82499444 Digests of Abad Decisions

8/13/2019 82499444 Digests of Abad Decisions

1/84

POLITICAL LAW

CENTER FOR PEOPLE EMPOWERMENT IN GOVERNANCE (CenPEG) v. COMMISSIONON ELECTIONS (2010)Refresher: Comelec failed to provide plaintiffs with the source code of identified canvassmachines despite repeated requests and demands. CenPEG is now praying for the issuance

of a writ of mandamus, despite the lapse of the May 200 elections, claiming that the sourcecode remained important and relevant !not only for compliance with the law, and thepurpose thereof, "ut especially in the "ac#drop of numerous admissions of errors and claimsof fraud.!

Isse: $%& C'ME(EC could "e compelled to release the source code to CenPEG) *E+

!"#$r%ne: pertinent portion of +ection 2 of .-. / is clear in that !once an -E+technology is selected for implementation, the Commission shall promptly ma#e the sourcecode of that technology availa"le and open to any interested political party or groups whichmay conduct their own review thereof.!) 1he C'ME(EC has offered no reason not to comply with this requirement of the law.ndeed, its only e3cuse for not disclosing the source code was that it was not yet availa"le

when CenPEG as#ed for it and, su"sequently, that the review had to "e done, apparently forsecurity reason, !under a controlled environment.! 1he elections had passed and thatreason is already stale.

A&A'ON V. OSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (2010)Refresher: Plaintiffs -"ayon and Palparan are first nominees of the the party)list groups-angat 1ayo and 4antay, respectively, "oth of which won a seat in the 5ouse ofepresentatives in the 2006 elections. 1he defendant questioned the eligi"ility andqualification of the plaintiffs to sit as representatives since "oth did not "elong to the sectorsin which the respective party)list groups represent. 1he 5ouse of epresentatives Electoral

1ri"unal 75E18 issued an order, dismissing the petition as against -angat 1ayo and 4antay"ut upholding its 9urisdiction over the qualifications of petitioners -"ayon and Palparan

Isse:(1) $%& respondent 5E1 has 9urisdiction over the question of qualifications of petitioners)

*E+(2) $%& it is the party)list nominee and not the group who stands as elected mem"er) *E+

!"#$r%ne: +ection 6, -rticle : of the Constitution provides that the 5E1 shall "e the sole9udge of all contests relating to, among other things, the qualifications of the mem"ers ofthe 5ouse of epresentatives. +ince party)list nominees are !elected mem"ers! of the5ouse of epresentatives 7not the party)list group itself8 no less than the districtrepresentatives are, the 5E1 has 9urisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications.

GREENILLS EAST ASSOCIATION* INC. (GEA) v. E. GAN+ON* INC. (EGI) (2010)Refresher:EG sought to develop a ;,0 sq. m. lot 7land site8 at the corner of e


2/84

'n 2; &ovem"er , 5(?4 -r"iter rendered a decision, dismissing GE-@s opposition.GE-@s petition for review with the 5(?4 4oard of Commissioners was also denied. M alsodenied.

'n 20 &ovem"er 200, GE- filed its &otice of -ppeal with the 'ffice of the President. 'n 2


3/84

!"#$r%ne:1he 'm"udsman has under its general investigatory powers the authority to investigateforfeiture cases where the alleged ill)gotten wealth had "een amassed "efore e"ruary 2>,=. 1he e3ercise of his correlative powers to "oth investigate and initiate the properaction for the recovery of ill)gotten and%or une3plained wealth is restricted only to cases forthe recovery of ill)gotten and%or une3plained wealth which were amassed after e"ruary 2>,

=. Prior to said date, the 'm"udsman is without authority to initiatesuch forfeitureproceedings. $e, however, uphold his authority to investigatecases for the forfeiture orrecovery of such ill)gotten and%or une3plained wealth amassed even "efore theaforementioned date, pursuant to his general investigatory power under +ection >78 ofepu"lic -ct &o. 660. 7Republic v. Sandiganbayan8 -lthough it was the 'm"udsman whoconducted the preliminary investigation, it was the '+G that instituted the action.

1he 'm"udsman could not "e faulted for proceeding with the investigation of theomualdeDes@ cases when they did not show up despite notice "eing sent to them at theirlast #nown residence. 1he &ew ules on Criminal Procedure !does not require as acondition sinequa nonto the validity of the proceedings in the preliminary investigationHthe presence of the accused for as long as efforts to reach him were made, and anopportunity to controvert the evidence of the complainant is accorded him. 1he o"viouspurpose of the rule is to "loc# attempts of unscrupulous respondents to thwart theprosecution of offenses "y hiding themselves or "y employing dilatory tactics.!

Petition


4/84

ATIEN+A v. COMELEC (1 Fe 2010)Refresher:200>K


5/84

1he ++C rendered a in C-)G.. +P 6626.

C- rendered a decision, denying (aurel@s petition. 1he C- ruled that the proper mode ofappeal for her is a petition under ule ;/, not a special civil action of certiorari. +he, thus,

filed the present petition.

Isses:

78 $hether or not the C- erred in denying the petition on the technical ground it invo#edK*E+.

728 $hether or not the ++C gravely a"used its discretion in finding (aurel guilty of simpleneglect of dutyK &'.

!"#$r%ne:

78 1rue, petitions for review under ule ;/ specifically cover decisions rendered "y the ++C.4ut this applies only to ++C decisions where the remedy of appeal is availa"le. 5ere,considering that the law regards the #ind of penalty the ++C imposed on (aurel already final,she had no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of lawagainst the decision of that "ody. Provided the ++C committed grave a"use of discretion inrendering the decision against her, (aurel can avail herself of the remedy of special civilaction of certiorari under ule >.

728 1he +C reversed the finding of simple neglect "ecause the evidence used against (aurel7the petitioner was wea#8. -lso, the nature of simple neglect is !not clear!.

ECANO v. TOLE!O ( Se3$e4er 15* 2010)

Refresher: Echano, cashier of the (and 4an#)1aft -venue 4ranch was charged gravemisconduct and conduct pre9udicial to the service "y the City 1reasurer of Manila for having

approved the deposit of a manager@s chec# that is due to the City, to the account of PereD, a

stenographer of the Manila 1C. 1he dorsal portion of the chec# showed PereD@s signature

and a signature of an unidentified person who was supposedly the first endorser. 'M4 found

Echano guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty.

Isse: $hether 'M4 is correct in finding Echano guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty.*E+.

!"#$r%ne: Misconduct is a transgression of some esta"lished and definite rule of action,more particularly, unlawful "ehavior or gross negligence "y a pu"lic officer. -s

differentiated from simple misconduct, in grave misconduct the elements of corruption,clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of esta"lished rule, must "e manifest. -s-cting 4ranch Cashier, petitioner was charged with responsi"ility of handling the "an#@sdaily transactions which could run into large amounts. 1here is a tremendous difference"etween the degree of responsi"ility, care, and trustworthiness e3pected of an ordinaryemployee in the "ureaucracy and that required of "an# managers and other officials directlyhandling large sums of money and properties.


6/84

?nder C+C rules, grave misconduct carries with it the penalty of dismissal for the firstoffense. t also allows mitigating circumstances to "e considered.$hile Echano claims goodfaith, the Court cannot close its eyes to the fact that he approved for deposit to PereD@spersonal account a"out 2 other second)endorsed chec#s paya"le to the City 1reasurer ofManila.

CENTRAL MIN!ANAO NIVERSIT' V SEC OF !ENR (Se3$. 21* 2010)Refresher:n >=, Pres. Garcia issued Presidential Proclamation ;6, which reserved /,;0 ha of landsin the pu"lic domain in Musuan, 4u#idnon as the site for CM?, a state university. CM?o"tained titles to /,0=0 ha of those lands. 1he government distri"uted the remaining /00 hato several tri"es living in the area@s cultural communities. n 200/, Pres. -rroyo issued PP/0 which distri"uted 60 ha of CM?@s titled lands to indigenous peoples and culturalcommunities in Musuan. CM? filed a petition for prohi"ition and questioned theconstitutionality of PP /0. 1he 1C dismissed the petition on the ground that since theen9oined act relates to an official act of the E3ecutive


7/84

REME!IAL LAW

CINA &AN8ING CORPORATION v. A&EL (2011)Refresher: China 4an# acquired title over -"el@s (a :ista property at a foreclosure sale.China 4an# filed e3 parte petition for issuance of writ of possession in its favor, which the1C granted. -"el@s appeal denied "y C-. +C denied. Aune B sheriff implemented writ.

C-K -"el filed petition for certiorari on 2> Aune. 1' issued 2 Aune. C- eventually rendereda decision setting aside the assailed orders of the 1C.

C- ruled that the 1C committed grave a"use of discretion in granting the "an#@smotion for e3ecution, noting that the latter court gave -"el 0 days from noticeof itsorder, not 0 days from the issuance of such order, within which to file her opposition. Parenthetically, the shorter period was what she as#ed for in her motion forpostponement. 4ut there was no proof, said the C-, as to when -"el had notice of the1C@s Aune =, 2006 'rder as to determine when the 0)day period actually "egan to run.


8/84

Isse: $%& the C- erred in setting aside the assailed 1C@s Aune and 22, 2006 'rders onthe ground of failure to o"serve due process respecting -"el@s right to "e heard on the"an#@s motion for e3ecution B *E+

!"#$r%ne:-lthough the 1C caused the issuance of the writ of e3ecution "efore it could esta"lish that

-"el@s 0 days !from notice! within which to file her opposition had lapsed, she filed withthat court on Aune 2, 2006 an urgent motion for reconsideration with her opposition to themotion for e3ecution attached. 1he Court, acting on her motion, denied it on the followingday, Aune 22, 2006. -ny perceived denial of her right to "e heard on the "an#@s motion fore3ecution had "een cured "y her motion for reconsideration and the 1C@s action on thesame.

'rders for the issuance of a writ of possession are issued as a matter of course upon thefiling of the proper motion and approval of the corresponding "ond since no discretion is leftto the court to deny it.

China 4an#@s petition granted.

&ERM!O v. TA'AG9ROAS ( 2011 )Refresher: -tty. icardo 4ermudo , as e3ecutor, filed a petition for his appointment asadministrator of the estate of -rtemio 5ilario and for the allowance and pro"ate of thelatter@s will "efore the 1C of -ngeles City. 1he testator instituted ermina 1ayag)o3as ashis only heir "ut several persons, who claimed to "e 5ilario@s relatives, opposed the petition.1C rendered a decision, allowing the will and recogniDing o3as as 5ilario@s sole heir. -tty.4ermudo who also served as counsel for o3as in the actions concerning her inheritancefiled a motion to fi3 his legal fees and to constitute a charging lien against the estate for thelegal services he rendered.

Isse: $hether or not -tty. 4ermudo, as administrator, is entitled to collect attorney@s fees.*E+

!"#$r%ne:-tty. 4ermudo did not only serve as administrator of the estate. 5e also served as o3as@counsel in the suit that assailed her right as sole heir. -tty. 4ermudo "rought the contest allthe way up to the +upreme Court to defend her rights to her uncle@s estate. -nd -tty.4ermudo succeeded. -cting as counsel in that suit for o3as was not part of his duties asadministrator of the estate 7ergo, does not fall under ule => +ection 6 of the 'C8.Consequently, it was "ut 9ust that he is paid his attorney@s fees.

PILIPPINE VETERANS &AN8 v. &ASES CONVERSION !EVELOPMENT ATORIT'* e$

-7. ( 2011 )

Refresher: espondent 4ases Conversion


9/84

in 6. P:4 had since foreclosed on the mortgages and "ought the same at pu"lic auction

in =2. 4ut the "an# had "een una"le to consolidate ownership in its name. P:4 also had a

pending action for annulment of the titles issued to the individual defendants and this was

pending "efore 4ranch 2 of the court.

Isse: $hether or not the P:4 was entitled to intervene in the e3propriation cases "efore

4ranch >= of the -ngeles City 1C. NO

!"#$r%ne:+ection , ule 6 of the 6 ules of Civil Procedure authoriDes the court ad9udicating thee3propriation case to hear and decide conflicting claims regarding the ownership of theproperties involved while the compensation for the e3propriated property is in the meantimedeposited with the court. 4ut this cannot apply to P:4. -t the time P:4 tried to intervene inthe e3propriation cases, its conflict with the farmer "eneficiaries who held C('-s, EPs, or

1C1s emanating from such titles were already pending "efore -ngeles City 1C 4ranch 2, aco)equal "ranch of the same court. 4ranch >= had no authority to pre)empt 4ranch 2 of itspower to hear and ad9udicate claims that were already pending "efore it.

PEOPLE v. PA,ARIN -n PALLA'A ( 2011)RefresherK

1he prosecution claims that the accused were arrested on a "uy)"ust operation. 1he policeofficers supposedly o"tained two pac#ets of drugs from the accused. 1he accused deniedownership of the pac#ets of drugs. 1he lower courts found the accused guilty of the charge.

1he accused contest their conviction on the account that the plastic pac#ets of drugspresented in court were unmar#ed and therefore did not prove that such pac#ets were thesame ones o"tained "y the police officers from the accused.

IssesK$%& C- erred in not e3cluding the evidence of the seiDed sha"u on the ground that theprosecution failed to prove their integrity "y esta"lishing the chain of custody of the sameuntil they got to the trial court ) *E+

$%& for this reason the C- erred in affirming their conviction ) *E+

!"#$r%neK1he custodial lin# of the evidence starts with the police officers mar#ing the seiDed pac#etsof drugs, in accordance with +ection 2 7a8, -rticle of the mplementing ules andegulations of .-. >.

+ection 2 7a8 requires the police officers to ta#e immediate inventory of and photographthe seiDed item in the presence of the accused or his representative or responsi"le thirdpersons mentioned "ut always ta#ing care that the integrity and evidentiary value of theseiDed articles are preserved.

;ere* $he 3"7%#e "ff%#ers % n"$ 4-r< $he se-7e 37-s$%# s-#he$s $" sh"= $h-$$he/ =ere $he s-4e $h%n>s $he/ $""< fr"4 $he -##se. F-%7re $" 37-#e s#h4-rs 3-ves $he =-/ f"r s=-33%n>* 37-n$%n>* -n #"n$-4%n-$%"n "f $heev%en#e. These 7-3ses ser%"s7/ #-s$ "$ "n $he -$hen$%#%$/ "f $he corpusdelicti* =-rr-n$%n> -#?%$$-7 "n re-s"n-7e "$.@

ailure of the police officer to follow rules regarding "uy)"ust operations will result inacquittals, "ut lower courts should "e forced to dismiss the case on account of the policeofficers@ and prosecution@s failure to follow proper procedure.


10/84

AFP MTAL &ENEFIT ASSOCIATION* INC. v. REGIONAL TRIAL CORT* MARI8INACIT'* &RANC 1B -n SOLI! OMES* INC. (2011)RefresherKnvestco entered into a contract of sale with +olid 5omes, "ut the latter defaulted on thepayments. nvestco sued +olid 5omes for specific performance and damages and sold the

property to petitioner. 1he register of deeds issued certificates of title in favor of -PM4-.+olid 5omes filed an action to cancel the certificates of title and annotate lis pendens, "utthe +C held that the petitioner was a "uyer in good faith and for value and thus ruledagainst +olid 5omes. +olid 5omes filed another action with the 1C, "ut the latter dismissedthe case on the ground of res 9udicata. 1C also denied +olid 5omes@ second motion forreconsideration. +olid 5omes then filed a petition for relief from 9udgment of the denial ofthe second motion for reconsideration on the ground of e3trinsic fraud. 1his fraud consistedin -PM4-@s alleged failure to disclose its #nowledge of a prior sale "etween nvestco and+olid 5omes. +olid 5omes caused the annotation of lis pendens on the certificates of title"ased on this pending petition for relief from the 9udgment "efore the 1C. 1C then issuedan order giving due course to +olid 5omes@ petition. 5ence the present petition forprohi"ition and mandamus "y -PM4-.

IssesK$%& +olid 5omes filed its petition for relief from 9udgment with the 1C "eyond the periodallowed "y the rules ) *E+

$%& the fraud that +olid 5omes invo#ed as ground for its petition for reliefN-PM4-@salleged fraud in acquiring the su"9ect propertyNis the fraud contemplated "y the rules ) &'

$%& the 1C@s grant of +olid 5omes@ petition for relief "ased on -PM4-@s alleged fraud inacquiring its titles to the su"9ect property is "arred "y res 9udicata ) *E+

$%& the annotation of a notice of lis pendens is allowed in connection with a pendingpetition for relief from 9udgment ) &' "ecause of res 9udicata

!"#$r%neKO+ection /, ule /= of the ules of Civil Procedure provides that a petition for relief from

9udgment must "e filed within 0 days from notice of such 9udgment or within si3 monthsfrom the entry of 9udgment. +olid 5omes filed its petition 0 months after the 9udgmentissued "y the 1C denying the original motion for reconsideration. Moreover, the secondmotion for reconsideration cannot "e the "asis of the lapse of the period "ecause suchmotion was a prohi"ited pleading.

-lthough -PM4- petition@s for mandamus must fails since the case does not refer to aministerial duty, its petition for prohi"ition allows the Court to decide on the case.

;The e$r%ns%# fr- $h-$ =%77 Ds$%f/ - 3e$%$%"n f"r re7%ef fr"4 D>4en$ %s $h-$fr- =h%#h $he 3rev-%7%n> 3-r$/ #-se $" 3reven$ $he 7"s%n> 3-r$/ fr"4 e%n>he-r "n h%s -#$%"n "r efense. S#h fr- #"n#erns n"$ $he D>4en$ %$se7f $

$he 4-nner %n =h%#h %$ =-s "$-%ne.25or e3ample, the petition of a defending partywould "e 9ustified where the plaintiff deli"erately caused with the process server@sconnivance the service of summons on defendant at the wrong address and thus succeededin getting a 9udgment "y default against him.

AFPM&AIs -77e>e 3r%"r %n f-v"r "f AFPM&AI. ;The 3r%n#%37e "f res D%#-$-
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_183906_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_183906_2011.html#fnt25


11/84

h"7s $h-$ %sses -#$-77/ -n %re#$7/ res"7ve %n - f"r4er s%$ #-nn"$ e r-%se%n -n/ f$re #-se e$=een $he s-4e 3-r$%es.@

EIRS OF MARILO SANTIAGO v. AGILA (2011)Refresher: - tenancy dispute arose "etween the parties. $hen the case was "rought to the

Provincial -grarian eform -d9udicator 7P--)day e3tension or until -pril > only. or thisreason, the C- dismissed petitioners@ petition for review for having "een filed out of time. naddition, the C- also ruled that the +P- presented "y the attorney)in)fact is defective, sinceit was in representation of one


12/84

4an# posted security guards around the area and prevented the (ims from entering theproperty.

-lleging that they suffered damages due to the 4an#@s malicious conduct, the (ims sued the4an# for damages. 1hey also as#ed for an in9unction against the 4an# to allow them to enterthe premises. ?pon chec#ing the premises however, they discovered that some of their

personal properties are missing. 1hey thus filed a supplemental complaint against the 4an#alleging an additional actua26M.

Isse: $'& damages may "e awarded "ased on the allegations in a supplementalcomplaint without prior payment of doc#et fees. NO.

!"#$r%ne:-fter)9udgment lien, which implies that payment depends on a successful e3ecution of the

9udgment, applies to cases where the filing fees were incorrectly assessed or paid or wherethe court has discretion to fi3 the amount of the award. &one of these circumstances o"tainin this case.

'n the contrary, the (ims specified an actual amount from the very "eginning. -nd despitethe issue having "een raised in the 4an#@s Motion for econsideration "efore the 1C, theystill did not pay the corresponding doc#et fee. 1hey merely said that they did not yet pay thefees "ecause the 1C had not assessed them for it.

A supplemental complaint is like any complaint and the rule is that the filing feesdue on a complaint need to be paid upon its filing. The rules do not require thecourt to make special assessments in cases of supplemental complaints.

Consequently, the trial court should have treated their +upplemental Complaint as not filed.

SPOSES ALAGAR v. PN& (2011)Refresher:+pouses -lagar were the owners of &ew 1a9 esources nc. 1hey were inde"ted to P&4 for apersonal loan and a corporate loan, which were secured "y separate mortgages. -s ownersof the corporation, they were solidary de"tors in the corporate loan. 1he -lagars were a"leto settle the personal loan "ut P&4 refused to release the mortgage covering it "ecause ofthe outstanding corporate loan. -lagars filed a petition for mandamus to compel P&4 torelease the mortgage covering the said personal loan. 1C ruled in favor of the -lagars,directing P&4 to release the mortgage. $hile the appeal to the C- was pending, the 1Cdeclared the decision final and e3ecutory ruling that the motion for reconsideration filed "yP&4 as pro forma hence the appeal was filed out of time. P&4 was forced to o"ey the writ,returned to mortgaged property and pay damages. C- reversed. 1he -lagars now claim thatP&4 is estopped from assailing the validity of the writ of e3ecution after it had "eenimplemented.

Isse: $%& the validity of the writ of e3ecution has "een mooted "y compliance of the writ B

&'.

!"#$r%ne:E3ecution of a 9udgment pending an action in a higher court essentially challenging itsfinality cannot "e deemed an a"andonment of that action. 1he rules grant parties the rightto question "y special civil actions those orders and rulings that inferior courts issue withgrave a"use of discretion.GENTLE SPREME PILIPPINES* INC v. CONSLTA (2010)Refresher:


13/84

Gentle +upreme Philippines, nc. 7G+P8 filed a collection case with application for a writ ofpreliminary attachment against Consar 1rading Corporation 7C1C8, its president, Consulta,and its vice)president, +aray"a. 1he sheriff failed to serve the summons and copies of thecomplaint on any of C1C@s authoriDed officers as well as on Consulta and +aray"a, so he leftcopies of such documents with Canave who, according to the sheriff@s return, was +aray"a@ssecretary and an authoriDed representative of "oth +aray"a and Consulta. 1he defendants

failed to file an answer and they were declared in default. - property owned "y Consulta wasalso attached. 1he 1C eventually ruled in favor of G+P. Consulta now claims that he wasnot properly served with summons "ecause, although his address stated in the complaintwas his regular place of "usiness, Canave, who received the summons, was not in charge ofthe matter.

Isse: $%& there was a valid service of summons B *E+.

!"#$r%ne:t is not necessary that the person in charge of the defendant@s regular place of "usiness "especifically authoriDed to receive the summons. t is enough that he appears to "e incharge. n this case, Canave, a secretary whose 9o" description necessarily includesreceiving documents and other correspondence, would have the sem"lance of authority toaccept the court documents.

L-n &-n< "f $he Ph%7%33%nes v. C"r-"n M. V%77e>-s e%rs "f C-$-7%n" V. N"e7 -nPr"#7- P. S/ (2010)RefresherKPetitioner (and 4an# filed cases for e$er4%n-$%"n "f Ds$ #"43ens-$%"n againstrespondent CoraDon M. :illegas and respondent heirs of Catalino :. &oel and Procula P. +y"efore the 1C of n-$e -s - S3e#%-7 A>r-r%-n C"r$ f"r -3r"v%n#e h-s $he "r%>%n-7 -n e#7s%ve Dr%s%#$%"n "ver -77 3e$%$%"ns f"r $hee$er4%n-$%"n "f Ds$ #"43ens-$%"n %n $h-$ 3r"v%n#e.

Aurisprudence states that +pecial -grarian Courts have original and e3clusive 9urisdictionover two categories of casesK 78 all petitions for the determination of 9ust compensation tolandowners, and 728 the prosecution of all criminal offenses under .-. >6.

4y !special! 9urisdiction, +pecial -grarian Courts e3ercise power in addition to or overand a"ove the ordinary 9urisdiction of the 1C, such as ta#ing cogniDance of suitsinvolving agricultural lands located outside their regular territorial 9urisdiction, so long asthey are within the province where they sit as +pecial -grarian Courts.


14/84

.-. >6 requires the designation "y the +upreme Court "efore an 1C 4ranch canfunction as a +pecial -grarian Court. 1he +upreme Court has not designated the singlesala courts of 1C, 4ranch ; of Guihulngan City 7court under which :illegas property issituated8, and 1C, 4ranch / of 4ayawan City 7court under which &oel%+y property issituated8 as +pecial -grarian Courts. Consequently, they cannot hear 9ust compensationcases 9ust "ecause the lands su"9ect of such cases happen to "e within their territorial

9urisdiction.

S%n#e RTC* &r-n#h B2 "f !4->e$e C%$/ %s $he es%>n-$e S3e#%-7 A>r-r%-n C"r$f"r $he 3r"v%n#e "f Ne>r"s Or%en$-7* %$ h-s Dr%s%#$%"n "ver -77 #-ses f"re$er4%n-$%"n "f Ds$ #"43ens-$%"n %nv"7v%n> ->r%#7$r-7 7-ns =%$h%n $h-$3r"v%n#e* re>-r7ess "f =he$her "r n"$ $h"se 3r"3er$%es -re "$s%e %$s re>7-r$err%$"r%-7 Dr%s%#$%"n.

S3"ses e7- Cr v. R-4"n C. P-3- IV* %n h%s #-3-#%$/ -s C"9A4%n%s$r-$"r "f $heEs$-$e "f An>e7- M. &$$e (2010)Refresher:;K the ntestate Estate of -ngela M. 4utte 7the Estate8 filed -n -#$%"n f"r #-n#e77-$%"n"f $%$7es* re#"ver/ "f 3r"3er$%es* -n -4->es against several defendants, includingpetitioner spouses eu"en and Minerva , 200K one of the defendants 4"ve $" e3n>e M/r"ns %re#$$es$%4"n/.

1he , 200/K the


15/84

March ;, 200>K RTC >r-n$e $he !e7- Cres 4"$%"n $" s$r%, 200. 'n the other hand, the h M/r"ns $es$%4"n/* %$ s$-ns $" re-s"n $h-$ $he s$r%"$ "f $he 7-$$ers $es$%4"n/ -7$">e$her =%3e "$ $he re?%re -$hen$%#-$%"n f"r$h"se eh%%$s. The/ e#"4e %n-4%ss%7e n7ess $he RTC* %n %$s %s#re$%"n*re"3ens $he $r%-7 3"n - v-7% >r"n -n 3er4%$s $he Es$-$e $" re#$%f/ %$s4%s$-00 loan.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_185899_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_185899_2010.html#fnt6


16/84

ortune +avings offered to sell the property for P00L to the


17/84

The $- "f 3r"3er$/ ner $he CARL %s - >"vern4en$ eer#%se "f $he3"=er "f e4%nen$ "4-%n. S%n#e $he e$er4%n-$%"n "f Ds$ #"43ens-$%"n %ne4%nen$ "4-%n 3r"#ee%n>s %s - D%#%-7 fn#$%"n* s#h e$er4%n-$%"n#-nn"$ e 4-e $" e3en "n $he e%s$en#e "f -4%n%s$r-$%ve 3r"#ee%n>s"f - s%4%7-r n-$re. 1hus, even while the > after the dismissalwithout pre9udice of -grarian Case )02; cannot "e regarded as "arred "y thefiling of the latter case "eyond the >)day period prescri"ed under ule , +ection of the


18/84

:argas appealed to the C- and filed a motion for the appointment of a receiver. C- grantedthe motion and ordained receivership of the land, noting that there appeared to "e a need topreserve the property and its fruits in light of her allegation that ChaveD failed to account forher share of such fruits. +he also filed three estafa cases with the 1C of 'longapo City anda complaint for dispossession with the


19/84

G.G. +portswear and &aresh Gidwani mortgaged a lot in Ma#ati and a house and (ot in 4el)-ir :illage to secure a P20,/>6,000 loan with 4


20/84

only "e resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid in9urious consequenceswhich cannot "e remedied under any standard of compensation.

+ince there is a valid cause to foreclose on the mortgages, petitioners G.G. +portswear andGidwani cannot claim that the irrepara"le damage they wanted to prevent "y theirapplication for preliminary in9unction is the loss of their properties to auction sale. 1heir real

in9ury, if it turns out that the right to foreclose "elongs to P' rather than to 4


21/84

PEOPLE v. A&ANA (M-r#h 5* 2010)Refresher: n a "uy)"ust operation, the police seiDed from the accused three sachets ofwhat appeared to "e sha"u and mar#ed "ills used "y the police to purchase drugs from theaccused. -t the pre)trial, the parties stipulated 78 that the forensic chemist got the policerequest for e3amination of the su"stance and found it positive for methamphetamine

hydrochloride and 728 that Moran was the police officer to whom the arresting officers turnedover the seiDed items and was the one who prepared the referral slip, sworn affidavit of thearresting officers and the request for la"oratory e3amination

Isse:1. $'& the forensic e3aminer and the police investigator are indispensa"le witnesses in adrugs case to esta"lish the chain of custody over the su"stance seiDed from the accused B&o.

2. $'& the prosecution failed to esta"lish the integrity of the seiDed su"stance ta#en from5a"ana along the chain of custody. B *es.

!"#$r%ne:1. ORno rule requires the prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case every personwho had something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seiDure of prohi"ited drugsfrom him. 1he discretion on which witness to present in every case "elongs to theprosecutor.

O1he non)presentation of the informant cannot pre9udice the prosecution@s theory of thecase. 5is testimony would merely "e corro"orative since police officersR who witnessedeverything already testified.

2. 1he chain of custody rule requires that testimony "e presented a"out every lin# in thechain, from the moment the item was seiDed up to the time it is offered in evidence. 1o thisend, the prosecution must ensure that the su"stance presented in court is the samesu"stance seiDed from the accused. 71he prosecution did not adduce evidence on what theinvestigator on duty did with the seiDed articles, how these got to the la"oratory technician,and how they were #ept "efore "eing adduced in evidence at the trial.8

Pe"37e v. Per-7$- -7%-s ;Me4en>@ (2010)Refresher: Elmer Peralta was arrested after the


22/84

Isse: $hether or not the prosecution presented ample proof that the police officersinvolved caught accused Peralta at his home, peddling prohi"ited drugs. B &'.

!"#$r%ne:1he elements of the sale of illegal drugs are a8 the identities of the "uyer andseller, "8 the transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and c8 the e3istence of the corpus delicti.$ith respect to the third element, the prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus

delicti has "een preserved. 1his is crucial in drugs cases "ecause the evidence involvedNtheseiDed chemicalNis not readily identifia"le "y sight or touch and can easily "e tamperedwith or su"stituted.

1he prosecution must esta"lish the chain of custody of the seiDed prohi"ited drugs. t mustpresent testimony a"out every lin# in the chain of custody of such drugs, from the momentthey were seiDed from the accused to the moment they are offered in evidence.

4ut here the prosecution failed to show the chain of custody or that they followed theprocedure that has "een prescri"ed in connection with the seiDure and custody of drugs. 1o"egin with, the prosecution did not adduce evidence of when the sachet of sha"u wasmar#ed. Consequently, it could have "een mar#ed long after its seiDure or even after it had"een tested in the la"oratory. $hile the records show that the sachet "ore the mar#ings!-+))20602,! indicating that +angalang pro"a"ly made the mar#ing, the prosecutor didnot "other to as# him if such mar#ing was his. +angalang identified the seiDed drugs in amanner that glossed over the need to esta"lish their integrity.

+ince the seiDing officer usually has to turn over the seiDed drugs to the des# officer or somesuperior officer, who would then send a courier to the police crime la"oratory with a requestthat the same "e e3amined to identify the contents, it is imperative for the officer whoplaced his mar#ing on the plastic container to seal the same, prefera"ly with adhesive tapethat usually cannot "e removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. f the drugswere not in a plastic container, the police officer should put it in one and seal the same. nthis way the drugs would assuredly reach the la"oratory in the same condition it was seiDedfrom the accused.urther, after the la"oratory technician has tested and verified the nature of the powder inthe container, he should seal it again with a new seal since the police officer@s seal had "een"ro#en. n this way, if the accused wants to contest the test made, the Court would "eassured that what is retested is the same powder seiDed from the accused.

1he prosecutor could then as# questions of the officer who placed his mar#ing on the plasticcontainer to prove that the suspected drugs had not "een tampered with or su"stitutedwhen they left that officer@s hands.

f the sealing of the seiDed article had not "een made, the prosecution would have topresent the des# officer or superior officer to whom the seiDing officer turned over sucharticle. 1hat des# officer or superior officer needs to testify that he had ta#en care that thedrugs were not tampered with or su"stituted. -nd if someone else "rought the unsealedsachet of drugs to the police crime la"oratory, he, too, should give similar testimony, and soon up to the receiving custodian at the crime la"oratory until the drugs reach the la"oratorytechnician who e3amined and resealed it.

!e7 R"s-r%" -n !e7 R"s-r%" v. !"n-$" -n G"n->- (2010)Refresher: 'n Aanuary 2/, 2002 Philip Morris wrote to the &4, requesting assistance incurtailing the proliferation of fa#e Marl"oro cigarettes in -ngeles City, Pampanga. -fterdoing surveillance wor# in that city, respondent &ew


23/84

*or# +treet, :illasol +u"division, -ngeles City, that "elonged to petitioner -le3ander delosario.

'n March >, 2002 respondent 6 of the1C of -ngeles City to search the su"9ect premises. 4ut it too# a wee# later for the 1C tohear the application and issue the search warrant. -lthough


24/84

lorendos "ought agricultural lots from -guirre. 1he titles were not transferred in theirname. -fter = years, the lorendos discovered that Paramount managed to attach theproperties in a case against -guirre.

1he lorendos sought the annulment of liens over their lots against Paramount. Paramountopposed "y saying that the annotation in their favor was free from adverse claim.

1C ruled in favor of lorendo. Paramount appealed the decision to C-. n the meantime thatthe case was on appeal, 1C issued a Ospecial order directing the e3ecution of 9udgment infavor of lorendo on the condition that a P;M "ond "e posted. C- reversed the 1C andissued temporary restraining order against the 1C@s special order to e3ecute 9udgment.

Isse: $'& C- erred in giving due course to the petition. &o.

!"#$r%ne:1he case is an e3ception to the rule that a motion for reconsideration on an order must "esought first "efore a special civil action of certiorari must "e given due course.

n this case, the e3ception pertains to the urgency of the situation. 1he 1C alreadyissued a writ of e3ecution which made the enforcement of decision imminent.7


25/84

used as fronts to defeat pu"lic convenience, protect fraudulent schemes or evadeo"ligations and lia"ilities under the law.

?pon petition of the respondents, the +andigan"ayan issued a writ of preliminary in9unctionagainst the repu"lic reK sequestration orders, "ut the +andigan"ayan admitted the amendedcomplaint. &evertheless, the +andigan"ayan dimissed the case, stating that impleading the

corporations as defendants was unnecessary and that the amended complaint stated nocause of action against the defendant corporations. 1he government filed then a petition forcertiorari under ule >.

Isse:1. $%& 15E -ME&


26/84

Isse:. &hether or not the complaint is a pollution case that falls 'ithin the primary "urisdictionof the ()B. 'ES* while the word Spollution@ was not actually used in the complaint, theallegations imputed re +hell@s pipeline constitutes !pollution! as defined "y law. n resolvingresps claim, the proper tri"unal must determine $'& the operation of the pipeline adverselyaltered the coastal waters@ properties and negatively affected its life)sustaining function.

1he power and e3pertise needed to determine such issue lies with the P-4.

*. &hether or not the complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action against Shell. 'ES*even if the complaint did not contain specific allegations on how the pipeline distur"ed thewaters and drove the fish away, lac# of particulars is not a ground for dismissing thecomplaint. $hat is important is that all the elements of a cause of action are present.

1here is a r%>h$guaranteed "y the Constitution ) the preferential use of marine and fishingresourcesI there is a $/ on the part of +hell to refrain from acts or omissions affectingrespondents@ use and en9oyment of the seaI there is a violation "y +hell when its pipelinedisrupted and impaired the natural ha"itat of fish resulting in less catch and less income forresps.

+. &hether or not the suit is actually against the State and is barred under the doctrine ofstate immunity. NO* Shell is not an agent of the epu"lic of the Philippines. t is "ut aservice contractor for the e3ploration and development of one of the country@s natural gasreserves. Even if its petroleum operations are under the +tate@s full control andsupervision, it does not follow that +hell has "ecome the +tate@s !agent! within the meaningof the law. +hell@s primary o"ligation under the contract is not to represent the Philippinegovernment for the purpose of transacting "usiness with third persons. ather, itscontractual commitment is to develop and manage petroleum operations on "ehalf of the+tate.

!"#$r%ne:1he test for determining the sufficiency of a cause of action rests on whether thecomplaint alleges facts which, if true, would 9ustify the relief demanded.

REP&LIC OF TE PILIPPINES vs. !EVELOPMENT RESORCES CORPORATION -nR! !AVAO CIT' (1 !e#. 200)Refresher:espondent


27/84

N". +ince a complaint for reversion can upset sta"ility of registered titles thru thecancellation of the original title and others emanating from it, the +tate "ears a heavy"urden of proving the ground for its action. 1he epu"lic failed to discharge its "urden .

1he Court held in S)) )gro-Industries, Inc. v. Republic of the (hilippinesthat a mere

photocopy of an (C Map is not a competent evidence of the e3istence of such map. n thiscase, a certified photocopy issued "y the pu"lic officer having custody thereof should have"een presented.

or another, the courts "elow correctly held that (C Map ;6 does not state on its face that(ot >;; "ecame aliena"le and disposa"le only on the date appearing on that Map, namely,on -ugust , 2/, a"out 0 months after (ots and > of Pcs)6= of the


28/84

Auanito@s affidavit authoriDing the transfer of the ta3 declaration had no "inding force sincehe did not sign it.

Isse: $hether or not the C- erred in failing to dismiss the 1aronas@ complaint for notimpleading Margarita Pastelero :da. de :aldeD and


29/84

1he *us moved for summary 9udgment which the 1C partially granted relation to thepenalty charged which they reduced from /T to 2T and the attorney@s fees which theyheld to "e reasona"le. 5owever the 1C ruled it needed to receive evidence to resolve theremaining issues with regard to the foreclosure e3penses.

1he *us moved for partial reconsideration arguing that since 4P did not mar# in evidence

any document in support of the foreclosure e3penses it claimed, it may "e assumed that the"an# had no evidence to prove such e3penses. 1hus, the court could already resolve withouttrial the issue of whether or not the foreclosure of the property was valid. 1he *us alsosought reconsideration of the reduction of penalty charges claiming that they should "edeleted since 4P violated - /6> or the truth in lending ac for failure to state the rate ofpenalties on late amortiDations.

1he 1C thus reconsidered its decision and rendered a summary 9udgment deleting thepenalty charges.4P appealed to the C- which affirmed the 1C decision. 1hus 4P@s present recourse.

ISSES:

. $%& the summary 9udgment rendered "y the 1C was properJ *E+

2. $%& the deletion of penalty charges was correctJ *E+

!"#$r%ne:. ?(EK - summary 9udgment is apt when the essential facts of the case are

uncontested or the parties do not raise any genuine issue of fact.

-PP(E= of the Central 4an#, the lender is required to include theinformation required "y .-. /6> in the contract covering the credit transaction orany other document to "e ac#nowledged and signed "y the "orrower. n addition, thecontract or document shall specify additional charges, if any, which will "e collectedin case certain stipulations in the contract are not met "y the de"tor.!

-PP(E


30/84

4ut ,the courts also have authority to reduce penalty charges when these areunreasona"le and iniquitous. 1hus in this case, considering that 4P had alreadyreceived over P2.6 million in interest, the +C finds the deletion of the penalty chargesreasona"le.

CA&A!OR v. PEOPLE (O#$"er 2* 200)Refresher:n 2000, -ntonio Ca"ador was accused of murder in conspiracy with others, "efore 1C ofUC.

n 200, after presenting only > witnesses over > years of intermittent trial, the 1Cdeclared at an end the prosecution@s presentation of evidence and required the prosecutionto ma#e a written or formal offer of its documentary evidence within > days fromnotice. 4ut the pu"lic prosecutor as#ed for three e3tensions of time. +till, the prosecutiondid not ma#e the required written offer.

Ca"ador filed a motion to dismiss the case.

?n#nown to petitioner Ca"ador, however, ; days earlier the prosecution as#ed for anothere3tension, which offer it eventually made on -ugust , 200, the day Ca"ador filed hismotion to dismiss.

'n -ugust /, 200 the 1C issued an 'rder treating petitioner Ca"ador@s motion to dismissas a demurrer to evidence. -nd, since he filed his motion without leave of court, the 1Cdeclared him to have waived his right to present evidence in his defense.

1CK denied Ca"ador@s motion for reconsideration

C-K affirmed.

Isse:$%& Ca"ador@s M1< was a demurrer to evidence filed without leave of court, with theresult that he effectively waived his right to present evidence in his defense and su"mittedthe case for decision insofar as he was concerned. &o.

!"#$r%ne:1o determine whether the pleading filed is a demurer to evidence or a motion to dismiss, theCourt must consider 78 the allegations in it made in good faithI 728 the stage of theproceeding at which it is filedI and 7/8 the primary o"9ective of the party filing it. 1he Courtfinds that petitioner Ca"ador filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of violation of his rightto speedy trial, not a demurrer to evidence. 5e cannot "e declared to have waived his rightto present evidence in his defense.

P-#%f%#" R. Cr v. The S-n%>-n-/-n* e$. A7. (Fer-r/ 12* 2010)Refresher:

1he 1as# orce found that certain officials of the


31/84

4elieving that petitioner Pacifico . CruD, the General Manager of Pilipinas +hell@s 1reasuryand 1a3ation


32/84

9udicata through conclusiveness of 9udgment applies to "ar the criminal actionsagainst CruD.

SANCE+ v. REP&LIC OF TE PILIPPINES (O#$"er * 200)Refresher: 1he ?niversity of (ife Comple3 7Comple38 was "uilt "y the G'CC 5uman

+ettlements , = petitioner (and 4an# and respondent Monet@s E3port and ManufacturingCorporation 7Monet8 e3ecuted an E3port Pac#ing Credit (ine -greement under which the"an# gave Monet a credit line of P2>0,000.00. (and 4an# that Monet@s o"ligation hadswelled toP,;;,2;.. +ince Monet failed to pay despite demands, the "an# filed acollection suit against Monet and the 1agles. Monet and the 1agles claimed that (and 4an#had refused to collect receiva"les on Monet@s e3port letter of credit and also that it madeunauthoriDed payment on its import letter of credit to 4eautili#e 75.L.8 (td. 7n other words,


33/84

(and 4an# mismanaged its client@s affairs under the -greement.81C recogniDed Monet andthe 1agles@ o"ligations to (and 4an# in the amount reflected in E3hi"it /, the "an#@s+chedule of -mortiDation from its (oans and million under Promissory &ote P)=, a small amount compared tothe P,;;,2;. that (and 4an# sought to collect from it.

emanded to the 1C, and no new evidence given "y the counsels, the 1C stood "y E3hi"it/ as the "asis of its finding that Monet and the 1agles owed (and 4an# onlyP2.> million asopposed to the latter@s claim of P,;;,2;.. (and 4an# filed a motion forreconsideration to ena"le it to adduce in evidence a Consolidated 4illing +tatement to showhow much Monet and the 1agles still owed the "an#. 4ut the trial court denied the motion.(and 4an# appealed the order to the C- affirmed the 1C. (and 4an# moved forreconsideration, "ut the C- denied it hence, the present petition "y (and 4an#.

Isse: $%& the 1C and the C- acted correctly in denying petitioner (and 4an#@s motion toreopen the hearing to allow it to present the "an#@s updated Consolidated 4illing +tatementthat reflects respondents Monet and the 1agles@ remaining inde"tedness to it. B &'

!"#$r%ne:+uch "illing statement, said the C-, did not constitute sufficient evidence to prove Monet@stotal inde"tedness for the simple reason that this Court in G.. => regarded a priorConsolidated +tatement of -ccount for 2 insufficient for that purpose. 4ut what the 1Cand the C- did not realiDe is that the original 1C decision of Auly >, 6 was anincomplete decision since it failed to resolve the main issue that the collection suitpresentedK how much Monet and the 1agles e3actly owed (and 4an#.

n reverting "ac# to E3hi"it /, which covers 9ust one of many promissory notes that Monetand the 1agles e3ecuted in favor of (and 4an#, the 1C and the C- have shown anun9ustified o"stinacy and a lac# of understanding of what the Court wanted done to clear upthe issue of how much Monet and the 1agles still owed the "an#. 1he "an# lawyer whoclaimed that (and 4an# had no further evidence to present during the hearing was of coursein error and it pro"a"ly warranted a dismissal of the "an#@s claim for failure to prosecute.4ut the "an#@s motion for reconsideration, as#ing for an opportunity to present evidence ofthe status of the loans, opened up a chance for the 1C to a"ide "y what the Court requiredof it. t committed error, together with the C-, in ruling that a reopening of the hearingwould serve no useful purpose.

REP&LIC OF TE PILIPPINES v. CATARRO,ARefresher:espondents filed a petition for reconstitution of lost original certificate of title covering twolots in apang, 1ernate, Cavite. 1he Catarro9as alleged that they inherited these lands fromtheir parents, ermin and +ancha Catarro9a, who reportedly applied for their registrationwith the Court of irst nstance of Cavite sometime "efore the last world war. 1he (andegistration -uthority 7(-8 issued a certification and a report confirming that the landregistration court issued


34/84

verified as correct the plans and technical descriptions of the su"9ect lots which had "eenapproved.1he Catarro9as alleged that, pursuant to the decree, the egister of


35/84

Moreover the Catarro9as failed to show that they e3erted efforts to loo# for and avail of thesources in paragraphs 7a8 to 7e8 "efore availing themselves of the sources in paragraph 7f8.-"sent a clear and convincing proof that an original certificate of title had in fact "eenissued to their parents in due course, the Catarro9as cannot claim that their predecessorssucceeded in acquiring title to the su"9ect lots. 1he nature of reconstitution of a lost ordestroyed certificate of title denotes a restoration of the instrument in its original form and

condition. 1hat cannot "e done without proof that such certificate of title had once e3isted.

PANLILIO v. COMELECRefresher:Panlilio8 and respondent


36/84

omy allones was charged with the rape of O-lice a mental retardate. -lice however died"efore she could testify in trial. 1he prosecution instead presented her father, sister, apolice investigator and the two apprehending officers.

-lice@s sister, -malia, testified that at a"out K;> a.m. on Aune 2, 200;, her mother told herolder sister, -lice, to loo# for their "rother -ndoy. +ince -ndoy arrived without -lice, her

mother as#ed -malia to loo# for her. -malia loo#ed in places where -ndoy often played andthis led her near accused allones@ house. -s she approached the house, -malia heardsomeone crying out from within, !1ama na, tama naW! ecogniDing -lice@s voice, -maliarepeatedly #noc#ed on the door until allones opened it. -malia saw her sister standing"ehind him. -s -malia went in to ta#e her sister out, -lice held out a sanitary nap#in and,crying, said that allones had given her the nap#in. -lice@s shorts were wet and "lood)stained. rightened and trou"led, the two girls went home.

'n their way home, -lice recounted to her sister that allones "rought her to his "athroom,pulled down her shorts, and ravished her. +he said that allones wet her shorts to ma#e itappear that she tripped and had her monthly period.

allones denied the accusations against him.

'n Auly 0, 2006 the 1C rendered a


37/84

1hese statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired "y the e3citement of theoccasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to fa"ricate a false statement. orspontaneous statements to "e admitted in evidence, the following must concurK 8 theprincipal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrenceI 28 the statements were made "eforethe declarant had time to contrive or deviseI and /8 the statements concerned theoccurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.

PEOPLE VS. ,AN MICAEL TAN (!e#e4er 200)

Refresher: - new presiding 9udge reversed the order of the previous acting 9udge. 5e

found pro"a"le cause against respondents and ordered the issuance of warrants for their

arrest.

Isse:$hether the presiding 9udge gravely a"used his discretion when he ree3amined andreversed his predecessor@s finding of lac# of pro"a"le cause. &o.

!"#$r%ne: Pro"a"le cause assumes the e3istence of facts that would lead a reasona"ly

discreet and prudent man to "elieve that a crime has "een committed and that it was li#elycommitted "y the person sought to "e arrested. t requires neither a"solute certainty nor

clear and convincing evidence of guilt. 1he test for issuing a warrant of arrest is less

stringent than that used for esta"lishing the guilt of the accused. -s long as the evidence

shows a prima facie case against the accused, the trial court has sufficient ground to issue a

warrant for his arrest.

- trial, unli#e preliminary investigations, could yield more evidence favora"le to either sideafter the interrogations of the witnesses either on direct e3amination or on cross)e3amination. $hat is important is that there is some rational "asis for going ahead with

9udicial inquiry into the case.

ESPIRIT V. PETRON AN! !OLOIRAS (N"ve4er 2 200)

Refresher: -n employee of LPE, e3clusive distri"utor of Petron Gasul in +orsogon saw

loaded in one 4icol Gas truc# a Gasul tan# filled with 4icol Gas (PG. LPE and Petron then

filed a complaint against 4icol Gas for violations of epu"lic -ct 7.-.8 2/ 7illegally filling up

registered cylinder tan#s8, as amended, and +ections >> 7infringement of trade mar#s8 and

. 7unfair competition8 of the ntellectual Property Code 7.-. =2/8.

C&+ filed "y LPE and Petron "efore the C- was signed only "y Petron through an -tty. CruD.

Isse: $hether the C&+ complied with what the rules require. *E+.

!"#$r%ne: 4ut, while procedural requirements such as that of su"mittal of a certificate of

non)forum shopping cannot "e totally disregarded, they may "e deemed su"stantially

complied with under 9ustifia"le circumstances.6'ne of these circumstances is where the

petitioners filed a collective action in which they share a common interest in its su"9ect

matter or raise a common cause of action. n such a case, the certification "y one of the

petitioners may "e deemed sufficient.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_170891_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_170891_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_170891_2009.html#fnt7


38/84

5ere, LPE and Petron shared a common cause of action against petitioners Espiritu, et al.,

namely, the violation of their proprietary rights with respect to the use of Gasul tan#s and

trademar#. urthermore, -tty. CruD said in his certification that he was e3ecuting it !for and

on "ehalf of the Corporation, and co)petitioner Carmen A.


39/84

COMMERCIAL LAW

PN& v. CORP+ (2010)Refresher: CorpuD delivered her owner@s duplicate copy of 1C1 to


40/84

case. 1he parties may not, however, invo#e such li"erality if it will result in the utterdisregard of the rules or cause needless delay in the administration of 9ustice.

IEMELIF v. &ISOP LA+ARO (0 ,7/ 2010 )Refresher:

n 0, the petitioner glesia Evangelica Metodista En (as slas ilipinas, nc. 7EME(8 wasesta"lished as a corporation sole.

-pparently, although the EME( remained a corporation sole on paper 7with all corporatepowers theoretically lodged in the hands of one mem"er, the General +uperintendent8, ithad always acted li#e a corporation aggregate.

+u"sequently, during its 6/ General Conference, the general mem"ership voted to putthings right "y changing EME(@s organiDational structure from a corporation sole to acorporation aggregate. 'n May 6, 6/ the +ecurities and E3change Commission 7+EC8approved the vote. or some reasons, however, the corporate papers of the EME(remained unaltered as a corporation sole.

n response to +EC@s later o"9ection that conversion was not properly carried out anddocumented, EME( amended its articles of incorporation to reflect the conversion fromcorporation sole into corporation aggregate.

Isse:$'& a corporation may change its character as a corporation sole into a corporationaggregate "y mere amendment of its articles of incorporation without first going through theprocess of dissolution ) *E+

!"#$r%ne:1here is no point to dissolving the corporation sole of one mem"er to ena"le the corporationaggregate to emerge from it. $hether it is a non)stoc# corporation or a corporation sole, thecorporate "eing remains distinct from its mem"ers, whatever "e their num"er. 1he increase

in the num"er of its corporate mem"ership does not change the comple3ion of its corporateresponsi"ility to third parties. 1he one mem"er, with the concurrence of two)thirds of themem"ership of the organiDation for whom he acts as trustee, can self)will the amendment.5e can, with mem"ership concurrence, increase the technical num"er of the mem"ers ofthe corporation from !sole! or one to the greater num"er authoriDed "y its amended articles.


41/84

CRIMINAL LAW

LE,ANO v. PEOPLE (2011)Refresher:1he +upreme Court reversed C- 9udgment and acquitted 5u"ert $e"" et al ofthe :iDconde murders. Ground B lac# of proof of guilt "eyond reasona"le dou"t. (auro:iDconde filed a motion for consideration, as#ing the +C to reverse the 9udgment ofacquittal, claiming it denied the prosecution due process.

Isse: $%& a 9udgment for acquittal can "e reconsidered B &'

!"#$r%ne:-rt , +ec. 2 of the Constitution provides, O&o person shall "e twice put in 9eopardy ofpunishment for the same offense. T" re#"ns%er - D>4en$ "f -#?%$$-7 37-#es $he-##se $=%#e %n De"3-r/ "f e%n> 3n%she f"r $he #r%4e "f =h%#h he h-s -7re-/een -s"7ve.

People v. +andigan"ayanK O1he provision therefore guarantees that the +tate shallnot "e permitted to ma#e repeated attempts to convict an individual for an allegedoffense... +ociety@s awareness of the heavy personal strain which a criminal trialrepresents for the individual defendant is manifested in the willingness to limit thegovernment to a single criminal proceeding to vindicate its very vital interest in theenforcement of criminal laws.

On "##-s%"ns* - 4"$%"n f"r re#"ns%er-$%"n -f$er -n -#?%$$-7 %s 3"ss%7e. 4ut the

grounds are e3ceptional and narrow as when the court that a"solved the accused gravelya"used its discretion, resulting in loss of 9urisdiction, or when a mistrial has occurred. n anyof such cases, the +tate may assail the decision "y special civil action of certiorari underule >.

?ltimately, what the complainant actually questions is the Court@s appreciation of theevidence and assessment of the prosecution witnesses@ credi"ility.

Concurring opinion, (ereno, ).1he evidence tends to demonstrate that 5u"ert $e"" is innocent. 1he simple fact also isthat the evidence demonstrates that not only had Aessica -lfaro failed to su"stantiate hertestimony, she had contradicted herself and had "een contradicted "y other more "elieva"leevidence.

$hile -s - >ener-7 r7e* - $r%-7 D>es f%n%n>s -s $" $he #re%%7%$/ "f -=%$ness -re en$%$7e $" $4"s$ res3e#$as he has had the opportunity to o"servetheir demeanor on the witness stand, $h%s h"7s $re "n7/ %n $he -sen#e "f %-s*3-r$%-7%$/* -n >r-ve -se "f %s#re$%"n "n $he 3-r$ "f $he D>e.


42/84

o 1his constitutional right, however, is a right reserved solely for the accused ora !person under investigation for the commission of an offense.! 1he prosecution@so"9ection had no legal "asis "ecause -lfaro was clearly not the accused in the case.

-lfaro was a witness who had a legal duty to !answer questions, although his 7her8answer may tend to esta"lish a claim against him 7her8.!/&otwithstanding this, the lowercourt sustained the prosecution@s o"9ection.

o 1he law does not confer any favora"le presumption on "ehalf of a witness. The r%>h$ $" #r"ss9e-4%ne - =%$ness %s - 4-$$er "f 3r"#er-7 e 3r"#esssuch that the testimony or deposition of a witness given in a former case !involving thesame parties and su"9ect matter, may "e given in evidence against the adverseparty! 3r"v%e the adverse party !had the opportunity to cross)e3amine him.!

PEOPLE v. !ITONA (2010)Refresher:1he


43/84

728 such possession is not authoriDed "y lawI and 7/8 the accused freely and consciouslypossessed the prohi"ited drug.

n "oth instances, the +tate has to prove as well the corpusdelicti, the "ody of the crime. tmust "e shown that the suspected su"stance the police officers seiDed from the accused isthe same thing presented in court during the trial.

PEOPLE v. ALEGRE (2010)Refresher: -legre was charged with frustrated murder and with qualified rape. :'& and-legre were acquaintances. -legre owned the house where his family and :'&@s relativeslived. 'ne evening :'& went to -legre@s house to visit her relatives. -legre as#ed her to

9oin him for drin#s inside a 9eep. -fter finishing a small "ottle of gin pomelo, :'& returned toher relatives@ quarters and told her cousin that she was going home. 4ut, as :'& steppedout, -legre invited her to meet his girl friends. +he could not say whether he was under theinfluence of drugs at that time.'nce -legre lured :'& to the near"y a"andoned house, heproceeded to punch and sta" :'& with an ice pic#. 5e proceeded to se3ually ravish her.

1anods found :'& and too# her to a hospital. 1C found -legre guilty of the rape. C-affirmed.

Isse: $'& -legre raped and murdered :'&J *E+.

!"#$r%ne:1he settled rule is the trial court@s findings respecting the credi"ility of witnesses and theirtestimonies deserve the highest respect. +ince the 9udge saw and heard the witnesses ando"served how they testified under intense questioning, he was in a "etter position to weighwhat they said.5ere, the trial court, concurred in "y the C-, found :'&@s testimony credi"le.-legre@s testimony was found too wea# and insufficient to overcome that of :'&. 5is ali"iand his claim that :'& filed the charges in retaliation for a past offense he committedagainst a relative remained uncorro"orated. 1here is also no showing that the trial courtoverloo#ed, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances which would affect theoutcome of the case.

1he conflict in :'&@s testimony that -legre refers to concerns the position of her "ody whenshe fell on the ground and the order that the rape and the sta""ing followed. 4ut -legreimproperly appreciated :'&@s testimony. -ctually, she maintained that he raped her "eforesta""ing her on the chest. n any case, any error in the sequence in which the rape victimnarrated these two successive turn of events cannot erode the value of her testimony. orthe most part, :'& remained consistent under repeated questioning regarding these details.'ne must understand that rape is not 9ust an assault upon a woman@s "odyI it is also aderogation of her dignity. f there were inconsistencies in minute details, they may "eattri"uted to the emotions "rought to the surface "y the need for her to repeatedly narratein detail the "rutality inflicted on her.

:'& never once faltered in her declaration that -legre se3ually molested her.


44/84

prohi"its the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua withouteligi"ility for parole as provided "y -ct ;0/ should instead "e imposed.

PEOPLE v. &A&ANGGOL (Se3$e4er 15* 2010)Refresher:

1he Philippine &ational Police &arcotics Group planed a "uy)"ust operation against theaccused -cas +umayan and -rnel 4a"angol. 1he "uy)"ust team proceeded to the CoastalMall where 4a"anggol was identified "y the informant upon getting off a "lue Lia 4esta :an.5e was accompanied "y Cesar &aran9o, the driver of the van. -fter negotiating with theposeur)"uyer, 4a"angol and &aran9o went "ac# to the van and upon getting the Ostuffs,they were accompanied "y two other persons, later identified as Edwin +an Aose and -cas+umayan. -fter the e3change of the "oodle money, the "uy)"ust team arrested 4a"angol,&aran9o, +an Aose and +umayan. 1he arresting officers recovered from the accused 2>.=grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or sha"u. 1hey were convicted in the trial courtfor illegal possession of prohi"ited drugs, which decision was affirmed "y the Court of-ppeals.

Isses:. $hether the presentation of the informant to prove the offense charged is necessary)

&'2. $hether the testing of the entire contents of the pac#age confiscated is necessary to

prove the offense charged) &'/. $hether &aran9o, the driver of the van, acted in conspiracy with the other accused)

&'

!"#$r%ne:. 1he presentation of the police informant is not necessary to prove the offense

charged. 1he prosecution of criminal actions is under the pu"lic prosecutor@sdirection and control. 5e determines what evidence to present.

1he "urden of showing the necessity of presenting the informant rests upon theaccused.

2. - sample ta#en from a pac#age is logically presumed to "e representative of itsentire contents unless the accused proves otherwise.

/. - person@s mere presence when an illegal transaction had ta#en place does not meanthat he was into the conspiracy. 1o "e guilty as a conspirator, the accused needs tohave done an overt act in pursuit of the crime.

VICTORIA P. CA&RAL v. ,ACINTO '* MICAEL '* MARIL'N O. '* RICAR! O. '*RE' IGNACIO !IA+* ,OSE PO -n ,ANITO MALTO (,-n-r/ 20* 2010)Refresher: -n nformation was filed against respondents for violation of +ection >, P< >6

prohi"iting the sale of su"division lots without a license from the 5(?4. 1he respondentsfiled a motion to quash the nformation and motion for 9udicial determination of pro"a"lecause claiming that the trial court had no 9urisdiction over violations of P< >6 7as

9urisdiction is with the 5(?4 alone8 and that they could not "e held criminally lia"le"ecause the 5(?4 su"sequently issued them a license to sell.

Isse:$%& the office of the pu"lic prosecutor and the trial court have 9urisdiction over criminalactions for violation of P< >6J *E+


45/84

$%& the 5(?4@s su"sequent issuance of a license to sell e3tinguished respondents@ criminallia"ility for selling su"division lots prior to the issuance of such licenseJ &'

!"#$r%ne:1he trial court has power to hear and ad9udicate the action, the penalty "einga P20,000.00 fine and imprisonment of not e3ceeding 0 years or "oth such fine and

imprisonment. 1his penalty "rings the offense within the 9urisdiction of that court.

+ection > of P< >6 prohi"its such sale without the prior issuance of an 5(?4 license andpunishes those who engage in such selling.1he crime is regarded as malum prohibitum.t isthe commission of that act as defined "y law, not its character or effect that determineswhether or not its provision has "een violated. Malice or criminal intent is immaterial in suchcrime.n crimes that are mala prohibita, the for"idden acts might not "e inherently immoral.+till they are punished "ecause the law says they are for"idden. $ith these crimes, the soleissue is whether the law has "een violated. +ince the nformation in this case sufficientlyalleged that Molde3 sold a su"division lot when it did not yet have a license to do so, thecrime was done. -ssuming the allegations to "e true, the su"sequent issuance of the licenseand the invocation of good faith cannot reach "ac# to erase the offense and e3tinguishrespondents@ criminal lia"ility.

PEOPLE v. E&RAL* ET AL. (N"ve4er 2H* 200)Refresher: - police informer@s report that two men and a woman on "oard an owner type

9eep with a specific plate num"er would deliver shabuat a Gasoline +tation to co)accused+alvador, a drug pusher in the police watch list. Police officers watched out for them at the&(E roadside, during which such a 9eep, with the reported plate num"er and with two menand a woman on "oard, came out. Police trailed the 9eep as it proceeded to a Petron gasstation. -ccused +alvador arrived and wal#ed towards the 9eep and tal#ed to co)accusedUue"ral, who handed him a white envelope. 1hen police surrounded the 9eep. -n officertoo# the envelope from +alvador, opened it, and saw five plastic sachets containing shabu.-ccused were charged with violation of +ection >, -rticle of - > 7Comprehensive


46/84

dangerous drug itself. 1his means that proof "eyond dou"t of the identity of theprohi"ited drug is essential.

1he report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohi"ited drugen9oys the presumption of regularity in its preparation. Corollarily, under +ection ;;of ule /0, evised ules of Court, entries in official records made in the

performance of official duty areprima facieevidence of the facts they state.

ailure to comply strictly with the requirements of law for handling will not render theseiDure of the prohi"ited drugs invalid for so long as the integrity and evidentiaryvalue of the confiscated items are properly preserved "y the apprehending officers.

PEOPLE V. CATENTA' (,7/ * 2010)Refresher:

1his case is a"out the duty of the prosecution in a prohi"ited drugs case to prove theintegrity of the corpus delicti "y esta"lishing the chain of custody of the allegedly illegalsu"stance that the police officers seiDed from the accused.

'fficers who conducted a "uy)"ust operation su"mitted the sachets of drugs to the P&PCrime (a"oratory.

Isse: $%& the integrity of the evidence was preserved. &'.

!"#$r%ne1he "urden of the prosecution in a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is to prove 78 theidentities of the "uyer and the sellerI 728 the sale of dangerous drugsI and 7/8 the e3istenceof the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.

1he prosecution has to esta"lish the integrity of the seiDed article in that it had "eenpreserved from the time the same was seiDed from the accused to the time it was presentedin evidence at the trial.

+ince it is unavoida"le that possession of the su"stance changes hand a num"er of times, itis imperative for the officer who seiDed the su"stance from the suspect to place his mar#ingon its plastic container and seal the same, which he will identify at the trial. urther, afterthe la"oratory technician tests and verifies the nature of the su"stance in the container, heshould put his own mar# on the plastic container and seal it again with a new seal since thepolice officer@s seal has "een "ro#en.

n this case, although the plastic sachets that the forensic chemist received were heat)sealed and authenticated "y the police officer with his personal mar#ings, no evidence had"een adduced to show that the forensic chemist properly closed and resealed the plasticsachets with adhesive and placed his own mar#ings on the resealed plastic to preserve theintegrity of their contents until they were "rought to court. &or was any stipulation made tothis effect. 1he plastic sachets apparently showed up at the pre)trial, not "earing the

forensic chemist@s seal, and was "rought from the crime la"oratory "y someone who did notcare to testify how he came to "e in possession of the same. 1he evidence did not esta"lishthe un"ro#en chain of custody.

LE,ANO v. PEOPLE (!e#e4er 1* 2010)Refresher:

. 'n Aune /0, Estrellita :iDconde and her daughters Carmela and Aennifer, were"rutally slain at their home in ParaYaque City. our years later, the &4 presented


47/84

their star witness Aessica -lfaro who pointed to accused. 4oth the 1C and C- found5u"ert $e"" guilty and he was thus arrested.

2. 'n -pril 20, 200, the +C issued a esolution granting the request of $e"" to su"mitfor


48/84

was a"le to present evidence of corpus delictiI and "8 whether or not accused -leman@se3tra9udicial confession is admissi"le in evidence.

Isse: $%& the accused -leman correctly invo#ed the Galit doctrine. &'.

!"#$r%ne:orpus delictihas "een defined as the "ody, foundation, or su"stance of a crime.

1he evidence of a dead "ody with a gunshot wound on its "ac# would "e evidence thatmurder has "een committed. orpus delictihas two elementsK 7a8 that a certain result has"een esta"lished, for e3ample, that a man has died, and 7"8 that some person is criminallyresponsi"le for it. 1he prosecution is "urdened to prove corpus delicti"eyond reasona"ledou"t either "y direct evidence or "y circumstantial or presumptive evidence. 4ut corpusdelicti need not "e proved "y an autopsy report of the dead victim@s "ody or even "y thetestimony of the physician who e3amined such "ody. $hile such report or testimony isuseful for understanding the nature of the in9uries the victim suffered, they are notindispensa"le proof of such in9uries or of the fact of death. &or is the presentation of themurder weapons also indispensa"le since the physical e3istence of such weapons is not anelement of the crime of murder.

LTC. RO&ERTO 8. GILLERGAN v. REP&LIC OF TE PILIPPINES (FE&RAR' 2*

2011)

Refresher:

Guillergan and four others were charged with estafa under -rticle />, par. 27a8 in relation

to -rticle 6 of the PC for causing the anomalous preparation and dis"ursement of the

payrolls of their civilian intelligence agents 7C-s8. Guillergan directed 1echnical +ergeant

&emesio 5. 4utcon 74utcon8, the 4udget and iscal &on)Commissioned 'fficer, to affi3 his

initial on the !emar#s%+ig! column intended for the payees@ signatures. Guillergan also

instructed that the cash advances for the C-s@ payrolls in egion for =6, totaling

P6/2,000.00, "e made paya"le to Captain oland :. Maclang, Ar. 7Maclang, Ar.8. $hen ready,

Guillergan received the corresponding cash or chec#s then turned them over to 4rigadierGeneral


49/84

were paid for that purpose when in truth these were 9ust given to io, resulting in damage

and pre9udice to the government. -lthough the charge was for estafa in relation to -rticle

6 of the PC, the facts alleged in the information sufficiently made out a case for violation

of -rticle 62 of which Guillergan was convicted. $hat is important is that the nformation

descri"ed the latter offense intelligi"ly and with reasona"le certainty, ena"ling Guillergan to

understand the charge against him and suita"ly prepare his defense.

Given that some of the essential elements of -rticle 6 constitute the lesser offense of

falsification of pu"lic documents under -rticle 62, then the allegations in the nformation

were sufficient to hold Guillergan lia"le under -rticle 62.

LA&OR LAW

AGRICLTRAL AN! IN!STRIAL SPPLIES CORPORATION e$ -7. v. SIA+AR (2010)Refresher: +iaDar filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair la"or practice againstpetitioner -gricultural and ndustrial +upplies Corporation 7-+C8 and others "efore the&ational (a"or elations Commission 7&(C8.n early 6, +iaDar discovered that his company was not remitting much of his +++premiums although the computations appeared on his pay slips. $hen he told his co)


50/84

employees a"out it, they made their own inquiries, too. +u"sequently, +iaDar was refusedentry when he arrived for wor#. 5e went to -+C@s lawyer, who told him he was dismissed.Efforts at negotiation proved futile, so he filed a complaint with the la"or ar"iter.

1he (a"or -r"iter found that the company did not yet dismiss +iaDar from wor# since theywere still negotiating for a financial pac#age for him. 5e rather stopped reporting for wor# of

his own accord after learning of the plan to retrench him. ndeed, the company gave +iaDarno letter of dismissal or retrenchment. Consequently, the (a"or -r"iter dismissed thecomplaint "ut ordered the company to give +iaDar separation pay, his unpaid salary, and aproportionate /th month pay for 6.

'n appeal, the &(C affirmed the (a"or -r"iter@s finding that the company did not dismisshim from wor# and that, misunderstanding its action, he ceased to report for wor#. t was alla misunderstanding, said the &(C, and each party must "ear his own loss to place them onequal footing. 1he &(C sustained the award of separation pay, to "e rec#oned from Aune to Aune 6, the time +iaDar wor#ed for -+C. 1he &(C also affirmed the grant to himof his unpaid salary and proportionate /th month pay. +iaDar as#ed for reconsideration "utthe &(C denied it.

1he Court of -ppeals affirmed the &(C decision. 'n motion for reconsideration, however,the C- rendered an -mended


51/84

Isse: $%& the company@s repeated rehiring of 1rinidad over several years as pro9ectemployee for its various pro9ects automatically entitled him to the status of a regularemployee. B &'

!"#$r%ne:

1he test for distinguishing a Opro9ect employee from a Oregular employee is whether or nothe has "een assigned to carry out a Ospecific pro9ect or underta#ing, with the duration andscope of his engagement specified at the time his service is contracted. 5ere, it is notdisputed that the company contracted 1rinidad@s service "y specific pro9ects with theduration of his wor# clearly set out in his employment contracts. 5e remained a pro9ectemployee regardless of thee num"er of years and the various pro9ects he wor#ed for thecompany.

1he repeated and successive rehiring of pro9ect employees do not qualify them as regularemployees, as length of service is not the controlling determinant of the employment tenureof a pro9ect employee, "ut whether the employment has "een fi3ed for a specific pro9ect orunderta#ing, its completion has "een determined at the time of the engagement f theemployee.

&AN!ILA SIPPING* INC.* MR. REGINAL!O A. O&EN* &AN!ILA SIPPING* INC. -nF'O SIPPING* INC. v. MARCOS C. A&ALOS (010)Refresher: 1his case is a"out a ilipino seafarer@s claim for disa"ility "enefits fromcholecystolithiasis or gallstone that was discovered when he suffered e3cruciating pain whilewor#ing on "oard an ocean)going vessel, an illness that was not in the list of compensa"lediseases listed in the standard seafarer@s contract that he signed with the vessel owner.

Isse: $%&-"alos@ cholecystolithiasis or gallstone is compensa"le and, thus, entitles him todisa"ility "enefits and sic#ness allowance. ) &'

!"#$r%ne:+ince cholecystolithiasis or gallstone has "een e3cluded as a compensa"le illnessunder the applica"le standard contract for ilipino seafarers that "inds "oth respondent-"alos and the vessel@s foreign owner, it was an error for the C- to treat -"alos@ illness as!wor#)related! and, therefore, compensa"le. 1he standard contract precisely did notconsider gallstone as compensa"le illness "ecause the parties agreed, presuma"ly "ased onmedical science, that such affliction is not caused "y wor#ing on "oard ocean)going vessels.&or has respondent -"alos proved "y some evidence that the nature of his wor# on "oard aship aggravated his illness. f the &(C orders the payment of "enefits not found in thatcontract, the particular seaman might "e favored "ut the credi"ility of our standardemployment contract will suffer.

MALIG9ON v. EITA&LE GENERAL SERVICES* INC. ( 2010 )Refresher:-fter years of "eing a 9anitress, Malig)on was told "y her company that she will "e

assigned to another client.


52/84

Isses:. $%& Malig)on was constructively dismissed.

*E+. 1he company evidently placed Malig)on on floating status. 4ut such act of !off)detailing! Malig)on was not the equivalent of dismissal so long as her floating statusdid not continue "eyond a reasona"le time. 4ut, when it ran up to more than si3

months, the company may "e considered to have constructively dismissed her fromwor#, that is, as of -ugust , 2002. 1hus, her purported resignation on 'cto"er >,2002 could not have "een legally possi"le. 1he notices cannot possi"ly ta#e the placeof the notices required "y law. 1hey came more than si3 months after the companyplaced her on floating status and, consequently, the company gave her those noticesafter it had constructively dismissed her from wor#.

2. $%& she is entitled to reinstatement.

*E+, 4?1 under the circumstances, her reinstatement to her former position wouldonly result in a highly hostile wor# environment for the parties and might furtherworsen their relationship. 1he &(C should have 9ust awarded Malig)on separationpay instead of ordering the company to reinstate her.

4ac#wages represent compensation that should have "een earned "ut were notcollected "ecause of the un9ust dismissal. Malig)on can "e said to "e entitled toreinstatement from the time she was constructively dismissed in -ugust 2002 untilthe &(C ordered her immediate reinstatement in e"ruary 200>, a period of twoyears and si3 months. or this she is entitled to "ac#wages. 4ut since thecircumstances already rule out actual reinstatement, she is entitled to separation payat the rate of one month for every year of service from , when she "egan heremployment to 200>, when she is deemed to have "een actually separated fromwor#, a period of nine years, "oth amountsNthe "ac#wages and the separation payNto "ear interest of percent per annum until fully paid.

!"#$r%ne:1he rule in termination cases is that the employer "ears the "urden of proving that hedismissed his EE for a 9ust cause. f the EE resigned from wor#, the "urden is on the E toprove that he did so willingly. 1his would largely depend on the circumstances surroundingsuch alleged resignation. 1hose circumstances must "e consistent with the EE@s intent togive up wor#.

!EPARTMENT OF LA&OR AN! EMPLO'MENT (!OLE) -n NATIONAL MARITIMEPOL'TECNIC (NMP) vs. R&EN '. MACE!ARefresher:'n Aune 2=, =, u"en *. Maceda, a dec# marine officer, 9oined the &ational MaritimePolytechnic 7&MP8, a government school, with a permanent appointment as nstructor . 5erose to the permanent positions of -ssistant Professor and later -ssociate Professor . 5estudied law in the meantime and passed the "ar. 5e was later designated as 'fficer)in)

Charge 7'C8 of the Maritime 1raining


53/84

counsel. n 2002 the &MP completed the revision of the Uualification +tandard 7U+8 for itsstaff. Maceda claimed, however, that nothing has since "een heard of that revised U+ afterthe &MP su"mitted the same to the C+C for approval.

n 200/, the 5 of &MP wrote Maceda that the school would "e putting him undercontractual employment until such time as the C+C shall have already approved the &MP

Maritime 1raining evised Uualification +tandard.

+u"sequently, &MP, through E3ecutive


54/84

1anila evelopment )uthority v. 2ancom 3nvironmental orp. that the remedy forsee#ing the reversal or modification of a 9udgment rendered on the merits of the caseis appeal. 1his is true even if the error imputed to the officer, "ody, or tri"unalconstitutes alleged lac# of 9urisdiction over the su"9ect matter of the case or gravea"use of discretion in ma#ing its findings of fact or of law. 1he Court cannotcountenance the "lurring of the distinction "etween a special civil action

for certiorariand a petition for review. 4esides, it cannot "e said that the C+C gravelya"used its discretion in dismissing Maceda@s complaint. Grave a"use of discretione3ists where the pu"lic respondent acts in a manner so patent and gross that itamounts to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to do what the lawen9oins on him. t is not sufficient that the C- disagreed with the findings of the C+Cor considered them in errorI it had to determine that the C+C@s findings had run"erser#, prompted "y passion and personal hostility rather than "y reason. 1he C-did not ma#e this determination.

2. &o, he was not illegally terminated. C- points out that the &MP ignored Maceda@ssolid wor#, e3pertise, and e3perience when it said that he was not qualified to"ecome a permanent professor. 4ut Maceda@s so)called accomplishments cannotcount for much where, as in this case, they do not in fact meet the uniform standardsset "y the school for its permanent professors.

&or can it "e said that the &MP did not give Maceda sufficient leeway to meet thosestandards. 1he C-@s finding that the &MP disregarded Maceda@s request that he "eallowed to avail himself of the school@s training privileges, so he could comply withthe requirements of the +hip"oard otation +cheme, is not supported "y evidence.


55/84

,AVELLANA v. &ELEN (M-r. 5* 2010)Refresher:4elen filed a complaint against Aavellana for for illegal dismissal and underpayment or non)payment of salaries and other monetary claims. Petitioner claims he was hired as a companydriver for Aavellana. 'n -ug. 20, , he was illegally dismissed. 'n &ov. 2>, 2002, the(a"or -r"iter found for 4elen and awarded him "ac#wages, separation pay, /th month pay,

+(P, holiday pay, salary differential, and attorneyXs fees. 'n appeal, the &(C modified thedecision, deleting the award of "ac#wages and separation pay and instead ordered Aavellanato pay him > days salary "y way of indemnity pursuant to -rticle ; (C. 1he C- revertedto the decision of the (- "ut modified the award of "ac#wages and separation pay, findingthe computation to "e erroneous. 4oth parties filed petitions "efore the +CK 1he petition filed"y Aavellana, questioned the C-Xs finding of illegality of dismissal while the petition filed "y4elen, challenged the amounts of money claims awarded to him. 1he Court denied the firstwith finality in its resolution of +eptem"er 22, 200=I the second is the su"9ect of the presentcase.

Isse: $hether the monetary award in favor of 4elen should run until the finality of thedecision of his caseJ

*es, 4elen should "e entitled to "ac#wages from -ugust 20, , when he was dismissed,to +eptem"er 22, 200=, when the 9udgment for un9ust dismissal in G.. =/ "ecamefinal.

-rticle 26 of the (a"or Code, as amended providesK

-rt. 26. +ecurity of 1enure. ) n cases of regular employment, the employershall not terminate the services of an employee e3cept for a 9ust cause orwhen authoriDed "y this 1itle. -n employee who is un9ustly dismissed fromwor# shall "e entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights andother privileges and to his full "ac#wages, inclusive of allowances, and to hisother "enefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time hiscompensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual

reinstatement.

1he law intends the award of "ac#wages and similar "enefits to accumulate past the date ofthe (a"or -r"iterXs decision until the dismissed employee is actually reinstated. 4ut if, as inthis case, reinstatemen

82499444 Digests of Abad Decisions

Documents

Transcript of 82499444 Digests of Abad Decisions