LIST OF CASES2017 January 1. MALAYAN INSURANCE vs. LIM 2. TURKS SHAWARMA COMPANY vs. PAJARON 3. FCD PAWNSHOP vs. UNION BANK of the PHILIPPINES Fenruary 1. SPOUSES PAJARES vs. REMARKABLE LAUNDRY March 1. ALEXIS C. ALMENDRAS vs. SOUTH DAVAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. April 1. HERMA SHIPYARD, INC, and MR. HERMINIO ESGUERRA vs. DANILO OLIVEROS 2. WILLIAM ANGIDAN SIY vs. ALVIN TOMLIN 3. RODANTE F. GUYAMIN, LUCINIA F. GUY AMIN, and EILEEN G. GATARIN vs. JACINTO G. FLORES and MAXIMO G. FLORES 4. DUTCH MOVERS, INC. CESAR LEE and YOLANDA LEE vs. EDILBERT0 LEQUIN June 1. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SPS SALVADOR that she sought assistance from the Insurance Commission (IC) which. Go v. represented this time by Yvonne. 207277. No. and that to add insult to injury. vs. and that in consequence of the foregoing failings. Issue: Whether or not the case should be dismissed for Forum Shopping. despite RCBC's failure or refusal to go after Malayan. Petitioners also posit that another ground warranting the dismissal of the civil case was Lin's failure to notify the RTC about the pendency of the administrative case within five days from the filing thereof. . 2008 FCC) after having determined that the cause of fire was accidental. the causes of action pleaded. that despite the foregoing. and that for these reasons. 2017 By: Gerard Bernardo Facts: Lin alleged that she obtained various loans from RCBC secured by six clustered warehouses located at Plaridel. On August 17. Lin averred that notwithstanding the loss of the mortgaged properties. 2010. 10-122738 that judgment be rendered ordering petitioners to pay her insurance claim plus interest on the amounts due or owing her. can proceed simultaneously with an administrative case before the IC. foreclosure proceedings would ensue. Malayan's license to operate as a non-life insurance company should be revoked or suspended. that in defiance thereof. Some five months later. Lin thus prayed in Civil Case No. In this administrative case. the bank refused to go after Malayan and instead insisted that she herself must pay the loans to RCBC. Inc. 2008 the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) issued a Fire Clearance Certification to her (April 8. Malayan Insurance Co. Malayan filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. January 16. that on April 8. her demand for payment of her insurance claim was denied since the forensic investigators hired by Malayan claimed that the cause of the fire was arson and not accidental. In the present case. RCBC has been compounding the interest on her loans.. and the reliefs prayed for. 10-122738 based on forum shopping. that the five warehouses were insured with Malayan against fire for ₱56 million while the remaining warehouse was insured for ₱2 million. 2008." the only issue left to be resolved is whether Malayan should be held liable for unfair claim settlement practice under Section 241 in relation to Section 247 of the Insurance Code due to its unjustified refusal to settle her claim. Held: NO forum shopping. after a meeting among the parties and a conduct of reinvestigation into the cause/s of the fire. recommended that Malayan pay Lin's insurance claim and/or accord great weight to the BFP's findings. until such time that it fully complies with the IC Resolution ordering it to accord more weight to the BFP's findings. or on June 17. Bulacan. that on February 24. Office of the Ombudsman stated distinctions vis-a-vis the principles enunciating that a civil case before the trial court involving recovery of payment of the insured's insurance claim plus damages. Lin G. These arguments will not avail. otherwise. Malayan still denied or refused to pay her insurance claim. As against RCBC. Em Ma Concepcion L. petitioners basically insist that Lin committed willful and deliberate forum shopping which warrants the dismissal of her civil case because it is not much different from the administrative case in terms of the parties involved. It argued that the administrative case was instituted to prompt or incite IC into ordering Malayan to pay her insurance claim. Malayan's corporate officers should also be held liable for acquiescing to Malayan's unjustified refusal to pay her insurance claim. the five warehouses were gutted by fire.R. Lin filed before the IC an administrative case against Malayan. 2010. Lin claimed that since it had been conclusively found that the cause of the fire was "accidental. proofs of losses and other supporting documents. the degree of proof required of petitioner to establish her claim is substantial evidence. Case No. the procedure to be followed by the trial court is governed by the Rules of Court. from making its own finding of unreasonable delay or denial as long as it is supported by substantial evidence.Petitioner's causes of action in Civil Case are predicated on the insurers' refusal to pay her fire insurance claims despite notice.000. Such finding would not restrain the [IC]. the trial court finds that there was no unreasonable delay or denial of her claims.00. It only means that petitioner failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that she is entitled to damages. service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay against petitioners. 2010. He was also asked by Zeñarosa to sign a piece of paper acknowledging his debt amounting to ₱7. On April 15. Both Complaints were consolidated. If. and if in the affirmative. While the possibility that these two bodies will come up with conflicting resolutions on the same issue is not far- fetched. the core. Pajaron and Carbonilla filed their respective Complaints for constructive and actual illegal dismissal. January 16. No. In Adm. if not the sole bone of contention in Adm. alleged that sometime in June 2008. which has been defined as that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify the conclusion. as embodied in their respective policies. Turks Shawarma Company vs. he had an altercation with his supervisor Conchita Marcillana (Marcillana) while at work. necessary to ascertain petitioner's right to claim damages. The matter of whether or not there is unreasonable delay or denial of the claims is merely an incident to be resolved by the trial court. RD-156. RD-156. holiday pay. These two bodies conduct independent means of ascertaining the ultimate facts of their respective cases that will serve as basis for their respective decisions. or simply put. Pajaron alleged that on April 9. The principal issue then that must be resolved by the trial court is whether or not petitioner is entitled to the payment of her insurance claims and damages. 2010. When the incident was brought to the attention of Zeñarosa. is the issue of whether or not there was unreasonable delay or denial of the claims of petitioner. petitioner must establish her case by a preponderance of evidence. it does not automatically mean that there was in fact no such unreasonable delay or denial that would justify the revocation or suspension of the licenses of the concerned insurance companies. in the exercise of its regulatory power. petitioner prays in her complaint that the insurers be ordered to pay the full-insured value of the losses. On the other hand. such evidence that is of greater weight. holiday premium. non-payment of overtime pay. Pajaron (Pajaron) in May 2007 as service crew and Larry A. he was immediately dismissed from service. Case No. . rest day premium. Carbonilla (Carbonilla) in April 2007 as head crew. Moreover. 2017 By: Gerard Bernardo Facts: Petitioners hired Feliciano Z. as prescribed by Section 244 of the Insurance Code. Petitioner also sought payment of interests and damages in her favor caused by the alleged delay and refusal of the insurers to pay her claims. the quantum of evidence required and the procedure to be followed. Disagreeing to the truthfulness of the statements. Pajaron G. in Civil Case No. Carbonilla. Zeñarosa asked him to sign a piece of paper stating that he was receiving the correct amount of wages and that he had no claims whatsoever from petitioners. or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. the finding or conclusion of one would not necessarily be binding on the other given the difference in the issues involved. whether or not that would justify the suspension or revocation of the insurers' licenses. on the other hand. Pajaron refused to sign the paper prompting Zeñarosa to fire him from work. Moreover.R. public interest and public policy demand the speedy and inexpensive disposition of administrative cases. Thus. while the [IC] has its own set of rules and it is not bound by the rigidities of technical rules of procedure. In addition. Q-95-23135. 207156. for example. 936. due to alleged non-availability of counsel. they refused to rehire him this time after he abandoned work in April 2009. at any rate.00. Unfortunately.000. a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits. third. Along with this. In NLRC. Failing to do so.] the monetary award will be given to them upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal [and] is further meant to discourage employers from using the appeal to delay or evade payment of their obligations to the employees. The posting of cash or surety bond is therefore mandatory and jurisdictional. Petitioners claim that there is a necessity to resolve the merits of their appeal since the Labor Arbiter's Decision declaring Pajaron and Carbonilla illegally terminated from employment was not based on substantial evidence.00 is not reasonable in relation to the award which totalled to ₱197. in an Order dated March 18. The Labor Arbiter found it suspicious for petitioners to file criminal cases against Pajaron and Carbonilla only after the complaints for illegal dismissal had been filed. 2011.000. The NLRC. It is a mere statutory privilege.00 within the 10-day reglementary period to appeal. and lastly. Petitioners' appeal was thus dismissed by the NLRC for non-perfection.27. This indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal ''is to assure the workers that if they finally prevail in the case[. they exhibited willingness and good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period. Zeñarosa himself filed a Notice of Appeal with Memorandum and Motion to Reduce Bond ith the NLRC. it was not even substantiated by proof. denied the motion to reduce bond. the surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the appeal bond. maintaining that he cannot afford to post the full amount of the award since he is a mere backyard micro-entrepreneur. Zeñarosa posted a partial cash bond (appeal bond) in the amount of ₱15. As for Carbonilla. the partial bond in the amount of ₱15. The NLRC correctly held that the supposed ground cited in the motion is not well-taken for there was no evidence to prove Zeñarosa's claim that the payment of the full amount of the award would greatly affect his business due to .Petitioners denied having dismissed Pajaron and Carbonilla. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Petitioners insist that the CA erred in affirming the NLRC's dismissal of their appeal for the following reasons: first. and the Court should give utmost regard to this intention. It ruled that financial difficulties may not be invoked as a valid ground to reduce bond. He begged the NLRC to reduce the bond. second. and while they rehired him several times whenever he returned. the right to appeal is lost. They alleged that Pajaron would habitually absent himself from work for an unreasonable length of time without notice. and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The Labor Arbiter found credible Pajaron and Carbonilla's version and held them constructively and illegally dismissed by petitioners. Issue: Whether or not court may reduce the appeal bond (liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond). petitioners filed a Motion to Reduce Bond together with their Notice of Appeal and posted a cash bond of ₱15. Moreover. Held: NO. The CA correctly found that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reduce bond as such motion was not predicated on meritorious and reasonable grounds and the amount tendered is not reasonable in relation to the award. In the case at bar. The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is clear from both the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules of Procedure that there is legislative and administrative intent to strictly apply the appeal bond requirement. failure to comply with this requirement renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory. he was reprimanded and admonished several times for misbehavior and disobedience of lawful orders and was advised that he could freely leave his work if he could not follow instructions.000. there was substantial compliance with the Rules on perfection of appeal. they averred that they actually abandoned their work. he left his work without any reason and without settling his unpaid obligation which compelled them to file a criminal case for estafa and slander. R. The absence of counsel is not a valid excuse for non-compliance with the rules. and it bought the same at the auction sale. and several others Civil Case No. Fortunato and Franklin filed against UBP. which in turn was the registered owner of a pared of fond in Makati under Transfer Certificate of Title No. As aptly observed by the CA. Dionisio. petitioners Fortunato C. l 1 -1192 and assigned to Branch 133 of the Makati RTC (Branch 133). 11-116. UBP claimed that the filing of Civil Case No. Zeñarosa cannot feign ignorance of the law considering that he was able to post a partial bond and ask for a reduction of the appeal bond. there is no identity of causes of action. appellant must pay only a] moderate and reasonable sum for the premium to ensure that the award will be eventually paid should the appeal fail. At any rate. 11-116 (annulment of mortgage) and Civil Case No. In 2009. 11-1192 violated the rule against forum shopping. "the law does not require outright payment of the total monetary award. Sunyang. petitioners did not advance any reason for the alleged absence of counsel except that they were simply abandoned. and several others for annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure and certificate of sale issued. As aptly observed by the CA. petitioners did not advance any reason for the alleged absence of counsel except that they were simply abandoned. The case was assigned to Branch 57 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati (Branch 57). Dionisio (Franklin) owned FCD Pawnshop and Merchandising Company. Union Bank Of The Philippines G.financial setbacks. (Fortunato) and Franklin C. In a written opposition. Petitioner contends that as between Civil Case No. Neither did petitioners explain why they failed to procure a new counsel to properly assist them in filing the appeal. Fortunato and Franklin entrusted the original owner's copy of TCT (168302) S-3664 to Atty. January 18. a Petition to annul the Sunyang mortgage and claim for damages. and reliefs sought. 11-1192 (annulment of foreclosure and sale proceedings). and any decision obtained in one will not constitute res judicata on the other. and that judgments obtained in the two cases will not be inconsistent with each other. At any rate. UBP caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of the subject property. No. [the appellant has the option to post either a cash or surety bond. Rowena Dionisio. (168302) S-3664. the Registry of Deeds of Makati. It was later discovered that the said title was used as collateral by Sunyang Mining Corporation (Sunyang) to obtain a ₱20 million loan from from respondent Union Bank of the Philippines (UBP). FCD Pawnshop and Merchandising Company vs. 2017 By: Gerard Bernardo Facts: Together with Felicitas Dionisio-Juguilon and Adelaida Dionisio. the Registry of Deeds of Makati. subject matter. that both cases require different evidence as proof. Meanwhile. Besides. ." the absence of counsel is not a valid excuse for non-compliance with the rules. with injunctive relief The case was docketed as Civil Case No. On account of perceived irregularities in the foreclosure and sale proceedings. based on the premise that TCT (168302) S-3664 was fraudulently mortgaged. issues. Neither did petitioners explain why they failed to procure a new counsel to properly assist them in filing the appeal. Fortunato and Franklin filed in December 2011 another Complaint against UBP. or TCT (168302) S-3664. Jr. In the latter case. 207914. Zeñarosa cannot feign ignorance of the law considering that he was able to post a partial bond and ask for a reduction of the appeal bond. The identity of the causes of action in the two cases entails that the validity of the mortgage will be ruled upon in both. (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer. The substantial identity of the two cases remains even if the parties should add different grounds or legal theories for the nullity of the REM or should alter the designation or form of the action.’ In one case the court ruled that: The cause of action in the earlier Annulment Case is the alleged nullity of the REM (due to its allegedly falsified or spurious nature) which is allegedly violative of Goodland's right to the mortgaged property. or adopting a different method of presenting his case. However. which is already the subject of the Annulment Case. Petitioners maintain that Civil Case No. 11-116. filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action. by varying the form of action. the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata).Issue: Whether or not there is a violation of forum shopping. Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer. Held: YES. escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated. the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia). i. but with different prayers. what is involved here is the third way of committing forum shopping. or the annulment of mortgage case. and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting causes of action. Thus. and creates a possibility that the two rulings will conflict with each other. The wellentrenched rule is that 'a party cannot. inasmuch as it also invokes the nullity of the REM as the basis for the prayer for the nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure and for injunction against consolidation of title. where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata). 11-1192 that contradicts the eventual ruling in Civil Case No. While the main relief sought in the Annulment Case (nullification of the REM) is ostensibly different from the main relief sought in the Injunction Case (nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure and injunction against consolidation of title).e. Common in these types of forum shopping is the identity of the cause of action in the different cases filed. the cause of action which serves as the basis for the said reliefs remains the same . Cause of action is defined as 'the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another. thus presenting the court in said case with the opportunity and temptation to resolve the issue of validity of the mortgage. . The Injunction Case involves the same cause of action. This is precisely what is sought to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping. their Complaint in said case reiterates the supposed illegality of the Sunyang mortgage. There is therefore a danger that a decision might be rendered by the court in Civil Case No. It serves as the basis for the prayer for the nullification of the REM. There can be no determination of the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure and the propriety of injunction in the Injunction Case without necessarily ruling on the validity of the REM. 11-1192 (case for annulment of foreclosure and sale) is grounded on specific irregularities committed during the foreclosure proceedings..the alleged nullity of the REM. which required them to produce at least 200 kilos of laundry items each week. and. by reason of the above-mentioned breach of the subject dealer contract agreement made by the defendant.00) as exemplary damages. the amount of demand or claim in the complaint for the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction shall exceed ₱300. b) Thirty Thousand Pesos (₱30. Respondent's complaint denominated as one for "'Breach of Contract & Damages" is neither an action for specific performance nor a complaint for rescission of contract. it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court to order the said defendant to pay the following incidental and consequential damages to the plaintiff. as follows: WHEREFORE. but the latter failed to pay. where the . that petitioners' violation constitutes breach of contract.00) plus legal interest as incidental and consequential [sic] for violating Articles IV and XVI of the Remarkable Laundry Dealer Contract dated 08 September 2011. the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation.000. The total amount of ₱280. that respondent made written demands upon petitioners for the payment of penalties imposed and provided for in the contract.000. where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money. that petitioners violated Article IV (Standard Required Quota & Penalties) of said contract. on April 30. d) Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20. Remarkable Laundry and Dry Cleaning (respondent) filed a Complaint denominated as "Breach of Contract and Damages"6 against spouses Romeo and Ida Pajares (petitioners) before the RTC of Cebu City. 129 as amended by Republic Act No. premises considered.00) as legal expenses. Hence. 212690. In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought.00) as cost of suit. Respondent thus prayed. February 20. The RTC was correct in categorizing Civil Case No.000. when. According to respondent. Held: NO. 2017 By: Gerard Bernardo Facts: On September 3. shall accept and receive items or materials for laundry which are then picked up and processed by the former in its main plant or laundry outlet.000. and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal trial courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. Remarkable Laundry And Dry Cleaning G. Petitioner argued that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the civil case. 2012. which was docketed as Civil Case No. Under the provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. acting as a dealer outlet. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money. Pajares vs. Spouses Romeo Pajares and Ida T. However.000.R.000. Respondent alleged that it entered into a Remarkable Dealer Outlet Contract7 with petitioners whereby the latter.00. 2012. CEB-39025 for lack of jurisdiction. CEB-39025 as an action for damages seeking to recover an amount below its jurisdictional limit. to wit: a) TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PHP200. such case falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC Issue: Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction. said case is one whose subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation and that the damages prayed for therein are merely incidental thereto. CEB-39025 and assigned to Branch 17 of said court. they ceased dealer outlet operations on account of lack of personnel. The RTC issued an Order dismissing Civil Case No.00 is the amount totally claimed. 7691. c) Thirty Thousand Pesos (₱30. No. and that a hearing be conducted solely for the purpose of determining the propriety of his counterclaim for damages." Rather.. Almendras (Caridad). he was deemed to have admitted or impliedly admitted the matters specified therein. Rolando prayed that the complaint be dismissed. ROLANDO SANCHEZ. 2017. respondent's counsels designated the Complaint as one for "Breach of Contract & Damages. petitioner is deemed to have admitted the fact that the property in question had been validly sold to Rolando thereby rendering the complaint without any cause of action. Sanchez (Rolando) and Leonardo Dalwampo over a parcel of unregistered land. and proceeded to dismiss the case. Rolando C. Respondents G. Petitioner alleged that he owned and had occupied said parcel of land since September 21. (SODACO). . concluding that by petitioner's failure to respond to the Request for Admission.R. Petitioner claimed that Caridad sold the property to Rolando. To this.money claim is purely incidental to.” dasdasd ALEXIS C. Inc. could and should have used any of those phrases to indicate the proper designation of the Complaint. LEONARDO DALWAMPO and CARIDAD C. 1994. the principal relief sought. He alleged that there being no genuine issue as to any material fact. a purported dummy of SODACO. this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money. and relief are bereft of such allegation. except as to the issue of damages. Respondent. however. or a consequence of. heading. In fact. The RTC ruled in favour of the respondent. It should be recalled that the principal obligation of petitioners under the Remarkable Laundry Dealership Contract is to act as respondent's dealer outlet. the petitioner failed to file a sworn statement specifically denying the matters therein or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot either deny or admit said matters. and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts). that the validity of the DOS as well as his ownership and possession of the subject property be upheld. To the contrary. (SODACO) on April 23. By: DONNA BIGORNIA FACTS: petitioner filed an Amended Complaint4 seeking to annul the Deed of Sale (DOS) executed by and among respondents Caridad C. Petitioner vs SOUTH DAVAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. This erroneous notion was reiterated in respondent's Memorandum herein it was stated that "the main action of CEB 39025 is one for a breach of contract. who are presumed to be learned in law. respondent's counsels. Thus. ALMENDRAS. and the issue of ownership raised by petitioner being sham or fictitious. There is no such thing as an "action for breach of contract. 1978 until he was forcibly dispossessed by respondent South Davao Development Company. he is entitled to a summary judgment. 198209 March 22. for purposes of clarity. The Complaint's body. No. neither asked the RTC to compel petitioners to perfom1 such obligation as contemplated in said contract nor sought the rescission thereof." which is a misnomer and inaccurate. but not the action or relief itself. ALMENDRAS. Consequently. An analysis of the factual and material allegations in the Complaint shows that there is nothing therein which would support a conclusion that respondent's Complaint is one for specific performance or rescission of contract. INC. neither phrase appeared on or was used in the Complaint when. Rolando filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Rolando filed a Request for Admission addressed to petitioner concerning several matters concerning the case. In particular. "[b]reach of contract is a cause of action. imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in dismissing the case. 2017 By: DONNA BIGORNIA FACTS: The respondents. filed before the Regional Arbitration Branch III a Complaint for illegal dismissal. petitioners argued that respondents were its project-based employees in its shipbuilding projects and that the specific project for which they were hired had already been completed. Respondents further alleged that as a condition to their continuous and Uninterrupted employment. Respondents alleged that they are Herma Shipyard's regular employees who have been continuously performing tasks usually necessary and desirable in its business. but in truth there was never a time when they ceased working for Henna Shipyard due to expiration of project-based employment contracts. petitioner ascribed grave abuse of discretion to the RTC claiming that contrary to the lower court's ruling. Hence. The Laborer Arbiter held that respondents were project-based employees whose services were validly terminated upon the completion of the specific work for which they were individually hired. petitioners dismissed them from employment. however.petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was. petitioners resorted to this scheme to defeat their right to security of tenure. FREDERJCK CATIG. DANILO OLIVEROS. . HERMA SHIPYARD. HELD: NO. petitioners made them sign employment contracts for a fixed period ranging from one to four months to make it appear that they were project-based employees. and MR. some of which are written in the vernacular and denominated as kasunduang Paglilingkod. the same should be dismissed. this present case. Whether or not petitioner received a copy of the motion on March 24. Hence. NLRC rendered its Decision7 denying respondents' appeal and affirming in toto the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. petitioner filed to the Supreme Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. as the employees of Herma Shipyard (petitioner). vs. this Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing Decision and Resolution of the CA. 2010 is a factual issue and such is not within the ambit of a petition for review. regularization. "A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is generally limited only to questions of law or errors of judgment. CAMILO OLIVEROS. the CA denied their Motion for Reconsideration. On various dates." Here. the CA rendered its assailed Decision granting respondents’ Petitions for Certiorari and setting aside the labor tribunals’ Decision. wrongfully alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. No. As the instant Petition was filed without resorting to a more appropriate remedy before the CA. a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of to correct errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. he could not have received the motion. Herma Shipyard presented contracts of employment. RICARDO ONTALAN. In support thereof. denied by the same court. It must be stressed that only questions of law may be properly raised in a petition for review. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is glaringly different from a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Respondents contended that the labor tribunals grievously erred in relying on the project employment contracts which were for a uniform duration of one month. OSCAR TIROL and ROMEO TRINIDAD. Per respondents. 208936 April 17. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court may take cognizance of the Petition for review by Certiorari under rule 45 of the Rules of Court notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner raised an issue which is a question of law. SEGUNDO LABOSTA. RATIO: The instant Petition denominated as a petition for review. Respondent G. Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the labor tribunals in finding that they were project-based employees and in not awarding them service incentive leaves. On the other hand. For their part. ISSUE: Whether or not Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to annul or modify the decision of the RTC on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. however. Petitioner. EXEQUIEL OLlVERIA. and non-payment of service incentive leave pay with prayer for the payment of full backwages and attorney's fees against petitioners. RUBEN DELGADO. JOJIT BASA ARNEL SABAL. HERMINIO ESGUERRA. ROBERT NARIO. INC. However. Laborer Arbiter rendered a Decision Dismissing respondents’ Complaint.R. Petitioners moved for reconsideration. . 205998 April 24. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner failed to allege all the material facts in the complaint for replevin and affidavit of merit under sections 2 & 4. particularly describing it. Art. the claimant must convincingly show that he is either the owner or clearly entitled to the possession of the object sought to be recovered. the sheriff seized the subject vehicle. All these gave Ong the authority to act for and in behalf of petitioner. Proceeding from this. this Court shall take cognizance of and resolve the factual issues involved in this case. who is in actual or legal possession thereof. He alleged that he entrusted his range rover 2007 model to Ong. .. A Writ of Replevin was then issued in favour of the petitioner.HELD: YES RATIO: The issue of whether petitioners were project-based employees is a question of fact that. generally. and when he gave bond in the form of two guarantee checks. and instead. and turn over or return the vehicle to him. Rule 60 allows a plaintiff. failed to remit the proceeds of the purported sale nor return the vehicle to petitioner. the respondent filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to quash the Writ of Replevin. Under the Civil Code on agency. and herein respondent Alvin Tomlin. which is not a party to the case. Agency may .. petitioner filed a complaint before the Quezon City Police District's Anti-Carnapping Section. 1869. However. Particularly. 2017 By: DONNA BIGORNIA FACTS: Petitioner William Anghian Siy filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC) a Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Replevin5 against Frankie Domanog Ong (Ong). Chris Centeno (Centeno). The plaintiff need not be the owner so long as he is able to specify his right to the possession of the property and his legal basis therefor. or is entitled to the possession thereof. respondent allege that the sheriff implemented the writ against the HPG. However. Nevertheless. the petitioner found out that the vehicle had been transferred to Chua. petitioner learned that the vehicle was being transferred to respondent and that the vehicle was later impounded and taken into custody by the PNP-Highway Patrol Group (HPG) at Camp Crame. he constituted and appointed Ong as his agent to sell the vehicle. rule 60 of the revised rules of court. From petitioner's own account. a businessman who owned a second-hand car sales showroom. to apply for a writ of replevin if it can be shown that he is 'the owner of the property claimed . John Co Chua (Chua). In return. the respondent met with petitioner to arrange the return of the vehicle. respondent still failed to surrender the vehicle. HELD: YES RATIO: In a complaint for replevin. in view of the opposing views of the tribunals below. cannot be passed and ruled upon by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the rules of Court. dismiss the Complaint.R. he intentionally understated its value in order to avoid paying the correct docket fees. and a deed of sale signed in blank. Quezon City after respondent attempted to process a PNP clearance of the vehicle with a view to transferring ownership thereof. Upon learning of the complaint. or is entitled to the possession thereof. It is settled that the jurisdiction of this Court in a Rule 45 petition is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. Petitioner vs. Finally. No. As such. all documents of title pertaining thereto. in an action for the recovery of possession of personal property. surrendering to the latter the vehicle. the respondent posits that the petitioner failed to allege the actual market value of the vehicle. ALVIN TOMLIN.Upon applying for such order the plaintiff must show. As a result. the blank deed of sale. and that the defendant. Later on. wrongfully detains the same. Ong accepted the agency by his receipt of the vehicle. Thereafter. and documents of title. with full understanding that Ong would offer and sell the same to his clients or to the public. after the latter claimed that he had a prospective buyer therefor. Sec.. Affidavit and bond. After the payment of the required bond which was approved by the trial court. Respondent G. WILLIAM ANGIDAN SIY. (a) That the plaintiff is the owner of the property claimed. 2. 2011. RODANTE F. together with his ownership. Respondent G. Flores. 2010 "Failed to Return Vehicle" report filed with the PNP-HPG. is unavailing. FLORES. GUYAMIN. Q-11- 69644.R. and EILEEN G. As the registered and rightful owner of the subject vehicle. GUY AMIN. represented by RAMON G. when the latter nonetheless proceeded with the purchase and registration of the vehicle on March 7. despite having been apprised of petitioner's earlier November. Nor is he entitled to the possession of the vehicle. Q-11-69644 in July. FLORES and MAXIMO G. Since Ong was able to sell the subject vehicle to Chua. Flores. Lucinia F. although it e1red in ordering the return of the vehicle to the PNP-HPG. FLORES. Petitioner had no right to file said report. for collection of the proceeds of the sale. is the rightful owner thereof. LUCINIA F. Quite the contrary. his right of action is only against Ong. 2011. Guyamin (Rodante). petitioner lost his right of possession over the vehicle. he is entitled to its possession. or his failure to repudiate the agency. Guyamin (Lucinia). knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without authority. Considering that he was no longer the owner or rightful possessor of the subject vehicle at the time he filed Civil Case No. His argument that respondent is a buyer in bad faith. 2017 By: DONNA BIGORNIA FACTS: Respondents Jacinto G. 202189 April 25. respondent. GATARIN. petitioner may not seek a return of the same through replevin. or implied from the acts of the principal. indeed. as he was no longer the owner of the vehicle at the time. Flores and Maximo G. from his silence or lack of action. and Eileen G. the CA was correct in decreeing the dismissal of Civil Case No. For this reason. No. Gatarin (Eileen) alleging that petitioners are their relatives who for many years have been occupying the subject property by mere tolerance of respondents' predecessors and . represented by their brother and attorney-in-fact Ramon G. who obtained the vehicle from Chua and registered the transfer with the Land Transportation Office. Petitioners vs. and as such. which had no further right to hold the vehicle in its custody. petitioner thus ceased to be the owner thereof. JACINTO G. the trial court must return the same to respondent. filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession against petitioners Rodante F.be express. b) NO RATIO: a) The filing of petitioners' answer prior to respondents' motion to declare them in default. 2008. the RTC ruled in favour of the respondents and ordered the petitioners to vacate the property. On appeal. petitioners failed to vacate. hence. This Court has time and again reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools aimed at facilitating the attainment of justice. As a matter of fact. Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause. a liberal interpretation of procedural rules in this case is more in keeping with the constitutional mandate to secure social justice. The pieces of evidence were identified during the ex parte hearing and marked as Exhibits "A" to "F" for respondents and were incorporated into the records of the case. b) Whether or not court of appeals erred when it ruled that the regional trial court validly rendered its decision favorable to the respondents without the filing of the formal offer of evidence. However. cured the defective answer. thereby proceeded to receive respondents’ evidence ex parte. free from the constraints of technicalities. like the belated answer. Considering that there was substantial compliance. Respondents' reply filed thereafter is. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules. when they were requested by the respondents to vacate the property. that respondents made several attempts to settle the matter through conciliation before the Punong Barangay but the same proved futile. 2008 Decision. Hence. and that the lower courts erred when they ruled in favor of respondents in spite of the fact that the latter made no formal offer of their evidence. and the swift unclogging of court docket is a laudable objective. The Court notes that petitioners raise purely procedural questions and nothing more. While it is true that the rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice. So. ISSUE: a) Whether or not court of appeals erred in finding that the regional trial court was correct in declaring the petitioners in default and proceeding to receive respondents' evidence ex parte. and the latter's filing of a reply. rather than its frustration. the RTC Judge could not have referred to them in arriving at judgment. summons and a copy of the Complaint were served upon petitioners through Eileen. HELD: a) NO. Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. If they were not included in the record. do not erase the fact that petitioners' answer is late. the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. but on pure technicality.a mere scrap of paper. b)the Court supports the CA's pronouncement that since respondents' exhibits were presented and marked during the ex parte hearing of August 7. the trial court judge committed no error when he admitted and considered them in the resolution of the case notwithstanding that no formal offer of evidence was made.parents. In other words. On the merits of the case. and the latter's filing of a reply to their answer. . that respondents' evidence cannot therefore be considered. it nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice. The RTC issued an order granting the motion of the respondents. The petitioner contends that the filing of their Answer prior to respondents' motion to declare them in default. petitioners should have at least shown that they have a substantial defense to respondents' claim. respondents filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in Default considering that petitioners failed to file their answer. this petition. the original owners of the same. the RTC Judge referred to them in his October 21. that is. But in order for this Court to even consider their arguments. who nonetheless refused to sign and acknowledge receipt thereof. as it proceeds from the said answer. since it is a settled maxim that "courts will only consider as evidence that which has been formally offered. they were issued a Certification To File Action. . Thereafter. petitioners aim to win their case not on the merit. to enhance fair trials and expedite justice. CESAR LEE and YOLANDA LEE. may be altered or modified. Later. and were the ones who managed the same. as such. respondents filed anew a Reiterating Motion for Writ of Execution. SINGSING. a supervening event refers to facts that transpired after a judgment has become final and executory. ISSUE: Whether or not a judgment. Labor Arbiter Savari decreed that petitioners represented themselves to respondents as the owners of DMI. However. or to new situation that developed after the same attained finality. pending resolution of these motions. MASCARDO. respondents filed a Motion for Writ of Execution. which has already became final and executor. the same can no longer be altered or modified and the court's duty is only to order its execution. which renders the decision unenforceable. Gr 20032 April 25. SALVADOR. Given these developments. is not absolute. REYNALDO L. and RAFFY B. Petitioners moved to quash the Writ of Execution contending that the April 1. respondents prayed that petitioners. which included spouses Smith. Petitioners. Consequently. and the same cannot anymore be altered or modified since there was no finding of bad faith against them. Labor Arbiter Savari issued an Order holding petitioners liable for the judgment awards. 2017 By: DONNA BIGORNIA FACTS: The respondents obtained a judgment against the petitioners from the NLRC adjudicating that the respondents were illegally dismissed by the petitioner. be impleaded. respondents filed a Manifestation and Motion to Implead stating that upon investigation. One of its exceptions is when there is a supervening event occurring after the judgment becomes final and executory. Supervening events include matters that the parties were unaware of before or during trial as they were not yet existing during that time. Respondents.DUTCH MOVERS. vs. supervening events transpired in this case after the NLRC Decision became final and executory. or the rule that once a judgment has become final and executory. which rendered its execution impossible and unjust. LA Savari issued a Writ of Execution. . they discovered that DMI no longer operates. an Entry of Judgment on the case was issued by the NLRC. EDILBERT0 LEQUIN. and the officers named in DMI's AOI. and be held solidarily liable with DMI in paying the judgment awards. This decision became final and executory. 2009 LA Order was void because the LA has no jurisdiction to modify the final and executryy NLRC Decision. INC. HELD: YES RATIO: The principle of immutability of judgment. CHRISTOPHER R. counted from September 13.22. ISSUE: Whether the RTC correctly denied the Republic's Motion for Partial Reconsideration for having been filed out of time? HELD & RATIO: No. Barangay Parada. filed a verified Complaint before the RTC for the expropriation. which is clearly within the reglementary period of 15 days to file said motion. located in Kaingin Street. SPS SALVADOR GR No. Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that if a pleading is filed by registered mail. "Section 3. or the date of the Republic's receipt of the assailed Decision. respondents received two checks from the DPWH representing 100% of the zonal value of the subject property and the cost of the one-storey semi-concrete residential house erected on the property amounting to ₱l61. x x x the date of mailing shall be considered as the date of filing. x x x the date of mailing shall be considered as the date of filing. It does not matter when the court actually receives the mailed pleading.00 6 and ₱523. FACTS: Respondents are the registered owners of a parcel of land with a total land area of 229 square meters. Republic filed for MR which was denied by the RTC for being filed out of the prescribed period. Jose Enrico V. 2011. represented by the Department of . REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2012. 2012. 2012. The RTC likewise directed the Republic to pay respondents consequential damages equivalent to the value of the capital gains tax and other taxes necessary for the transfer of the subject property in the Republic's name. 2012.7 respectively. The RTC thereafter issued the corresponding Writ of Possession in favor of the Republic. DOCTRINE: If a pleading is filed by registered mail. On February 10. it should have considered the pleading to have been filed on September 28. the date of its mailing. and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.850." In this case. Although the trial court received the Republic's motion only on October 5. Valenzuela City. the Republic.449. 205428 June 07. . It does not matter when the court actually receives the mailed pleading. the records show that the Republic filed its Motion for Partial Reconsideration before the RTC via registered mail on September 28.V- 77660. 2017 By: Corona. 2012.Public Works and Highways (DPWH). On November 9.