "., 3)-& "+- -&./,+/2 +/ 1)4(& 5)( "+- 5.+34(# &) .''#.( .& &"# '()7432.&+)/ )5 "+1)/*+1&+)/f HG=EL:TR 75! %++-/!' ;5& 0%(./ #& %99!%$ %# #5! 9$&8-.4%#(&) &0 #5! B-'48!)# &0 +&)6(+#(&) .&/!/ #5! $!8!'(!/ %6%(.%:.! -)'!$ #5! ,-.!/ &0 1&-$# %4%()/# #5! B-'48!)#> /9!+(0(+%..*N I%J #5! 0(.()4 &0 % 8&#(&) 0&$ )!; #$(%. &$ 0&$ $!+&)/('!$%#(&) I,-.! OPOJ> %)' I:J %) %99!%. 0$&8 #5! B-'48!)# &0 +&)6(+#(&) I,-.! OPPJ2
Charlie Te vs. Hon. Augusto Breva G.R. No. 164974, August 5, 2015
It appears that respondent Presiding Judge issued a search warrant against the petitioner upon the application of respondent Special Investigator U R. Bahinting of the Saranggani District Office of the National Bureau of Investigation on the basis of his finding of probable cause for a violation of Sec 2(b) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 33, as amended by PD No. 1865, for hoarding large quantities of LPG in steel cylinders belonging to respondent Pryce Gases, Inc. . The application for the search warrant was filed at the instance of Pryce Gases through its letter dated September 28, 2003 to the NBI SARDO complaining about the collection and hoarding by the petitioner of embossed or name-plated Pryce Gases’ LPG cylinders in violation of Secs. 155, 156, 168 and 169 of R.A. No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines). On October 14, 2003, the petitioner presented his Omnibus Motion to Quash Warrant and/or Suppress Evidence and to Order Return of Seized Items, raising therein the lack of probable cause, failure to specify the single offense committed, illegality of the nighttime search, improper application of the plain view doctrine, and inclusion of other
:PPFR d"#&"#( &"# R#)'3# )5 &"# R"+3+''+/#- -")43, 8# +7'3#.,#, .- (#-')/,#/&- +/ &"# '#&+&+)/ 5)( 1#(&+)(.(+ 5+3#, +/ &"# @)4(& )5 L''#.3- &) .//43 ./, -#& .-+,# &"# )(,#( )5 &"# H#2+)/.3 !(+.3 @)4(& PH!@Q ,#/:+/2 &"# '#&+&+)/#(k- 7)&+)/ &) >4.-" &"# -#.(1" =.((./& +--4#, .2.+/-& "+7$
HG=EL:TR C/ 9$&6('!' -)'!$ ?!+#(&) Q> ,-.! RS &0 #5! ,-.!/ &0 1&-$#> “the 9!#(#(&) /5%.. +&)#%() #5! 0-.. )%8!/ %)' %+#-%. %''$!//!/ &0 %.. #5! 9!#(#(&)!$/ %)' respondents” %)' “the 0%(.-$! &0 #5! 9!#(#(&)!$ #& +&89.* ;(#5 %)* &0 #5! 0&$!4&()4 $!D-($!8!)#/ /5%.. :! /-00(+(!)# 4$&-)' 0&$ #5! '(/8(//%. &0 #5! 9!#(#(&)2 “ C./&> -)'!$ ?!+#(&) O> ,-.! OPS> “a /!%$+5 ;%$$%)# (/ %) &$'!$ () ;$(#()4 (//-!' () #5! )%8! &0 #5! T!&9.! &0 #5! T5(.(99()!/> /(4)!' :* % B-'4! %)' '($!+#!' #& % 9!%+! &00(+!$> +&88%)'()4 5(8 #& /!%$+5 0&$ 9!$/&)%. 9$&9!$#* '!/+$(:!' #5!$!() %)' :$()4 (# :!0&$! #5! +&-$#2 ”
Mayor Anwar Berua vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 177600, October 19, 2015
Before us are the consolidated cases of G.R. No. 177600 and G.R. No. 178684. G.R. No. 177600 involves the appeal by petition for review on certiorari of Mayor Anwar Berua Balindong, Lt. Col. Cota, Mayor Amer Balindong, and Ali Balindong to assail the Decision promulgated on April 24, 2007 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97121.1 G.R. No. 178684 relates to the Petition (To Show Cause Why Respondent Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court) brought by Zenaida M. Limbona, the private complainant in the criminal cases instituted against Balindong, et al., charging Presiding Judge Balut of the RTC Branch 76, in Quezon City with contempt of court for issuing the order suspending the proceedings in the criminal cases involving Balindong, et al. out of judicial courtesy.
:PPFR d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
Anita Mangila vs. Judge Heriberto Pangilinan G.R. No. 160739, July 17, 2013
On June 2003, 7 criminal complaints charging petitioner Mangila and 4 others with syndicated estafa in violation of Art 315 of the RPC, in relation to PD No. 1689, and with violations of Sec 7(b) of RA No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995) were filed in the MTC in Cities in Puerto Princesa City. The complaints arose from the recruiting and promising of employment by Mangila and the others to the private complainants as overseas contract workers in Toronto, Canada, and from the collection of visa processing fees, membership fees and on-line application the private complainants without lawful authority from the POEA. Judge Pangilinan, Presiding Judge of the MTCC, conducted a preliminary investigation on the complaints.
After examining Palayon, one of the complainants, Judge Pangilinan issued a warrant for the arrest of Mangila and her cohorts without bail. On the next day, the entire records of the cases, including the warrant of arrest, were transmitted to the City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa City for further proceedings and appropriate action in accordance with the prevailing rules. As a consequence, Mangila was arrested on June 18, 2003 and detained at the headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila of the NBI. Claiming that Judge Pangilinan did not have the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation; that the preliminary investigation he conducted was not yet completed when he issued the warrant of arrest; and that the issuance of the warrant of arrest was without sufficient justification or without a prior finding of probable cause, Mangila filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for habeas corpus to obtain her release from detention.
:PPFR d"#&"#( )( /)& &"# =(+& )5 ".8#.- 1)('4- +- '()'#(
HG=EL:TR ,!/#$%()# #5%# (/ .%;0-. %)' 9-$/-%)# #& % +&-$# 9$&+!// +%))&# :! ()D-($!' ()#& #5$&-45 5%:!%/ +&$9-/2
People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo Salafranca G.R. No. 173476, February 22, 2012
Rodrigo Salafranca y Bello was charged with and tried for murder for the fatal stabbing of Johnny Bolanon, and was ultimately found guilty of the felony by the RTC Branch 18, in Manila. On appeal, his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. CA affirmed the findings and conclusions of the RTC, citing the dying declaration made to his uncle pointing to Salafranca as his assailant, and Salafranca’s positive identification as the culprit by Mendoza. It stressed that Salafranca’s denial and his alibi of being in his home during the incident did not overcome the positive identification, especially as his unexplained flight after the stabbing, leaving his home and employment, constituted a circumstance highly indicative of his guilt. Salafranca has come to the Court on a final appeal, continuing to challenge the credibility of the
:PPFR d"#&"#( )( /)& &"# &#-&+7)/: )5 &"# =+&/#--#- +.,7+--+83# &) '()*# &"# .114-#, 24+3& HG=EL:TR C) %)#!E8&$#!8 '!+.%$%#(&) &0 % 6(+#(8 &0 8-$'!$> 5&8(+('!> &$ 9%$$(+('! #5%# 8!!#/ #5! +&)'(#(&)/ &0 %'8(//(:(.(#* -)'!$ #5! ,-.!/ &0 1&-$# %)' 9!$#()!)# B-$(/9$-'!)+! (/ %'8(//(:.! !(#5!$ %/ % '*()4 '!+.%$%#(&) &$ %/ % 9%$# &0 #5! $!/ 4!/#%!> &$ :4
Heirs of Margarita Prodon vs. Heirs of Maximo Alvarez G.R. No. 170604, September 2, 2013
In their complaint for quieting of title and damages against Margarita Prodon, the respondents averred as the plaintiffs that their parents, the late spouses Maximo S. Alvarez, Sr. and Valentina Clave, were the registered owners of that parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 84797 of the Register of Deeds of Manila; that their parents had been in possession of the property during their lifetime; that upon their parents’ deaths, they had continued the possession of the property as heirs, paying the real property taxes due thereon; that they could not locate the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 84797, but the original copy of TCT No. 84797 on file with the Register of Deeds of Manila was intact; that the original copy contained an entry stating that the property had been sold to defendant Prodon subject to the right of repurchase; and that the entry had been maliciously done by Prodon because the deed of sale with right to repurchase covering the property did
Consequently, they prayed that the entry be cancelled, and that Prodon be adjudged liable for damages. Prodon claimed that the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr.had executed on 1975 the deed of sale with right to repurchase; that the deed had been registered with the Register of Deeds and duly annotated on the title. During trial, the custodian of the records of the property attested that the copy of the deed of sale with right to repurchase could not be found in the files of the Register of Deeds of Manila. RTC rendered judgment, finding untenable the plaintiffs’ contention that the deed of sale with right to repurchase did not exist. It opined that although the deed itself could not be presented as evidence in court, its contents could nevertheless be proved by secondary evidence in accordance with Sec 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, upon proof of its execution or existence and of the cause of its unavailability being without bad faith. Itfound that the defendant had established the execution and existence of the deed.
:PPFR d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
Republic of the Philippines vs. Luz Reyes Bakunawa et al G.R. No. 180418, August 28, 2013
Civil Case No. 0023 is an action for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages brought by the Republic against respondents Luz Reyes-Bakunawa, et. al. for having allegedly acquired and accumulated ill-gotten wealth consisting of funds and other property “in unlawful concert with one another” and “in flagrant breach of trust and of their fiduciary obligations as public officers, with grave abuse of right and power and in brazen violation of the Constitution and laws of the Republic of the Philippines, thus resulting in their unjust enrichment.” The complaint alleged that respondent Luz Reyes-Bakunawa had served as Imelda Marcos’ Social Secretary during the Marcos administration; that it was during that period of her incumbency in that position that Luz Bakunawa and her husband Manuel Bakunawa had acquired assets, funds and other property grossly and manifestly disproportionate to her salaries and their other lawful income; and that Luz Bakunawa, “ by herself and/or in unlawful concert with Defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, taking undue advantage of her position, influence and connection with the latter Defendant spouses, for their benefit and unjust enrichment and in order to prevent disclosure and recovery of assets illegally obtained, engaged in devices, schemes and stratagems. The Republic prayed for reconveyance to itself of all funds and other property acquired by respondents’ abuse of rights and
:PPFR d"#&"#( )( /)& &"# (#-')/,#/&- .1>4+-+&+)/ )5 +33K2)&&#/ =#.3&" =.'()*#,$
HG=EL:TR C//!#/ &$ 9$&9!$#(!/> #& :! +&)/('!$!' %/ (..E4&##!) ;!%.#5> 8-/# :! /5&;) #& 5%6! &$(4()%#!' 0$&8 #5! U&6!$)8!)# (#/!.0> %)' /5&-.' 5%6! :!!) #%A!) :* 0&$8!$ T$!/('!)# K%$+&/> #5! 8!8:!$/ &0 5(/ (88!'(%#! 0%8(.*> $!.%#(6!/> +.&/! /-:&$'()%#!/ %)' +.&/! %//&+(%#!/ :* (..!4%. 8!%)/2 75%# &)! /!$6!' %/ % 4&6!$)8!)# &00(+(%. &$ !89.&*!! '-$()4 #5! K%$+&/ %'8()(/#$%#(&) '(' )&# (88!'(%#!.* 8%A! 5!$ % +.&/! /-:&$'()%#! &$ +.&/! %//&+(%#! &0 0&$8!$ T$!/('!)# K%$+&/2
Romeo Caluzor vs. Deogracias Llanillo and Heirs of Lorenzo Llanillo G.R. No. 155580, July 1, 2015
Petitioners Ruben Manalang, et. al. were the co-owners of Lot No 4236 with an area of 914 square meters of the Guagua Cadastre, and declared for taxation purposes in the name of Tomasa B. Garcia. The land was covered by approved survey plan Ap-03004154. Adjacent to Lot 4236 was the respondents’ Lot No. 4235 covered by Original Certificate of Title No. N-216701. In 1997, the petitioners caused the relocation and verification survey of Lot 4236 and the adjoining lots, and the result showed that the respondents had encroached on Lot No. 4236 to the extent of 405 square meters. A preliminary relocation survey conducted by the Lands Management Section of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources confirmed the result on the encroachment. When the respondents refused to vacate the encroached portion and to surrender peaceful possession thereof despite demands, the petitioners commenced this action for unlawful detainer on April 21, 1997 in the MTC of Guagua and the case was assigned to Branch 2 of that court.
On September 17, 1998, the MTC dismissed Civil Case No. 3309 for lack of jurisdiction based on its finding that the action involved an essentially boundary dispute that should be properly resolved in an accion reivindicatoria. On appeal, however, the RTC reversed the MTC (Branch 2), and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that because there was an apparent withholding of possession of the property and the action was brought within one year from such withholding of possession the proper action was ejectment which was within the jurisdiction of the MTC. Upon remand, the MTC, Branch 1, ultimately dismissed the complaint and counterclaim for lack of merit through the decision rendered on August 31, 2000. Once more, the petitioners appealed to the RTC. At that point, the RTC ordered the petitioners to conduct a relocation survey to determine their allegation of encroachment, and also heard the testimony of the surveyor. On September 19, 2001, the RTC rendered its judgment whereby it reversed and set aside the MTC’s decision of August 31, 2000.
:PPFR d"#&"#( &"# H!@ "., .4&")(+&: &) (#1#+*# .,,+&+)/.3 #*+,#/1# )/ .''#.3 +/ ./ #9#1&7#/& 1.-#
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
Alejandra Arado Heirs vs. Anacleto Alcoran and Elenette Sunjaco G .R. No. 163362, July 8, 2015
Lorenzo Llanillo owned the parcel of land known as Lot 4196 and situated in Loma de Gato, Marilao, Bulacan. The land was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 25864 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan. The petitioner averred that Lorenzo took him into the land as a tenant in 1970, giving to him a sketch that indicated the boundaries of the portion he would be cultivating. To effectively till the land, the petitioner and his family were allowed to build a makeshift shanty thereon. Even after the death of Lorenzo, the petitioner continued giving a share of his produce to the family of Lorenzo through Ricardo Martin, Lorenzo’s overseer. In 1990, respondent Deogracias Lanillo, the son of Lorenzo, offered to pay the petitioner P17,000.00/hectare of the cultivated land in exchange for turning his tillage over to Deogracias. In the end, Deogracias did not pay the petitioner. Instead, on August 5, 1994, Deogracias and persons acting under his orders forcibly ejected the petitioner and his family by levelling their shanty and plantation with the use of a bulldozer.
The efforts of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council to conciliate failed; hence, the authority to file a case was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner instituted this case against Deogracias in the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator in Malolos, Bulacan, demanding the payment of disturbance compensation. He amended his complaint to implead Moldex Realty Corporation as an additional defendant upon discovering that the latter had entered the land to develop it into a residential subdivision. He prayed for the restoration of his possession of the tilled land, and the payment of disturbance compensation. Meanwhile, on April 12, 1995, the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform granted the application for the conversion of the land from agricultural to residential and commercial uses filed by Deogarcias, through Moldex as his attorney-in-fact.
:PPFR d"#&"#( )( /)& &"# '#&+&+)/#( (#-)(&#, &) &"# =()/2 (#7#,: )5 . -'#1+.3 1+*+3 .1&+)/ 5)( 1#(&+)(.(+ ./, -")43, 8# ,+-7+--#, HG=EL:TR 75! :-$'!) &0 9$&&0 #& !/#%:.(/5 #5! %6!$8!)#/ &0 #5! +&89.%()# :* 9$!9&)'!$%)+! &0 !6('!)+! 9!$#%()!' #& #5! 9!#(#(&)!$/ %/ #5! 9.%()#(00/2 WT$!9&)'!$%)+! &0 !6('!)+!W (/ #5! ;!(45#> +$!'(#> %)' 6%.-! &0 #5! %44$!4%#! !6('!)+! &) !(#5!$ /('! %)' (/ -/-%..* +&)/('!$!' #& :! /*)&)*8&-/ ;(#5 #5! #!$8 W4$!%#!$ ;!(45# &0 #5! !6('!)+!W &$ W4$!%#!$ ;!(45# &0 #5! +$!'(:.! !6('!)+!2W
