DOCTRINE:Pursuant to Sec.3 Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court may sanction or penalize counsel for the accused if the following concur: (1) counsel does not appear at the pre-trial conference AND (2) counsel does not offer an acceptable excuse. (ATTY. EMELITA H. GARAYBLAS and ATTY. RENATO G. DE LA CRUZ,  vs.THE HON. GREGORY ONG, HON. JOSE HERNANDEZ and HON. RODOLFO PONFERRADA G.R. Nos. 174507-30, Aug. 3, 2011)

DOCTRINE : The first and fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation come only after a demonstration that the application of the law is impossible or inadequate unless interpretation is resorted to.( PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK,vs.JUSTINA CALLANGAN G.R. No. 191995 August 3, 2011)

Doctrine: . In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.30 The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of appellants’ guilt.31 What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDGARDO FERMIN Y GREGORIO AND JOB MADAYAG, JR., Y BALDERAS G.R. No. 179344 August 3, 2011)

DOCTRINE: Verification of a pleading is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement intended to secure the assurance that the matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct. Thus, the court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on them and waive strict compliance with the rules. It is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have

been made in good faith or are true and correct. (BELLO vs. BSSI G.R. No. 188086 August 3, 2011)

Doctrine: The rule requires the sheriff executing writs or processes to estimate the expenses to be incurred. Upon the approval of the estimated expenses, the interested party has to deposit the amount with the Clerk of Court and ex-officio Sheriff. The expenses shall then be disbursed to the executing Sheriff subject to his liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process or writ. Any

unspent amount shall be refunded to the party who made the deposit. (ANICO vs. PILIPINA A.M. No. P-11-2896 August 2, 2011)

Doctrine: It bears stressing that there can be no transfer of ownership if the delivery of the property to the creditor is by way of security. In fact, in case of doubt as to whether a transaction is one of pledge or dacion en pago, the presumption is that it is a pledge as this involves a lesser transmission of rights and interests. (UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUNIAT G.R. No. 171569 August 1, 2011)

Doctrine: "Rules of Court, promulgated by authority of law, have the force and effect of law. More importantly, rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. Strict compliance with such rules is mandatory and imperative. Only strong considerations of equity will lead us to allow an exception to the procedural rule in the interest of substantial justice." (Villamor vs. People of the Philippines & Vios Jr vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 172110/G.R. No. 181804 August 1, 2011)

DOCTRINE: "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v JHON-JHON ALEJANDRO y DELA CRUZ @ "NOGNOG" G.R. No. 176350 August 10, 2011)

Doctrine: Sufficient evidence supports that the warrantless arrest of petitioner was effected under Section 5 (a), or the arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto (STEPHEN SY y TIBAGONG v.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 182178 August 15, 2011)

DOCTRINE: A division of property cannot be ordered by the court unless the existence of co-ownership is first established.( CO GIOK LUN, v. JOSE CO, G.R. No. 184454 August 3, 2011)

Doctrine: In cases of ordinary appeal, Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that the appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC (the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from) and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. Section 3 thereof states that the appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Concomitant with the filing of a notice of appeal is the payment of the required appeal fees within the 15-day reglementary period set forth in Section 4 of the said Rule. (Gonzales vs. Pe G.R. No. 167398 August 8, 2011)

Doctrine: Interpreting the phrase "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction," the Court held in J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Jaramillo, et al. that if a case may be appealed to a particular court or judicial tribunal or body, then said court or judicial tribunal or body has jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. This was reiterated in De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, where the Court stated that a court may issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction if said court has jurisdiction to review, by appeal or writ of error, the final orders or decisions of the lower court. (Bulilis vs. Nuez G.R. No. 195953 August 9, 2011)

DOCTRINE : "The plaintiff who obtains possession of the personal property by a writ of replevin does not acquire absolute title thereto, nor does the defendant acquire such title by rebonding the property, as they only hold the property subject to the final judgment in the action." (I Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Eighth Revised Edition, p. 686)

Doctrine: As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the presentation and admission of the seized prohibited drug as an exhibit be preceded by evidence to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent clams it to be. This requirement is essential to obviate the possibility of substitution as well as to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements and custody of the seized prohibited item, from the accused, to the police, to the forensic laboratory for examination, and to its presentation

in evidence in court. (CESAR D. CASTRO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 193379 August 15, 2011)

DOCTRINE: There is forum-shopping when as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari. Forum-shopping exists when two or more actions involve the same transactions, essential facts, and circumstances; and raise identical causes of action, subject matter, and issues. Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. (MAKING ENTERPRISES, INC. AND SPOUSES JOAQUIN TAMANO AND ANGELITA TAMANO,  vs. JOSE MARFORI AND EMERENCIANA MARFORI, G.R. No. 152239 August 17, 2011)

Doctrine: An application for the appointment of a receiver under Section 1(a), Rule 59 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,as amended, requires that the property or fund subject of the action is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured, necessitating its protection or preservation. . (MAKING ENTERPRISES, INC. AND SPOUSES JOAQUIN TAMANO AND ANGELITA TAMANO,  vs. JOSE MARFORI AND EMERENCIANA MARFORI, G.R. No. 152239 August 17, 2011)

Doctrine : Where service of summons upon the defendant principal is coursed thru its co-defendant agent, and the latter happens to be a domestic corporation, the rules on service of summons upon a domestic private juridical entity1must be strictly complied with. Otherwise, the court cannot be said to have acquired jurisdiction over the person of both defendants. And insofar as the principal is concerned, such jurisdictional flaw cannot be cured by the agent’s subsequent voluntary appearance.( ATIKO TRANS, INC. and CHENG LIE NAVIGATION CO., LTD.,  vs.PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE, INC., G.R. No. 167545 August 17, 2011)

Doctrine: "the filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court." (Palma v Galvez G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010, 615 SCRA 86, 99.)

Doctrine: Civil liability arises when one, by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, causes damage to another. Hence, for petitioner to be civilly liable to spouses Alonto, it must be proven that the acts he committed had caused damage to the spouses. (FELIXBERTO A. ABELLANA,  vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and Spouses SAAPIA B. ALONTO and DIAGA ALONTO,  G.R. No. 174654 August 17, 2011)

Doctrine: It is an established rule in criminal procedure that a judgment of acquittal shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (FELIXBERTO A. ABELLANA,  vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and Spouses SAAPIA B. ALONTO and DIAGA ALONTO,  G.R. No. 174654 August 17, 2011)

Doctrine The "extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability

might arise did not exist." . (FELIXBERTO A. ABELLANA,  vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and Spouses SAAPIA B. ALONTO and DIAGA ALONTO,  G.R. No. 174654 August 17, 2011)

DOCTRINE: It is well settled that a sheriff’s functions are purely ministerial, not discretionary. The Manual for Clerks of Court categorically states that -

Sheriffs are ministerial officers. They are agents of the law and not agents of the parties, neither of the creditor nor of the purchaser at a sale conducted by him. It follows, therefore, that the sheriff can make no compromise in an execution sale. It is not his duty to decide on the truth or sufficiency of the processes committed to him for service. (Wilfried Erdenberger vs. John V. Aquino, clerk of Court RTC, Office of the Clerk of Court, Olongapo City A.M. No. P-10-2739 August 24, 2011)

Doctrine: Given this duty on the part of the special administrator, it would, therefore, be prudent and reasonable to appoint someone interested in preserving the estate for its eventual distribution to the heirs. Such choice would ensure that such person would not expose the estate to losses that would effectively diminish his or her share. While the court may use its discretion and depart from such reasoning, still, there is no logical reason to appoint a person who is a debtor of the estate and otherwise a stranger to the deceased. To do so would be tantamount to grave abuse of discretion. (MANUNGAS vs. LORETO and PARRENO G.R. No. 193161 August 22, 2011)

Doctrine: A valid writ of preliminary injunction rests on the weight of evidence submitted by the plaintiff establishing: (a) a present and unmistakable right to be protected; (b) the acts against which the injunction is directed violate such right; and (c) a special and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damages. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion and will result to nullification thereof. (BARAYUGA vs. AUP G.R. No. 168008 August 17, 2011)

Doctrine: The elements of forum-shopping are: (a) identity of parties or at least such parties that represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; (c) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. (Spouses Villanueva vs. CA GR No. 163433)

Doctrine: A genuine issue of fact is that which requires the presentation of evidence, as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false issue. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine issue. Summary judgment is proper in such a case.(PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION, vs.RADIOMARINE NETWORK (SMARTNET) PHILIPPINES, INC., G.R. No. 160322 August 24, 2011)

Doctrine: This Court has explained that the purpose in limiting the period of appeal is to forestall or avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies. Where no element of intent to delay the administration of justice could be attributed to petitioners, a one-day delay does not justify their petition’s dismissal. (Heirs of RODOLFO CRISOSTOMO (EUPROCINIA, ROYCE

and IRISH CRISOSTOMO), , vs.RUDEX INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, . G.R. No. 176129 August 24, 2011)

DOCTRINE: “what distinguishes a judgment on the pleadings from a summary judgment is the presence of issues in the Answer to the Complaint. When the Answer fails to tender any issue, that is, if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by admitting the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all, a judgment on the pleadings is appropriate.” (EUGENIO BASBAS, vs.BEATA SAYSON and ROBERTO SAYSON, JR., G.R. No. 172660 August 24, 2011)

DOCTRINE: when the Answer specifically denies the material averments of the complaint or asserts affirmative defenses, or in other words raises an issue, a summary judgment is proper if the issue raised is not genuine. "A ‘genuine issue’ means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived or which does not constitute a genuine issue for trial." (EUGENIO BASBAS, vs.BEATA SAYSON and ROBERTO SAYSON, JR., G.R. No. 172660 August 24, 2011)

DOCTRINE: An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court, but shall be dismissed outright. (Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court) (JESUS TORRES, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, . G.R. No. 175074 August 31, 2011)

DOCTRINE: . A motion for reconsideration is not putting forward a new issue, or presenting new evidence, or changing the theory of the case, but is only seeking a reconsideration of the judgment or final order based on the same issues, contentions, and evidence either because: (a) the damages awarded are excessive; or (b) the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order; or (c) the decision or final order is contrary to law. By denying a motion for reconsideration, or by granting it only partially, therefore, a trial court finds no reason either to reverse or to modify its judgment or final order, and leaves the judgment or final order to stand. The remedy from the denial is to assail the denial in the course of an appeal of the judgment or final order itself. (HEIRS OF SPOUSES TEOFILO M. RETERTA and ELISA

RETERTA, namely: EDUARDO M. RETERTA, CONSUELO M. RETERTA, and AVELINA M. RETERTA vs. SPOUSES LORENZO MORES and VIRGINIA LOPEZ G.R. No. 159941 )

DOCTRINE: The filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fee are the acts that vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the claim. In an action where the reliefs sought are purely for sums of money and damages, the docket fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount being claimed. (FEDMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. FEDERICO AGCAOILI G.R. No. 165025 August 31, 2011)

Doctrine: Where the appellate docket fee is not paid in full within the reglementary period, the decision of the trial court becomes final and no longer susceptible to an appeal. For once a decision becomes final, the appellate court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. (D. M. WENCESLAO AND ASSOCIATES, INC v CITY OF PARAÑAQUE, PARAÑAQUE CITY ASSESSOR, PARAÑAQUE CITY TREASURER and PARAÑAQUE CITY COUNCIL, G.R. No. 170728 August 31, 2011)

DOCTRINE : Within the 30-day period for perfecting an appeal, a party aggrieved by a judgment or final order issued in special proceedings should perfect an appeal by filing both a notice of appeal and a record on appeal in the trial court, serving a copy of the notice of appeal and a record on appeal upon the adverse party within the period; in addition, the appealing party shall pay within the period for taking an appeal to the clerk of the court that rendered the appealed judgment or final order the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. A violation of these requirements for the timely perfection of an appeal by record on appeal, or the non-payment of the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of the trial court may be a ground for the dismissal of the appeal. (SPS. ELBE LEBIN and ERLINDA LEBIN v. VILMA S. MIRASOL, and RTC ILOILO G.R. No. 164255 September 7, 2011)

Doctrine: To standardize the appeal periods and afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, we ruled in Neypes v. Court of Appeals that litigants must be given a fresh period of 15 days within which to appeal, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration under Rules 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45 of the Rules of Court. (ELENA JANE DUARTE V. MIGUEL SAMUEL A.E. DURAN G.R. No. 173038)

DOCTRINE: A private complainant in a criminal case before the Sandiganbayan is allowed to appeal only the civil aspect of the criminal case after its dismissal by said court. (CITY GOVERNMENT OF TUGUEGARAO, represented by ROBERT P. GUZMAN v. RANDOLPH S. TING G.R. No. 195665)

DOCTRINE: The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not appealable; an appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject of a petition for certiorari which can be used only in the absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy. The plain and speedy remedy upon denial of an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial. (Joel Galzote Y Soriaga V. Jonathan Briones and People Of The Philippines G.R. No. 164682)

DOCTRINE: A testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.  What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. (ROSANA ASIATICO y STA. MARIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 195005)

DOCTRINE: If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. (Catalina B. Chu, Theanlyn B. Chu, Thean Ching Lee B. Chu, Thean Leewn B. Chu, And Martin Lawrence B. Chu V. Spouses Fernando C. Cunanan And Trinidad N. Cunanan, Benelda Estate Development Corporation, and Spouses Amado E. Carlos and Gloria A. Carlos G.R. No.  156185)

DOCTRINE: . A petition for annulment of judgments or final orders of a Regional Trial Court in civil actions can only be availed of where “the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.”  It is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances and such action is never resorted to as a substitute for a party’s own neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies. The only grounds provided in Sec. 2, Rule 47 are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. (Spouses Eulogia Manila and Ramon Manila V. Spouses Ederlinda Gallardo-Manzo And Daniel Manzo G.R. No. 163602)

DOCTRINE: Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. (Spouses Eulogia Manila and Ramon Manila V. Spouses Ederlinda Gallardo-Manzo And Daniel Manzo G.R. No. 163602)

DOCTRINE: The right of the plaintiff to enter upon the property of the defendant and appropriate the same to public use or purpose shall not be delayed by an appeal from judgment. But if the appellate court determines that plaintiff has no right of expropriation, judgment shall be rendered ordering the Regional Trial Court to forthwith enforce the restoration to the defendant of the possession of the property, and to determine the damages which the defendant sustained and may recover by reason of the possession taken by the plaintiff. (Sec. 111, Rule 67 of the Rules on Civil procedure) (EDNA LOPEZ DELICANO, EDUARDO ALBERTO LOPEZ, MARIO DIEZ CRUZ, HOWARD E. MENESES, and CORAZON E. MENESES v. PECHATEN CORPORATION G.R. No. 191251)

DOCTRINE: An order or judgment of the RTC is deemed final when it finally disposes of a pending action, so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. In other words, the order or judgment ends the litigation in the lower court. On the other hand, an order which does not dispose of the case

completely and indicates that other things remain to be done by the court as regards the merits, is interlocutory. (TONGONAN HOLDINGS and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,  vs.ATTY. FRANCISCO ESCAÑO, JR. G.R. No. 190994 September 7, 2011)