RECENT JURISPRUDENCEJanuary 2013- March 2014 FOREWORD The fast-paced development in our case law marches in dizzying speed but as its disciples, it is our firm obligation and duty to apprise ourselves of these latest jurisprudence. Oftentimes, though, our busy work schedule and pressing commitments slow us down in terms of keeping track of the most recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court spanning the eight major fields of legal study. I created the Dean’s Circle last year precisely to help us avoid falling into the trap of intellectual sluggishness. Through the selfless efforts of our law students under the auspices of DivinaLaw and its assiduous lawyers, we released in 2013 the Compendium of Philippine Case Law, which highlighted the decisions of the Court from 2010 to 2013. Spurred with the same dedication to continuous learning, which is one of the hallmarks of a true Thomasian, I am pleased to present to you the updates to our Compendium of Philippine Case Law covering decisions of the High Court from 2013 to 2014. Our 2014 Dean’s Circle members, namely Rosechelan Acorda, Shiena Angela Aquino, Luis Alfonso Artaiz, Pauleen Ann Aure, Paula Azurin, Ma. Salve Aure Carillo, Pamela Bianca Dalumpines, Jeseth De Vera, Mark Kevin Dellosa, Karen Elnas, James Bryan Esteleydes, Janina Fuggan, Frances Anne Gamboa, Anniebel Guyo, May Grace Javier, Richelle Orpilla, Jose Gabriel Pachoro, Lyra Carissa Profugo, Angelie Quinto, Anne Katrina Marie Roraldo, Anna Katrina Singcol, Carmela Yumul, and our tireless lawyers from DivinaLaw, such as Atty. Leandro Rodel Atienza, Atty. Sheryl Lou Bernabe, Atty. Lourdes Anifel Caspe, Atty. Ian Jerny De Leon, Atty. Rachel Marie Felices, and Atty. Paula Danica Landayan, have all shared their precious time and exerted diligent efforts to ensure that we deliver superior quality of work and scholarship in these updates. I am hopeful that this supplement to the Compendium of Philippine Case Law will once again ignite fire to the embers of our legal education and keep us constantly moving towards our journey to competence, compassion and commitment. Manila. August 12, 2014. Atty. NILO T. DIVINA Dean UST Faculty of Civil Law POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW In deportation proceedings, there is no due process violation when the summary deportation proceedings were held and when the Summary Deportation Order was issued. In addition, the actual designation of the offense is not material so long as the act constituting the offense was clearly alleged in the Charge Sheet and sufficient enough to inform the alien of the specific ground for his deportation. Summary deportation shall be observed in cases where the charge against the alien is overstaying or expiration of his passport, including those aliens with cancelled passport. In such cases, a full-blown deportation hearing is not necessary. (THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION v. JUNG KEUN PARK, G.R. No. 159835, January 21, 2010) Although Section 152 (c) of the Local Government Code requires a barangay clearance for any activity within its jurisdiction, such clearance cannot be denied when the activity is in a permissible zone, otherwise such denial is illegal. The same provision allows the city or municipality to which the barangay unit belongs to issue the required license or building permit despite the withholding of the barangay clearance. (GREENHILLS EAST ASSOCIATION, INC., v. E. GANZON, INC., G.R. No. 169741, January 20, 2010) In administrative cases, misconduct is defined as any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause; dishonesty, on the other hand, dishonesty has been defined as intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion. It is a well-settled rule that a public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees are duty-bound to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency and shall remain accountable to the people. (GERARDO Q. FERRERAS v. RUDY P. ECLIPSE, A.M. No. P-05-2085, January 20, 2010) Decisions of the courts in election protest cases, resulting as they do from a judicial evaluation of the ballots and after full-blown adversarial proceedings, should at least be given similar worth and recognition as decisions of the board of canvassers. This is especially true when attended by other equally weighty circumstances of the case, such as the shortness of the term of the contested elective office, of the case. In election protest cases, disruption of public service is an element that has been weighed and factored in and cannot per se be a basis to deny execution pending appeal. (JESUS M. CALO v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 185222, January 19, 2010) A fifth-class municipality like Midsalip is not absolutely prohibited from adopting a salary schedule equivalent to that of a special city or a first-class province, provided, that it complies with the provision of R.A. No. 7160. (PAULINO M. ALECHA AND PRECIOSO M. TAPITAN v. ELMER BEN V. PASION et al., G.R. No. 164506, January 19, 2010) The failure of a judge to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law may constitute undue delay but is not tantamount to dereliction of duty. (LUMINZA DELOS REYES v. JUDGE DANILO S. CRUZ AND GODOLFO R. GUNDRAN, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2152, January 18, 2010) The power to appoint rests essentially on free choice. The appointing authority has the right to decide who best fits the job from among those who meet the minimum requirements for it. As an outsider, quite remote from the day-to-day problems of a government agency, no court of law can presume to have the wisdom needed to make a better judgment respecting staff appointments. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE) AND NATIONAL MARITIME POLYTECHNIC (NMP) v. RUBEN Y. MACEDA, G.R. No. 185112, January 18, 2010) It is a well-founded rule that laws and statutes governing election contests especially appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities. An election protest is imbued with public interest so much so that the need to dispel uncertainties which becloud the real choice of the people is imperative. The prohibition against nuisance candidates is aimed precisely at preventing uncertainty and confusion in ascertaining the true will of the electorate. Thus, in certain situations, final judgments declaring a nuisance candidate should effectively cancel the certificate of candidacy filed by such candidate as of election day. Otherwise, potential nuisance candidates will continue to put the electoral process into mockery by filing certificates of candidacy at the last minute and delaying resolution of any petition to declare them as nuisance candidates until elections are held and the votes counted and canvassed. (CELESTINO A. MARTINEZ III v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (HRET) AND BENHUR L. SALIMBANGON, G.R. No. 189034, January 11, 2010) The ruling in Divinagracia v. COMELEC stressed that if the appellants had already paid the amount of PhP 1,000 to the lower courts within the five-day reglementary period, they are further required to pay the COMELEC, through its Cash Division, the appeal fee of PhP 3,200 within fifteen (15) days from the time of the filing of the notice of appeal with the lower court. If the appellants failed to pay the PhP 3,200 within the prescribed period, then the appeal should be dismissed. Divinagracia, however, contained the following final caveat: that ―for notice of appeal filed after the promulgation (27 July 2009) of this decision, errors in the matter of non-payment or incomplete payment of the two appeal fees in election cases are no longer excusable.‖ (MATEO R. NOLLEN, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONSAND SUSANA M. CABALLES, G.R. No. 187635, January 11, 2010) The Certification of Regional Director Miranda, which is based on demographic projections, is without legal effect because Regional Director Miranda has no basis and no authority to issue the Certification. (VICTORINO B. ALDABA, et al. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R No. 188078, January 25, 2010) A reading of the conflict of interest rule reveals that the prohibition against NEA personnel from participating in any question pertaining to a public service entity where he is directly or indirectly interested has the purpose of preventing such personnel from exercising the power of his office for personal pecuniary gain, which may cause grave damage and prejudice to public interest. (NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND PEDRO RAMOS, G.R. No. 149497, January 25, 2010) Under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, the sheriff is required to secure the court's prior approval of the estimated expenses and fees needed to implement the court process. (BENJAMIN E. SANGA v. FLORENCIO SJ. ALCANTARA AND SALES T. BISNAR, A.M. No. P-09-2657, January 25, 2010) When the printed election propaganda was published, there arises a presumption that there was written acceptance by petitioner of the advertisement paid for or donated by his friends in the absence of evidence to the contrary. (ALVIN B. GARCIA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND TOMAS R. OSMEÑA, G.R. No. 170256, January 25, 2010) To withhold the right of the landowners to appropriate the amounts already deposited in their behalf as compensation for their properties simply because they rejected the DAR's valuation is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, et al., G.R. No. 183279, January 25, 2010) The discretion to determine whether a case should be filed or not lies with the Ombudsman. Unless grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is shown, judicial review is uncalled for as a policy of non-interference by the courts in the exercise of the Ombudsman‘s constitutionally mandated powers. (ANGELITA DE GUZMAN v. EMILIO A. GONZALEZ III, et al., G.R. No. 158104, March 26, 2010) To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest. (TERESITA NARVASA v. BENJAMIN A. SANCHEZ, JR., G.R. No. 169449, March 26, 2010) The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability. (ATTY. BONIFACIO BARANDON, JR. v. ATTY. EDWIN FERRER, SR., A.C. No. 5768, March 26, 2010) The guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on a reasonable classification. (NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PINATUBO COMMERCIAL, G.R. No. 176006, March 26, 2010) By ―special‖ jurisdiction, Special Agrarian Courts exercise power in addition to or over and above the ordinary jurisdiction of the RTC, such as taking cognizance of suits involving agricultural lands located outside their regular territorial jurisdiction, so long as they are within the province where they sit as Special Agrarian Courts. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CORAZON VILLEGAS, G.R. No. 180384, March 26, 2010) The exclusive jurisdiction to classify and identify landholdings for coverage under the CARP is reposed in the DAR Secretary. The matter of CARP coverage is strictly part of the administrative implementation of the CARP, a matter well within the competence of the DAR Secretary. (ALANGILAN REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, et al., G.R. No. 180471, March 26, 2010) The RTC, after hearing the evidence of the parties, dismissed the case, holding that Doña Rosana Realty and its president were buyers of the property in good faith and Molave Development did not have a cause of action against them. Clearly, The RTC did not dismiss the case on the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action, which is an entirely different matter. (DOÑA ROSA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SYKAKIENG v. MOLAVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 180523, March 26, 2010) Law enforcers and public officers have the duty to preserve the chain of custody over the seized drugs. This guarantee of the integrity of the evidence to be used against an accused goes to the very heart of his fundamental rights. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010) The general rule is, if what is being questioned is the correctness of the number of votes for each candidate, the best and most conclusive evidence is the ballots themselves. However, this rule applies only if the ballots are available and their integrity has been preserved from the day of elections until revision. (BAI SANDRA S.A. SEMA v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN G.R. No. 190734, March 26, 2010) Acts which affect the performance of duties as an officer of the court and taints the judiciary‘s integrity should be punished accordingly. (ROLAND ERNEST MARIE JOSE SPELMANS v. JUDGE GAYDIFREDO T. OCAMPO, A.M. No.MTJ-07-1663, March 26, 2010) The law does not intend to place local government officials in the difficult position of having to choose between disobeying a reassignment order or keeping an allowance. Thus, absent a legal basis for its discontinuance, a government official who has been reassigned is still entitled to receive RATA. (DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT v. OLIVIA LEONES, G.R. No. 169726, March 18, 2010) Sequestration is simply a provisional remedy. It is an extraordinary measure intended to prevent the destruction, concealment or dissipation of sequestered properties, and thereby to conserve and preserve them, pending the judicial determination in the appropriate proceeding of whether the property was in truth ill-gotten. (YKR CORPORATION AND HEIRS OF LUISA YULO v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 162079, March 18, 2010) Prohibition against the President or Acting President making appointments within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the President‘s or Acting President‘s term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme Court. (ARTURO DE CASTRO v. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL AND PRES. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010) A. she/he must pass the CES examinations. THE CHANCELLOR OF UP MANILA. MA.R. (ROLANDO SISON v. (ELISEO SORIANO v.It has been frequently decided. 2010) One of the requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is that the applicant must have a right in esse. 2010) It is a universal principle of law that an injunction will not issue to restrain the performance of an act already done. so substantial that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct.P09-2686. et al. JULIANA BENGSON. 172144. 179230. such city shall have a district representative. No. 2010) Misconduct generally means wrongful. 2010) Judicial review is permitted if the courts believe that there is substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID. G. 2010) The issuance of a preventive suspension comes well within the scope of the MTRCB‘s authority and functions expressly set forth in PD 1986. (PEDRO MANZA et al. WILFREDOROQUERO v. the right to immediate review should be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings. the participation of a Sanggunian member (elected from among the members of the Sanggunian) is necessary. 2010) A city that has attained a population of 250. The existence of a right to be protected. as its basis for exemption from the payment of legal fees. 2010) RA 7160 requires that where the head of the office or department requesting the requisition sits in a dual capacity.M. et al. (IN RE: EXEMPTION OF THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION FROM PAYMENT OF FILING/ DOCKET FEES. (VICTORINO ALDABA v. v. March 15. March 10. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.R. March 15. March 9. When the evidence submitted by a deportee is conclusive of his citizenship. BPI AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK.R. 181851. R. March 10. A right in esse is a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. Thus. No.M. to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by merely technical objections. comply with the other requirements prescribed by the CES Board. (PEZA BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND LILIA DE LIMA v. that statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally construed. any transgression or deviation from the established norm. 938. A writ of injunction becomes moot and academic after the act sought to be enjoined has already been consummated. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND AVELINO TOELAN. 164785. No.R.‖ In short.000 population. including judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. (PRISCILLA HERNANDO v.R. in the immediately following election. 190382. 188078. CONSOLIZA LAGUARDIA. G. 42181. and in all proceedings. It can no longer invoke Republic Act No. 05-10-20-SC.R. No. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. and the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right must be established. including civil and administrative cases. G.. and it may be stated as a general rule recognized by all the courts. A. amounts to misconduct. obstinate or intentional purpose. March 9. March 9. a city must first attain the 250.. No. G. G. whether it be workrelated or not. . as amended by Presidential Decree No. et al. 6395 (NPC Charter). This is so for the simple reason that nothing more can be done in reference thereto. and thereafter. one clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law. No. G. 2010) The National Power Corporation is not exempt from the payment of filing/ docket fees. G. and be appointed to a CES rank by the President. March 15. motivated by a premeditated. G.R No. be conferred CES eligibility. No. 170339. March 9. GLORIA MERCADO. 2010) For an examinee or an incumbent to be a member of the CES and be entitled to security of tenure.. 2010) The constitutional right to a ―speedy disposition of cases‖ is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases.( EUGENE LIM v. No.000 is entitled to a legislative district only in the ―immediately following election. (JOSEPH BERNARDEZ v. March 9. unlawful conduct. No. (CAPT. TOLENTINOv. G.R. That theory would lead to the anomalous conclusion that government officers and employees may be paid enormous sums without limit or without any justification necessary other than that such sums are being paid to someone employed by the government.. MICHAEL ALFIO PENNISI. APRONIANO JOROLAN and HON. (ATTY. AQUINO III and MAYOR JESSE ROBREDO v. in effect. ERMITA. G. as the case may be – not to the . APRESA. and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected. 2010) In administrative proceedings. No. 191002. April 7. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. to present witnesses and evidence in one‘s favor. April 20. order or resolution. procedural due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent‘s legal rights. To be sure. (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality.R. 2010) The Constitutional provision draws plain and clear distinction between the entitlement of a city to a district on one hand. 169958. and to defend one‘s rights. G. April 23.(DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL GONZALEZ.R. YAP v. et al. a city must first meet a population minimum of 250. April 7. or the COMELEC en banc. (SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON C.R. G.R. 166620. convert itself into a board of canvassers. April 20. et al. with nothing mentioned about population. No. This would entail a function which. No. obviously. For while a province is entitled to at least a representative. (MAYOR ABRAHAM N. No. MATHEW CHRISTIAN ACADEMY. 177878. in a petition for certiorari. al. 2010) The discretion to allow execution pending reconsideration belongs to the division that rendered the assailed decision. (THE PARENTS-TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (PTA) OF ST. 187961. v. this Court. (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel.R. 189793. (JESUS TYPOCO v. 2010) The constitutional mandate to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levelsis directed to the State and not to the school. 2010) The power of the President to reorganize the Executive Branch includes such powers and functions that may be provided for under other laws. v.. (SPO1 LEONITO ACUZAR v. et al. 2010) If the Court were to tabulate the results reflected in the ERs. 186359. R. March 5. No. 2010) Compensation and benefits of public officers are not intended purely for the personal benefit of officers neither is payment of salaries and benefits to a public officer satisfies the public purpose requirement. Nos. EDUARDO R. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.000 in order to be similarly entitled. DE CASTRO v. (RAMON R. PEOPLE’S LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD (PLEB). March 2. G. March 5. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO. No. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC) et. 2) the right to a reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his rights and to introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his favor. G. THE METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO. and one of competent jurisdiction. cannot perform. No. G. (ARTURO M.R. G. and 187962. v. it would. EDUARDO A. an inclusive and broad interpretation of the President‘s power to reorganize executive offices has been consistently supported by specific provisions in general appropriations laws. and 4) the right to a finding or decision of that tribunal supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing or at least ascertained in the records or disclosed to the parties. April 7. simply requires: 1) the right to notice of the institution of the proceedings that may affect a person‘s legal right. SYLVIA BANDA et al. 158562. G. No.R. 3) the right to a tribunal so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality. 176518. 2010) Due process. and the entitlement of a province to a district on the other. COMMISION ON AUDIT. 2010) The prohibition against the President or Acting President to make appointments within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the President‘s or Acting President‘s term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme Court. 187958. Nos.R. clear and unmistakable language of the Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. this Court will not interfere in the findings of probable cause determined by the Ombudsman. ERNESTO M. No. INC. April 27. 170697. unrelated to the particular case. April 23. G. in this respect. No. To successfully effect a transfer thereof.R. as a rule. (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC) vs. 158189. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. 175349. DE CHAVEZ AND MARCELO L. G. VICENTE E.. June 22. RODOLFO ZALDARRIAGA. G. April 29. JR. 7941 provides for two (2) separate reasons for delisting. v. REPRESENTED BY PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION.190529. G. G. 2010) Dishonesty is defined as the disposition to lie. Probationary employees enjoy security of tenure in the sense that during their probationary employment. et al. G. April 28. JR. 190582. 2010) The word ―or‖ is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of one thing from the other things enumerated. No. 2010) Domicile is not easily lost. or defraud. No. 183337. probity or integrity in principle. as a disjunctive word. G. GREGORIO MAGNAYE. G. No. No. No. No. G. cheat. ALAN A. G. (MAYOR QUINTIN B. 2010) Unless it is shown that the questioned acts were done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. April 23. 2010) Even in administrative cases. DOSONO. deceive. It retains. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. it is by no means the only formula that the court may adopt in determining just compensation. INC. (ROBERTO B. 2010) . KALALO v. (ATTY.R. (PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD. (NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. they cannot be dismissed except for cause or for failure to qualify as regular employees. (ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. deceive or betray. ROMULO. April 30. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.. in using the expressions ―all workers‖ and ―no officer or employee. No. No. VINUYA. REYNALDO M. 189431 & 191120. 2010) Moral disapproval. There must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. (2) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one. 171434. April 8. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G.R. lack of honesty. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. et al. April 23. disposition to defraud. SALUDAGA v.R. it should. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HON.. FORTUNE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION. a degree of moral certainty is necessary to support a finding of liability. (HON. 191124. G. 2010) Our Constitution. SALUMBIDES. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ARTEMIO BALAG. AGUSTIN. 2010) The State is the sole judge to decide whether to prosecute claims on behalf of an individual. 2010) Non-application of the condonation doctrine to appointive officials does not violate the right to equal protection of the law.R. 162230. a discretionary power the exercise of which may be determined by considerations of a political or other nature. Thus.R. lack of integrity. MIRO v. 180917. 2010) Administrative liability attaches so long as there is some evidence adequate to support the conclusion that acts constitutive of the administrative offense have been performed (or have not been performed). 177511. April 23. without more.R.R. April 7. (ISABELITA C. be construed in the sense in which it ordinarily implies.‖ puts no distinction between a probationary and a permanent or regular employee which means that both probationary and permanent employees enjoy security of tenure. one must demonstrate: (1) an actual removal or change of domicile. OLANDESCA. (LUIS A. No. and (3) acts which correspond with that purpose. June 29. ASISTIO v. the plain. untrustworthiness. 2010) Although the formula found in Section 17 of the CARL may be justly adopted in certain cases. is not a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the party-list system. THELMA CANLAS TRINIDAD-PE AGUIRRE. lack of fairness and straightforwardness. (PGBI) v.. G.Presiding Commissioner.R. PRIMO C.R. and GLENDA ARAÑA v.R. on an aircraft. it cannot be argued that it was made without any basis. June 16.The issuance of Memorandum No. 2010) . HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND EMMANUEL VILLANUEVA. G.R. It is only a means of confirming the fact that citizenship has been claimed. BELEN MACARIOS. G. 183409. July 26. and should be for the sole purpose of carrying the law‘s general provisions into effect. 188611. 2010) Administrative IRRs adopted by a particular department of the Government under legislative authority must be in harmony with the provisions of the law. No.. covers all youth sector nominees vying for party-list representative seats. But it is impracticable to obtain a warrant when the search is conducted on a mobile ship. (CREBA) v. G. June 18. INC. et al. MITRA v. 191938. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No. G. 7941. although a valid requirement under Commonwealth Act No. JOSEPH CARANTES. which has authority to issue building permits for the construction of structures within the areas owned or administered by it. whether on public or private lands.R. 2010) By specific provision of law. No..R. 183133. because an administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress. G. It can even agree. was made pursuant to the general welfare of the public. (ABRAHAM KAHLIL B. 189600. et al. 179431-32. such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham. 2010) RA No. A nominee of the youth sector must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. it is PEZA. 625. No. three factors are relevant – the character of funds or assets involved in the controversy. 2010) Denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his motion for reconsideration. (PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA) v. G... June 29. (BALGAMELO CABILING MA. (ALAN PAGUIA v. G. AND ALL OTHER HEIRS OF MAXIMINOCARANTES. ARNAIZ REALTY. et al. or the lack of it. and the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest to bring the suit. No. No. No.R. 2010) The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. No. SANDIGANBAYAN. DANTE TAN.R. No. v. INC. through its building officials. which cannot be later withdrawn without mutual consent. dwelling house or other immobile structure. 2010) A search warrant may readily be obtained when the search is made in a store. July 2. July 26. CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS.R. 2010) The PCGG has discretion to grant appropriate levels of criminal immunity depending on the situation of the witness and his relative importance to the prosecution of ill-gotten wealth cases. 167526... COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 2010) To sue as a citizen. 180564. et al.e. thus. (LUIS LOKIN v. FERNANDEZ. Nos. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. (MILAGROS AMORES v. (JESUS DISINI v. which addresses the unabated conversion of prime agricultural lands for real estate development because of the worsening rice shortage in the country. a clear disregard of constitutional or statutory prohibition. or in other motor vehicles since they can quickly be moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought. 88.R. 2010) It is not the registration of the act of election Philippine citizenship. the dwelling where a person permanently intends to return to and to remain – his or her capacity or inclination to decorate the place.R. G. COMMISSIONER ALIPIO F. 2010) Where a dwelling qualifies as a residence – i. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. No. G. June 23. July 7. is immaterial. to conditions expressed by the witness as sufficient to induce cooperation.R. that will confer Philippine citizenship on the petitioners. June 22. 170623. June 25.R. June 22. 18127. 176278. et al. ROSE CARANTES. (A. v. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. COMELEC. G. JR. G.Z. THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM. the Party-List System Act. The law itself cannot be expanded by such IRRs. As a general rule. 174697.. GARCIA v.R. No. the right to information is not absolute.R. v.R. No. et al. GARCIA. MARIO MOLINA AND ALBERT VELASCO.R. arising from the direct injury it has sustained or will sustain as a result of the challenged governmental action. 2010) A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked at anytime directly or collaterally by means of a separate action. (MUNICIPALITY OF TIWI AND SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF TIWI v. VARGAS.R. have as much right as any person in the land to voice out their protests against what they believe to be a violation of their rights and interests. G.R. that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. July 22. 2010) In administrative cases. 2010) Legal standing or locus standi refers to a party‘s personal and substantial interest in a case. July 29. there is no government contract to speak of. MANAGER OF GSIS v. No.R. et al. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. 2010) A government contract is essentially similar to a private contract contemplated under the Civil Code.. et al. IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRES. INC. (VIRGINIA BAUTISTA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY. BETITO. G." (HAZEL MA. Removal from office as a result of reorganization must.. et al. 134269.R.The rule on primary jurisdiction applies only where the administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions. (SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. No. August 3. BIEN v. July 8. 134440. DINNAH VILLAVIZA.e.R.. 176885. 2010) Government workers. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. the presumption that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable or disposable rests with the applicant. Nos.. 165036. July 5. July 9. DANES B. 2010) Under the Local Government Code. No. July 23. & GEN. 2010) Being merely a rectifying issuance and not a rezoning enactment. ABELARDO R. et al. DOMONDON. 2010) The Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with the Sangguniang Bayan over administrative cases against elective barangay officials occupying positions below salary grade 27.R. G. an object certain which is the subject matter. by incontrovertible evidence. 180291.R. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. Otherwise. i. 2010) Reorganization is valid provided that it is done in good faith. v. BO. No. 2010) Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State. The people's right to information is limited to "matters of public concern. and cause or consideration of the obligation must likewise concur. No. No. G. G. July 7. or by resisting such decision in any action or proceeding where it is invoked. SANCHEZ.. No. G. ANTONIO B. 172700. G. v. 2010) . July 5. PEDRO B. pass the test of good faith. The legal requisites of consent of the contracting parties. 157383. et al.R. AYALA ALABANG VILLAGE ASSOCIATION. (CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION. G. (WINSTON F. G. v. July 5. 2010) Like all the constitutional guarantees. the test of good faith lies in whether the purpose of the reorganization is for economy or to make the bureaucracy more efficient. ROLSON RODRIQUEZ. the municipal mayor is required to secure the prior authorization of the Sangguniang Bayan before entering into a contract in behalf of the municipality. (JOEPHIL C. G. (THE LEARNING CHILD. C. G. et al. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 165569. July 27. 171873." and is further "subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. (GSIS AND WINSTON F. (UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS. 185215. 170530. DOMINGO ESPINOSA. ANTOLIN v. thus. G. the questioned Resolution did not have to comply with the mandatory requirements of notice and hearing. whatever their ranks. No. it remains part of the inalienable public domain. 144518. Legal standing calls for more than just a generalized grievance. the requisite proof is substantial evidence. 179333. INC. August 10. No. The onus to overturn. GLENDA A. 187689. 187745. (EXECUTIVE SECRETARY). v. The subsequent acquisition of the required eligibility will not make the temporary appointment regular or permanent. (BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. ROXAS v. HON. Where the appointee does not possess a civil service eligibility. G. when a case is moot. COURT OF APPEALS. (LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES v. (SALVADOR O. by this account. 2010) The rationale for upholding the validity of union shop clauses in a CBA. JR. No. G. (LENIDO LUMANOG AND AUGUSTO SANTOS v. is not to protect the union for the union‘s sake. 189155. 158708. No. 2010) As a rule. like the Cityhood Laws. Laws and jurisprudence promote unionism and afford certain protections to the certified bargaining agent in a unionized company because a strong and effective union presumably benefits all employees in the bargaining unit since such a union would be in a better position to demand improved benefits and conditions of work from the employer. 173930.R. 185123. 2010) The doctrine of command responsibility is a rule of substantive law that establishes liability and. 176951. 182555. 8762 is valid and constitutional. and other officials directly handling large sums of money and properties. LIBERTY TOLEDO. G. even if they impinge upon the individual employee‘s right or freedom of association.R. No. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. (REPRESENTATIVES GERARDO S. PORMENTO v. 191988. Congress cannot write such criteria in any other law. G. including the conversion of a municipality into a city. it becomes non-justiciable. No. August 10. G. 2010) The Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000 R. EFREN JALOS.R. September 07. RONALDO ZAMORA.R. 2010) The Indeterminate Sentence Law l does not apply to persons sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua. 2010) The right to counsel is not always imperative in administrative investigations. September 08. No.R. CARBONEL v. BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER-FEDERATION OF UNIONS IN BPI UNIBANK.. No. et al.. While Section 19. G. In other words. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO. et al. (CLARITA J. 143855. cashiers. Neither does the lessening of restrainton the foreigners' right to property or to engage in an ordinarily lawful business. 2010 . and trustworthiness expected of a clerk or ordinary employee in the bureaucracy and that required of bank managers. August 24. the appointment is considered temporary.A. v. 179918. COMELEC. ROXAS. 164301. No. ongoing controversies. an administrative recourse to the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) must first be made before filing the complaint with the regular courts.R. amounts to a denial of the Filipinos' right to property and to due process of law. JOSEPH "ERAP" EJERCITO ESTRADA AND COMELEC. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. this Court may only adjudicate actual. JR. 2010) There is a tremendous difference between the degree of responsibility. September 07. (IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF MELISSA C. EVILLO C.R.V. G. No. MELISSA C.al G. (JUSTINA MANIEBO v..R. et al. finance officers. G. September 21. Article II of the 1987 Constitution requires the development of a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipino entrepreneurs. 2010) The Constitution requires Congress to stipulate in the Local Government Code all the criteria necessary for the creation of a city. unless the position involved requires no such eligibility. cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a party-respondent in an amparo petition.R.A permanent appointment implies the holding of a civil service eligibility on the part of the appointee. or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it. ECHANO. (ATTY. it does not impose a policy of Filipino monopoly of the economic environment. et. September 07.R. care. August 10. Nos. The Court is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions. August 31. (SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B. No. September 15. G. 2010) With regard to pollution-related matters. v. ESPINA. a new appointment is needed. the applicable interest rate at 12% per annum. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.al. (CENTER FOR PEOPLE EMPOWERMENT IN GOVERNANCE v. et. A.. (THE PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL v. October 12. (APO FRUITS CORPORATION AND HIJO PLANTATION. September 21. JR. 189546. 166910. (ABRAHAM KAHLIL B. AND JOSE MA. No. G. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. No.Since the ownership over the subject lands had been vested in Central Mindanao University as early as 1958. 2010) It is settled that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function. MITRA v. THE COMMISSIONERS.R.R.M.M. (ERNESTO B. October 11.R. G. (CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY v. (ATTY. Such date will determine the seniority of the members of the Court of Appeals in connection with Section 3. No. transferring the lands in 2003 to the indigenous peoples around the area is not in accord with the IPRA. (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. GLENN Y. Corollary. INC. No. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. 191938. 10-4-22-SC. by any means. HENRY TAN. et al. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2010) The Administrative disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman over a public school teacher is not an exclusive power but is concurrent with the proper committee of the DepEd. et. O. PEDRO DELIJERO. 2010) The COMELEC is mandated to make the source codes for the AES technologies it selected for implementation pursuant to R. computed from the time the property was taken until the full amount of just compensation was paid. the grant of additional compensation like hospitalization and health care insurance benefits does not need the approval of the President to be valid. 172635. 2010) Since LGUs are subject only to the power of general supervision of the President.R. et. said lands have ceased to be alienable public lands. FRANCISCO.. G. No. 2010) . however. TOLL REGULATORY BOARD. No. SANTOS. the date the commission has been signed by the President (which is the date appearing on the face of such document) is the date of the appointment. No. October 06. MARCELA V. JR. October 19. No. G. ESCANDOR. September 28. No. G.K. 186652.R. 2010) Although the COMELEC is admittedly the final arbiter of all factual issues as the Constitution and the Rules of Court provide. 171685. G. Chapter I of BP 129. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. September 21.al. G. TAN TIONG BIO A.. P-06-2287. the Toll Regulatory Board was given the power to grant administrative franchise for toll facility projects. as amended by RA 8246.R.A. 2010) A preliminary investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding since the prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. 9369 immediately available to CenPEG and all other interested political parties or groups for independent review. the power of the Ombudsman to determine and impose administrative liability is not merely recommendatory but actually mandatory. 2010) For purposes of appointments to the judiciary. 184869. A. (RE: SENIORITY AMONG THE FOUR (4) MOST RECENT APPOINTMENTS TO THE POSITION OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 2010 The failure to remit the funds in due time amounts to dishonesty and grave misconduct which are both punishable with dismissal from service.A. The Department of Agrarian Reforms's land valuation is only preliminary and is not. Consequently. September 28. COMMISSION ON AUDIT. October 20. Thus. No.R. G.. 164195.R. October 19.al. ALICE ODCHIGUEBONDOC v. G. the Court‘s constitutional duty is to intervene and not to shy away from intervention simply because a specialized agency has been given the authority to resolve the factual issues.al. October 12. 182574. et. No. in the presence of grave abuse of discretion. final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party.R. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. 2010) The just compensation due to the landowners for their expropriated property amounted to an effective forbearance on the part of the State. 2010) By explicit provision of law. HIZON v. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.e. 2010) . December 07.Consistent with the presumption of regularity.the constitutional directive. G. 1. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) AND IMELDA R. 187752. ROSALES v. 2010) Memorandum Order No.R. 193036.. As intended by the framers of the Constitution. November 23. INC. overbreadth. Article VII of the Constitution. is an internal regulation that clearly falls within the administrative rules and regulations exempted from the publication requirement.R. November 23. G. 2010) The CES covers presidential appointees only. October 06. 99-003. 2010) The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) has jurisdiction to pass upon the qualifications of party-list nominees after their proclamation and assumption of office. in dismissing a complaint carries the duty of explaining the basis for his action. G. it does not fall under the CES. 2010) The doctrines of strict scrutiny. 2010) The Ombudsman. a magistrate's determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid with great deference by a reviewing court as long as there was substantial basis for that determination. 191618.R. 171980. BIRAOGO v. MACALINTAL v. ANIANO DESIERTO. December 07. G. and it faithfully complies . SAMANIEGO . NACU.R.not unlawfully defies . (SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE ENGAGEMENT NETWORK. (IRENE K. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. Hence. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY. October 05.R. HON. et. the Supreme Court.al. 2010) PCGG may not delegate to its representatives and subordinates its authority to sequester and any such delegation is invalid and ineffective. No. No. December 07.R. No. (SURNECO) v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. No. 2010) Executive Order No. he must determine that the complainant had failed to establish probable cause. IN HIS CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN. They cannot be made to do service when what is involved is a criminal statute. from the judicial department. No. October 04. No. NACU. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2010) The Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) was constituted in implementation of Section 4. (SURIGAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE. OLIVE RUBIO MAMARIL. for all intents and purposes.R. G. October 05. G.R. 183626. G. G. 155832. No.R. et. 185766. November 22. No. the State can regulate the rates imposed by a public utility such as SURNECO. (WALDEN F. prohibiting its employees from charging and collecting overtime fees from PEZA-registered enterprises.R.al. MARCOS. they are. SUBSTITUTED BY BENJAMIN M. (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. i. G. the ERC simply performed its mandate to protect the public interest imbued in those rates. BELLO AND LORETTA ANN P. Corollarily. JOEL S. No. v. Creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 is declared unconstitutional insofar as it is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.. (ATTY. COURT OF APPEALS AND PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE. 2010) In the exercise of police power.R. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. No. is to be an institution independent. INC. (PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACTFINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS THRU THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. but not separate. v. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL. November 23.. G. and vagueness are analytical tools developed for testing "on their faces" statutes in free speech cases. 175573. 2010) An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. 178552. 148269. et al. as the position of Assistant Department Manager II does not require appointment by the President of the Philippines. ROMULO B.. ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL. G. a decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. No. 191998. (LOUIS "BAROK" C. THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010. Consequently. "elected members" of the House of Representatives. the appointment in order to be valid does not require presidential appointment. 192280. 175352. 2011) While the construction project is void for failing to meet the requirements of the law. accused-appellants were caught in flagrante carrying/transporting dried marijuana leaves in their traveling bags. BALAO. (MOISESTINIO. 2011) A settled exception of the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is that of an arrest made during the commission of a crime. No. if hypothetically admitted. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ARNIELO S. ROBERT P. G. G. January 26. 177570. January 10.Under the plain view doctrine. Book V. January 18. JR. No. JR. No. 180388. (GREGORIO R.R. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. January 18. AND FRANCIS TINIO v. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 172224. an appeal may be made to the CA.R.. KWOK WAI CHENG et al.. No. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION. et al. JR. 2011) Mere misdeclaration of the SALN does not automatically amount to dishonesty. G. (SERGIO G. In order to come under the exceptional cases where a judgement of acquittal may be reconsidered by the court. January 26. 2011) It is a settled rule that the nature and character of the land at the time of its taking is the principal criterion for determining how much just compensation should be given to the landowner. are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. would establish the essential elements of the crime. G. Only when the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly disproportionate to the employee‘s income or other sources of income and the public officer/employee fails to properly account or explain his other sources of income. No. (ELENITA C. objects falling in the ―plain view‖ of an officer.R. 2011) The structure of the Philippine National Red Cross is sui generis being neither strictly private nor public in nature. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. LIBAN. January 24. RICHARD J. G. 160923. (ANTONIO LEJANO v. the statement is admissible against him. ARNULFO D. who has a right to be in the position to have that view.R.R. VIGILAR v. No. G. OLANDRIA. G. January 25. 2011) As a rule. Nos. judgement of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places the accused under double jeopardy. otherwise known as The Revised Administrative Code of 1987. However. No. G. (BENJAMIN JESALVA v. January 19. such appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory and the implementation of the decision follows as a matter of course. 187725. 176819. 2011) When the alleged inadmissible statement was spontaneously made by petitioner and was not at all elicited through questioning during custodial investigation. 2011 Nowhere in the Section 40 of the Local Government Code will one find defective certificate of candidacy as a ground for disqualifying a candidate.R. G. Nor does it specify that a defective notarization is a ground for the disqualification of a candidate. 180452. 292. G. it is not enough that the party invoke the exceptions he must be able to bring his pleas for reconsideration under such exceptions. GORDON.. AMORA. 2011) When a public official has been found guilty of an administrative charge by the Office of the Ombudsman and the penalty imposed is suspension for more than a month. 2011) ―Transport‖ as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean ―to carry or convey from one place to another. G. 176389 and 176864. NELIDA DEQUINA Y DIMAPANAN et al. FAJARDO v. Title 1 (Subtitle A) of Executive Order No. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.R. January 18. January 19. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. (DANTE V. No. BARRIGA. No. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. NGYIK BUN. AQUINO. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. January 18. .R. which does not require a warrant. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RED CROSS. COURT OF APPEALS and DINAH C. v. R.R. payment must be made as to disallow the same would be to allow the government to unjustly enrich itself at the expense of another.R.‖ The evidence in this case shows that at the time of their arrest. 182591.R. et al. 190889. v. Chapter 2. (MODESTO AGYAO. v. No. 2011) When the position is not among those enumerated in Section 7. G. No. 2011) The fundamental test in determining the adequacy of the averments in an information is whether the facts alleged. January 10. 2011) A person who administered the oath may be guilty of the crime of falsification of a public document if it is proved that he has knowledge of the facts constituting the falsity in a document and in spite of the same he still administered said oath. under our national criminal justice system or it may opt not to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over its erring citizens or over US ―persons‖ committing high crimes in the country and defer to the secondary criminal jurisdiction of the ICC over them. is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. COMISSION ON ELECTIONS et al. COURT OF APPEALS. MAGIN FERRER.R.R. RACHO. in recognition of their expertise on the specific matters under their jurisdiction. G. No. No. TUASON v. 2011) It is well settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies. as amended by Administrative Order No. 166495. NIETO A. 2011) An employee who was preventively suspended will still be entitled to step increment after serving the time of his preventive suspension even if the pending administrative case against him has not yet been resolved or dismissed ((THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AND WINSTON F. February 15. if supported by substantial evidence. G. February 2. 2011) The decision of the Ombudsman is immediately executory pending appeal and may not be stayed by the filing of an appeal or the issuance of an injunctive writ. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. G. GUTIERREZ v. G. G. G. VIII of the Constitution.R. Nos. the Philippines may decide to try ―persons‖ of the US. VELASCO AND MARIO I. 180462. et al. Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. it provided for certain well-defined limits. Section 7. February 2. 2011) The determination of the existence of substantial distinction with respect to respondent municipalities does not simply lie on the mere pendency of their cityhood bills during the 11th Congress but measured on the very purpose of the LGC. v. 172230.does he become susceptible to dishonesty. G. (MA. substantial.R. No. Carr. (LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP) et al. (SOUTH PACIFIC CORPORATION AND SOUTH EAST ASIA SUGAR MILL CORPORATION v. because the execution of the Decision is but an integral part of the adjudicative . 2011) The issuance of subsequent resolutions by the Court is simply an exercise of judicial power under Art. No.R. (RUBEN REYNA AND LLOYD SORIA v. are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court. full and ample. GALEOS v. MERCEDITAS N. 159618. 17 dated September 15. G. Thus.R. No. 2003 ((ROQUE C. RAFAEL VILLAROSA. substantial distinction lies in the capacity and viability of respondent municipalities to become component cities of their respective provinces. 2011) National criminal jurisdiction being primary. February 15. 174730-37. Indeed. January 31. the equivalent being real.R.R. COMMISSION ON AUDIT. ALBERT M. through the power of judicial review. 185685. ALBERTO ROMULO. et al. No. AND BLAS F. February 8. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. such as the Commission of Audit. as provided in its Section 2 (a). G. February 1. 170463. 2011) Just compensation determined in accordance with RA 6657. Instead. OPLE. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE. 2011) The Office of the Solicitor General . it is always the responsibility and within the prerogative of the RP either to prosecute criminal offenses equally covered by the Rome Statute or to accede to the jurisdiction of the ICC.. (ROSALIO S. No. No.R. or in the language of Baker v. and not PD 27 or EO 228. Nos. 176951. COURT OF APPEALS AND SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION. ATTY. 2011) The Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress.deputized counsel may file a notice of appeal. February 16. G. February 9.R. "judicially discoverable standards" for determining the validity of the exercise of such discretion. BAYAN MUNA v. 174845-52. 167219. MOLINA. GARCIA v. 193459. FACURA and EDUARDO F.. February 9. 2011) Under Section 11. G. ANG and MARTINA S. February 21. and such procedure is an internal office matter. RTJ-10-2241. their actions as law professors must be measured against the same canons of professional responsibility applicable to acts of members of the Bar as the fact of their being law professors is inextricably entwined with the fact that they are lawyers. which may affect any benefits to PAGCOR's transactions with private parties. a sheriff cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money from a party-litigant without observing the proper procedural steps. amending Section 27 (c) of R. v. FRANCISCO D. 2011) Sheriffs are not allowed to receive any voluntary payments from parties in the course of the performance of their duties. G. SANDIGANBAYAN-FOURTH DIVISION and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Thus. G. GERONIMO and NICASIO M.R. February 23. (ANTONIO Y. 2011) The doctrine of state immunity should not be extended to the petitioner as the same is an agency of the Government not performing a purely governmental or sovereign function. 2011) Lawyers when they teach law are considered engaged in the practice of law. Corollary. No. but was instead involved in the management and maintenance of the Loakan Airport. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY. 6713 provides that when the head of office finds the SALN of a subordinate incomplete or not in the proper form such head of office must call the subordinate‘s attention to such omission and give him the chance to rectify the same.R.R.function of the Court. A. FEDERICO LUCERO. PAÑO. (PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR) v. Nos. Whether or not the head of office has taken such step with respect to a particular subordinate cannot bar the Office of the Ombudsman from investigating the latter. is not violative of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. 172087. G.A. 171947-48. Nos. March 02.M. March 09. SPOUSES DAVID and ELISEA RAMOS.A. 2011) Since it is the COMELEC which has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court in election contests involving elective municipal officials. (RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED "RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT". HON. 188705. otherwise. 192793. (FERDINAND C. No. such act would amount to dishonesty or . Article XII of the Constitution. (AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE v. (METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. APIGO v. then it is also the COMELEC which has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. RAMOS. Nos. 2011) An information elicited in violation of the rights of the accused or without a valid waiver thereof is inadmissible. A. No. HON.A. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No. 159402. March 08. February 22. No.M. ANATOLIO A.. 8424 by withdrawing the exemption of PAGCOR from corporate income tax. February 21. CARABEO v. 2011) Reliance of the judge to the failure of his staff and even that of the party to inform him that the latter is yet to receive the Order to Comment will not shield him from his liability in failing to render a mere resolution to a mere motion to recall witness. No. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. No. GALANG. March 15. G. 182539-40.R. PAGCOR's franchise is subject to amendment. G. (FESTO R. it must be shown that the accused public officials did not rely on the competence and good faith of his subordinates.R. No. the provision in Section 1 of R. an activity that was not the exclusive prerogative of the State in its sovereign capacity. 2011) In order that the public officer may be held guilty of giving unwarranted advantage to another to the prejudice of the government. THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (BIR) et al. JR.R. 9337. Hence.. G. and the evidence garnered as the result of that interrogation is also inadmissible. 190580-81. 10-10-4-SC. 2011) While Section 10 of R. No. DE JESUS. alteration or repeal by Congress such as the amendment under Section 1 of R. February 15. BACOLOT v.R. SR. RAMIRO R. (LIBERATO M. 9377.A. which was to increase the autonomy of local governments. March 08. GUILLERMO N. JUDGE CASAN ALI L. 2011) When the issues presented do not require the expertise. 2011) The period for filing a petition for cancellation of certificate of candidacy based on false representation is covered by Rule 23 and not Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. ARCHIBALD C.R. 6939 in compliance with the provisions of Section 15. P-06-2206. G. March 16. et al.M. P-07-2297. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. March 16. G. JR. v. Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. except duties that are identical with or are subsumed under their present functions. (EXECUTIVE JUDGE LEONILO B. DE VERA. INC. (ATTY. ALMIRANTE. 2011) The President. (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. VERGA. 2011) Filing a certificate of candidacy as a party-list representative while holding a judicial post constitutes grave misconduct with a penalty of dismissal from service. JR. MTJ-081718. A. INC. A. v. 157838. ESTANISLAO. v. specialized skills and knowledge of body but are purely legal questions which are within the competence and jurisdiction of the Court. 2011) Failure to regularly submit the corresponding reports on the collections and deposits of court funds/fees indicates negligence. v.. subject. VERZOSA.. JUDGE GRACE GLICERIA F. RAMOS AND SONS. March 21. March 09. 2011) A liberal interpretation of the zoning power of city and municipal boards and councils. Section 3 of Rule 25 allowing the filing of a petition at any time after the last day for filing of COC‘s but not later than the date of proclamation is merely a procedural rule that cannot supersede Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). LIMBONA. AND SPOUSES DAN AND EDNA REYES v. further to the limitation that the reassignment is not for an indefinite period. No. E. (DAVAO FRUITS CORPORATION v. INC. 187714.. (BUKLOD NANG MAGBUBUKID SA LUPAING RAMOS.M. would be in accord with the avowed legislative intent behind the Local Autonomy Act of 1959. MARTINEZ. 2011) The doctrine of separate personality of a corporation finds no application because the Cooperative Development Authority is not a private entity but a government agency created by virtue of Republic Act No. (AQUILINO Q. MARISSA M. as to include the power to accordingly reclassify the lands within the zones. APITA. et al. No. PIMENTEL. No. G.extortion.M. March 16. MIRA THELMA V. No. et al. SCC-98-4. No. 181566. G. ALAUYA v. 2011) Good faith and absence of malice. CARAGUE (IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT). P-11-2914.R. No.R. LBP possessed the legal personality to institute a petition for determination of just compensation. March 22. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.R. No. 131481.M. No. March 08. A. G.. (CANDELARIO L. corrupt motives or improper considerations are sufficient defenses in which a judge charged with ignorance of the law can find refuge.R. March 16.. SENATE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE. RAFAEL T. (DY TEBAN TRADING CO. 2011) The Land Bank of the Philippines is not merely a nominal party in the determination of just compensation but an indispensable participant in such proceedings. No. A. M. (IN HIS FORMER CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) v. (FERNANDO V. No. MS. the executive judge may reassign court personnel of multiple-branch courts to another branch within the same area of administrative supervision when there is a vacancy or when the interest of the service requires. the doctrine of primary jurisdiction should not be applied. GONZALEZ v. A.M. Congress and the Court cannot create indirectly franchises that are exclusive in character by allowing the Board of Directors (BOD) of a water district and the Local Water Utilities Administration . 192856. (ASHARY M. As such. March 08. 2011) While the executive judge may not require court personnel to perform work outside the scope of their job description. (ISAGANI M. 135715. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. ARTEMIO TUQUERO IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE.. CRUZ.R. 001. G. 2011) The COMELEC en banc had jurisdiction over the petition for cancellation of the registration and accreditation of a party-list and not the HRET as although it is the party-list organization that is voted for in the elections. March 22. April 13. it is not the organization that sits as and becomes a member of the House of Representatives. AND ESCOLASTICO U.those of treasurer. (PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC) and THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT v. 2011 As malice is material in a libel case. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIRMAN.R. 2011) . she is entitled to due process especially if they are to be removed for more serious causes or for causes other than that provided under Civil Service Commission Form No. the glaring absence of maliciousness in the assailed portion of the news article subject of this case negates the existence of probable cause that libel has been committed by the respondents. or (4) their performance are below par. LOMETILLO et al. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MELANIO MAURICIO.R. 2011) The Court has time and again admonished judges to be prompt in the performance of their solemn duty as dispenser of justice. guard and physical plant manager of the court. JUDGE MARIO B. No. 2011) The Clerks of Court perform a very delicate function as custodian of the court's funds.R. 2011) Failure to disclose a spouse‘s business interests and financial connections in the SALN constitutes simple negligence.FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS. 193256. revenues. Substantial evidence is enough. No. HONORABLE ANIANO A. PLEYTO. (2) funds are no longer available. since undue delays erode the people's faith in the judicial system.R. G. ALEJANDRO S. No. 08-12-682-RTC). 58 is well within the purview of the doctrine of qualified political agency. March 23. but it is the party-list nominee/representative who sits as a member of the House of Representatives over which the HRET has jurisdiction over.M.A. 2011) Though respondent is a casual employee as contemplated under Rule III. LAPID. (3) the project has already been completed/finished. they are "entrusted with the primary responsibility of correctly and effectively implementing regulations regarding fiduciary funds" and are thus. HON. G. 169895. No.R. April 13. 166471. A. P-09-2637 (Formerly A. LA TRINIDAD WATER DISTRICT. April 12. March 23. G. (PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT. No. G. (JUDGE ADORACION G. March 23. 2011) The decision of the Ombudsman of in finding probable cause is reviewable by the Court when there is allegation of grave abuse of discretion." (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. No.(LWUA) to create franchises that are exclusive in character. M. Section 2(f) of the Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions. No. 2011) In administrative proceedings. hence. G.. shortage. destruction or impairment of such funds and property. YAMBOT. MAGDALENA L. et al. March 29. (JOSEFINA NAGUIAT v. MARTIN v. MANUEL E. ELMA v.R. They wear many hats . No. No. (PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND REYNALDO P. No. 191940. ATTY... 176058. 6975 is intended only to prevent the new appointee from serving beyond the term of office of the original appointee. MANUEL P. 2011) The President's act of delegating authority to the Secretary of Justice by virtue of Memorandum Circular (MC) No. March 23.M. No. (TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v. A. v. accountant. LUIS MARIO M. MTJ-11-1782. 191560. CAPELLAN. (ABC (ALLIANCE FOR BARANGAY CONCERNS) PARTY LIST.R. IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE NEW APPOINTEE VICE HEREIN PETITIONER. 176596. (HON. It does not prohibit the new appointee from serving less than the unexpired portion of the term as in the case of a temporary appointment. GAITE et al. G. the law does not require evidence beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence. et al. "liable for any loss. 183890. JAMES MARTY LIM v.R. March 29. records. No. property and premises. GENERAL v. REPRESENTED BY MAGDANGAL B. G. G. to wit: 1) when their services are no longer needed. SALVADOR A. DESIERTO AS OMBUDSMAN.. 2011) R. JR. MARIE JEAN C. JR. No. March 22. URRO. HON. ANGELES v. HON. VALENCIA. less grave and light. No. CAYETANO v. COURT OF APPEALS. R. However. 188818 May 31. 2011) The Administrative Code of 1987 expressly prohibits the entering into contracts involving the expenditure of public funds unless an appropriation law authorizing the expenditure required in the contract and certification by the proper accounting official and auditor that funds have been appropriated by law and such funds are available are attached to the contract. 552.. and not full back salaries from his illegal termination up to his reinstatement.No. No. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA. The determination of just compensation goes beyond the private interests involved. BAGUIO CITY. 164195. 156684.R. (RODOLFO G. P-10-2767. are mandated to secure the court premises and protect its property from pilferage. (ANTONIO EXEQUIEL A. the Court held that an exception to this rule applies where the commission of grave abuse of discretion is apparent on its face. G. (SPOUSES ANTONIO AND FE YUSAY v. INC. G. (RE: THEFT OF THE USED GALVANIZED IRON (GI) SHEETS IN THE SC COMPOUND. (ISABEL GALANG v. A. 2011) An illegally terminated civil service employee is entitled to back salaries limited only to a maximum period of five years. BRANCH CLERK . LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES.e.the proper application of a basic constitutionally-guaranteed right. TINGA. it involves a matter of public interest . LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. G. The less grave offenses of simple neglect of duty and of simple misconduct carry the penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. (RIMANDO GANNAPAO v. VICTOR F.. No. 175276.A province may be created without complying with Sec. 2011) The public official‘s personal liability arises only if the expenditure of government funds was made in violation of law. April 12. April 12. G. (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v KANLAON CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES CO. (TOMAS R. A. (MARIA LAARNI L. 2011) This Court has no power to review via certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a division of the COMELEC. 2011) Section 23. educational attainment and eligibility for government service amounts to plain and simple dishonesty as it refers to the act of intentionally making a false statement on any material fact in securing one's appointment. the right of a landowner to receive just compensation when the government exercises the power of eminent domain in its agrarian reform program. April 05. IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY MAYOR OF CEBU CITY v. 182967. Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. (AN ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTY. It should go without saying that their duty should never be compromised to advance their own interests. No. namely. 2011) The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or. NAVARRO. No. OSMEÑA. G. INC.R. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT. April 06.R.R. 2011) Certiorari does not lie against the Sangguniang Panglungsod. May 31. No. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. BERNAL. (APO FRUITS CORPORATION AND HIJO PLANTATION. G. 180050. Nos. G.. 2011) Misrepresentation of qualifications i. PORTIA DIESTA.R. CITY MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF MANDALUYONG CITY. April 06.000) square kilometres.R. but a legislative and policy-making body declaring its sentiment or opinion. 193846. 2008-15-SC. MEDINA v. which was not a part of the Judiciary settling an actual controversy involving legally demandable and enforceable rights when it adopted Resolution No. 180141. et al. 292 provides that administrative offenses are classified into grave. AND RENE O. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND DANTE O. May 31. 2011) The proper determination of the same is a matter of transcendental importance. SUMAYO. v. MOMONGAN.M. G. 461 of the LGC requiring ―contiguous territory of at least two thousand (2. May 31. by the very nature of their work. No. an opportunity to explain one‘s side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.M. v PRIMITIVO A.R. depending on the gravity of the nature of the act complained of. April 12. 2011) Security guards. as applied to administrative proceedings. No. COURT OF APPEALS AND TERESITA SALVADOR. 191427. et al. G. 2011) Since the BSP. METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM.M. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NEWMOUNT PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED. No.e. No.R.OF COURT. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. VS. et al.R. No. only a state of emergency. G. It informs the landowner of the State‘s intention to acquire a private land upon payment of just compensation and gives him the opportunity to present evidence that his landholding is not covered or is otherwise excused from the agrarian law. 2011) Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land will not ipso facto make the tiller an agricultural tenant.P. LUIS MORALES. THE HON. MACALINTAL v. 177131. G. G. (LUCIA RODRIGUEZ. at the expense of the rights of others. No. 2011 ) Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or employee who unlawfully or wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. No. (BARANGAY CAPTAIN BEDA TORRECAMPO v. et al.R. May 30. 2011) A private corporation is beyond the Sandiganbayan‘s jurisdiction. BRANCH 236. 2011) The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial system. (THERON LACSON v. but not separate. without need of congressional authority to exercise the same. No.. 165399. June 8. 2011) Notice is part of the constitutional right to due process of law. Once again. (HEIRS OF DR. A. May 30.R. 166355. 2011) Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) is not simply an agency to which Members of the Court were designated. May 30. No. v. under its amended charter. COMMSSION ON AUDIT.R. It is incumbent upon a person who claims to be an agricultural tenant to prove by substantial evidence all the requisites of agricultural tenancy. 190259. The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. June 7. priority shall be given to the applicant that first filed its application.M. IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF GSIS v. ROMULO B. i. (ATTY.R. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. 2011) .R. 191218. v. May 30. 165475. 2011) The power of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officials is not exclusive. June 8. 169913. No.I. from the judicial department.R. June 7. et al. JOSE DELESTE. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL. 165404 and 165489. PASIG CITY AND LUZ SANTOS-TACLA. continues to be a public corporation or a government instrumentality. No. May 30.. 188296. we come to the inevitable conclusion that it is subject to the exercise by the COA of its audit jurisdiction in the manner consistent with the provisions of the BSP Charter. G. et al. the PET.R. to construct a road extension is obviously not within the province of this Court. The calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence in such places is a power that the Constitution directly vests in the President.. is to be an institution independent. 183576. 171972. It states that in the event there are two or more applicants over the same area. No. RONALDO PUNO. P-05-1970 (Formerly A. SAME COURT. No. G. G. May 30. ARWIN MAYORDOMO. (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) AND WINSTON GARCIA.R. v. (DATU ZALDY UY AMPATUAN.. May 30. Such determination belongs to the Executive branch. as intended by the framers of the Constitution.OCA I. G.R. NAMELY: JOSEFA DELESTE. (DIAMOND DRILLING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. as between two possible routes. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. Nos. G. (BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. June 7.. 2011) The President did not proclaim a national emergency. the Supreme Court. 2011) The determination of where. CLERK III. 04-1962-P). HON. but is concurrent with other similarly authorized agencies of the government in relation to the offense charged. G. et al. No. 191618. G. 2011) Section 8 of DAO 63 is clear. et al. (UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORP. June 28. P11-2953. Nos. if qualified. No..R. G. does not carry with it the authority to delve into the legality of the judgment of naturalization in the pursuit of disqualifying Limkaichong. 176951. (LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP) v.R. To rule otherwise would operate as a collateral attack on the citizenship of the father which is not permissible. 156556-57. ROMEO L. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. et al. G. No. On whether the principle of immutability of judgments and bar by res judicata apply herein. G. RONALDO E. 2011) Falsification or irregularities in the keeping of time records constitute dishonesty. the law only speaks of preference and by no stretch of the imagination can the same amount to a legal right to the position. October 5. (DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS v.. VILANDO v. 169263. CHAIRPERSON KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID. NO. 2011) An immunity statute does not. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.R. 188995. ESTATE OF SALUD JIMENEZ. MELBA TAN TE. DE LEMOS. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN SIMEON MARCELO. G. which is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service. (ENRIQUE U. 2011) . 169042. QUIWA. not all the terminated employees will be re-hired by the selection committee. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL. 2011) The defendant in an expropriation case who has objections to the taking of his property is now required to file an answer and in it raise all his available defenses against the allegations in the complaint for eminent domain. POLLO v.. (LEAVE DIVISION.Q.E. 192147. G. and cannot.. A.. et. (PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. et al.al. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. September 28. 2011) Section 63 of the EPIRA as well as Section 5. however. 2011) Payment for services done on account of the government. GREEN ASIA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. 181881.R. et al. No. but based on a void contract. No. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION. (ERDITO QUARTO v. 2011) The fair market value of the lot should be determined at the time when the parties signed the compromise agreement and the same was approved because this is tantamount to EPZA impliedly agreeing to paying the market value in 1993. et al. September 21. October 4. Clearly. October 19.R. August 23. October 18. August 24." et al. G. Rule 33 of the IRR clearly state that the displaced or separated personnel as a result of the privatization.R. (EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY v. shall be given preference in the hiring of the manpower requirements of the privatized companies.R. October 12. G. the Court‘ intervention only occurs when a clear and grave abuse of the exercise of discretion is shown. G. DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME "R. As such. cannot be avoided.M. (CITY OF MANILA v. CONSTRUCTION.R. (BRICCIO “Ricky” A.The Court has frequently disencumbered itself under extraordinary circumstances from the shackles of technicality in order to render just and equitable relief. (RENALD F. Nos. no matter how complete and exclusive. BETOY v. No. Undoubtedly. which law allows price escalation in all contracts involving government projects including contracts entered into by government entities and instrumentalities and Government Owned or Controlled Corporations (GOCCs). 183444. No. the operation of the principle of immutability of judgments did not yet come into play. suffice it to state that the succession of the events recounted herein indicates that the controversy about the 16 Cityhood Laws has not yet been resolved with finality. rule out a review by this Court of the Ombudsman‘s exercise of discretion. 188866. 2011) A search by a government employer of an employee‘s office is justified at inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct. 2011) Price escalation is expressly allowed under Presidential Decree 1594. No. 2011) The power of the HRET.R.. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G. v. No.R. (SALVADOR D. 172777. G. 171101. GR No. October 4. v. 194076. INCORPORATED et. No.R. G. (MONICO K. (BENJAMIN B.R. October 19. HON. an exception thereto lies as when there is serious ground to believe that a possible miscarriage of justice would thereby result. ALARILLA. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM. The MMDA does not have the power to declare a thing a nuisance. October 4. (CARLOS COTIANGCO. JR v. 2011) A one-day delay in filing a Preliminary Conference Brief. 2011) The exemption of special courts from the regular raffle was not established as an ironclad rule. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. October 19. (HACIENDA LUISITA. No. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ATTY. 2011) When custodial investigation is conducted in violation of Sec. it is beyond the province of the Court to analyze and weight the parties‘ evidence all over again in reviewing administrative decisions. on which the jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections over the case is dependent. TAGO R.12 of Art. 2011) A petition for disqualification and a petition to deny due course to or to cancel a certificate of candidacy. 176229. 2011) A government officer or employee‘s removal from office as a result of a bona fide reorganization is a valid cause for that employee‘s removal. October 5. 170512. BANGAYAN. 194143. 2011) In a buy-bust operation. SARIP. MUNDER v. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. 184807. and not the private offended party. to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime. 2011) While as a rule. G. the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized. No. R. Both remedies prescribe distinct periods to file the corresponding petition. JOSE D. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. No. has the authority to question the order granting the demurrer to evidence in a criminal case. IMPERIAL. October 19. BUENAVENTURA. CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY AND METRO MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. A. NO. No. et al. 2011) . (ALFAIS T. only evidence on confessions and admission of the accused as against himself is prohibited. (HO WAI PANG v.R.M.R. October 11. 191224. are two distinct remedies to prevent a candidate from entering an electoral race. G. No. 187117. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL. AZARRAGA and JOHN REY PREVENDIDO. November 22. October 12. ANTONIO T. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 2011) As long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course. No. v. 157139. 2011) The operative fact doctrine is not confined to statutes and rules and regulations issued by the executive department that are accorded the same status as that of a statute or those which are quasi-legislative in nature. VIOLAGO. October 19.R. G. does not justify the outright dismissal of an electoral protest based on technical grounds where there is no indication of intent to violate the rules on the part of petitioner and the reason for the violation is justifiable. 177807. No.R. (EMILIO GANCAYCO v. G.R. Only courts of law have the power to determine whether a thing is a nuisance.al v.R. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOAN V. he would have no reason to complain. No. 05-9-03-SC does in fact allow special courts to acquire jurisdiction over cases that are not drug cases. SALLY GO BANGAYAN. but dutybound. 2011) The Revised Charter of Quezon City expressly provided that the city government had the power to regulate the kinds of buildings and structures that may be erected within fire limits and the manner of constructing and repairing them. G.III.Only the OSG. GREGG C. November 23. SR. the essence of due process is in the opportunity to be heard. JR. REYES G. THE PROVINCE OF BILIRAN ANDTHE COURT OF APPEALS G. And an acquittal by virtue of a demurrer to evidence is not appealable because it will place the accused in double jeopardy. 167807. 2011) Executive Order 883 and Career Executive Service Board Resolution No. TAN SONG BOK AND JOSEFINA S. No. MENDOZA v. MARGARITO B. 2012) The Ombudsman need not conduct a preliminary investigation upon receipt of a complaint.R. A. SANA VS. 2011) The Court will never countenance any conduct. G.D. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.M. 2011) A government employee enjoys constitution protection that ―No officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.R. (MANOLITO AGRA. COURT OF APPEALS. even if the accused was acquitted. No. et al. November 16. December 6. REYES v.R. RTJ-07-2069. NOGALES. it should be computed in accordance with the said law. CADER P. G. No. No. but from evidence of his conduct and outward acts. COURT OF APPEALS and MIA MANAHAN. 191448.. December 12. 870 having ceased to have any force and effect. (ATTY. November 15. 2011) For a valid dismissal from the government service. December 14. act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish the people‘s faith in the judiciary. (ESPINA & MADARANG CO. 9164 has no retroactive application. No. RODRIGUEZ. TEVES. 191017. G. COMMISSION ON AUDIT. ELIAS OMAR A. G.R. REYES. (BUREAU OF (CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (BOCEA) v. NORIEL H. the trial court has the discretion to act upon the commissioners‘ report.‖ (VICTOR R. No. CLARISSA G.R. 193160. November 15. 2011) The three-term limitation made under RA No. 18471. HON. December 4. INDAR AL HAJ. December 6. No. (IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. (CESAR S. 182606. DUMDUMA v. G. HON. G. et.CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE BOARD. & MAKAR AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIAL & DEVELOPMENT CORP. 9335. 969 mandates the forfeiture and destruction of pornographic materials involved in the violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. (FREDRIK FELIX P. 27. 2011) Rice subsidy is one of the benefits that will be granted to employees of GOCCs or GFIs only if they are "incumbents" as of July 1. March 21. REYES. (CONSTANCIO F. 2011) R.P. 191805. No. November 21. G. CLARIBEL G. SPS. December 13. RODRIGUEZVS.D. No. REYES. G. .R. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. No. et al. et. (PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORP. November 15.R. otherwise known as the Attrition Act of 2005 and its IRR are constitutional. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2011) Good faith is actually a question of intention and can be ascertained not from a person‘s own protestation of good faith. That should investigating officers find a complaint utterly devoid of merit. v. as commander-in-chief of the military. No. FAMILARA AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. they may recommend its outright dismissal. No.al v.A. and CZARINA G.al.R. 167002.. 181704. which is self-serving. SENEN C. et al. 2011) In expropriation cases. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH) v. 1989. the Court can no longer pass upon the issue of their constitutionality. 2011) The president. 185668. YUJUICO. the requirements of due process must be complied with. G. HEIRS OF JESUS S. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO. can be held responsible or accountable for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. substituted by his heirs. (MAKAR). No. 192926. No. 2011) The Court has already categorically declared in that if the issue of just compensation is not settled prior to the passage of the CARL.R. although the property was acquired under P. 191080. G.R.R. TAN. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. v. G. GUTIERREZ. NUEVA VIZCAYA. March 14. 165132. P-09-2686 (Formerly OCA I. March 14. 2012) . No. COMPLAINANT v. ANGELES v. QUEZON CITY.R. Thus. In cases involving public officials. AURORA M. 2012) The constitutional validity of the President‘s proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is first a political question in the hands of Congress before it becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the Court. A. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO. No. HERNANDO v. 27 in relation to E. et al.R. No. PONCE. G. 194665. G. et al. with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. March 21.R.R. 188670. demotion. Its purpose is to determine who between them has actually obtained the majority of the legal votes cast and is entitled to hold the office. FERNANDEZ v. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. No. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. NELLIE R. based on the grounds of electoral frauds and irregularities. in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority. PERFECTO OBIAS. G. (DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM. BAYOMBONG. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL. ANGELES v. 195191. NOW BY SECRETARY NASSER C. (PHILIP SIGFRID A. it is also within their discretion to determine whether or not preliminary investigation should be conducted. 228 should be computed in accordance with the method set forth under R. March 21. No. 2012) The Ombudsman has the power to impose the penalty of removal. (CONGRESSWOMAN LUCY MARIE TORRES-GOMEZ v. (SHERYLL C. MERCEDITAS N.I No. March 7. HON. G. G. No. G. 2012) Gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care. CLERK III. JR.A. the payment of interest shall be made until full payment of the amount adjudged as just compensation for the land. had already been rejected by this Court. some unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer charged. EUFROCINO C. JULIANA Y.R. censure. No. AND HON. 194645. March 07. PAMELA P. The challenge to the Ombudsman‘s power to impose these penalties.O. PANGANDAMAN v. et al. (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. CODILLA. P-11-3019. G. (PRISCILLA L. 190293. 6657. BRANCH 104. 062441-P). 2012) In the payment of just compensation.P. DELA CRUZ. there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. No. or prosecution of a public officer or employee. No. BRANCH 28. 2012) An election protest proposes to oust the winning candidate from office. on the allegation that the Constitution only grants it recommendatory powers. acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act.Moreover. No. CLAVE. fine. 2012) Section 53 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service is clear that length of service may be considered either as mitigating or aggravating depending on the circumstances of the case. G. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. Nos. it is provided that ―administrative investigations shall be conducted without necessarily adhering strictly to the technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable to judicial proceedings‖. No. 2012) Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. REPRESENTED BY OIC-SECRETARY JOSE MARI B.. RTC. not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally. MALUNAO. March 6. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. R.R. AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. et al. No. March 20. HEIRS OF ANGEL T. 193983. suspension. The weight of evidence required in administrative investigations is substantial evidence. the performance of the official duties of the one charged. APOLONIO. (VICTORY M. MA. (JUDGE ADORACION G. March 20. 2012) Just compensation for private agricultural lands acquired by the government under the auspices of P. misconduct refers to a transgression of an established and definite rule of action. BENGSON. It is strictly a contest between the defeated and the winning candidates.. 2012) An administrative offense constitutes ‗misconduct‘ when it has direct relation to.M. A.. FORTUN AND ALBERT LEE G. 189161. DOMINGO. and is connected with. more specifically.D.M. March 20. LEGAL RESEARCHER. 184406. (b) where once established. INCORPORATED v. ROJO. jurisprudence has laid down the following guidelines: (a) every person has a domicile or residence somewhere. (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. the Priority Development Assistance Fund cannot be declared unconstitutional. 2012) There is no hard and fast rule to determine a candidate‘s compliance with residency requirement since the question of residence is a question of intention. OZAMIS CITY. ATTY. 2012) In computing the quorum in of the Sangguniang Panglungsod. (ROMMEL APOLINARIO JALOSJOS v. and (c) a person can have but one domicile at a time. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL. No. No. BRANCH 2. SELUDO. which has the authority to conduct investigations and other similar actions as well as to issue orders. A.Coco-levy funds are public funds as these funds are affected by public interest: to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of a threatened industry. G. REX G. MANUEL Z. 06-3-88-MTCC) While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function vested in the RTC acting as a special agrarian court. 181367. (LA CARLOTA CITY. G. pursuant to its power of supervision. 2012) When the question involves the validity of a resolution issued by petitioner. ARAYA. INC. INC. G. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND COUNSEL. 191970. G. and its funds may be subject to garnishment or levy. This notwithstanding.R. No.M. Special agrarian courts are not at liberty to disregard the formula laid down by the Department of Agrarian Reform. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND DAN ERASMO.. 2012) In the absence of convincing proof that indeed. HEIRS OF SALVADOR ENCINAS and JACOBA DELGADO. No. it was the PARC approval which should be considered as the effective date of ―taking‖ as it was only during this time that the government officially confirmed the CARP coverage of these lands.R. HLI‘s submitting its SDP for approval is an acknowledgment on its part that the agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita are covered by CARP.R. NAMELY: PAMBANSANG KOALISYON NG MGA SAMAHANG MAGSASAKA AT MANGGAGAWA SA NIYUGAN (PKSMMN). v.M. Notwithstanding. UP cannot evade execution. v. 147036-37. (LAWYERS AGAINST MONOPOLY AND POVERTY (LAMP).R. However. G. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. No. SR. April 24. JR. Thus. COCONUT INDUSTRY REFORM MOVEMENT (COIR) et al. April 24.R. No. THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT. April 10. that domicile remains until he acquires a new one. G.. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES. et al. its entire membership must be taken into account including that of the City Vice Mayor as presiding officer. (SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE..R. No... G. JR. April 18. 171101. NEGROS OCCIDENTAL v. No. who actually spend them according to their sole discretion.P-12-3053. (LOCKHEED DETECTIVE AND WATCHMAN AGENCY. v. (formerly A. a claim for payment of the judgment award must first be filed with the COA. April 18. April 24. the judge cannot abuse his discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules. Nos. the coconut industry. April 25. 2012) As a separate juridical personality from the government. 2012) An officer or employee in the government shall be considered habitually absent only if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2/5 days monthly leave credit under the Civil Service Rules for at least three months in a semester or at least three consecutive months during the year. No. ANANIAS D. as in the instant case. 167735. April 24. there were direct releases of funds to the Members of Congress.R. 185918.R. UTILITY WORKER. (PETITIONERORGANIZATIONS. 173840. CEFERINO PADUA et al. rules and regulations with respect to all matters affecting electric cooperatives. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY et al. 2012) ―Taking‖ also occurs when agricultural lands are voluntarily offered by a landowner and approved by PARC for CARP coverage through the stock distribution scheme. (HACIENDA LUISITA. et al. MTCC. before execution may be had. NEGROS OCCIDENTAL AND THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD OF LA CARLOTA CITY. v. 164987. 2012) . it is the National Electric Authority.. R.R. 180308. June 18. NORAIDA A. No. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 7077 evidently has to do with the composition of the Retired Reserve Unit. 2012) Section 13(3) of R. Rule IV of the Uniform Rules for the commission of dishonesty even as a first offense.R. 2012) Dismissal from the service. The application of these formulas are mandatory and imposes upon the RTC-SACs the duty to apply. Like any public servant. 196201. JR.. CABARRUS. as it is only limited to the evaluation of qualifications for registration. 175430. June 20. G. April 24. (ROMEO M. provided the new appointee‘s tenure in both capacities does not exceed seven (7) years in all.R. 2012) The Depratment of Agrarian Reform. THE CHAIRMAN. and qualifications of the proclaimed Representative in favor of the HRET. KERRY LAO ONG. 2012) The Local Government Code establishes the duties of national government agencies in the maintenance of ecological balance. G. No. This process does not entail any determination of administrative liability. 190793. No. No. et al. No. et al. Section 2(5) of the Constitution and Section 61 of BP 881 in the COMELEC to register political parties and ascertain the eligibility of groups to participate in the elections is purely administrative in character. 193566. and requires them to secure prior public consultation and approval of local government units for the projects described therein. PAF (RES. (BORACAY FOUNDATION. June 19. 2012) There is nothing infirm in an agreement which impliedly waives the right of City of Manila to present evidence that it was acquiring the subject lots by expropriation for a proper public purpose since it may be assumed that the parties knew what they were doing and since such agreement would facilitate early disposal of the case.M. (CITY OF MANILA v. 2012) Every employee of the Judiciary should be an example of integrity. 171038. June 25. No. et al.Sec. v. 6. v. No. COMMISSION ON AUDIT. as the administrative agency tasked with the implementation of the agrarian reform program and pursuant to its rule-making power under R. 1(2). HEIRS OF JUAN LOPEZ. June 19. 6657. VILLAR.. No. Nos. 187604..R. (LOURDES CELAVITE-VIDAL v. series of 1992. REYNALDO A. G. The provision in question does not prescribe the retirement age for reservists who are called into active service in the regular armed forces. G. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE. G. IX(D) of the 1987 Constitution and similar provisions do not peremptorily prohibit the promotional appointment of a commissioner to chairman. AGUAM. 2012) The proclamation of a congressional candidate following the election divests COMELEC of jurisdiction over disputes relating to the election. HON. 2012) The conferral of the legislative power of inquiry upon any committee of Congress. June 13. (DENNIS A. INC. he must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of her official duties but also in her personal and private dealings with other people. returns. et al. No. G. 192704. 192791. and not to disregard. G. G. must carry with it all powers necessary and proper for its effective discharge. v. SR. JR. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES.) v. and those found in succeeding DAR administrative regulations. FLORENTINOVELOSO. (FRANCISCO T. Art. translated the factors in Section 17 into a basic formula in DAR A. JOLOSJOS. G. B. June 26. (MAGDALO PARA SA PAGBABAGO v. June 19. 180966.R.R. as a prescribed penalty imposed by Section 52(A)(1). et al. JESUS G. 2012) Bare general assertions cannot discharge the burden of proof that is required of an applicant for naturalization.O.A. 2012) The power vested by Article IX-C. uprightness and honesty. (COL. IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v.. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND DAN ERASMO. 192474. them in determining just compensation. FUNA.A.SCC-1013-P. .. A. No. (PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION.R. underscores the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust and only those who can live up to such exacting standard deserve the honor of continuing in public service. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. to preserve the court‘s good name and standing. v. DUQUE III. No. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. June 26. ALEGAR CORPORATION.R. July 3.. and an exercise by another official. (POLYFOAM CHEMICAL CORP. 187298. TAN. v. This singular power to rule upon questions of party identity and leadership is exercised by the COMELEC as an incident to its enforcement powers. G.THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN. No. June 27. The calling-out powers contemplated under the Constitution is exclusive to the President. July 4. it follows that the official concerned has no right to receive additional compensation for his services in the said position. with damages. or the Local Government Code. ABDUSAKUR M. (ARNOLD D. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC). June 26. et al. G. 2012) Under Section 456 of R. (PHILIPPINE SPORTS COMMISSION. 181327. CHEN. GOV. HON. VILLAR. misdeed or misdemeanor not only in the performance of their official duties but also in conducting themselves outside or beyond the duties and functions of their office.R.. No. v. admissions. and may not be justified by the invocation of Section 465 of the Local Government Code. Nos. in addition. the agrarian reform process has yet to be completed. Neither is the provincial governor authorized to convene a local civilian group or an organization of private citizens as it is proscribed pursuant to the national policy to establish one police force and under Sec. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. July 3. No. JESUS J. VICENCIO v. (PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA) v. G. PLANAS VS. July 3. G. 189767. No. When the facts as pleaded are uncontested. VERONICA ATEGANABLE. v. G. No. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. et al. (JAMAR M. No. (FILOMENA B. even if he is the local chief executive. Nos. DEAR JOHN SERVICES. all the facts regarding the condition of the landholding and its surroundings. G. 2012) A summary judgment is resorted to in order to expedite the disposition of a case. G. Thus.24 of Article XVIII of the Constitution. is ultra vires. LOKIN. 2012) The conduct of every court personnel must be beyond reproach and free from suspicion that may cause to sully the image of the Judiciary. unlike that provided for the city mayor. G. JR.R. there is no inherent authority on the part of the city vice-mayor to enter into contracts on behalf of the local government unit. G.R.. Thus. et al. there is no genuine issue as to the facts. MARQUEZ.R. JOINED BY HER HUSBAND. 2012) In appraising just compensation the courts must consider. REYNALDO A. the land shall be considered taken only upon payment of just compensation because it would complete the agrarian reform process.M. 2012) . July 3. MANOLOGODUCO. v.R.R. June 27. A. June 26. June 27. 2012) Competitive bidding is an essential element of a public bidding. GAMBITO. No. et al. 2012) The COMELEC‘s jurisdiction to settle the struggle for leadership within the party is well established. 190336. It has been held in a long line of cases that a contract granted without the competitive bidding required by law is void and the party to whom it is awarded cannot benefit from it. No. CARLITO S. and summary judgment is warranted. MONTALVAN. June 27. INC. MONTALVAN. 156869.R. (LUIS K. PAZ O. 182069. 174007. et al. ELISA S. They must totally avoid any impression of impropriety. REPRESENTED BY GOV.R. et al.A. the authority of the vice-mayor to enter into contracts on behalf of the city was strictly circumscribed by the ordinance granting it. P-06-2186 and P-12-3026. et al. 2012) The consequence of a finding of unjust and improper titling of the entire property by the Republic is that the title over the excluded portion shall be returned or transferred back to the owners of the lot.. CONSOLACION v. KULAYAN.. depositions. (DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. 196870. 2012) The ex-officio position being actually and in legal contemplation part of the principal office. 2012) Evidently in a case where the conflict is exactly on just compensation. COMMISSION ON AUDIT. 2012) A provincial governor is not endowed with the power to call upon the armed forces at his own bidding. AND TERESITA F. No. 193808.R. 176692. it appearing from the pleadings. 7160. as well as the improvements and the capabilities of the landholding. 183260. G. LYDIA S. The reason is that these services are already paid for and covered by the compensation attached to his principal office. and affidavits of record that no genuine question or issue of fact exists in such case. G... EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N.M. JULY 17. 2012) Taking monetary evidence without proper authority constitutes theft warranting the penalty of dismissal and cancellation of eligibility. G. July 10. 154952. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES SITTING AS AN IMPEACHMENT COURT. BASILIO. (ABRAHAM RIMANDO v. Thus. (JUDGE PELAGIA DALMACIO-JOAQUIN v.. (HILARION F.M.M. BACOLOD CITY. CASTRO. goes against that mandate. NO. et al. No. LEDESMA. MTJ-10-1770. public safety or public health as may be provided by law. v. double and indirect compensation is where the law allows him to receive extra compensation for services rendered in another position which is an extension or is connected with his basic work. No. JULITA ESPARTERO. July 18.. (FRANCISCO I. IRISSA G. LUIS D. P-06-2241. (OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v.M. 2012) The exercise of the right to travel guaranteed by the Constitution is not absolute. 2012) . under an operating agreement. v. 2012) While the Local Government Code charges the LGUs to take on the functions and responsibilities that have already been devolved upon them from the national agencies on the aspect of providing for basic services and facilities in their respective jurisdictions. et al. NICOMEDES DELA CRUZ. Section 6. A. et al. MACARINE. Article III of the 1987 Constitution allows restrictions on one‘s right to travel provided that such restriction is in the interest of national security. A. CHAVEZ v. JR. v. A. (DIZON COPPER SILVER MINES.. No. discretionary in nature. et al. A. DIMAGIBA.. MUSNI. (RHEA AIRENE P. 195770. any inclusion of another member. G. the Local Government Code provides an exception in cases involving nationally-funded projects. PERADILLA. et al. DR. (AQUILINO Q. v. July 17. No. 198860. DIZON. PIMENTEL. cannot file a Mineral Product Sharing Agreement (MPSA) application in its name without a sufficient and valid authorization from its principal or from the holders of the mining claims and interests included therein. 2012) The Constitution mandates that the JBC be composed of seven (7) members only.C. 200242.R. et al. LUNALINDA M. 2012) The failure of counsel to file the requisite appellant‘s brief amounts to inexcusable. G. No. No. July 17. INC. July 4. 6910. P-09-2647. dishonesty.R. P-12-3067. P-11-3024. July 11. A.R. 202242. 2012) The power of judicial review in this jurisdiction includes the power of review over justiciable issues in impeachment proceedings. BR. (CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. forfeiture of retirement benefits. No. (ISAAC C. July 16. No.. July 18. facilities. et al. G. 48.R. programs and services. No. July 23.R.R. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL. G. JUDGE IGNACIO B. 2012) A mayor cannot be compelled by mandamus to issue a business permit since the exercise of the same is a delegated police power hence.M. and grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service which warrants the penalty of dismissal from service. No. July 17. 183573. CORONA v. July 17. INC. NAGUILAN EMISSION TESTING CENTER. OCHOA. et al. 2012) The failure of the Clerk of Court to remit the court funds constitutes gross neglect of duty. MA. SHERIFF IV. 2012) The only exception for an employee to receive additional. No. RTC. v. ATTY. 2012) A mere operator.The failure of a sheriff to make periodic reports on the status of a writ of execution warrants administrative liability. et al. A. KATAGUE. VIRGIL R. whether with one whole vote or half (1/2) of it. JERRY A. 2012) A process server‘s unjustified delay in serving court notices constitutes neglect of duty that warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions. (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service. in which case.M. 2012) A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.. G.R. 163859. et al. July 24.A. et al. No. No. G.R. PICHAY. v. 174431. MELENDRES M. 292. August 10. G. NO. 2012) The mandatory order in the program of devolution under R. 2012) Mistrial is the only exception to the well-settled principle that acquittal is immediately final and cannot be appealed on the ground of double jeopardy. 189041.. No. 185806. G. R. (GENEROSO ABELLANOSA. G. as a constitutional precept.R. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. A.R. No. No. P/SSUPT. but it is by his own fault or choice he squanders these chances. No. which were not integrated into the standardized salary rates.. JULY 24.O. (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. et al. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE LUNG CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES [LCP] v. when the party seeking due process was in fact given several opportunities to be heard and air his side. 193636. July 24. G. FERNANDO A. BUGARIN v. v. August 15. No.A. 2012) The forwarding of information by the PNP to the Zeñarosa Commission was not an unlawful act that violates or threatens the right to privacy in life. remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar. 9225.R. (DR. (PROSPERO A. the NGA personnel shall be retained by the national government. then his cry for due process must fail. shall continue to be authorized. July 31. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.A. However. No. The PNP was rationally expected to forward and share intelligence regarding private army groups (PAGs) with the body specifically created for the purpose of investigating the existence of these notorious groups. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. In administrative proceedings. (RE: COA OPINION ON THE COMPUTATION OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY THE RETIRED CHIEF/ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT. 2012) Due process.M. JR. 11-7-10-SC. PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION. This Court was categorical in stating that a re-examination of the evidence without a finding of mistrial will violate the right to repose of an accused. AGNES QUIDA P. 6758 withdrew the authority of the NHA to grant additional incentive benefits to its project personnel. (MARYNETTE R. G. 7160 connotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS-INVESTIGATIVE AND ADJUDICATORY DIVISION. 2012) The abolition of the PAGC and the transfer of its functions to a division specially created within the ODESLA is properly within the prerogative of the President under his continuing ―delegated legislative authority to reorganize‖ his own office pursuant to E. 196425. August 6. 6758.R. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY. MARLOU C.. 2012) . the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. YU. July 25. et al. the right to resume the practice of law is not automatic. meaning. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.R. Thus. 198742. liberty or security...R. (THE HEIRS OF JOLLY R. CHAN. G.A.A. EPIFANIO MUNESES. No. 2012) Any form of interference by the Legislative or the Executive on the Judiciary‘s fiscal autonomy amounts to an improper check on a co-equal branch of government. No. 2012) Foreign citizenship must be formally rejected through an affidavit duly sworn before an officer authorized to administer oath.D. et al. July 31. DR. et al. No. 2112. (TEODORA SOBEJANA-CONDON v. A. No. 2012) Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy. The only instance that the LGU concerned may choose not to absorb the NGA personnel is when absorption is not administratively viable. it would result to duplication of functions. GAMBOA v. (IN RE: PETITION TO RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES.R. 198589. Only those additional compensation benefits being received by incumbents before the effectivity of R. July 24. 9225 provides that a person who intends to practice his profession in the Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice. which is what is protected by the rule against double jeopardy. does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. BAGONG KAPISANAN SA PUNTA TENEMENT.P-12-3080. VALDEZ. v. G. Nos.D. September 11. (JUDGE ARMANDO S. 199084. No. (COCOFED). (MEMORANDA OF JUDGE ELIZA B. No.R.R. G. 179054. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. G.R. No. YU ISSUED TO LEGAL RESEARCHER MARIE JOY P. 196355. the COMELEC need not order the opening of the ballot box for the purpose of recounting the votes of the candidates affected if the correction sought is such that it can be made without the need of opening the ballot box. (BIENVENIDO WILLIAM D.R. REYNALDO BELOCURA. No. No. al. the corresponding penalty is dismissal from employment or service. DIZON.R. not only with respect to his duties in the judicial branch but also to his behavior outside the court as a private individual. 173474. one to be paid in the trial court together with the filing of the notice of appeal. 196232 September 04. 2012) The rules on the timely perfection of an appeal in an election case requires two different appeal fees. G.The Court cannot countenance neglect of duty for even simple neglect of duty lessens the people‘s confidence in the judiciary and ultimately in the administration of justice. G.. August 23. 173268. September 18. No. September 04. 2012) The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of court personnel must be free from any whiff of impropriety. No.R. JR. 171182. ALL OF METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT. 2012) The funds of the UP are government funds that are public in character and could not be validly made the subject of the RTC‘s writ of execution or garnishment. 196231. G. AGUSTIN S. grave misconduct. (UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES. No.M.et al. INC v.R. 2012) The issuance by the proper disciplining authority of an order of preventive suspension for 90 days of a civil officer or employee pending investigation of her administrative case is authorized provided that a formal charge is served to her and her charge involves dishonesty. BRANCH 47. G. 2012) The consequence of a violation of the guarantees against a violation of personal security and privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures is the exclusion of the evidence thereby obtained. 2012) The power of the Ombudsman to determine and impose administrative liability is not merely recommendatory but actually mandatory. ROSARIO S. et. 2012 The Office of the President has jurisdiction to exercise administrative disciplinary power including the power to dismiss a Deputy Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor who belong to the constitutionallycreated Office of the Ombudsman. CERON v. 2012) When an individual is found guilty of dishonesty. 177857-58. NO. et al. or neglect in the performance of duty. GONZALES III v. G. AZER E. ADLAWAN v.. HON. (PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION. 2012) Section 2 which mandated that the coconut levy funds shall not be considered special and/or fiduciary funds nor part of the general funds of the national government of P. September 18. COMMISSION ON ELECTION GRACE P. (EMILIO A. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES et. (ANTONIO P. ESTRELLA P. September 05.. et al. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. et al. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ROGELIO PUA.R. 176343. BASSIG. August 23. MANALANG-DEMIGILLO. 2012) In correcting the erroneous entry. (TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MA. or if there are reasons to believe that she is guilty of the charge as to warrant her removal from the service. G.M. August 29. FAJARDO v. 2012) . and the other to be paid in the COMELEC Cash Division within the 15-day period from the filing of the notice of appeal. August 15. A. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. A. P-12-3033. CAPILITAN. INC. August 29.. LAGMAN AND TO COURT STENOGRAPHER SOLEDAD J. LLOREN v. No. Nos. oppression. (ERNESTO A.al v. PASAY CIT. et al. 755 contravenes the provisions of the Constitution. DOLOT..R. 2012) A void certificate of candidacy on the ground of ineligibility that existed at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy can never give rise to a valid candidacy. v.. 2012) Existence of a valid certificate of candidacy is a condition sine qua non for a valid substitution. VERGARA v. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. (DR.R. JR... G. CARDINO. all votes for that candidate are stray votes. of the election. No. 2012) Failure to adduce substantial evidence that the act was part of the fraudulent scheme amounting to grave misconduct. COURT OF APPEALS. v. 176579. (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM. Hence.R. G. (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. dishonesty and reasonable violation of office rules and regulations presupposes that the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from the service is not warranted. October 09. 189774. G. 2012) There has been no change of any long-standing rule.R. No. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. 2012) A cancelled certificate of candidacy void ab initio cannot give rise to a valid candidacy. No. Nos. No. October 09. Acts performed in contravention of such directives merit invalidation. October 09. SANTIAGO. VELASCO. Hence. GAMBOA v. 199085. (HEIRS OF WILSON P. G.R. G.‖ ―capital stock‖ and ―capital‖ were defined solely to determine the basis for computing the supervision and regulation fees under Section 40(e) and (f) of the Public Service Act.There is no impediment for the COMELEC and the DOJ to create the Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team for the purpose of conducting a thorough investigation of the alleged massive electoral fraud and the manipulation of election results in the 2004 and 2007 national elections relating in particular to the presidential and senatorial elections. (EFREN RACEL ARATEA v.. the ―second placer‖ candidate is deemed to have garnered the highest number of votes and is entitled to hold the corresponding elective position. 178845. EMILIANO R. et al. and much less to valid votes. G. TALAGA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTELA D. et al.R. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND AGAPITO J. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND THE DIRECTOR. 2012) Directives and orders issued by the President in the valid exercise of his power of control over the executive department must be obeyed and implemented in good faith by all executive officials. JR. 176162. 6657. ANTIPOLO. 182209. October 09.R. JALOSJOS. G. 2012) The sale of government-owned Angat Hydro-Electric Power Plant (AHEPP) to a foreign corporation is not prohibited but only Filipino citizens and corporations 60% of whose capital is owned by Filipinos may be granted Water rights. TEVES. HEIDI R. or before the day.‖ The terms ―capital stock subscribed or paid. if a certificate of candidacy void ab initio is cancelled on the day. G. ARROYO v. (DOMINADOR G. v. CHUA.R. September 18. et al. 2012) Civil Service Commission (CSC) has jurisdiction over cases filed directly with it. October 09. regardless of who initiated the complaint. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND RODERICK A. EMMANUEL T.R. such just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under Republic Act No. 195229. 2012) When the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation due the landowner has yet to be settled. No. NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AUDIT OFFICE. No. October 03. (JOSE MIGUEL T. 196804. 193237. 192088. and much less to valid votes. ALCALA . (INITIATIVES FOR DIALOGUE AND EMPOWERMENT THROUGH ALTERNATIVE LEGAL SERVICES.R. G. hence a declaration of a candidate‘s disqualification which rendered his CoC invalid cannot be properly substituted (MAYOR BARBARA RUBY C. REPRESENTED BY ROBERT G. No. no redefinition of the term ―capital. INC. POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (PSALM). CSC likewise exercises concurrent original jurisdiction with the Board of Regents over administrative cases. et al. September 18. 2012) . thus. Neither does the creation of the said Committee violates the constitutional rights of an individual. October 09. 202914.R. No. September 26. No. G.. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al. COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN. 27 does not necessarily mean that the determination of just compensation thereof must be under the same decree. No. 169391. BUAGAS.Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in the strict judicial sense. No. G.R.R.. November 12. 2013) Mandamus will issue only when the petitioner has a clear legal right to the performance of the act sought to be compelled and the respondent has an imperative duty to perform the same. 152642. et al. ROSAL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. No. November 13. 2012) The votes cast for a nuisance candidate declared as such in a final judgment. (SPECIAL PEOPLE. (SPOUSES AUGUSTO G. REY SALAC. 2012) The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 is valid and constitutional. (HPS SOFTWARE AND COMMUNICATION CORPORATION AND HYMAN YAP v. G. v.R. al. November 13. 188056. are not stray but must be counted in favor of the latter. EUGENE C. DACUDAO AND OFELIA R. January 08.R. No. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY (PLOT). COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JOHN LLOYD M. G.R. No. (JOHN C. v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. particularly where such nuisance candidate has the same surname as that of the legitimate candidate. PACETE. SR. 2012) The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. 2013) Cancellation proceedings involve the exercise of the quasi-judicial functions of the COMELEC which the COMELEC in division should first decide. QUIÑO. No. G. INC. ROKAYA AND SULAIMAN BONA . 182 does not violate equal protection of law and the right to speedy disposition of cases guaranteed by the Constitution. G.R.R. G. DELA CRUZ v. No.R. CANDA et al. INC. January 14.R. (MAYOR ABELARDO ABUNDO. No. 2013) . G. 175155. (HON. FOUNDATION v. 201716. No. 170217. et al. 197466. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. PATRICIA A. ESTATE OF HANS MENZI (THROUGH ITS EXECUTOR. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) et al. SPS. DACUDAO v.R. No. Nos. and simply the opportunity to be heard. et al. GO AND ANGELITA GO. 2012) Probable cause. GO v. January 08. 160932. COMELEC and ROLAN G. 2013) The winning elected official in an election protest grants the local elected official the right to serve the unexpired portion of the term. v.D. October 22. et al. What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard. STO. 192289. G. (CASIMIRA S. NESTOR M. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND RITCHIE R. (SPS. 180804. The COMELEC en banc cannot short cut the proceedings by acting on the case without a prior action by a division because it denies due process to the candidate. et al.R. as a condition for the issuance of a search warrant. No. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. et. No. 2012) A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits. G. AND MINOR EMERSON CHESTER KIM B.R. 2012) The consolidation of cases to a DOJ Special Panel under DO No. WAGAS. vs. MONTECILLO). 192221. is such reasons supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man to believe that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper.. G. the Government or any other person. not the form in which the notice is given. January 08. TOMAS. as these can be done only for the causes and by the processes laid down by law. IBRAHIM v. November 13. ARROYO. MANUEL G. November 13. (JOEL P. G. (KAMARUDIN K. 170694 December 10. 183446... 2012) Sequestration is not meant to deprive the owner or possessor of his title or any right to his property and vest the same in the sequestering agency. October 10. What matters for due process purpose are notice of what is to be explained. 2012) Acquisition of the property under OLT or P. 193643 and 193704. the requirement of a masteral degree for tertiary education teachers is not unreasonable. et al. January 28. 2013) The express grant of power to the COMELEC to resolve election protests carries with it the grant of all other powers necessary. G. February 20. No. G. v.R. the exclusive original jurisdiction conferred by the constitution to the COMELEC to settle said election protests includes the authority to order a technical examination of relevant election paraphernalia. ANALIZA F. (HENRY R. 193897. proper. are not two highly opposite concepts that can result in a fatally defective information should the terms be conjoined in the information. GONTANG v.R. 199612. January29. January16. (UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v.R. G. election returns and ballots in order to determine whether fraud and irregularities attended the canvass of the votes. No. the printouts thereof are the functional equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters and. they may properly secure the services of private counsel. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL. Verily. 2013) . GIRON v. v. G. 182358. SAHALI. (GOVERNOR SADIKUL A. thus. so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject. et al. which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. (DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. 191691.R. BUENO. CECILIA ALAYAN. A violation of this constitutional edict warrants the disallowance of the payment.A.R. G. or incidental to the effective and efficient exercise of the power expressly granted. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. COMMISSIONERS of the COMMISSION on AUDIT. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. NAZARETH v. As such. the refund of the disallowed payment of a benefit granted by law to a covered person. No. indicated in the title. (ROMEO A. on the other hand. 166967. The fact that the prosecution can properly allege these different modes alternatively in the information only means that the conviction may lie based simply on the evidence that is supportive of a particular mode. 2013) Picture images of the ballots. COMELEC. 2013) Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy. may be used for purposes of revision of votes in an electoral protest. 2013) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. However. January 22. thus. G. 2013) An opposition to a petition for registration of a party-list is not a condition precedent to the filing of a complaint for cancellation of the same. No. PEPANIO AND MARITI D. No. (EDNA J.Where personal liability on the part of local government officials is sought.R. No.R. No. no matter how diverse they may be. G. 191023. January 15. SAHALI AND VICE-GOVERNOR RUBY M. January 22. No. in possession of sufficient academic knowledge and teaching skills. and evident bad faith or manifest partiality. v. agency or office of the Government may be barred by the good faith of the approving official and of the recipient. No. (RENATO M. (ANTONIO D. Likewise.R. FEDERICO v. (LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v.R. public officials may not be sued for acts done in the perfomance of their official functions or within the scope of their authority.R. 199149. (DON DJOWEL SALES v. COMELEC. as defined by Section 2 (3) of R. G. 201796. SR. 188179. 2013) Gross inexcusable negligence. January29. G. 2013) The government has a right to ensure that only qualified persons. January 22. ENGR. are likewise ―official ballots‖ that faithfully captures in electronic form the votes cast by the voter. January 23. on one hand. JACA v. COMELEC. No. as scanned and recorded by the PCOS. and may be considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and means of carrying out the general subject. Nos. 9369. 2013) A statute having a single general subject.. G. No. PEOPLE. PHIL PHARMAWEALTH. (BRENDA L.R. G. 188635. INC. are allowed to teach in such institutions. the candidate with the highest number of votes should be proclaimed as the duly elected mayor. DAYAO. February 6. may contain any number of provisions. 2013) The state may not be sued without its consent. 2013) When there has been no valid substitution. (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. G. and an appeal therefrom does not stop the decision from being executory. (ISABELO A.R. No.R. the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and not proof beyond reasonable doubt which requires moral certainty to justify affirmative findings. G. The position of a General Manager (GM) in a water district is considered as a confidential position due to the intimate relationship between the GM and the Board of Directors (BOD) of the water district and the power of the BOD to terminate the services of the GM on the ground of loss of confidence. G. TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (TIDCORP) et al. 2013) In an administrative proceeding. March 5. 1950. February 26. February 13.. DE LEON. No. Thus.R. 2013) Where the law allows its Board of Directors to create its own staffing pattern. 168613 & G. No. Prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. The BOD of a government-owned and controlled corporation may be granted by law the authority to effect reorganization therein. et al.The fact that the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) conducts public consultations or hearings does not mean that it is performing quasi-judicial functions. February 19.R. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN. March 5. MA. February 20. v. it may hire a person even if the position being filled does not exist in the compensation and classification system of the Civil Service Commission. 2013) The language of Section 13 of the Constitution makes no reference to the nature of the appointment or designation.. No. G. The rules that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) formulates should implement and be in . et al. 2013) The decision of the Office of the Ombudsman is immediately executory. the prohibition against dual or multiple offices being held by one official must be construed as to apply to all appointments or designations.. February 27. 193314. 2013) There is simply no double jeopardy when the subsequent information charges another with a different offense. (ATTY. JALOSJOS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. February 20. G. G. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.R. No. The tenure of a confidential employee is coterminous with that of the appointing authority. 2013) A change of residence requires an actual and deliberate abandonment. THE HON. February 25. 169253. whether permanent or temporary. AGRA. as such.R. ROSARIO MANALANG-DEMIGILLO v. No. et al. a reorganization undertaken pursuant to a specific statutory authority by the Board of Directors of a government-owned and government-controlled corporation is valid.R. (SVETLANA P. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v.R. 154083. an officer reassigned to a new position cannot claim that she was illegally removed from the previous one on the claim that the BOD has no authority to conduct reorganization. (SALVACION VILLANUEVA. G. RODRIGO MAPOY.R. What is forbidden is the prosecution for the same offense. 190147. G. VELASCO v. 197299. otherwise the residence of origin should be deemed to continue. 191644. PALAWAN COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. or is at the latter‘s pleasure. 185571. 2013) Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy or an opportunity to move for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. SAMSON G.. and one cannot have two legal residences at the same time. 185571. No. ACTING SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ALBERTO C.. No. et al.R. 178347. PILILLA WATER DISTRICT. although arising from the same act or set of acts. et al. No. 2013) A person who has reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 may still be appointed in a government position provided that it is a coterminous or primarily confidential position. G. (PACIFICO C. (DENNIS FUNA v.R. G. BRAZA v. No. 2013) When there is reorganization conducted pursuant to an authority granted to the Board of Directors (BOD) of a government-owned and controlled corporation. No. R. Both are original documents and carry the same evidentiary weight as official physical ballot. or used for industrial or commercial purposes.A. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. ARNEL A.R. 3135. G. Given the fact that respondent government officer was able to successfully overcome the onus of demonstrating that he does not possess any unexplained wealth and that the omissions (he did not disclose any business interest and/or financial connection. HON. There is likewise no retroactive application of the new redemption period because Section 47 exempts from its operation those properties foreclosed prior to its effectivity and whose owners shall retain their redemption rights under Act No. This is so since the CSC cannot enforce civil service rules and regulations contrary to. Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates judges to perform all judicial duties. Where the party received. TORMIS.R. 181598. or promotion. the laws enacted by Congress. (MAYOR EMMANUEL L. No. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. he cannot claim that his right to due process was violated. (TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v.M. and cannot override. G. the candidate . fairly and with promptness. in which case a shorter term is deemed necessary to reduce the period of uncertainty in the ownership of property and enable mortgagee-banks to dispose sooner of these acquired assets. The honor and integrity of the judicial system is measured not only by the fairness and correctness of decisions rendered. No. No. NO. including the delivery of reserved decisions. but also by the efficiency with which disputes are resolved. are the functional equivalent of the official physical ballots filled up by the voters. respondent is merely culpable of Simple Negligence instead of the more serious charge of Dishonesty. (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. due process is the opportunity to explain one‘s side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. EQUITABLE PCI BANK. BERNARDO. and may be used in an election protest. 203302.harmony with the law it seeks to enforce. CEBU CITY AND MR. March 12. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (BIR) G. The delay in deciding a case within the reglementary period constitutes a violation of Section 5. ROSABELLA M. MARCH 13. Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) did not betray any sense of bad faith or the intent to mislead or deceive on his part considering that his SALNs actually disclose the extent of his and his wife‘s assets and business interests. appointment. March 5. through his counsel. March 6. practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in order to secure his examination. TEVES. G. BRANCH 4. SAQUILAYAN. No. MALIKSI v. 2013) The purpose of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution is to safeguard the integrity of contracts against unwarranted interference by the State. REYNALDO S. In administrative proceedings. BRANCH CLERK OF COURTA. 3135. Section 47 of R. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HOMER T. March 12. 182249. 2013) In case of dishonesty. notices from the COMELEC of an examination requested by the opposing party and filed a motion for reconsideration against the same examination. (GOLDENWAY MERCHANDISING CORPORATION v. If the COC is thereby cancelled or denied due course. ATTORNEY V. The difference in the treatment of juridical persons and natural persons was based on the nature of the properties foreclosed – whether these are used as residence. MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC). MTJ-12-1817. 8791 did not divest juridical persons of the right to redeem their foreclosed properties but only modified the time for the exercise of such right by reducing the one-year period originally provided in Act No. No. 195540. efficiently. for which the more liberal one-year redemption period is retained. Equal protection permits of reasonable classification. 2013) The ballot images in the compact flash (CF) cards. PRESIDING JUDGE. but showed a steady increase of his net worth) in his Statements of Assets. Further. the equal protection clause is directed principally against undue favor and individual or class privilege. the individual intentionally makes a false statement of any material fact. 2013) Suspension from service of the Judge cannot be used as justification for undue delay in the resolution of cases as well as the claim of the Clerk of Court that the non-recording of the cases filed in court was due to lack of supplies. 2013) The existence of a valid certificate of candidacy (COC) is a condition sine qua non for a disqualified candidate to be validly substituted. as well as the printouts of such images. registration.R. A political party need not be organized as a sectoral party and need not represent any particular sector. National and regional parties or organizations need not be organized along sectoral lines and need not represent any particular sector. be so gross that it amounts to evasion of duty. 2013) A person cannot file an action with the Supreme Court questioning the findings of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) except when it committed a grave abuse of discretion. The opportunity given to a foreigner to become a citizen is a mere privilege and the absence of one requirement is fatal to the petition of the foreigner. JR. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution cannot be disputed: the party-list system is not for sectoral parties only. March 19.R. No. LOCSIN v. Thus. substitution cannot be had because the effect of cancellation is as if there is no candidate at all. (2) regional parties or organizations. v.TAGOLINO v. otherwise the petition shall be considered premature and shall be dismissed. there can be substitution because a candidate‘s disqualification does not automatically result to the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy. 2013) Where a foreigner seeking to be granted of Philippine citizenship does not follow the rule on the period to file his petition. Thus. STEPHEN LEE KENG. No. When the COMELEC En Banc is equally divided in an opinion and the necessary majority cannot be had. when the certificate of candidacy of a person is denied or is cancelled. Under the party-list system. an ideology-based or cause-oriented political party is clearly different from a sectoral party. 204123. a. No. (SILVERIO R. However. In case of disqualification. regardless of their economic status as citizens. No. March 19. 2013) A protesting candidate cannot file a petition with the Supreme Court when the COMELEC decision is equally divided and a rehearing is not conducted. the action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the Commission. BERNABE LUNA LI. and (3) sectoral parties or organizations. March 19. March 19. but also for non-sectoral parties. the national or regional parties under the party-list system are necessarily those that do not belong to major political parties. 2013) A candidate whose Certificate of Candidacy is cancelled or denied cannot be substituted by another on the claiming that the former was merely disqualified. (MARIA LOURDES B. cannot participate in the party-list elections since they neither lack "well-defined political constituencies" nor represent "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors. This automatically reserves the national and regional parties under the party-list system to those who "lack well-defined political constituencies. and in all incidental matters. . March 20. G. Rule 18 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure mandates a rehearing where parties are given the opportunity anew to strengthen their respective positions or arguments and convince the members of the Comelec en banc of the merit of their case.R. 197450. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND LUCY MARIE TORRES GOMEZ. G. as contemplated by the law. (MAMERTO T. a.cannot be validly substituted. in appealed cases.R.k." giving them the opportunity to have members in the House of Representatives. SEVILLA. Section 6. the case shall be reheard. (SILVERIO R. LAGDAMEO.R. G. There is no requirement in R. or the same governance principles and policies. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND MONIQUE YAZMIN MARIA Q. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND LUCY MARIE TORRES-GOMEZ. National and regional parties or organizations are different from sectoral parties or organizations.a. and if on rehearing no decision is reached. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND RENATO R. TAGOLINO v. the action must be dismissed. SO. the petition or motion shall be denied. 7941 that a national or regional political party must represent a "marginalized and underrepresented" sector. While the major political parties are those that field candidates in the legislative district elections.a. and party-list structure ordained in Section 5(1) and (2). It is sufficient that the political party consists of citizens who advocate the same ideology or platform. LI CHING CHUNG. No. 2013) The clear intent.A. It is provided also that when the Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion. The abuse must. G.k.R. 202202. however. the party-list system is composed of three different groups: (1) national parties or organizations. G. the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed. or the necessary majority cannot be had. express wording. To break the legal stalemate in case the opinion is equally divided among the members of the Comelec en banc. there shall be a rehearing. No. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 202202. Major political parties. 203833. the requirements of due process must be complied with. Unless they are clearly illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion. apply its provisions faithfully. ARTEMIO S. SAN JUAN. April 2. neglect of duty. must now come to an end. (THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v.The Supreme Court cannot engage in socio-political engineering and judicially legislate the exclusion of major political parties from the party-list elections in patent violation of the Constitution and the law. April 2. it cannot be said that the employee concerned has been formally charged. If the purported ―formal charge‖ does not contain the requirements set forth in Section 16. rendering the dismissal from service invalid. 7941. 203766. April 2.. A memorandum directing the person to explain within a given period of time does not constitute as a formal charge. P-041785. G. and in cases involving public officials. DEVELYN GESULTURA. 2013) A government officer subject of an administrative action cannot claim that his right to due process was violated when he was made known of the charges against him and when he was able to file a counteraffidavit to refute the allegations against him.R. Such wanton disregard of the proper procedure in administrative investigations under the civil service rules cannot be countenanced. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property.. exclusively to determine what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution of supposed offenders. SALVA v. the act constitutes gross. through the Department of Justice. or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. 186279. 2013) Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference. JR. This is so since the banking business is one impressed with public trust and a higher degree of diligence is imposed on banks compared to an ordinary business enterprise in the handling of deposited funds. In an administrative case. the degree of responsibility. By way of . gross neglect of duty is characterized by want of even the slightest care. No. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. April 2. 2013) Consistent with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. care and trustworthiness expected of their officials and employees is far greater than those imposed on ordinary officers and employees in other enterprises. (TERESITA L. 194368. Rule II of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.A. G. INC. (SALIC DUMARPA v. Mr. April 2." The experimentations in socio-political engineering have only resulted in confusion and absurdity in the partylist system. Such experimentations. Thus. there must be a formal charge against him/her and an investigation to give him/her ample opportunity to be heard. No. 2013) The Commission on Elections has to authority to effect the re-clustering of precincts when the act shall prevent failure of elections and promote a free. No.R. the Court cannot interfere with the actions of the COMELEC. (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. Where a bank officer wilfully disregards the bank procedures. Alan Igot v. (ATONG PAGLAUM. For a valid dismissal from the government service. not a simple. The High Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution. Judicial power does not include the power to re-write the Constitution. 2013) When a government officer is subject to an administrative action. 192249. No. The act of misappropriating judiciary funds constitutes dishonesty and grave misconduct which are grave offenses punishable by dismissal upon the commission of even the first offense. VALLE. but because petitioners may now possibly qualify to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections under the new parameters prescribed by the Supreme Court. No. No. 193773. On the other hand. and to allow the Executive Department. FLAVIANA M. 2013) No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from the occupant than does the judicial office. and desist from engaging in socio-economic or political experimentations contrary to what the Constitution has ordained.M. A. A formal charge issued prior to the imposition of administrative sanctions must conform to the requirements set forth in Section 16. G. April 2. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. in this case the Supreme Court remanded the present petitions to the COMELEC not because the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioners. due process is the opportunity to explain one‘s side. orderly and honest elections. G. G. ARLIC ALMOJUELA. The safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to the goal of an orderly administration of justice.R. represented by its President. in clear contravention of the 1987 Constitution and R. by flagrant and palpable breach of duty. No.R.R. or by conscious indifference to the consequences. the Court deems it a sound judicial policy not to interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations. as the structuring of local governments and the allocation of powers.R. Hence. its power is not merely recommendatory. 197291. April 3. The peace and order function of the punong barangay must also be related to his function of assisting local executive officials (i. represented by Atty. determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence. v. It is characterized by a clear intent to violate the law. corporation. This provision covers the entire range of administrative activities attendant to administrative adjudication. However. Sec. (FRANKLlN ALEJANDRO v. 2] refers to the administrative autonomy of local government units or. Section 15 of RA 677027 reveals the manifest intent of the lawmakers to give the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. LEILA DE LIMA. any act or omission of a public officer or employee occupying a salary grade lower than 27 is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and of the regular courts or other investigative agencies. Roxas. and those provided by the Local Government Code. 2013) The Office of the Ombudsman was created by no less than the Constitution. It is tasked to exercise disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials. (DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN JR. judicial review may be allowed where it is clearly established that the public prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion. necessarily. officer or person to take action. SEC. grave misconduct is committed. . 173121. place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation. conduct investigations. but subject to limitations like following national policies or standards. in matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion. the prevention of crimes and the arrest of criminal offenders. These powers unmistakably grant the Office of the Ombudsman the power to directly impose administrative sanctions. mandamus may only be resorted to in order to compel respondent tribunal. cast in more technical language.exception. 173121. save only for impeachable officers. the authority to receive complaints. board. X. headed by RSP PETER MEDALLE. summon witnesses and require the production of documents. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FACT-FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU. 2013) The constitutional guarantee of local autonomy in the Constitution [Art. G. April 3. responsibilities. among others.R. capricious. when he has exercised his discretion ―in an arbitrary. police authority is superior to the punong barangay‘s authority in a situation where the maintenance of peace and order has metamorphosed into crime prevention and the arrest of criminal offenders.. Chapter III of the Local Government Code. The Sandiganbayan‘s jurisdiction extends only to public officials occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 and higher. The maintenance of peace and order in the community is a general function undertaken by the punong barangay. and. but it cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised. which must all be supported by substantial evidence. or to compel the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion. or a flagrant disregard of established rules. Local executive officials have the power to employ and deploy police for the maintenance of peace and order. the city mayor). No. G. It is a task expressly conferred to the punong barangay under Section 389(b) (3) of RA 7160. It does not make local governments sovereign within the State. and resources among the different local government units and local officials have been placed by the Constitution in the hands of Congress under Section 3. and PANEL OF PROSECUTORS OF THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE. the decentralization of government authority. however. G. No. Consequently. patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. Maria Olivia Elena A. as Chief State Prosecutor. represented by Atty. hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure. as Secretary of the Department of Justice. 2013) When an elected official refuses to recognize a legitimate operation of a government agency and wilfully intervenes to lead the said operation to failure. The Ombudsman also has the power to impose administrative sanctions. National Prosecution Service. CSP CLARO ARELLANO. The Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction to investigate any act or omission of a public officer or employee who is under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Maria Olivia Elena A. Administrative autonomy may involve devolution of powers. (FRANKLlN ALEJANDRO v. Roxas. whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. No. Article X of the Constitution. impose the corresponding penalty.R. April 3. including.e. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FACT-FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU. that is. under Section 389(b). 2013) Despite the equal probative weight accorded to the official ballots and the printouts of their picture images. April 11. CAUBANG. but by the express . AGUSTIN. the COMELEC.R. If by the time an aspiring candidate filed his certificate of candidacy. as its enforcement is subject to the supervision. April 11. 2013) Where another person takes the civil service examination on behalf of another. which is in charge. by representing himself as a foreign citizen. 2013) The subsequent reconciliation of the parties to an administrative proceeding does not strip the court of its jurisdiction to hear the administrative case until its resolution. (LEAGUE OF PROVINCES OF THE PHILIPPINES v. subject to law and higher authority. therefore. COURT OF APPEALS and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM. The subsequent desistance by the complainant does not free the public officer from liability. G. No. JR. (THE SPECIAL AUDIT TEAM. COMMISSION ON AUDIT v. he had no real opportunity to assail the conduct of the recount proceedings.R. there will be a violation of the party‘s right to due process which cannot be brushed aside by the invocation that the said party was able to file. (CARLITO C. Without the written order or notice. in this case. it does not authorize the courts. he voluntarily and effectively reverted to his earlier status as a dual citizen. the party was deprived of the chance to seek any reconsideration or even to assail the irregularly-held recount through a seasonable petition for certiorari. and what the legal rights of the contending parties are. April 11. a motion for reconsideration. utilization of the country's natural resources. and the Electoral Tribunals to quickly and unilaterally resort to the printouts of the picture images of the ballots in the proceedings had before them without notice to the parties. G.The Local Government Code did not fully devolve the enforcement of the small-scale mining law to the provincial government. 203302. which involves the determination of what the law is. 187317. 2013) The act of using a foreign passport does not divest one of his Filipino citizenship. Municipal Trial Court in Cities. April 11. decide. of carrying out the State's constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration. No. Danao City. (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. No. Such reversion was not retroactive. Atonement. 174788. SAQUILAYAN. MALIKSI v. the adjudication of their respective rights. 2013) The Commission on Audit (COA) has been granted by the Constitution the authority to establish a special audit group when a transaction warrants the formulation of the same and the authority to determine the scope of its audit and examination as well as the methods and techniques to be used therefor. after all. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT and NATURAL RESOURCES and HON. He was qualified to vote. The CSC‘s discovery of the perfidy in her acquisition of her civil service eligibility and her insistence in stating that she is civil service eligible in her Personal Data Sheet when she had been already found guilty of an administrative charge even after the finality of the CSC Resolution and even after her seeking clemency tell that she has not and does not live up to the high standards demanded of a court employee.R. Without the said notice. ENCINAS v. G. merely obliterates the personal injury of the parties and does not extend to erase the offense that may have been committed against the public service. MERLE RAMONEDA-PITA. REYES. which he acquired by repatriation. A. Further. and PO1 JOEL S. PO1 ALFREDO P. P-08-2531. it took place the instant he represented himself as a foreign citizen by using his foreign passport. No. (MAYOR EMMANUEL L. 175368. ANGELO T. with respect to the matter in controversy and. is a quasi-judicial function.M. as the purpose of an administrative proceeding is to protect the public service based on the time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust. on the basis thereof and the facts obtaining. the said act constitutes dishonesty which is punishable by dismissal from service. control and review of the DENR. April 11. G. in his capacity as Secretary of DENR. No. he was a dual citizen enjoying the rights and privileges of Filipino and foreign citizenship. Dual citizens by naturalization are required to take not only the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines but also to personally renounce foreign citizenship in order to qualify as a candidate for public office. The said public officer or government employee‘s length of service in the judiciary is inconsequential. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HOMER T. in administrative cases. In that context. he DENR Secretary has the power to review and.R. Clerk III. However. development. the issue on the validity of the issuance of the Small-Scale Mining Permits by the Provincial Governor as recommended by the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board. All that is required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable. No. he was not qualified to run for a local elective position. ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO. Therefore.R. SEN. not because it was in the interest of a certain constituency. The equal protection clause does not prohibit discrimination as to things that are different. 195649. No. LOPE E. No. G. there being no need to show that the termination is for cause. (EMMANUEL A. When the said obligation was approved through a mere resolution. ESCUDERO and REP. PEDRO T. JR. misplaced. CARLOS. 203646. 2013) A reading of the 1987 Constitution would reveal that several provisions were indeed adjusted as to be in tune with the shift to bicameralism. the Minutes of Voting.R. Being a non-candidate. (CASAN MACODE MAQUILING v. April 16.R. within the coverage of the CES. the Framers arrived at a unique system by adding to the four (4) regular members. This leaves the qualified candidate who obtained the highest number of votes. 2013) The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal was in no way estopped from subsequently declaring that the integrity of the ballot boxes was not preserved opposed to its initial findings. G. PANOTES." (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. One who holds a temporary appointment has no fixed tenure of office. 202242. his appointment was temporary and "co-terminus with the appointing authority. CHAVEZ v. after it had the opportunity to exhaustively observe and examine in the course of the entire revision proceedings the conditions of all the ballot boxes and their contents. In so providing.R. 204637. resolutions are merely declarations of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter and are temporary in nature. the argument that a senator cannot represent a member of the House of Representatives in the JBC and vice-versa is. G. NIEL C. As opposed to ordinances. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. 191667. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL. TIAMPONG and JOSE FLORO CRISOLOGO v. It does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate. It is also very clear that the Framers were not keen on adjusting the provision on congressional representation in the JBC because it was not in the exercise of its primary function – to legislate. it shall not confer any right to a person. G. the obligation which the said local executive is authorized to enter into must be made pursuant to a law or ordinance. DABU.disqualification under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code. Hence. Otherwise stated. No. G. LINOG G. the votes cast in his favor should not have been counted. April 16.R. whether from the Senate or the House of Representatives. EDUARDO M. especially after the general membership has spoken. BALUA. The distinction between ordinances and resolutions is well-perceived. April 16. ROMEO R. his employment can be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing power. in a permanent capacity or acquire security of tenure in that position. In the JBC. he did not hold his managerial position. 2013) Section 444(b)(1)(vi) of the LGC requires that. ED VINCENT ALBANO and BENEDICT KATO. his certificate of candidacy is thus rendered void from the beginning. In the creation of the JBC. TUPAS. the rule on succession under the Local Government Code will not apply. NOEL T. EMERSON S. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. thus. 2013) We note that the Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be treated in law as though they were the same. which means that the . while the authorization of the municipal mayor need not be in the form of an ordinance. (LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v.. (SAMSON S. JR. April 17. No. 2013) Courts cannot certainly give primacy to matters of procedure over substance in a party-list group‘s Constitution and By-Laws. the Framers simply gave recognition to the Legislature. (FRANCISCO I. including the ballots themselves. The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification. JONATHAN DE LA CRUZ. No. is constitutionally empowered to represent the entire Congress. G. April 16. 194994. CACAYURAN.. but in reverence to it as a major branch of government. ALCANTARA. ROBJSO.R. FEBLE. By being barred from even becoming a candidate. FRANCIS JOSEPH G. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and ELMER E. three (3) representatives from the major branches of government. any member of Congress. While ordinances are laws and possess a general and permanent character. DE CASTRO v. Statements of Votes and Election Returns. "no rights can be conferred by and be inferred from a resolution. 2013) When a government employee undisputedly lacked CES eligibility. April 16. " therefore. MONINA S. (AMELIA AQUINO. Simply put. (2) a proper oath. and apply equally to all members. In this day and age. (SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING v. video surveillance cameras are installed practically everywhere for the protection and safety of everyone. 9262 rests on substantial distinctions. his act constitutes habitual absenteeism. The Court have considered the employee‘s length of service. 179736. 2013) Section 17. that it must not be limited to existing conditions only. Clerk II.R. A written statement given by an employee during an administrative inquiry conducted by his employer in connection with an anomaly/irregularity he allegedly committed in the course of his employment. Article III of the Constitution is applicable only in custodial interrogation. June 26. acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feelings of remorse. Municipal Trial Court (MTC). June 25. 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection of the laws. JR. RAFOLS. the COMELEC retains jurisdiction over the said contests. in several administrative cases. RODOLFO TAGGUEG.) R. TAN. there must be a concurrence of all of the following requisites: (1) a valid proclamation. The application . Article III of the Constitution.. a person have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in his property. whose right to privacy would be affected. HIPONIA. Absent any of the foregoing. family circumstances and other humanitarian and equitable considerations in determining the appropriate penalty. ELIZABETH B. unless the consent of the individual. and (3) assumption of office. June 26. whether he uses it as a business office or as a residence and that the installation of video surveillance cameras directly facing his property or covering a significant portion thereof. WILLIAM M. A.A. No. The unequal power relationship between women and men. June 25. which is to address violence committed against women and children. Process Server.M. SR. and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. 9262.A. (REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. b. No. YGLESIAS. the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of violence. without his consent. 179448. is a clear violation of their right to privacy. or even situations which an individual considers as private. locations. the proper penalty is dismissal from service. G. (CARLOS L. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. The distinction between men and women is germane to the purpose of R. 2013) An individual‘s right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code should not be confined to his house or residence as it may extend to places where he has the right to exclude the public or deny them access. including a business office. returns and qualifications" of the Members of the House of Representatives. MISAJON. the Court refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating facts. April 17. (JUDGE MA. all of the same court. JR. TANENGGEE v. and ALLAN CHOACHUY. 2013) The constitutional proscription against the admissibility of admission or confession of guilt obtained in violation of Section 12.5 days monthly leave credit for at least (3) months in a semester or at least (3) consecutive months during the year. G. was obtained. The phrase "prying into the privacy of another‘s residence. hence. advanced age. ESCANILLAS.R. Stenographer I. If it is the second offense of the employee. covers places. c. JERENCE P. 2013) R. ADELAIDA HERNANDEZ and LEOPOLDO BISCOCHO.R. To be considered a Member of the House of Representatives. San Jose. and CONRADO A. No. Nonetheless. G.. Antique vs. 207264. The Court also ruled that where a penalty less punitive would suffice. for the following reasons: a. No. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSEPH SOCORRO B. The installation of these cameras. Custodial interrogation means any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner.) The classification is not limited to existing conditions only. is not a statement given by a person under custodial investigation. Utility Aide. that it must be germane to the purpose of the law. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY. 2013) Where an officer or employee in the civil service incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2. not falling under the proscription provided in Section 12. v. 181973. should not cover places where there is reasonable expectation of privacy. P-082439. provides that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to be the "sole judge of all contests relating to the election. however. JR.R. No. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G. whatever missteps may be committed by the employee ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. and the widespread gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying the classification under the law.) The classification is germane to the purpose of the law.classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences.A. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY. Hence. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. 2013) When a public school teacher is subject of an administrative action. G. the said principle is subject to the rule that decisions of administrative agencies which are declared final and unappealable by law are still "subject to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness. It is the COMELEC‘s duty to cancel motu proprio the Certificate of Candidacy of a candidate who is clearly disqualified under the law to run for public office. The law simply requires that the civil servant is informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him in a clear and concise manner to give the person a chance to answer the allegations intelligently. ORAlS v. but to future conditions as well. the Court will not hesitate to reverse the factual findings. in a public bidding for the sale of government assets. public law and public policy and the Court cannot intervene in the legitimate exercise of power of the executive. GARCIA v. ABDULWAHAB A. ALVAREZ. 2013) The right to information allows the public to hold public officials accountable to the people and aids them in engaging in public discussions leading to the formulation of government policies and their effective implementation. No.R. No. concurrent jurisdiction exists in the Civil Service Commission (CSC). G. ATILANO. 191877. June 25. G. the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Board of Professional Teachers-Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC). 9262 applies equally to all women and children who suffer violence and abuse. 200402. RAKMA B. Officer-in-Charge. June 13. 2013) The failure to designate the offense specifically and with precision is of no moment in this administrative case. 205033. THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. 2013) The COMELEC is mandated to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. or when such administrative or quasi-judicial bodies grossly misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion. The rationale is hinged on the principle of separation of powers which ordains that each of the three great government branches has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in concerns falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere. ARIEL R. ELIZABETH B. for herself and in behalf of minor children. AHMAD NARZAD K. By itself. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE . CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. No. assuming that a bidder. SAMPANG. 2013) Where the respondent is absolved of the charge. OSMEÑA I. and ROSALIE JAYPE-GARCIA. 179267. DR.of R. No. the body that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others. all surnamed GARCIA. JOSE L. NEILA P.R. (JESUS C. AND ELBERT C. JESSE ANTHONE. MARIA ISABELLE G. SUBALDO. ARTURO N. DRILON. June 18. MONTAÑER.R. June 18. JOSEPH EDUARD. 181195. June 5. G. namely: JO-ANN. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense. HELEN M. PUSTA. June 10. it does not follow that the said bidder is entitled to the award. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. 198755. the Ombudsman‘s decision shall be final. ANNA MAE A. 2013) Where the Executive Department implements a relocation of government center. ADELANTE ZAMBOANGA PARTY. notwithstanding the absence of any petition initiating a quasi-judicial proceeding for the resolution of the same. R. and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand. LOBREGAT. No. the same is valid unless the implementation is contrary to law. morals. ALID. JALOSJOS v.R. 9262 is not limited to the existing conditions when it was promulgated. SR.A. ROEL B.R. BUISAN." (FREDERICK JAMES C. Presiding Judge. No. UDTOG B. ONRUBIA. LIMBA. ALMIRANTE. KAMENZA. executory. suspension of not more than one month. MARQUEZ. it does not extend to causing the award of the sale of government assets in failed public biddings. SIDENO. (PRIVATIZATION and MANAGEMENT OFFICE v. fraud or error of law. v. Regional Trial CourtBranch 41. or upon proof of grave abuse of discretion. (ALBERTO PAT-OG. G. and unappealable. DELIA R. BAYAO.R. or a fine equivalent to one month salary. CLIMACO-SALAZAR. (ROMEO G. NATIVIDAD. Bacolod City. JOHN S. STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT and/or PHILIPPINE ESTATE CORPORATION. Thus. G.( PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT and GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR) v. DAYANG . may access the records for the purpose of validating the indicative price under the right to information. represented by ABUSAMA M. for as long as the safety and security of women and their children are threatened by violence and abuse.REGIONAL FIELD UNIT XII (DA-RFU XII) v.A. But of course. TABONG. AMELIA C. ESPINO v. personal liability does not automatically . (DR. her moral ascendancy over her students. represented by the OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. July 15. No. 6657.R. OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN. G.R. EDWIN N. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. MESA.R. 2013) When a private property is taken for public use and there is a dispute as to the amount of just compensation. G. 6657 and not EO No. CONTRERAS v. OFELIA M. July 3. either judicial or quasi-judicial. JR. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. NOW ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR. in expropriation of properties. 172334. MANILA. July 1. DR. be it civil or administrative in nature. the amount of just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the taking. TAYUAN. No. (THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES DOMINGO TRIA AND CONSORCIA CAMANO TRIA v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM." (FERNANDO M. 2013) It is well-settled that. Compensation must be just not only to the property owner.W. Good faith is always presumed and he who alleges the contrary bears the burden to convincingly show that malice or bad faith attended the public officer‘s performance of his duties. and that the students‘ refusal to buy the book/compilation could result in their failure in the subject. 170245. 2013) It is hornbook doctrine. the book/compilation was overpriced. G. AMUGOD v. No.R. the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of cases is deemed violated. Hence. that "what determines the real nature and cause of the accusation against an accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the information or complaint and not the caption or preamble of the information or complaint nor the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated. STA. CARAGUE.R. COSCOLLUELA v. (HENRY L. GERVACIO. considering that the tenant-beneficiaries have already benefited from the land. G. June 5. G. 27. 2013) Acts may constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service as long as they tarnish the image and integrity of his/her public office. G. SANBIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. (RAFAEL L. (SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS and DISTRICT ENGINEER CELESTINO R.. it is the value of the property at the time of taking that is controlling. COLLEGE OF ECONOMICS. 188217. the valuation of the GSP of palay should be based on its value at the time it was ordered paid by the SAC. UANNUG. 2013) It is a standing rule that every public official is entitled to the presumption of good faith in the discharge of official duties. Such constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases. but does not pay the landowner his just compensation until after RA No. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY.R. but also to the public which ultimately bears the cost of expropriation. June 5. FORMERLY ACTING OMBUDSMAN. while the landowners wait in vain to be paid. PIA v. MACMOD.R. 179492. 191411. ROMAN R. G. he should not be charged with personal liability for damages that may result from the performance of an official duty. G. it becomes more equitable to determine just compensation using RA No. It more equitable to determine just compensation due the petitioners using values pursuant to the standard laid down in Section 17 of RA No. DR. No. Where a professor in a state university directly sells books to her students. 2013) When the government takes property pursuant to PD No. in the absence of any proof that a public officer has acted with malice or bad faith. however. HON. and JOSE MA. MALVAS. Case law also exhorts that although a public officer is the final approving authority and the employees who processed the transaction were directly under his supervision. FORMERLY PUP PRESIDENT. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. NACIONALES. ERNESTO P. in their own behalf and in behalf of the other officials and employees of DA-RFU XII. 179334.R. No. 191871. G. they being conclusions of law. 228. MARGARITO P. FLORENCE S. FORMERLY DEAN. 2013) Where the Office of the Ombudsman fails to investigate a case in an expedient manner through its own fault. 6657 has taken effect in 1998. July 1. FINANCE AND POLITICS (CEFP). SPOUSES HERACLEO and RAMONA TECSON. ZENAIDA P. CEFP POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES (PUP). No. SY v. No. the acts shall constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service taking into account that the said act is prohibited by the institution. as well as all proceedings. No. 202690. June 5. such that. G. represented by CHAIRMAN REYNALDO A. No. 206844-45. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. accordingly. 199082. HON. No. 2013) Unquestionably. 199085. such as the DOJ. AL. represented herein by its Chairperson and First Nominee. (THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF CAMARINES NORTE. AL. Hence. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. JR. BEATRIZ O. 189028.. v. (SENIOR CITIZENS PARTYLIST). No. BENJAMIN S. ET. (ROSALINDA DIMAPILIS-BALDOZ. said party-list group was not able to answer this issue squarely. the due process violation was committed when a party-list group was not apprised of the fact that the term-sharing agreement entered into by the nominees of the said party-list group in 2010 would be a material consideration in the evaluation of the organization‘s qualifications as a party-list group for the May 13. No. ET. 2013) The President‘s discretion in the conferment of the Order of National Artists should be exercised in accordance with the duty to faithfully execute the relevant laws. LEILA DE LIMA. where there is Joint Panel created to investigate over an alleged commission of election fraud and is granted a concurrent jurisdiction with the COMELEC over the offense. but also by the local government unit where his business is situated. AL. G. G. he must first comply with all the requirements imposed not only by the national government. The permit to extract sand.R. 199118. non-career service position. INC. This is precisely why the law provides that "administrative or executive acts. No. 2013) Congress has the power and prerogative to introduce substantial changes in the statutory public office or position and to reclassify it as a primarily confidential. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. With this. As it were.. ABALOS. ARQUIZA v. July 16.attach to him but only upon those directly responsible for the unlawful expenditures. JR. COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES. in her capacity as then administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) v. Nos. gravel and other quarry resources shall be issued . they were deprived of the opportunity to adequately explain their side regarding the termsharing agreement and/or to adduce evidence. G. therefore. not a separate grant of power. TYPOCO. (COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES. the COMELEC and other prosecuting arms of the government. these acts would not violate a public officer‘s security of tenure. July 16. In other words. are made in good faith so long as they are aimed at the office and not at the incumbent. v.R. in support of their position. It simply underscores the rule of law and..R. that we cannot consider the creation of the Joint Committee as an abdication of the COMELEC‘s independence enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. Flowing from the legislative power to create public offices is the power to abolish and modify them to meet the demands of society. 206982. orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. GODOFREDO V. G.R. represented by GOVERNOR JESUS O. 185740. No. the cardinal principle that the President is not above the laws but is obliged to obey and execute them. GONZALES. G. the COMELEC and the DOJ nevertheless included a provision in the assailed Joint Order whereby the resolutions of the Joint Committee finding probable cause for election offenses shall still be approved by the COMELEC in accordance with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. such as changes in qualifications or shortening of its tenure." (NATIONAL ARTIST FOR LITERATURE VIRGILIO ALMARIO. ATTY. SR.. ARROYO v. The faithful execution clause is best construed as an obligation imposed on the President. AL. Modifications in public office. July 23. FRANCISCO G. even if they result in his removal from office or the shortening of his term. July 23. ET. 2013) In order for an entity to legally undertake a quarrying business. 199114.. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. the twin requirements of due notice and hearing are indispensable before the COMELEC may properly order the cancellation of the registration and accreditation of a party-list organization. When done in good faith. 2013 elections. represented by its President and Incumbent Representative in the House of Representatives. ET.R. the accused cannot claim that the constitution of the Joint Committee is invalid for violating the mandate of the COMELEC. (SENIOR CITIZENS). ET.R. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.R. corollarily. G. DATOL. v. ESPINO.G. VILLAR AND COMMISSIONER JUANITO G.R. Notwithstanding the grant of concurrent jurisdiction. Congress can change the qualifications for and shorten the term of existing statutory offices. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. (JOSE MIGUEL T. v. INC. AL. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO v. 2013) Under the present law (Section 43 of RA 9369). July 23. now exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of election offenses. No. Jr. With more reason. R. No. and stockholders. must show its compliance with the basic requirements of the law. hear later" doctrine has already been justified as a measure for the protection of the public interest. JOSEPH LASAM LARA. being in the nature of a grave offense. G. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. et al. No. he was not denied due process. July 24. carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service even if committed for the first time. Just compensation refers to full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the owner and to be "just. GALLEGO.R. (ENGINEER MANOLITO P. A. 2013) Factual findings of administrative bodies will not be disturbed by the courts of justice except when there is absolutely no evidence or no substantial evidence in support of such findings should be applied with greater force when it concerns the COMELEC. 2013) The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ET. v. after due notice and hearing. G. The COMELEC has broad powers to ascertain the true results of the election by means available to it. 207026. G. MENDOZA v. No. JOSEPH L. A party-list group‘s previous registration with the COMELEC confers no vested right to the maintenance of its registration." the compensation must be real. GALLEGO and CHRISTOPHER L. 195395. Unless adequate and determined efforts are taken by the government against distressed and mismanaged banks. 2013) . public faith in the banking system is certain to deteriorate to the prejudice of the national economy itself. G. (COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION. In order to maintain a party in a continuing compliance status. 2013) The law (Section 8 of RA No. GALLEGO.R. the method to be used in the determination of the value of the land must result to a fair and reasonable amount and must not drastically reduce the said value. ALVARO T. 188500. Failure to submit the list of five nominees before the election warrants the cancellation of its registration. represented by HON. as applied to administrative proceedings. pursuant to the ordinance of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Due process does not necessarily require a prior hearing. September 10. Swift action is called for on the part of the BSP when it finds that a bank is in dire straits. No. ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF EUROCREDIT COMMUNITY BANK v. a hearing or an opportunity to be heard may be subsequent to the closure. not to mention the losses suffered by the bank depositors. THE MONETARY BOARD OF THE BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS AND THE PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION.R. (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course. No. G. G. 2013) Dishonesty. The COMELEC may motu proprio cancel. what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard. full and ample. (PROVINCE OF CAGAYAN. 7941) expressly requires the submission of a list containing at least five qualified nominees. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.exclusively by the provincial governor. the Monetary Board may forbid a bank from doing business and place it under receivership without prior notice and hearing. 191424. SAVADERA. August 7. AL. as the framers of the Constitution intended to place the COMELEC – created and explicitly made independent by the Constitution itself – on a level higher than statutory administrative organs. (ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY (ANAD) v. equally. No. September 10. In the application of the principle of due process. 2013) If circumstances warrant it.M. INC. September 10. rules or regulations relating to elections.. the party must prove not only its continued possession of the requisite qualifications but. August 6. who all deserve the protection of the government. creditors. (ALFEO D. The requirement of submission of a list of five nominees is primarily a statutory requirement for the registration of party-list groups and the submission of this list is part of a registered party‘s continuing compliance with the law to maintain its registration.. No. it is not strictly bound by the rules of evidence. JR. P-04-1903.R. COMMISSION ON AUDIT. v. DONABEL M. an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. substantial. This is considering that the "close now. MANUEL O. July 29. the registration of any party-list organization if it violates or fails to comply with laws. 206987. ANTONIO.R. 173226. VIVAS. 2013) Where there is a dispute as to the amount of just compensation. For the attainment of that end. Cessation from office of a public official by resignation or retirement neither warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against him while he was still in the service nor does it render said administrative case moot and academic. The jurisdiction that was this Court‘s at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the public official had ceased in office during the pendency of his case. A public official‘s resignation does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability to which he shall still be answerable. (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. DESIDERIO W. MACUSI, A.M. No. P-13-3105, September 11, 2013) No actual taking of the building is necessary to grant consequential damages. Consequential damages are awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the remaining property of the owner suffers from impairment or decrease in value. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (BPI), G.R. No. 203039, September 11, 2013). An ordinance is deemed approved upon failure of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to declare the same invalid within 30 days after its submission in accordance with Section 56 of the LGC. (RAMONITO O. ACAAC, ET. AL. v. MELQUIADES D. AZCUNA, ET. AL., G.R. No. 187378, September 30, 2013) A Petition for judicial declaration of Philippine citizenship is different from judicial naturalization under CA 473. In the first, the petitioner believes he is a Filipino citizen and asks a court to declare or confirm his status as a Philippine citizen. In the second, the petitioner acknowledges he is an alien, and seeks judicial approval to acquire the privilege of becoming a Philippine citizen based on requirements required under CA 473. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AZUCENA SAAVEDRA BATUGAS, G.R. No. 183110, October 7, 2013) The HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the Members of the House of Representatives. (REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JOSEPH SOCORRO B. TAN, G.R. No. 207264, October 22, 2013) Track record is a record of past performance often taken as an indicator of likely future performance. There is no basis in law and established jurisprudence to insist that groups seeking registration under the party-list system still need to comply with the track record requirement. Nowhere in R.A. No. 7941 is it mandated that groups seeking registration thereunder must submit evidence to show their track record as a group. (ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST ABANG LINGKOD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 206952, October 22, 2013) Misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. A government employee who is found guilty of grave misconduct may be dismissed from the service even upon the first offense. (ROLANDO GANZON v. FERNANDO ARLOS, G.R. No. 174321, October 22, 2013) The proclamation of a congressional candidate following the election divests the COMELEC of jurisdiction over disputes relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the proclaimed representative in favor of the HRET. The phrase "election, returns and qualifications" refers to all matters affecting the validity of the contestee‘s title. (WIGBERTO R. TAÑADA, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ANGELINA D. TAN, AND ALVIN JOHN S. TAÑADA, G.R. Nos. 207199-200, October 22, 2013) The Constitution grants the COMELEC the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall. The COMELEC has exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly and honest elections. It is thus not novel for the Supreme Court to uphold the COMELEC‘s broad power or authority to fix other dates for a plebiscite to enable the people to exercise their right of suffrage. (MARC DOUGLAS IV C. CAGAS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS et. al, G.R. No. 209185, October 25, 2013) Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, it is the Commission on Audit which has primary jurisdiction over money claims against government agencies and instrumentalities. The scope of the COA‘s authority to take cognizance of claims is however circumscribed to mean only liquidated claims, or those determined or readily determinable from vouchers, invoices, and such other papers within reach of accounting officers. (THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN v. JODY KING CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP, G.R. Nos. 197592 & 20262, November 27, 2013) The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies. The Court, as a rule, will decline to exercise jurisdiction over a case and proceed to dismiss it when the issues posed have been mooted by supervening events. Mootness intervenes when a ruling from the Court no longer has any practical value and, from this perspective, effectively ceases to be a justiciable controversy. While the Court has recognized exceptions in applying the "moot and academic" principle, these exceptions relate only to situations where: (1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is involved; (3) the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. (BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES and PERRY L. PE v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 206794, November 26, 2013) Doctrine of conclusiveness of administrative findings of fact is not absolute. It is well settled that findings of fact by the administrative or quasi-judicial agencies are conclusive only when supported by substantial evidence. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is considered as grave if it involves additional elements such as corruption or wilful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proven by substantial evidence; otherwise, the misconduct is only simple. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. (PRIMO C. MIRO, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas v. MARILYN MENDOZA VDA. DE EREDEROS, CATALINA ALINGASA and PORFERIO I. MENDOZA, G.R. Nos. 172532 172544-45, November 20, 2013) The Civil Service law and rules do not give a concrete description of what specific acts constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, but the Court defined such an offense in Ito v. De Vera as acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary, thereby prejudicing the best interest of the administration of justice. In Government Service Insurance System v. Mayordomo, the Court further declared that the administrative offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service need not be related to or connected with the public officer‘s official functions. As long as the questioned conduct tarnishes the image and integrity of his public office, the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring public officer or employee. (HEIRS OF CELESTINO TEVES v. AUGUSTO J. FELICIDARIO, A.M. No. P-12-3089, November 13, 2013) Retirement from the service during the pendency of an administrative case does not render the case moot and academic. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. MARCELINO A. DECHAVEZ, G.R. No. 176702, November 13, 2013) Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one‘s side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. (RAY PETER O. VIVO v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAME CORPORATION (PAGCOR), G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013) No question involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act may be heard and decided by the Court unless there is compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (b) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. Legislators have been, in one form or another, authorized to participate in ―the various operational aspects of budgeting,‖ including ―the evaluation of work and financial plans for individual activities‖ and the ―regulation and release of funds‖, in violation of the separation of powers principle [The Court cites its Decision on Guingona, Jr. v. Carague (Guingona, Jr., 1991)]. From the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to play any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional [The Court cites its Decision on Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima (Abakada, 2008)]. That the said authority is treated as merely recommendatory in nature does not alter its unconstitutional tenor since the prohibition covers any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law. The 2013 PDAF Article violates the principle of non-delegability since legislators are effectively allowed to individually exercise the power of appropriation, which is lodged in Congress. The power to appropriate must be exercised only through legislation, pursuant to Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Under the 2013 PDAF Article, individual legislators are given a personal lump-sum fund from which they are able to dictate (a) how much from such fund would go to (b) a specific project or beneficiary that they themselves also determine. Since these two acts comprise the exercise of the power of appropriation and given that the 2013 PDAF Article authorizes individual legislators to perform the same, undoubtedly, said legislators have been conferred the power to legislate which the Constitution does not, however, allow. Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the amount of P24.79 Billion only appears as a collective allocation limit since the said amount would be further divided among individual legislators who would then receive personal lump-sum allocations and could, after the GAA is passed, effectively appropriate PDAF funds based on their own discretion. As these intermediate appropriations are made by legislators only after the GAA is passed and hence, outside of the law, it means that the actual items of PDAF appropriation would not have been written into the General Appropriations Bill and thus effectuated without veto consideration. This kind of lump-sum/post-enactment legislative identification budgeting system fosters the creation of a ―budget within a budget‖ which subverts the prescribed procedure of presentment and consequently impairs the President‘s power of item veto. As petitioners aptly point out, the President is forced to decide between (a) accepting the entire P24. 79 Billion PDAF allocation without knowing the specific projects of the legislators, which may or may not be consistent with his national agenda and (b) rejecting the whole PDAF to the detriment of all other legislators with legitimate projects. Even without its post-enactment legislative identification feature, the 2013 PDAF Article would remain constitutionally flawed since the lump-sum amount of P24.79 Billion would be treated as a mere funding source allotted for multiple purposes of spending (i.e. scholarships, medical missions, assistance to indigents, preservation of historical materials, construction of roads, flood control, etc). This setup connotes that the appropriation law leaves the actual amounts and purposes of the appropriation for further determination and, therefore, does not readily indicate a discernible item which may be subject to the President‘s power of item veto. To a certain extent, the conduct of oversight would be tainted as said legislators, who are vested with post-enactment authority, would, in effect, be checking on activities in which they themselves participate. Also, this very same concept of post-enactment authorization runs afoul of Section 14, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which provides that: ―[A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives] shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.‖ Allowing legislators to intervene in the various phases of project implementation renders them susceptible to taking undue advantage of their own office. Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution is considered as not self-executing due to the qualifying phrase ―as may be defined by law.‖ In this respect, said provision does not, by and of itself, provide a judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action. The Court, however, finds an inherent defect in the system which actually belies the avowed intention of ―making equal the unequal‖ (Philconsa, 1994). The gauge of PDAF and CDF allocation/division is based solely on the fact of office, without taking into account the specific interests and peculiarities of the district the legislator represents. As a result, a district representative of a highly-urbanized metropolis gets the same amount of funding as a district representative of a far-flung rural province which would be relatively ―underdeveloped‖ compared to the former. To add, what rouses graver scrutiny is that even Senators and Party-List Representatives – and in some years, even the Vice-President – who do not represent any locality, receive funding from the Congressional Pork Barrel as well. Considering that Local Development Councils are instrumentalities whose functions are essentially geared towards managing local affairs, their programs, policies and resolutions should not be overridden nor duplicated by individual legislators, who are national officers that have no law-making authority except only when acting as a body. Regarding the Malampaya Fund: The phrase ―and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President‖ under Section 8 of PD 910 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power insofar as it does not lay down a sufficient standard to adequately determine the limits of the President‘s authority with respect to the purpose for which the Malampaya Funds may be used. As it reads, the said phrase gives the President wide latitude to use the Malampaya Funds for any other purpose he may direct and, in effect, allows him to unilaterally appropriate public funds beyond the purview of the law. As for the Presidential Social Fund: Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, indicates that the Presidential Social Fund may be used ―to [first,] finance the priority infrastructure development projects and [second,] to finance the restoration of damaged or destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be directed and authorized by the Office of the President of the Philippines.‖ The second indicated purpose adequately curtails the authority of the President to spend the Presidential Social Fund only for restoration purposes which arise from calamities. The first indicated purpose, however, gives him carte blanche authority to use the same fund for any infrastructure project he may so determine as a ―priority―. Verily, the law does not supply a definition of ―priority infrastructure development projects‖ and hence, leaves the President without any guideline to construe the same. To note, the delimitation of a project as one of ―infrastructure‖ is too broad of a classification since the said term could pertain to any kind of facility. Thus, the phrase ―to finance the priority infrastructure development projects‖ must be stricken down as unconstitutional since – similar to Section 8 of PD 910 - it lies independently unfettered by any sufficient standard of the delegating law. (BELGICA et al. v. OCHOA JR.; SJS v. DRILON et al.; NEPOMUCENO v. PRESIDENT AQUINO III, G.R. No. 208566, G.R. No. 208493, G.R. No. 209251, November 19, 2013) For a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy. Thus, in Mattel, Inc. v. Francisco we have ruled that "where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and adjudication thereof would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest however intellectually challenging." (HADJI HASHIM ABDUL v. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 184496, December 2, 2013) Traditional distinctions exist between police power and eminent domain. In the exercise of police power, a property right is impaired by regulation, or the use of property is merely prohibited, regulated or restricted to promote public welfare. In such cases, there is no compensable taking, hence, payment of just compensation is not required. On the other hand, in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, property interests are appropriated and applied to some public purpose which necessitates the payment of just compensation therefor. (MANILA MEMORIAL PARK, INC. AND LA FUNERARIA PAZ-SUCAT, INC. v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT and THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, G.R. No. 175356, December 3, 2013) The tests to determine if an ordinance is valid and constitutional are divided into the formal (i.e., whether the ordinance was enacted within the corporate powers of the LGU, and whether it was passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law), and the substantive (i.e., involving inherent merit, like the conformity of the ordinance with the limitations under the Constitution and the statutes, as well as with the requirements of fairness and reason, and its consistency with public policy). As to substantive due process, Ordinance No. 1664 met the substantive tests of validity and constitutionality by its conformity with the limitations under the Constitution and the statutes, as well as with the requirements of fairness and reason, and its consistency with public policy. Considering that traffic congestions were already retarding the growth and progress in the population and economic centers of the country, the plain objective of Ordinance No. 1664 was to serve the public interest and advance the general welfare in the City of Cebu. Its adoption was, therefore, in order to fulfill the compelling government purpose. With regard to procedural process the clamping of the petitioners‘ vehicles was within the exceptions dispensing with notice and hearing. As already said, the immobilization of illegally parked vehicles by clamping the tires was necessary because the transgressors were not around at the time of apprehension. Under such circumstance, notice and hearing would be superfluous. (VALENTINO L. LEGASPI v. CITY OF CEBU, et al./ BIENVENIDO P. JABAN, SR., et al. v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., G.R. No. 159110/G.R. No. 159692. December 10, 2013) Speedy disposition of cases under Section 16 of Article III of the Constitution applies to all cases pending before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN FIRST DIVISION and THIRD DIVISION, HERNANDO BENITO PEREZ, ROSARIO PEREZ, RAMON ARCEO and ERNEST ESCALER, G.R. No. 188165/G.R. No. 189063. December 11, 2013) A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. This is an arrest in flagrante delicto. The overt act constituting the crime is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. The elements must be complied strictly since if the arrest was illegal, the search and seizure that resulted therefrom was likewise illegal. (GEORGE ANTIQUERA Y CODES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 180661, December 11, 2013) The constitutional limitation of ―just compensation‖ is considered to be a sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly defined as the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition. The amount of just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the taking, which usually coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Where the institution of the action precedes entry into the property, the amount of just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the filing of the complaint. Further, the Court has consistently ruled that just compensation cannot be arrived at arbitrarily; several factors must be considered such as, but not limited to, acquisition cost, current market value of like properties, tax value of the condemned property, its size, shape, and location. But before these factors can be considered and given weight, the same must be supported by documentary evidence. (NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. YCLA SUGAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 193936. December 11, 2013) Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the means of administrative processes afforded him or her. Hence, if resort to a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be made by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one‘s cause of action. However, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute as it admits exceptions. One exception which is relevant to the case is where no administrative review is provided by law. The the victim of VAWC (Violence Against Women and their Children) may already have suffered harrowing experiences in the hands of her tormentor. ALFREDO T. A. ALCONERA v. (ATTY. Just like a writ of preliminary attachment which is issued without notice and hearing because the time in which the hearing will take could be enough to enable the defendant to abscond or dispose of his property. G. Reassignment should not be confused with a transfer. January 20. if notice and hearing were required before such acts could be prevented. IMUS. Article III of the Constitution provides that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. HON. public servants must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and dedication to duty. No. MANGROBANG. VILLAREAL v. hold sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust. BRANCH 22.R. 665728) likewise empowers the DAR to issue rules for its implementation. they must faithfully adhere to. PALLANAN. Further. Title I-A. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR). (3) transfer. among which is protection of women and children from violence and threats to their personal safety and security. 170701. (RALPH P. No. the State may not seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy. Section 17 of R. To guide the RTC-SAC in the exercise of its function.R. (6) detail. ALIGA G. PRESIDING JUDGE. January 15. G. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. 6657 enumerates the factors required to be taken into account to correctly determine just compensation. For this reason. (MARK JAMES S. loyalty and efficiency. TUA v.M. (2) promotion. No. that all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. It must be noted that the private complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. The rule is that a judgment acquitting the accused is final and immediately executory upon its promulgation. No. CONSUELO C. Chapter 12. its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation. integrity. MAGLALANG v. No. 2014) Public service requires integrity and discipline. Chapter 5. investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers.A. P-12-3069. (DENNIS T. 190566. 2014) The determination of just compensation is fundamentally a judicial function. rules and regulations and penalized with a suspension for not more than 30 days. EFRAIM GENUINO. December 11. The law (under Section 49 of R. as represented by its incumbent chairman. "To be heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court.Section 35 (1). Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code explicitly provides that the OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines. 2014) The grant of a Temporary Protection Order ex parte cannot be challenged as violative of the right to due process. VIRGILLO P. It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements of procedural due process must yield to the necessities of protecting vital public interests. and that accordingly. 166995. . namely: (1) appointment through certification. one may be heard also through pleadings. No. and possibly even death. RTC. YATCO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES. CAVITE.case falls squarely under the aforementioned exception since the law per se provides no administrative review for administrative cases whereby an employee like petitioner is covered by Civil Service law. CESAR A. AND ROSSAN HONRADO-TUA.R. 172551. Title III. By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities. January 13. in the same way. Section 21. Such acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy whether it happens at the trial court or on appeal at the CA. Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 lists the personnel actions that may be taken in the government service.A.R. No. (4) reinstatement. serve them with utmost responsibility. and (7) reassignment. January 22. Thus. the essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. The DAR thus issued DAR AO 5-98 incorporating the law‘s listed factors in determining just compensation into a basic formula that contains the details that take these factors into account. 2013) The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the CA is solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). 2014) Section 26. proceeding. the State is proscribed from appealing the judgment of acquittal of the accused to this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court but such may be assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court without placing the accused in double jeopardy. (5) reemployment. G. Section 8(2) of RA No.R. which include investigation and prosecution of officials in the Executive Department. under existing laws. amend and enforce rules and regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of the Civil Service Law and other pertinent laws. the CSC has the power and function to prescribe. 2014) Under Section 2(1) of Article IX-D of the Constitution. A. ATTY. Under Rule III of CSC Memorandum Circular No. ET AL. the Special Prosecutor is by no means an ordinary subordinate but one who effectively and directly aids the Ombudsman in the exercise of his/her duties. EJERA v. What is true for the Ombudsman must be equally true. Moreover.R. to function essentially as a complaints and action bureau. GONZALES III v. January 22. February 4.. 6770 vesting disciplinary authority in the President over the Deputy Ombudsman violates the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman and is thus unconstitutional..B.M. accountability and loyalty. G. the MECO handles government funds in the form of the ―verification fees‖ it collects on behalf of the DOLE and the ―consular fees‖ it collects under Section 2(6) of EO No. the accounts of the MECO pertaining to its collection of such ―verification fees‖ and ―consular fees‖ should be audited by the COA. It is presumed to be regular and made in the interest of public service unless proven otherwise or if it constitutes constructive dismissal. OCHOA. JR. BEAU HENRY L. MARQUEZ. JUDGE VENANCIO OVEJERA AND SHERIFF IV LOURDES COLLADO.(d) liabilities.Reassignment has been defined as – movement of an employee from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency which does not involve a reduction in rank. integrity. Complementing this power is Section 29(1) of the Audit Code.R. rather than encourage. 2001. not only for her Deputies but./ WENDELL BARERAS-SULIT v. competence. In this relation. Series of 1998 (Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions) it includes reassignment in the enumeration of personnel movements that do not require the issuance of a new appointment (but shall nevertheless require an office order from a duly authorized officer). the same provision mandates full disclosure of the concerned public official's (a) real property. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. 193462. assessed value and current fair market value. (b) personal property and acquisition cost. However. No. The MECO is not a GOCC or government instrumentality. No. status or salary. the effective performance of their duties and functions.R. P-11-2903. 2014) While the law and justice abhor all forms of abuse committed by public officers and employees whose sworn duty is to discharge their functions with utmost responsibility. (ANGELITO R. 196231/G. Its independence was expressly and constitutionally guaranteed. the COA was vested with the ―power. s. MERTO AND ERWIN VERGARA. despite its non-governmental character. the court must protect them against unsubstantiated charges that tend to adversely affect. and(e) all business interests and financial connections. which grants the COA visitorial authority over non-governmental entities required to pay levy or government share. abusive. No. G. (EMILIO A. 190524. acquisition costs. January 28. cash on hand or in banks. FUNA v. The reassignment of a government employee which is undoubtedly a ―personnel‖ and ―Civil Service‖ matter to be properly addressed in accordance with the rules and guidelines prescribed by the CSC. under the Administrative Code of 1987. also for other lesser officials of that Office who act directly as agents of the Ombudsman herself in the performance of her duties. February 17. (MICHAELINA RAMOS BALASBAS v. MONAYAO. No. v. from or through the government. 196232. PATRICIA B. MANILA ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL OFFICE AND COA. and the like. No. authority and duty‖ to ―examine. 40. ET AL. Hence. By constitutional design. stocks. audit and settle‖ the ―accounts‖ of non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity. (DENNIS A. PAQUITO N. directly or indirectly. 2014) Section 8 of RA 6713. 2014) The Office of the Ombudsman is envisioned to be the ―protector of the people‖ against the inept. bonds. No. and corrupt in the Government. 163109. 15. requires all public officials and employees to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of their SALN. (MARICHU G. G. It is a sui generis private entity especially entrusted by the government with the facilitation of unofficial relations with the people in Taiwan without jeopardizing the country‘s faithful commitment to the One China policy of the PROC. February 5. 2014) .R. (c) all other assets such as investments. its improvements. ET AL. Likewise it is bit descriptive of the purpose for which data collection will be used. 19 Authorizing the DOJ to restrict or block access to suspected computer data. G. and (2) The right to live freely without surveillance and intrusion. Commercial speech though not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression. so long as such are not oppressive and confiscatory. (SMART COMMUNICATIONS. Section 12 does not bother to relate the collection of data to the probable commission of a particular crime.Sec.R. 12 is too broad and do not provide ample safeguards against crossing legal boundaries and invading the right to privacy. 2014) Cybercrime Law . No. INC.) Balancing of interest test. It is akin to the use of a general search warrant that the Constitution prohibits. BATANGAS. the fees (charges fixed by law or Ordinance for the regulation or inspection of a business or activity) imposed in the said ordinance are primarily regulatory in nature. specifically: (1) The right not to have private information disclosed. which included ―cell sites‖ or telecommunications towers.The Constitution and the Local Government Code grants Local Government Units the power to create its own sources of revenue even if not provided in the NIRC or the LGC. Computer data produced by its author constitutes personal property regardless of where it is stored. If the generation of revenue was the primary purpose and regulation was merely incidental. February 18. It merely requires that the data be blocked if on its face it violate any provision of the cybercrime law. the fact that incidentally revenue is also obtained does not make the imposition a tax. Content of the computer data also constitute speech which is entitle to protection. If such would be granted to law enforcement agencies it would curtail civil liberties or provide opportunities for official abuse. The provision grants the Government the power to seize and place the computer data under its control and disposition without a warrant. v. Sec. jury and executioner all rolled in one. Unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms of expression. Informational Privacy which is the interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters has two aspects. The DOJ order cannot substitute to judicial search warrants. and not primarily revenue-raising. 4 (c) (3) Penalizing posts of unsolicited commercial communications or SPAM. the imposition is a tax. Section 4(c)(4) that penalizes libel in connection with section 5 which penalizes aiding or abetting to said felony. but if regulation is the primary purpose. Section 4 (c)(4) is valid and constitutional with respect to the original author of the post but void and unconstitutional with respect to other who simply receive the post and react to it. If the main purpose of the ordinance is to regulate certain construction activities of the identified special projects. 12 applies to all information and communications technology users and transmitting communications is akin to putting a letter in an envelope properly addressed. Another reason to strike down said provision is by reason that it allows collection and recording traffic data ―with due cause‖. . 12.Authorizing the collection or recording of traffic data in real-time. If an executive officer be granted such power to acquire data without warrants and declare that its contents violates the law that would make him the judge. Section 19 also disregards jurisprudential guidelines established to determine the validity of restrictions on speech: 1. Sec. MUNICIPALITY OF MALVAR. and 3. it is nonetheless entitle to protection. sealing it closed and sending it through the postal service. Sec. The State cannot rob one of these rights without violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.) Dangerous tendency doctrine. Sec.) Clear and present danger rule. The authority given is too sweeping and lacks restraint which only be used for Fishing Expeditions which will unnecessarily expose the citizenry to leaked information or worse to extortion from certain bad elements in these agencies.204429. 2. (FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR and HONORE R. ET AL v. 2014) Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. No. REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH) v. are not outright considered to be ―aiding or abetting. self-inhibition borne of fear of what sinister predicament awaits internet users will suppress otherwise robust discussion of public issues and democracy will be threatened together with all liberties.. (LUIS R. and other messages. No. 2014) The constitutional right of freedom of speech or right to privacy cannot be used as a shield for contemptuous acts against the Court. age. If such means are adopted. (JOSE JESUS M. Jr.‖ Such if compared to the physical world would be mere expressions or reactions made regarding a specific post. In situations where the government does not take the trouble of initiating an expropriation proceeding. 2000. Further. G.With regards to the author of the post. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. but merely the authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of the policy set out in the law itself.R. anything-goes writing style.tweets. February 26. 206698. when AO 14-A was issued. as an adjunct.. The terms ―aiding or abetting‖ constitute a broad sweep that generates a chilling effect on those who express themselves through cyberspace posts. CAGAS v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN REPRESENTED BY HON. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.R.R. COMELEC. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. The internet encourages a freewheeling. However. 196112. G. commenting.. (MARC DOUGLAS IV C. Facebook and Twitter were given as examples and stated that the acts of liking. 203335.R. as early as August 17. (GMA NETWORK.R. the rules so promulgated must be within the confines of the granting statute and must involve no discretion as to what the law shall be. 4 (c) (4) merely affirms that online defamation constitutes ―similar means‖ for committing libel as defined under the RPC. ET AL. G. SIMEON V. No. the OMBimposed penalties in administrative disciplinary cases were already immediately executory notwithstanding an appeal timely filed. 2014) Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code states that the false representation in the contents of the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) must refer to material matters in order to justify the cancellation of the COC. February 26. VILLAFUERTA v. Accordingly. 2014) Administrative agencies may exercise quasi-legislative or rule-making powers only if there exists a law which delegates these powers to them. the private owner has the option to compel payment of the property taken. ET AL. v. February 25. ET AL. No. February 25. MARCELO. No. 2014) The 60-day prescriptive period provided under Section 28 of the Public Service Act can be availed of as defenses only in criminal proceedings and not in proceedings that pertain to regulatory or administrative aspects of a public service utility‘s observance of the terms and conditions of his permit to operate. clearly then. Charging offenders of violation of RA 10175 and the RPC both with regard to libel. Material misrepresentation under the Omnibus Election Code refers to ―Qualifications for elective office‖ (residency. The acts defined in the Cybercrime Law involve essentially the same elements and are in fact one and the same with the RPC and RA 9775. 2014) The administrative disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman (OMB) does not end with a recommendation to punish. or any other legal qualifications necessary to run for local elective office as provided in the Local Government Code) coupled with a showing that there was an intent to deceive the electorate. G. DISINI. sharing or re. 171496. INC. 209185. G. so as to conform with the doctrine of separation of powers and. COMELEC and MIGUEL VILLAFUERTE. G.R. February 18. likewise with RA 9775 on Child pornography constitutes double jeopardy. the doctrine of non-delegability of legislative . when justified. HERNANDEZ v.. No. citizenship. Taking of private property without just compensation is a violation of a person‘s property right. March 3. ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. comments. mere criticism should be distinguished from insult. 197307. Sec. MUNICPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT. an administrative action.R. SURIGAO DEL NORTE. but determined after an evaluation of different factors. as no other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness from an employee than a position in the judiciary. continuous. CLERK II. G. G. 1945. and (3) that his possession has been under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12. i.. extravagant or unconscionable expenditures of government funds. No. as guardian of public funds. or earlier. March 12. NENITA C. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS v. the 20042007 GAAs and the COA circulars is equivalent to gross negligence amounting to bad faith. 192100. 2014) Jurisprudence has required that an applicant for registration of title acquired through a public land grant must present incontrovertible evidence that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable by establishing the existence of a positive act of the government. disposition. March 12. MENDOZA. A. (MINDA S. No. METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT. He is required to refund the EME he received from the TESDP Fund for himself. Accordingly. ASIA PACIFIC INTEGRATED STEEL CORPORATION. with enough latitude to determine. DEL CARMEN-NUMANCIA-SAN ISIDRO-SAN BENITO. INC. The measure is not the taker‘s gain. No. P-12-3070. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. DRUGMAKER'S LABORATORIES. unnecessary.e. of private lands that Section 6 of R. 2014) Constitution requires our courts to conscientiously observe the time periods in deciding cases and resolving matters brought to their adjudication. (2) that the applicant and his predecessors-ininterest have been in open. GAERLAN v. which. March 12. March 5. PARANAQUE CITY. AND TERRAMEDIC. March 5. No. for lower courts. No. 2014) Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. 192717.M. exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same.. but the owner‘s loss. 2014) The sale. G. 6 Article VIII of the Constitution. investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators. 173423. prevent and disallow irregular. MTJ-13-1838. No. (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ANTONIO FORTUNA AND ERLINDA FORTUNA v. etc.power. otherwise the application for registration should be denied. REPRESENTED BY THE BUREAU OF FOOD AND DRUGS (NOW FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION) v. 2014) Applicants for registration of title must establish and prove: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT CHAIRPERSON MA. (TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 2014) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.A. No. and a legislative act or a statute. 190837. such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order. The Constitution vests COA. COA where the Court held that the approving officials are liable for the refund of the incentive award due to their patent disregard of the law of and the directives of COA. JR. . GRACIA PULIDO TAN. It must not be arrived at arbitrarily. 204869. G. An administrative case for dishonesty against a court employee is cognizable by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) pursuant to Sec. G. On the issue whether the TESDA officials should refund the excess EME granted to them. ESPINO. March 11. (SPS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.R. LONGOS. the Court applied the ruling in the case Casal v.R. March 11. (SPOUSES RICARDO and EVELYN MARCELO v. INC. COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. AND COMMISSIONER HEIDI L. JUDGE RAMSEY DOMINGO G. BRANCH 78. excessive.R. 6657 contextually prohibits and considers as null and void are those which the original owner executes in violation of this provision. is three (3) months from the date they are deemed submitted for decision or resolution. The COA is generally accorded complete discretion in the exercise of its constitutional duty and the Court generally sustains its decisions in recognition of its expertise in the laws it is entrusted to enforce.M. No. the Director-General's blatant violation of the clear provisions of the Constitution. positive and convincing evidence. Each element must necessarily be proven by no less than clear. PICHAY. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.R. A. 2014) Dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary. 2014) Trial courts have no jurisdiction to determine who among the parties have better right over the disputed property which is admittedly still part of the public domain. and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides. the proscription in Section 6 on sales or dispositions of private agricultural lands does not apply to those that do not violate or were not intended to circumvent the CARL‘s retention limits. No. an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. or mere academic questions. (HEIRS OF TERESITA MONTOYA." The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies. 181055. (PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION v..A. to assure that the courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government. No. 199528. March 19. Courts decline to issue advisory opinions or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems.R. (HEIRS OF PACIFICO POCIDO. 199146. et al. v. INC. No.sales or dispositions executed with the intention of circumventing the retention limits set by R. The limitation of the power of judicial review to actual cases and controversies defines the role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power. THUNDERBIRD PILIPINAS HOTELS AND RESORTS. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY. G. G. ARSENIA AVILA AND EMELINDA CHUA. No. Consistent with this interpretation. No. v.. with a few exceptions. March 26. so that as a necessary requisite of the exercise of judicial power there must be. As Article VIII. et al. 6657. "judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. G. not merely a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. et al. March 19. 197942-43/G. 2014) .R.R.R. 2014) The Constitutional mandate of the courts in our triangular system of government is clear.. et al. G. Transocean Ship Management. Inc. It is the obligation of the employer to pay an illegally dismissed employee or worker the whole amount of the salaries or wages. the presumption of work-relation of the illness in the POEA Contract applies. 194490-91. then he should still be entitled to illness allowance pending the determination of a third doctor as to work-relation of the illness. bad faith or malice. Inc... Torres v Rural Bank of San Juan. et al. G. G. The law mandates that before validity can be accorded to a dismissal premised on loss of trust and confidence. Nevertheless. to which he would have been normally entitled had he not been dismissed and had not stopped working.R. 171664 (2013) An employer has the right to dismiss an employee by reason of willful breach of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Nos.R. but when the unwarranted acts of the employer are committed to the end that the employee‘s continued employment shall become so intolerable. 184520 (2013) Article 279 of the Labor Code mandates that an employee‘s full backwages shall be inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent. The Orchard Golf and Country Club v Francisco. the law imposes the burden of proof upon the employer to show that the dismissal of the employee is for just cause failing which would mean that the dismissal is not justified. It must be recalled that the subject program was implemented as a valid cost-cutting measure. it does not necessarily follow that the company indeed purposely sought such a result. 194518 & 194524 (2013) Even if the medical opinion on non-work-relatedness was issued at an early stage. at the very least. et al.. No.R. 178125 (2013) The fact that Inocencio's sickness was later medically declared as not work-related does not prejudice his right to receive sickness allowance. et al. v Vedad. 194490-91. or that it was aimed at interfering with its employees‘ right to self-organize. G. G. Inc. Bankard. It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or.R.. Inc. Bankard contracted an independent agency to meet business exigencies. it cannot be said to have committed an act of unfair labor practice. et al. thus. et al.R. No. Nos..R. 180636 (2013) Employee‘s transfer without basis. nor does it operate as a waiver. v Vedad. aggravation of any pre-existing condition he . v NLRC-First Division. well within the ambit of the so-called management prerogatives. Inc. G. and (2) the loss of trust must be based on willful breach of trust founded on clearly established facts. G. 194518 & 194524 (2013) For illness to be compensable.. resulting to her demotion is tantamount to constructive dismissal. G. Tangga-an v Philippine Transmarine Carriers. No. plus all other benefits and bonuses and general increases. Nos. In the absence of any showing that Bankard was motivated by ill will. but the seafarer duly contests the opinion of the company-designated doctor by presenting a second opinion from the former‘s doctor. the seafarer is entitled to illness allowance pending the assessment of the company-designated doctor that the illness is not work-related.R. Constructive dismissal occurs not when the employee ceases to report for work. at the time of his repatriation. it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer. To temper the exercise of such prerogative. his illness was not yet medically declared as not work-related by company physician. Moreover. No. two requisites must concur. Transocean Ship Management.LABOR LAW While Bankard‘s Manpower Rationalization Program might have affected the number of union membership because of the employees‘ voluntary resignation and availment of the package. considering that he got ill while on board the ship and was repatriated for medical treatment before the end of his 10-month employment contract. As such.R. such entitlement shall not exceed 120 days illness allowance. The fact that the employee continued to report for work does not necessarily suggest that constructive dismissal has not occurred.. Nos. viz: (1) the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust. there is no substantial evidence to prove that the grant of sales management incentives to all retired District Sales Supervisors. Magsaysay Maritime Services. repetitive conduct that might constitute evidence of habit or company practice. G.R. Company practice.R. ―Reinstatement is a restoration to a state from which one has been removed or separated‖ while ―the payment of backwages is a form of relief that restores the income that was lost by reason of the unlawful dismissal. Royal Plant Workers Union v Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines. There is a reasonable work connection between respondent‘s condition at work as pastryman (cook) and the development of his hyperthyroidism.R. Inc. G.‖ Therefore. They are bound by their terms and conditions.. the operators‘ chairs cannot be considered as one of the employee benefits covered in Article 100 of the Labor Code. coupled by the stressful tasks in his employment caused.Cebu Plant. The POEA SEC is supplemented by the CBA between the owner of the vessel and the covered seaman. No. ought to have been granted him if a real and authentic reinstatement to his former position as general manager is to be posited. Mendoza v HMS Credit Corporation. et al. No. Inc. Instead. 197353 (2013) Backwages and reinstatement are separate and distinct reliefs given to an illegally dismissed employee in order to alleviate the economic damage brought about by the employee‘s dismissal. particularly in relation to this case. The removal of the chairs was designed to increase work efficiency. Moreover. No. being an established perk accorded to petitioner.R. His constant exposure to hazards such as chemicals and the varying temperatures. Certainly. Bañares v Tobaco Women’s Transport Service Cooperative. the term "benefits" mentioned in the non-diminution rule refers to monetary benefits or privileges given to the employee with monetary equivalents. Inc. G. The POEA-SEC and the CBA govern the employment relationship between them. The discovery of a falsehood of a managerial employee where she claimed to be a CPA but in fact was not is a ground constituting loss of trust. G.. If the dismissal is based on just cause. the employer must indemnify the employee in the form of nominal damages. 198783 (2013) Loss of trust is a legal ground for terminating the services of an employee particularly for employees holding managerial positions. et al. The boarding house privilege. a practice or custom is. v RP Guardian’s Security Agency.. Vergara v Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines. Reyes. just like any other fact. usage or patterns of conduct. and to his full back wages. and that the payments made by the company pursuant to it have ripened into benefits enjoyed by them. But having a sufficient ground for termination is not enough– the Supreme Court emphasized the need for performing the proper procedure for termination. 195518 (2013) The principle against diminution of benefits is applicable only if the grant or benefit is founded on an express policy or has ripened into a practice over a long period of time which is consistent and deliberate. v Laurel.R. No 193756 (2013) The decision of the management to remove the operators‘ chairs from the production/manufacturing lines of its bottling plants was made in good faith and did not intend to defeat or circumvent the rights of the workers. then the noncompliance with non-procedural due process should not render the termination from employment illegal or ineffectual. It presupposes that a company practice. as a general rule. not a source of a legally demandable or enforceable right. An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to other established employment privileges.. habits. must be proven by the offering party who must allege and establish specific. No.might have had. the . regardless of whether or not they qualified for the same. et al. had ripened into company practice. like the heat in the kitchen of the vessel and the coldness outside. . his illness. G. No. customs. 176985 (2013) An employee entitled to reinstatement shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation. In the instant case. policy and tradition favorable to the employees has been clearly established.R. G. et al. the award of one does not bar the other. In the Court‘s view.. or at least aggravated. 187232 (2013) Every seaman and the vessel owner (directly or represented by a local manning agency) are required to execute the POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC) as a condition sine qua non prior to the deployment for overseas work. et al. Under the POEA Contract. Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency." the voluntary arbitrator in the present case can assume that he has the necessary power to make a final settlement. otherwise. but must be proven to have been contracted during the term of the contract. Although the act complained of – the unauthorized cancellation of the ticket was related to her work as a selling teller. while the seafarer and his employer are governed by their mutual agreement. public order. et al. Thus. Backwages in general. Inc. "since arbitration is a final resort for the adjudication of disputes. No. G. however. petitioner did not establish that the cancellation of the ticket was intentional. No. Inc. the loss of trust and confidence must be related to the employee‗s performance of duties. In this case. No. v Dumadag. et al. No.R.‖ Fianza v National Labor Relations Commission. must be based on a wilful breach of trust and confidence founded on clearly established facts. the voluntary arbitrator rightly assumed jurisdiction to decide the said issue.R.R. 7K Corporation v Albarico. even though the issue of entitlement thereto is not explicitly claimed in the Submission Agreement. as a two-tiered issue whereupon entitlement to backwages must be determined separately. they have the force of law between the parties. Neither is it required that there be proof that the working .. the employer who alleges abandonment ―has the burden of proof to show a deliberate and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning. thoughtlessly. Nonetheless. G. As long as the stipulations therein are not contrary to law. heedlessly or inadvertently. all the seafarers executed the quitclaim with a full understanding of their import and consequences. ―A breach is wilful if it is done intentionally. 160982 (2013) The employment of seafarers. In line with the burden of proof set by law. The prevailing rule under the 1996 POEA-SEC was that the illness leading to the eventual death of seafarer need not be shown to be work-related in order to be compensable. the Court has no option but to recognize the transaction to be valid and binding. v Trajano. caprices or suspicion. Inc.included in the Submission Agreement signed by the parties. G. In the instant case. has done so voluntarily. to be a valid ground for dismissal. whims. termination pay is given to the seafarer equivalent to his one month of his basic wage. in case of termination of employment due to discontinuance of voyage. Consequently. Manila Jockey Club. as distinguished from an act done carelessly. the amounts given to them in exchange for the quitclaims were reasonable considering that they received more than what they were entitled to under the POEA Contract. Likewise. 182295 (2013) Generally. are awarded on the ground of equity as a form of relief that restores the income lost by the terminated employee by reason of his illegal dismissal. 194362 (2013) Abandonment as a fact and a defense can only be claimed as a ground for dismissal if the employer follows the procedure set by law. with a full understanding of its terms and with the payment of credible and reasonable consideration. without justifiable excuse. Besides.. as a selling teller. morals. An ordinary breach is not enough. the POEA Rules and Regulations require that the POEA-Standard Employment Contract be integrated in every seafarer‘s contract. In the present case. is governed by the contracts they sign at the time of their engagement. G. or public policy. Poseidon International Maritime Services. knowing and purposeful on her part in order for her to have breached the trust and confidence reposed in her by petitioner. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer‗s arbitrariness. instead of being only out of an honest mistake. including claims for death benefits. The failure of the parties to limit the issues specifically to that which was stated allowed the arbitrator to assume jurisdiction over the related issue. knowingly and purposely. the voluntary arbitrator correctly assumed jurisdiction over the issue of entitlement of respondent to backwages on the basis of the former's finding of illegal dismissal. 163061 (2013) Having established that the issue of the legality of dismissal of the respondent was in fact necessarilyalbeit not explicitly.R. the voluntary arbitrator may award backwages upon a finding of illegal dismissal. 186475 (2013) The loss of trust and confidence. G.. v Tamala. the Supreme Court looks with disfavor at quitclaims executed by employees for being contrary to public policy. Where the person making the waiver. there is no indication that the issue of illegal dismissal should be treated. respondent held a position of trust and confidence.R. No. the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. Moreover.mechanism prescribed to determine liability for a disability benefits claim. Examples of rank-and-file employees who may be dismissed for loss of confidence are cashiers. . with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. 184116 (2013) A seafarer has the right to seek the opinion of other doctors under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract but this is on the presumption that the company-designated physician had already issued a certification as to his fitness or disability and he finds this disagreeable. Inter-Orient Maritime. (2) the dissatisfaction on the part of the employer must be real and in good faith. 182072 (2013) Since the subject CBA provision is an insurance contract. Under the same provision. Inc. Inc. v Candava.R. and (3) there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal.R. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v National Labor Relations Commission. G. v Soriano.R. No.conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease or illness. regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. not only did petitioner fail to show that respondent was apprised of the standards for regularization but it was likewise not shown how these standards had been applied in his case. 1638 is the law that governs the retirement and separation of military officers and enlisted personnel. and (2) employees who are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer‘s money or property which may include rank-and-file employees. This is consistent with the principle of indemnity which proscribes the insured from recovering greater than the loss. Being in the nature of a non-life insurance contract and essentially a contract of indemnity. G. Century Iron Works. or those who. Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts. 201251 (2013) Loss of confidence applies to: (1) employees occupying positions of trust and confidence. Indeed. With respect to the retirement of military officers and enlisted personnel. In other words. and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. No. In this case. it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing a seafarer‘s disability and there is a procedure to contest his findings. Even the failure to report for work after a notice to return to work has been served does not necessarily constitute abandonment. v Cabusas. G. 19190 (2013) To constitute abandonment. G. two elements must concur. not feigned so as to circumvent the contract or the law. 177812 (2013) The power of the employer to terminate a probationary employee is subject to three limitations. G. to profit from a loss will lead to unjust enrichment and therefore should not be countenanced. a military officer or personnel.R. petitioner‗s failure to specify the reasonable standards by which respondent‗s alleged poor performance was evaluated as well as to prove that such standards were made known to him at the start of his employment. Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Salaried Employees Union v Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation. Settled is the rule that mere absence or failure to report for work is not tantamount to abandonment of work. or the fulfillment of some other conditions on the part of. To be a valid cause for dismissal for abandonment. 175773 (2013) PD No. the law provides for two kinds: compulsory retirement and optional retirement. Inc. property custodians. the rights and obligations of the parties must be determined in accordance with the general principles of insurance law.R. respondent is deemed to have been hired from day one as a regular employee. auditors. NO. No. namely: (1) it must be exercised in accordance with the specific requirements of the contract. makes respondent a regular employee. in the normal routine exercise of their functions.R. Clearly. to wit: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason. G. Both kinds of retirements contemplate the satisfaction of a certain age or length of service requirement by. No. v Bañas. there must be clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer employee relationship. Inc. the managerial employees. the CBA provision obligates the employer to indemnify the covered employees‘ medical expenses incurred by their dependents but only up to the extent of the expenses actually incurred. Pursuant to well-settled doctrine. the operative act is still the employee's ultimate act of putting an end to his employment. Univac Development. No. Concrete Solutions. because of this omission on the part of petitioner. Claims for double retirement benefits fall under the prohibition against the receipt of double compensation when they are based on exactly the same services and on the same creditable period. under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws. grants the award of financial assistance to the 13 nonlicensees equivalent to one-half (1/2) month‘s pay for every year of service rendered with the school. No. No. a claim for double compensation prohibited under the first paragraph of Section 8.R... Evidence must. but reemployed during the summer season or when their services may be needed. Inc. Gapayao v Fulo. Commission on Audit. 195842 (2013) The nature of work of a bus conductor involves inherent or normal occupational risks of incurring money shortages and uncollected fares. or would involve moral turpitude. petitioner is claiming a set of retirement benefits for each of her two (2) retirements from the Energy Regulatory Board. In this case. the primary standard used is the reasonable connection between the particular activity they perform and the usual trade or business of the employer. the controversy must relate to "tenurial arrangements" for the DARAB to validly take cognizance of the controversy. et al. 188716 (2013) Decisions. The Court has consistently held that seasonal employees may be considered as regular employees. be substantial and not based on mere surmises or conjectures for to allow an employer to terminate the employment of a worker based on mere allegations places the latter in an uncertain situation and at the sole mercy of the employer. It was not due to any serious misconduct or infraction reflecting their moral character. Rather. Seasonal workers who have worked for one season only may not be considered regular employees. No... Laguna v Paramount Holdings-Equities. No. G.Petitioner‘s civilian service at the DILG should and ought to be included as part of his active service in the military for purposes of computing his retirement benefits under PD No.R. Also when seasonal employees are free to contract their services with other farm owners. petitioner is not claiming two (2) sets of retirement benefits for one and the same creditable period. This rule. and not because of the length of time they have worked. G. in keeping with equity and social justice. the Court. Alps Transportation v Rodriguez. G. however.R. In this case. An allegation to declare null and void a certain sale involving an agricultural land does not ipso facto make the case an agrarian dispute. G. This being the case. has granted financial assistance to legally dismissed employees as an act of ―social justice‖ or based on ―equity‖ so long as the dismissal was not for serious misconduct. the Court. They are in regular employment because of the nature of their job. 1568 is not. they are temporarily laid off. does not reflect on the employee‘s moral character. For regular employees to be considered as such. 186732 (2013) Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employees. therefore. No. is not absolute. in exceptional cases.R. 182957 (2013) The claim of petitioner for two (2) sets of retirement benefits under R. 1638.R. G.R. Nevertheless. 176838 (2013) Reinstatement or payment of separation pay and award of backwages is proper only in cases of illegal dismissal. While the Court recognizes the legal requirement for clearances in the sale and transfer of agricultural lands. Regular seasonal employees are those called to work from time to time. Joseph Academy of Valenzuela. Reblora v Armed Forces of the Philippines. When a suit does not involve an agrarian dispute it does not fall under the jurisdiction of DARAB. Article IX-B of the Constitution. A conductor‘s job is to collect exact fares from the passengers and remit his collections to the company. 193493 (2013) Not every sale or transfer of Agricultural Land would warrant DAR Adjudication Board's jurisdiction. and entry of judgment shall be made upon the expiration of the . et al. et al. St. No. the dismissal of the 13 non-licensees was due to their failure to possess teaching licenses. G. The nature of their relationship with the employer is such that during the off season. strictly speaking. There must be a tenancy relationship between the party litigants or. resolutions or orders of the NLRC shall become final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties. then the former are not regular employees. Joseph Academy of Valenzuela Faculty Association v St. the DARAB's jurisdiction over such dispute is limited by the qualification that the land involved is under the administration and disposition of the Department of Agrarian Reform and Land Bank or.A. said period. Judicial review of decisions of the NLRC may be sought via a petition for certiorari before the CA under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; and petitioners are allowed sixty (60) days from notice of the assailed order or resolution within which to file the petition. Hence, in cases where a petition for certiorari is filed after the expiration of the 10-day period but within the 60-day period under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the CA can grant the petition and modify, nullify and reverse a decision or resolution of the NLRC. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v Legaspi, G.R. No. 202791 (2013) In cases where the complaint for violation of labor standard laws preceded the termination of the employee and the filing of the illegal dismissal case, it would not be in consonance with justice to charge the complainants with engaging in forum shopping when the remedy available to them at the time their causes of action arose was to file separate cases before different fora. Kapisanang Pangkaunlaran ng Kababaihang Portero, Inc., et al. v Barreno, et al., G.R. No. 175900 (2013) In legitimate job contracting, the principal employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor only for the payment of the employees' wages whenever the contractor fails to pay the same. On the other hand, in labor-only contracting, the principal employer becomes solidarily liable with the labor-only contractor for all the rightful claims of the employees. In this case, the releases, waivers and quitclaims executed by employees in favor of the labor-only contractor redounded to the benefit of the principal. Vigilla, et al. v Philippine College of Criminology, Inc., G.R. No. 200094 (2013) Illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes. To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. People of the Philippines v Guevarra, et al., G.R. No. 197049 (2013) Jurisprudence dictates that it is not enough that the employee is given an ―ample opportunity to be heard‖ if company rules or practices require a formal hearing or conference. In such instance, the requirement of a formal hearing and conference becomes mandatory. The rationale behind this mandatory characterization is premised on the fact that company rules and regulations which regulate the procedure and requirements for termination, are generally binding on the employer. Records reveal that while Gonzaga was given an ample opportunity to be heard within the purview of the foregoing principles, SURNECO, however, failed to show that it followed its own rules which mandate that the employee who is sought to be terminated be afforded a formal hearing or conference. As above-discussed, SURNECO remains bound by – and hence, must faithfully observe – its company policy embodied in Section 16.5 of its own Code of Ethics. Accordingly, since only an informal inquiry was conducted in investigating Gonzaga‘s alleged cash shortages, SURNECO failed to comply with its own company policy, violating the proper termination procedure altogether. In this relation, case law states that an employer who terminates an employee for a valid cause but does so through invalid procedure is liable to pay the latter nominal damages. Hence, although the dismissal stands, the Court deems it appropriate to award Gonzaga nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00. Surigao Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v Gonzaga, G.R. No. 187722 (2013) The list of illnesses/diseases in Section 32-A of the 2000 POEA Standard Employment Contract does not preclude other illnesses/diseases not so listed from being compensable. The POEA-SEC cannot be presumed to contain all the possible injuries that render a seafarer unfit for further sea duties. In this case, the Supreme Court finds that psoriasis was work related. Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc. v Mesina, G.R. No. 200837 (2013) As a general rule, an employee who has been dismissed for any of the just causes enumerated under Article 282 of the Labor Code is not entitled to a separation pay. In exceptional cases, however, the Court has granted separation pay to a legally dismissed employee as an act of ―social justice‖ or on ―equitable grounds.‖ In both instances, it is required that the dismissal (1) was not for serious misconduct; and (2) did not reflect on the moral character of the employee. In this case, the transgressions were serious offenses that warranted employees‘ dismissal from employment. Hence, employee is not entitled to separation pay. Unilever Philippines v Rivera, G.R. No. 201701 (2013) The civil status of the employee as either married or single is not the controlling consideration in order that a person may qualify as the employee‘s legal dependent. What is rather decidedly controlling is the fact that the spouse, child, or parent is actually dependent for support upon the employee. The continuity in the grant of the funeral and bereavement aid to regular employees for the death of their legal dependents has undoubtedly ripened into a company policy. With that, the denial of Alfante's qualified claim for such benefit pursuant to Section 4, Article XIII of the CBA violated the law prohibiting the diminution of benefits. Philippine Journalists, Inc. v Employees Union, G.R. No. 192601 (2013) The bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards may be relaxed in cases where there was substantial compliance of the Rules or where the appellants, at the very least, exhibited willingness to pay by posting a partial bond. In the instant case, the Labor Arbiter in his decision ordered PNCC to pay petitioner back wages amounting to P422,630.41 and separation pay of P37,662 or a total of P460,292.41. When PNCC filed an appeal bond amounting to P422,630.41 or at least 90% of the adjudged amount, there is no question that this is substantial compliance with the requirement that allows relaxation of the rules. Pasos v Philippine National Construction Corporation, G.R. No. 192394 (2013) Project employee is deemed regularized if services are extended without specifying duration. While for first three months, petitioner can be considered a project employee of PNCC, his employment thereafter, when his services were extended without any specification of as to the duration, made him a regular employee of PNCC. And his status as a regular employee was not affected by the fact that he was assigned to several other projects and there were intervals in between said projects since he enjoys security of tenure. Pasos v Philippine National Construction Corporation, G.R. No. 192394 (2013) Permanent and total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work or work of a similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment can do. Disability need not render the seafarer absolutely helpless or feeble to be compensable; it is enough that it incapacitates to perform his customary work. Esguerra v United Philippines Lines, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 199932 (2013) As a privilege inherent in the employer‘s right to control and manage its enterprise effectively, its freedom to conduct its business operations to achieve its purpose cannot be denied. The respondents are justified in moving the petitioner to another equivalent position, which presumably would be less affected by her habitual tardiness or inconsistent attendance than if she continued as a Category Buyer, a ―frontline position‖ in the day-to-day business operations of a supermarket such as Robinsons. Pecskon v Robinsons Supermarket Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 198534 (2013) Fundamental is the rule that an employee can be dismissed from employment only for a valid cause. Serious misconduct is one of the just causes for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Not every form of misconduct can be considered as a just cause for termination. For misconduct to be serious and therefore a valid ground for dismissal, it must be (1) of grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant and (2) connected with the work of the employee. PNOC-Energy Development Corp., et al. v Estrella, G.R. No. 197789 (2013) Employees who take steps to protest their dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned their work. A charge of abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal. The filing thereof is proof enough of one‘s desire to return to work, thus negating any suggestion of abandonment. Fernandez, et al. v Newfield Staff Solutions, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 201979 (2013) The test to determine the existence of independent contractorship is whether one claiming to be an independent contractor has contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without being subjected to the control of the employer, except only to the results of the work. Petitioner cannot rightly claim that DGMS was an independent job contractor inasmuch as respondents were subjected to the control and supervision of petitioner while they were performing their job. First Philippine Industrial Corporation v Calimbas, et al., G.R. No. 179256 (2013) In the present case, the CBA contains specific provisions which effectively bar the availment of retirement benefits once the employees have chosen separation pay or vice versa. Section 2 of Article XIV explicitly states that any payment of retirement gratuity shall be chargeable against separation pay. Clearly, respondents cannot have both retirement gratuity and separation pay, as selecting one will preclude recovery of the other. To illustrate the mechanics of how Section 2 of Article XIV bars double recovery, if the employees choose to retire, whatever amount they will receive as retirement gratuity will be charged against the separation pay they would have received had their separation from employment been for a cause which would entitle them to severance pay. These causes are enumerated in Section 3, Article XIV of the CBA (i.e., retrenchment, closure of business, merger, redundancy, or installation of labor-saving device). However, if the cause of the termination of their employment was any of the causes enumerated in said Section 3, they could no longer claim retirement gratuity as the fund from which the same would be taken had already been used in paying their separation pay. Put differently, employees who were separated from the company cannot have both retirement gratuity and separation pay as there is only one fund from which said benefits would be taken. Inarguably, Section 2 of Article XIV effectively disallows recovery of both separation pay and retirement gratuity. Consequently, respondents are entitled only to one. Since they have already chosen and accepted redundancy pay and have executed the corresponding Release and Quitclaim, they are now barred from claiming retirement gratuity. Zuellig Pharma Corporation v Sibal, et al., G.R. NO. 173587 (2013) To validly dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence under Article 296(c) of the Labor Code, the following guidelines must be observed: (1) the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. Petitioner's failure to properly account for his shortage of a significant amount is enough reason for respondent to lose trust and confidence in him. Martinez v Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 192306 (2013) The non-inclusion in the complaint of the issue of dismissal did not necessarily mean that the validity of the dismissal could not be an issue. The rules of the NLRC require the submission of verified position papers by the parties should they fail to agree upon an amicable settlement, and bar the inclusion of any cause of action not mentioned in the complaint or position paper from the time of their submission by the parties. In view of this, respondent‘s cause of action should be ascertained not from a reading of his complaint alone but also from a consideration and evaluation of both his complaint and position paper. Samar-Med Distribution v National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 162385 (2013) A change in the corporate name does not make a new corporation, whether effected by a special act or under a general law. It has no effect on the identity of the corporation, or on its property, rights, or liabilities. The corporation, upon such change in its name, is in no sense a new corporation, nor the successor of the original corporation. It is the same corporation with a different name, and its character is in no respect changed. In short, Zeta and petitioner remained one and the same corporation. The change of name did not give petitioner the license to terminate employees of Zeta like respondent without just or authorized cause. The situation was not similar to that of an enterprise buying the business of another company where the purchasing company had no obligation to rehire terminated employees of the latter. Petitioner, despite its new name, was the mere continuation of Zeta‘s corporate being, and still held the obligation to honor all of Zeta‘s obligations, one of which was to respect respondent‘s security of tenure. The dismissal of respondent from employment on the pretext that petitioner, being a different corporation, had no obligation to accept him as its employee, was illegal and ineffectual. Zuellig Freight and Cargo Systems v NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 157900 (2013) A different procedure is applied when terminating a probationary employee; the usual two-notice rule does not govern. Section 2, Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code states that ―[i]f the termination is brought about by the x x x failure of an employee to meet the standards of the employer in case of probationary employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served the employee, within a reasonable time from the effective date of termination.‖ In this case, respondent‘s dismissal was effected through a letter dated May 19, 2005 which she received on May 23, 2005 and again on May 27, 2005. Stated therein were the reasons for her termination, i.e., that after proper evaluation, Abbott determined that she failed to meet the reasonable standards for her regularization considering her lack of time and people management and decision-making skills, which are necessary in the performance of her functions as Regulatory Affairs Manager. Undeniably, this written notice sufficiently meets the criteria set forth above, thereby legitimizing the cause and manner of respondent‘s dismissal as a probationary employee under the parameters set by the Labor Code. Nonetheless, despite the existence of a sufficient ground to terminate respondent‘s employment and Abbott‘s compliance with the Labor Code termination procedure, it is readily apparent that Abbott breached its contractual obligation to respondent when it failed to abide by its own procedure in evaluating the performance of a probationary employee. Veritably, a company policy partakes of the nature of an implied contract between the employer and employee. Abbott Laboratories, Phils., et al. v Alcaraz, G.R. No. 192571 (2013) A certification election is the sole concern of the workers, except when the employer itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, but even after such filing its role in the certification process ceases and becomes merely a bystander. The employer clearly lacks the personality to dispute the election and has no right to interfere at all therein. Inclusion of supervisory employees in a labor organization seeking to represent the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees does not divest it of its status as a legitimate labor organization. Holy Child Catholic School v Hon. Sto Tomas, et al., G.R. No. 179146 (2013) Contracting out of services is not illegal per se. It is an exercise of business judgment or management prerogative. Absent proof that the management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere with the exercise of judgment by an employer. BPI‘s policy of contracting out cashiering and bookkeeping services was considered as a valid exercise of management prerogative which is further authorized by the Central Bank in CBP Circular No. 1388, Series of 199. BPI Employees union-Davao City-FUBU v Bank of the Philippine Islands, et al., G.R. No. 174912 (2013) A seafarer who was repatriated due to a finished contact and not for medical reasons, is not entitled to disability benefits. Villanueva v Baliwag Navigation, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 206505 (2013) One of the prerogatives of management is the decision to close the entire establishment or to close or abolish a department or section thereof for economic reasons, such as to minimize expenses and reduce capitalization. While the Labor Code provides for the payment of separation package in case of retrenchment to prevent losses, it does not obligate the employer for the payment thereof if there is closure of business due to serious losses. Closure or cessation of business is the complete or partial cessation of the operations and/or shut-down of the establishment of the employer. It is carried out to either stave off the financial ruin or promote the business interest of the employer. Unlike retrenchment, closure or cessation of business, as an authorized cause of termination of employment, need not depend for validity on evidence of actual or imminent reversal of the employer's regardless of the underlying reasons and motivations therefore, be it financial losses or not. Manila Polo Club Employees’ Union FUR-TUCP v Manila Polo Club, Inc., G.R. No. 172846 (2013) The employment of seafarers, including claims for death and disability benefits, is governed by the contracts they sign every time they are hired or rehired, and as long as the stipulations therein are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law between the parties. It must be shown that the injury or illness was contracted during the term of the employment contract. The unqualified phrase ―during the term‖ covered all injuries or illnesses occurring during the lifetime of the contract. In this case, since Enrique failed to comply with the required post-employment medical examination within 3 days from his arrival and there was no showing that he was physically incapacitated to do so to justify his non-compliance. Since the mandatory reporting is a requirement for a disability claim to prosper, Enrique's non-compliance thereto forfeits petitioners' right to claim the benefits as to grant the same would not be fair to respondents. Manota, et al. v Avantgarde Shipping Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 179607 (2013) An employer who is found guilty of unfair labor practice in dismissing his employee may not be ordered so to pay backwages beyond the date of closure of business where such closure was due to legitimate business reasons and not merely an attempt to defeat the order of reinstatement. Polymer Rubber Corporation v Salamunding, G.R. No. 185160 (2013) It is settled that the extension of the employment of a project employee long after the supposed project has been completed removes the employee from the scope of a project employee and makes him a regular employee. In this regard, the length of time of the employee‘s service, while not a controlling determinant of project employment, is a strong factor in determining whether he was hired for a specific undertaking or in fact tasked to perform functions vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. Verily, the principal test for determining whether an employee is a project employee, as distinguished from a regular employee, is whether or not he is assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which are specified at the time he is engaged for the project. D.M. Consunji Corporation v Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 159371 (2013) It is well-settled that workers‘ and employers‘ organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programs. In this case, RPNEU‘s Constitution and By-Laws expressly mandate that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the internal remedies within the organization. Petitioners were found to have violated the provisions of the union‘s Constitution and By-Laws when they filed petitions for impeachment against their union officers and for audit before the DOLE without first exhausting all internal remedies available within their organization. This act is a ground for expulsion from union membership. Thus, petitioners‘ expulsion from the union was not a deliberate attempt to curtail or restrict their right to organize, but was triggered by the commission of an act, expressly sanctioned by Section 2.5 of Article IX of the union‘s Constitution and By-Laws. Baptista, et al. v Villanueva, et al., G.R. No. 194709 (2013) ―Such a ‗floating status‘ is lawful and not unusual for security guards employed in security agencies as their assignments primarily depend on the contracts entered into by the agency with third parties. Cañedo v Kampilan Security and Detective Agency, et al., G.R. No. 179326 (2013) To warrant removal from service, the negligence should be gross and habitual. Although it was her second time to commit misposting (i.e., the first misposting was in 1995 while the second misposting was committed in 1998), Arcobillas‘s act cannot be considered as gross as to warrant her termination from employment. Gross neglect of duty ―denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty.‖ It ―refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.‖ In the instant case, the misposting was not deliberately done as to constitute as gross negligence. Rather, it was a case of simple neglect brought about by carelessness which, as satisfactorily explained by Arcobillas, was the effect of her heavy workload that day and the headache she was experiencing. Philippine National Bank v Arcobillas, G.R. No. 179648 (2013) The employer's act of tearing to pieces the employee's time card may be considered an outright - not only symbolic - termination of the parties' employment relationship. Thus, when Ang tore the respondents‘ time cards to pieces, he virtually removed them from Virose‘s payroll and erased all vestiges of respondents‘ employment; respondents were effectively dismissed from work. Ang v San Joaquin, et al., G.R. No. 185549 (2013) A local union may disaffiliate at any time from its mother federation, absent any showing that the same is prohibited under its constitution or rule. Such, however, does not result in it losing its legal personality altogether. In the case at bar, there is nothing shown in the records that the union was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation nor were there any conditions imposed for a valid breakaway. This being so, PEMA is not precluded to disaffiliate from NUBE after acquiring the status of an independent labor organization duly registered before the DOLE. National Union Bank Employee v Philnabank Employees Association, et al., G.R. No. 174287 (2013) The recomputation of the consequences of illegal dismissal upon execution of the decision does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented. The illegal dismissal ruling stands; only the computation of monetary consequences of this dismissal is affected, and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments. Nacar v Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871 (2013) In termination cases either by retrenchment or closure, the burden of proving that the termination of services is for a valid or authorized cause rests upon the employer. Not every loss incurred or expected to be incurred by an employer can justify retrenchment. The employer must prove, among others, that the losses are substantial and that the retrenchment is reasonably necessary to avert such losses. And to repeat, in closures, the bona fides of the employer must be proven. In this case, there was no valid retrenchment. Nor was there a closure of business. A lull caused by lack of orders or shortage of materials must be of such nature as would severely affect the continued business operations of the employer to the detriment of all and sundry if not properly addressed. Sanoh asserts that cancelled orders of wire condensers led to the phasing out of the Wire Condenser Department, which triggered retrenchment. Sanoh presented the letters of cancellation given by Matsushita and Sanyo as evidence of cancelled orders. The evidence presented by Sanoh barely established the connection between the cancelled orders and the projected business losses that may be incurred by Sanoh. Sanoh failed to prove that these cancelled orders would severely impact on their production of wire condensers. The losses must be supported by sufficient and convincing evidence and the normal method of discharging this is by the submission of financial statements duly audited by independent external auditors. Petitioner failed to present proof of the extent of the reduced order and its contribution to the sustainability of its business. Sanoh Fulton Phils., Inc., et al. v Bernardo, et al., G.R. No. 187214 (2013) The Court has ruled, time and again, that financial assistance, or whatever name it is called, as a measure of social justice is allowed only in instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Considering that Daabay was dismissed on the grounds of serious misconduct, breach of trust and loss of confidence, the award based on equity was unwarranted. Daabay v Coca Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 199890 (2013) In illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, in the present case, however, the facts and the evidence do not establish a prima facie case that the employee was dismissed from employment. Before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. If there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof. MZR Industries, et al. v Colambot, G.R. No. 179001 (2013) Section 20(A) of the POEA Contract require in granting death benefits, seafarer must have suffered a work-related death during the term of his contract. Here, the seafarer died six months after his repatriation. Thus, on the basis of Section 20(A), his beneficiaries are precluded from receiving death benefits. Sea Power Enterprises, Inc., et al. v Salazar, G.R. No. 188595 (2013) As a general rule, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement (or separation pay, if reinstatement is not viable) and payment of full backwages. In certain cases, however, the Court has carved out an exception to the foregoing rule and thereby ordered the reinstatement of the employee without backwages on account of the following: (a) the fact that dismissal of the employee would be too harsh of a penalty; and (b) that the employer was in good faith in terminating the employee. Integrated Microelectronics, Inc. v Pionilla, G.R. No. 200222 (2013) Petitioner is not entitled to separation pay. Payment of separation pay cannot be justified by his length of service. It must be stressed that Moya was not an ordinary rank-and-file employee. He was holding a supervisory rank being an Officer-in-Charge of the Tire Curing Department. The position, naturally one of trust, required of him abiding honesty as compared to ordinary rank-and-file employees. When he made a false report attributing the damage of five tires to machine failure, he breached the trust and confidence reposed upon him by the company. In the case of supervisors or personnel occupying positions of responsibility, loss of trust justifies termination. Loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. This situation holds where a person is entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer‘s property. But, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be "work-related" such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer. Moya v First Solid Rubber Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 184011 (2013) A repetition of the same offense for which one has been previously disciplined and cautioned evinces deliberateness and willful intent; it negates mere lapse or error in judgment. The NLRC and the CA were thus correct in applying the totality of infractions rule and in adjudging that the petitioner's dismissal was grounded on a just and valid cause. Alvarez v Golden Tri Bloc, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 202158 (2013) Where the deceased was diagnosed of leukemia and died because of the said illness, the surviving spouse cannot claim death benefits as a member of the Government Service Insurance System under Employees‘ Compensation death benefits. Though the said illness is occupational, it, however, does not thereby result in compensability in view of the fact that petitioner‘s wife (the deceased) was not an operating room personnel, as provided under the Implementing Rules of P.D. No. 626. The coverage of leukemia as an occupational disease relates to one‘s employment as an operating room personnel ordinarily exposed to anesthetics. In the case of petitioner‘s wife, the nature of her occupation does not indicate exposure to anesthetics nor does it increase the risk of developing Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia. There was no showing that her work involved frequent and sufficient exposure to substances established as occupational risk factors of the disease. Lorenzo v GSIS and Department of Education, G.R. No. 188385 (2013) While resignation letters containing words of gratitude may indicate that the employees were not coerced into resignation, this fact alone is not conclusive proof that they intelligently, freely and voluntarily resigned. To rule that resignation letters couched in terms of gratitude are, by themselves, conclusive proof that the employees intended to relinquish their posts would open the floodgates to possible abuse. In order to withstand the test of validity, resignations must be made voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing the office, coupled with an act of relinquishment. Therefore, in order to determine whether the employees truly intended to resign from their respective posts, we cannot merely rely on the tenor of the resignation letters, but must take into consideration the totality of circumstances in each particular case. SME Bank, Inc., et al. v De Guzman, et al., G.R. No. 184517 (2013) While Legacy Consolidated enjoyed wide latitude in evaluating Atty. Chuanico‘s work and attitude and in terminating his employment on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, these are broad principles that do not themselves show when, where, and how Atty. Chuanico betrayed the trust that Legacy Consolidated gave him as in-house counsel. To be a valid cause for dismissal, the loss of trust must be based on a willful breach of such trust and founded on clearly established facts. The company charged him with having mishandled two things that were assigned to him, the drafting of an answer in one and the preparation of a complaint affidavit in the other. It failed to present proof, however, of such mishandling. Chuanico v Legacy Consulted Plans, Inc., G.R. No. 181852 (2013) The act of HBV Law Firm of moving the effectivity date of Atty. Matorre‘s resignation from September 30, 2008 to September 15, 2008 is not an act of harassment. The 30-day notice requirement for an employee‘s resignation is actually for the benefit of the employer who has the discretion to waive such period. Its purpose is to afford the employer enough time to hire another employee if needed and to see to it that there is proper turn-over of the tasks which the resigning employee may be handling. The rule requiring an employee to stay or complete the 30-day period prior to the effectivity of his resignation becomes discretionary on the part of management as an employee who intends to resign may be allowed a shorter period before his resignation becomes effective. Hechanova Bugay Vilchez Lawyers v Matorre, G.R. No. 198261 (2013) While the bond may be reduced upon motion by the employer, this is subject to the conditions that (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant, otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. The qualification effectively requires that unless the NLRC grants the reduction of the cash bond within the 10-day reglementary period, the employer is still expected to post the cash or surety bond securing the full amount within the said 10-day period. If the NLRC does eventually grant the motion for reduction after the reglementary period has elapsed, the correct relief would be to reduce the cash or surety bond already posted by the employer within the 10-day period. Mcburnie v Ganzon, et al., G.R. No. 178034 (2013) It is a well-settled rule that before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. Bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence. In the instant case, the records are bereft of substantial evidence that will unmistakably establish a case of constructive dismissal. An act, to be considered as amounting to constructive dismissal, must be a display of utter discrimination or insensibility on the part of the employer so intense that it becomes unbearable for the employee to continue with his employment. Here, the circumstances relayed by Gemina were not clear-cut indications of bad faith or some malicious design on the part of Bankwise to make his working environment insufferable. Gemina v Bankwise Inc., et al., G.R. No. 175365 (2013) COLA is not in the nature of an allowance intended to reimburse expenses incurred by officials and employees of the government in the performance of their official functions. It is not payment in consideration of the fulfillment of official duty. As defined, cost of living refers to "the level of prices relating to a range of everyday items" or "the cost of purchasing those goods and services which are included in an accepted standard level of consumption." Based on this premise, COLA is a benefit intended to cover increases in the cost of living. Thus, it is and should be integrated into the standardized salary rates. Maynilad Water Supervisors Association v Maynilad Water Services, Inc., G.R. No. 198935 (2013) Under Article 286 of the Labor Code, the bona fide suspension of the operations of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six months shall not terminate employment. Article 286 provides: ART. 286. When employment not deemed terminated. – The bona fide suspension of the operations of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty. In this case, the respondents were already considered illegally dismissed since petitioner failed to recall them after six months, when its bona fide suspension of operations lapsed. We stress that under Article 286 of the Labor Code, the employment will not be deemed terminated if the bona fide suspension of operations does not exceed six months. But if the suspension of operations exceeds six months, the employment will be considered terminated. SKM Art Craft Corporation v Bauca, et al., G.R. No. 171282 (2013) The respondents‘ jobs and undertakings are clearly within the regular or usual business of the employer company and are not identifiably distinct or separate from the other undertakings of the company. There is no denying that the manning of the operations center to air commercials, acting as transmitter/VTR men, maintaining the equipment, and acting as cameramen are not undertakings separate or distinct from the business of a broadcasting company. Petitioner‘s allegation that respondents were merely substitutes or what they call pinch-hitters (which means that they were employed to take the place of regular employees of petitioner who were absent or on leave) does not change the fact that their jobs cannot be considered projects within the purview of the law. Every industry, even public offices, has to deal with securing substitutes for employees who are absent or on leave. Such tasks, whether performed by the usual employee or by a substitute, cannot be considered separate and distinct from the other undertakings of the company. While it is management‘s prerogative to device a method to deal with this issue, such prerogative is not absolute and is limited to systems wherein employees are not ingeniously and methodically deprived of their constitutionally protected right to security of tenure. As regular employees, they are entitled to security of tenure and therefore their services may be terminated only for just or authorized causes. Since petitioner failed to prove any just or authorized cause for their termination, we are constrained to affirm the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals that they were illegally dismissed. GMA Network, Inc. v Pabriga, et al., G.R. No. 176419 (2013) After being informed of the expired accreditation of Intra Strata, NLRC Commissioners (respondents) should have refrained from allowing Intra Strata to transact business or to post a bond in favor of the employer. It is not within respondents' discretion to allow the filing of the appeal bond issued by a bonding company with expired accreditation regardless of its pending application for renewal of accreditation. Respondents cannot extend Intra Strata's authority or accreditation. Neither can it validate an invalid bond issued by a bonding company with expired accreditation, or give a semblance of validity to it pending this Court's approval of the application for renewal of accreditation. Cawaling, et al. v Menese, et al., A.C. No. 9698 (2013). In Lopez v. Keppel Bank Philippines, Inc., the Court repeated the guidelines for the application of loss of confidence as follows: (1) loss of confidence should not be simulated; (2) it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified; (3) it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; and (4) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith. As applied to the dismissal of managerial employees, employers – as a rule – enjoy wider latitude of discretion. The employer is not required to present proof beyond reasonable doubt as the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of the employer would suffice for the dismissal. Thus, as long as the employer ―has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of his position,‖ the dismissal on this ground is valid. Baguio Central University v Gallente, G.R. No. 188267 (2013) The Writ of Execution in the instant case was procedurally irregular, as it pre-empted the NLRC Rules which require that where further computation of the award in the decision is necessary during the course of the execution proceedings, no Writ of Execution shall be issued until after the computation has been approved by the Labor Arbiter in an order issued after the parties have been duly notified and heard on the matter. When the writ was issued, there was as yet no order approving the computation made by the NLRC Computation and Examination Unit, and there was a pending and unresolved Motion to Recompute filed by Club Filipino. A cursory examination of the motion reveals that it raised valid issues that required determination in order to arrive at a just resolution, so that none of the parties would be unjustly enriched. Araullo v Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 194169 (2013) In the absence of any certification, the law presumes that the employee remains in a state of temporary disability. Should no certification be issued within the 240 day maximum period, as in this case, the Inc. Jebsens Maritime. In this case. the duration and scope to be done.00.R. (5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee. Loon. However. (2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land. Considering that respondent has suffered for more than the maximum period of 240 days in light of the uncompleted process of evaluation. v Babol. 191538 (2013) In labor cases. the nature of the employment depends on the nature of the activities to be performed by the employee. G. and the absence of one or more requisites will not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant. Neither is the rule on liberal construction a license to disregard the rules of procedure. it is essential to establish all its indispensable elements. the employer is generally required to give separation benefits to its employees." For these latter employees who have already voluntarily accepted their dismissal.pertinent disability becomes permanent in nature. as an authorized cause for termination of employment. Rather. et al. G. Jopson v Mendez. and (2) a party should sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven. No. and (6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. Sangwoo Philippines. 189404 (2013) The nature of the employment does not depend solely on the will or word of the employer or on the procedure for hiring and the manner of designating the employee.R.000. In such a case. we have allowed evidence to be submitted for the first time on appeal with the NLRC in the interest of substantial justice. the Court deems it just to reduce the amount of nominal damages to be awarded to each of the minority employees from P50.. No. et al. et al. G. The liberality of procedural rules is qualified by two requirements: (1) a party should adequately explain any delay in the submission of evidence. aims to prevent further financial drain upon an employer who cannot pay anymore his employees since business has already stopped. strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure is not required. No. usually due to financial losses. To be clear. this liberal policy should still be subject to rules of reason and fairplay. G. in the interest of due process. No. All these requisites are necessary to create a tenancy relationship. at least as to them. Employee Union. however it must be emphasized that in order for a tenancy agreement to arise. . (4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production. Closure of business. their executed quitclaims practically erased the consequences of infirmities on the notice of dismissal. unless the closure is due to serious business losses. Inc. the foregoing award should only obtain in favor of the minority employees and not for those employees who already received sums equivalent to separation pay and executed quitclaims "releasing [SPI] now and in the future any claims and obligation which may arise as results of [their] employment with the company. et al.: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.R.00 to P10. Accordingly. The reason for these requirements is that the liberal application of the rules before quasi-judicial agencies cannot be used to perpetuate injustice and hamper the just resolution of the case.. considering the nature of the employer‘s business. viz. Inc.000. we have consistently supported the rule that labor officials should use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively.R. Thus. v Sangwoo Philippines. 204076 (2013) Closure of business is the reversal of fortune of the employer whereby there is a complete cessation of business operations and/or an actual locking-up of the doors of establishment. considering that SPI closed down its operations due to serious business losses and that said closure appears to have been done in good faith. et al. Time and again. the Court affirms his entitlement to the permanent total disability benefits awarded him by the CA. without regard to technicalities of law or procedure. the NLRC and the LA. v Power Master. are neither project nor seasonal employees. and the fact that he has been certified to work again or otherwise. Acibo.. (3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship.. Inc. 173154 (2013) Petitioner claims tenancy relationship between him and DBP. . and (2) the election of the officer is by the directors or stockholders. Being repeatedly hired for the same purpose makes them regularized employees. it is clear that a bond is encumbered and bound to a case only for as long as 1) the case has not been finally decided.. does not automatically make the dismissal valid. G. Cosare v Broadcom Asia. However. following the ―controversy test‖ which enunciates that the status or relationship of the parties and the nature of the question that is the subject of the controversy must be taken into account. It has been settled that failure to comply with the prescribed standards of work. and moved to Intel HK. 201298 (2014) Considering that he continued working as President for UTP for about one (1) year and five (5) months and since it is not covered by another fixed term employment contract.R.Acibo. instead of as a stockholder of the corporation.R. et al. he was not a ―corporate officer‖ as the term is defined by law. et al. G. 178184 (2014) The grant of separation pay to a dismissed employee is determined by the cause of the dismissal. et al. Furthermore. No. the instance case cannot be deemed intra-corporate.. their duties are regularly and habitually needed in URSUMCO‘s operation. however. the pending dispute particularly relates to Cosare‘s rights and obligations as a regular officer of Broadcom.R. 188747 (2014) Gross inefficiency falls within the purview of ―other cause analogous to the foregoing. to our mind.‖ The other bits of evidence were also inadequate to support the charge of pilferage. The years of service may determine how much separation pay may be awarded. G.R. No. for instance. "Unsubstantiated suspicions. and conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees. et al. The affidavit executed by Montegrico simply contained the accusations of Abis that respondents committed pilferage. Therefore. Grand Asian Shipping Lines. namely: (1) the creation of the position is under the corporation‘s charter or by-laws. "[a] cash or surety bond shall be valid and effective from the date of deposit or posting. No. just cause to terminate an employee under Article 282 of the Labor Code. accusations. or to fulfill reasonable work assignment due to inefficiency may constitute just cause for dismissal. 196047 (2014) Despite the charge against the respondent of qualified theft. No. until the case is finally decided.R. v Acibo.R. Clearly. once the appeal is finally decided and no award needs to be satisfied. 205453 (2014) Cabiles was not eligible to receive his retirement benefits as he failed to meet the required ten years length of service when he resigned from Intel Phil. he is guaranteed security of tenure and can only be removed from service for cause and after compliance with due process.‖ and constitutes therefore. or 2) the award has not been satisfied. et al. v Galvez. or the award satisfied. G. Inc." Hence.R. resolved or terminated. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corporation v Icao. United Tourist Promotions (UTP) v Kemplin. It is closely related to ―gross neglect‖. et al. the bond is automatically released. This is notwithstanding the company‘s insistence that they merely tolerated his ―consultancy‖ for humanitarian reasons. 186439 (2014) Under the Rule VI. not the reason why such pay should be granted at all. Inc. were made to perform tasks that does not pertain to milling operations of URSUMCO. which allegations remain uncorroborated. G. Moreover. Resignation is the formal . Manila Water Company v Del Rosario. There are two circumstances which must concur in order for an individual to be considered as such. Therefore. It is. G. they were regularly and repeatedly hired to perform the same tasks. No. Since the money is now unencumbered. G. 167286 (2014) The mere fact that Cosare was a stockholder and an officer of Broadcom at the time the subject controversy developed failed to necessarily make the case an intra-corporate dispute. Evidence submitted to support the charge should be evaluated to see if the degree of proof is met to justify respondents‘ termination. the mere filing of a formal charge. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation. resolved or terminated. the employer who posted it should now have unrestricted access to the cash which he may now use as he pleases – as appeal bond in another case. his employment after the expiration of his fixed term employment is already regular. No. No. International School Manila v International School Alliance of Educators and Members. for both involve specific acts of omissions on the part of the employee resulting in damage to the employer or to his business. Section 6 of the 2005 NLRC Rules. Although he is an officer of Broadcom for being its AVP for Sales.. . No. It provided his compensation. G..R.R. Unica v Anscor Swipe Ship Management Corporation. Malicdem v Marulas Industrial Corporation. it was his choice to forego his tenure with Intel Phil. G.‖ it bears stressing that it was categorized as a ―permanent transfer. with all its associated benefits." When an employer renews a contract of employment after the lapse of the six-month probationary period. his employment is deemed automatically terminated. in order for him to assume a position in an entirely different company. the power of dismissal. it is vital in determining if the employee was hired for a specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions vital. whether the employer has engaged in conduct which. the employee thereby becomes a regular employee. When he assumed duties with Intel HK.R. however. No employer is allowed to determine indefinitely the fitness of its employees. the latter became the new employer. he still accepted the offer of Intel HK despite a non-favorable reply to his retirement concerns. 2000. G. it may reasonably be said. No.‖ It is clear that his decision to move to Hong Kong required the abandonment of his permanent position with Intel Phil. Thus. Evidently.. rank. when petitioner's contract ended on October 25. et al. tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees‘ rights. Intel Phil. and fourth. Thus. No. the selection and engagement of the employee. He then became subject to Hong Kong labor laws. the payment of wages. no longer had any control over him. 204406 (2014) The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. Intel Technology Philippines. aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had. While length of time is not the controlling test for project employment. such acceptance meant letting go of the retirement benefits he now claims. Lastly. Clearly. there being no mutually-agreed renewal or extension of the expired contract. Third.relinquishment of an office. with a different employer. It is a settled rule that seafarers are considered contractual employees. The continuity. in favor of a more lucrative job for him and his family with Intel HK. although in various instances. and necessarily. et al. Inc. Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. his move to Hong Kong was referred to as an ―assignment. second. Cabiles‘ contention that his employment with Intel HK is a continuation of his service with Intel Phil alleging that it was but an assignment by his principal employer. the rights appurtenant thereto. G. it had control and supervision over him as its new Finance Manager. existence or termination of an employeremployee relationship in a typical secondment contract or any employment contract for that matter is measured by the following yardsticks: first. Ayungo v Beamko Ship Management Corporaiton. 184318 (2014) For a disability to be compensable. is. No. the employer‘s power to control the employee‘s conduct. T&H Shopfitters Corporation/Gin Queen . Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign every time they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires. 200575 (2014) Where the petitioner was repatriated twenty days after the expiration of his contract of employment. similar to his assignments to Intel Arizona and Intel Chengdu is untenable First. and that it is not necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference that the anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining. 203161 (2014) Under Article 281 of the Labor Code.R. compensation and benefits. third. Second. the seafarer must establish that there exists a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or. the overt act of which is coupled with an intent to renounce. the court does not agree with his argument that his employment in Hong Kong is an assignment or extension of his employment with Intel Phil. there is no automatic renewal of the contract. including the right of Intel HK to fire him on available grounds. This intent could be inferred from the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation. necessary and indispensable to the usual business of trade of the employer. "an employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. at the very least. v National Labor Relations Commission. G. It is impossible.Corporation. et al. 181806 (2014) The respondent‘s failure to attach the required certification of non-forum shopping does not render the immediate dismissal of the petition. In this case. Diamond Taxi v Llamas. Fil-Pride Shipping Company. it must be consistently and deliberately made by the employer over a long period of time. v Suarez. Jr. he underwent surgery and it evidently appears that he could not recover therefrom within the statutory period. therefore. Vetyard Terminals & Shipping Services. On the other hand. G. the rule on Non-Diminution of Benefits would still apply. however.. To be considered a practice. There was. No. If he fails to do so and the seafarer's medical condition remains unresolved. The determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function. G. in his motion for reconsideration. Applying the Court‘s pronouncement in Duldulao v.R. unreasonable or unlikely that any employee. Wesleyan University-Philippines v Wesleyan University-Philippines Faculty and Staff Association. v T&H Shopfitters Corporation Corporation/Gin Queen Workers Union. (2) the disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks. it is work-related and. G. (3) the disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it. et al.R. respondent was able to present substantial evidence in the form of affidavits to support its claim that there are two retirement plans. acting as a Special Agrarian Court. unreasonable or unlikely. not an abandonment of employment nor a resignation in the real sense. The Special Agrarian Court is not an appellate . No.. the Court construes that the act of the petitioners in not paying Johnson his salaries for three months has become unbearable on the latter‘s part that he had no choice but to cede his employment with them. While the requirement as to the certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory. otherwise. Inc.R. when it becomes evident that the employee's disability continues and he is unable to engage in gainful employment during such period because. et al. pursuant to Article 192 (c)(l) of the Labor Code and Rule X. 191714 (2014) The company-designated physician must arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the period of 120 or 240 days. An exception to the rule is when "the practice is due to error in the construction or application of a doubtful or difficult question of law. this requirement should not. the injury or illness existed during the term of the seafarer‘s employment contract. or has ripened into a practice. 199344 (2014) The Non-Diminution Rule found in Article 100 of the Labor Code explicitly prohibits employers from eliminating or reducing the benefits received by their employees. This rule. v Balasta. applies only if the benefit is based on an express policy. which is vested in the Regional Trial Court acting as a Special Agrarian Court. has jurisdiction to determine just compensation at the very first instance. for instance. but a constructive dismissal. must be corrected immediately after its discovery. No. however. and the petitioner need not pass through the DAR for initial valuation. No. a written contract.R. Section 32(A) of the 2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Condition further provides that for an occupational disease and the resulting disability to be compensable. No. such as Johnson would continue working for an employer who does not pay him his salaries. 2014 Even the most reasonable employee would consider quitting his job after working for three months and receiving only an insignificant fraction of his salaries. be interpreted too literally and thus defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum-shopping. 191455 (2014) The Regional Trial Court. second.. 190724. G. first. the latter shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled. No. however. which is defined as an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment is rendered impossible. the inadvertence and presented a clear justifiable ground to warrant the relaxation of the rules. and (4) there was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.R. G. Inc. 193047 (2014) An injury or illness is compensable when." The error. Dreamland Hotel Resort and Westley Prentice v Johnson. Llamas adequately explained. the following need to be satisfied: (1) the seafarer's work must involve the risks described. CA. an employee's disability becomes permanent and total even before the lapse of the statutory 240-day treatment period. Section 2 of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation (AREC).R. G. but without due process. No. Franchising involves the use of an established business expertise.R. v Montallana. In the absence of any disability assessment from the company-designated doctor. The Special Agrarian Court has jurisdiction over the complaint for determination of just compensation. et al. trademark. 001-95 recognized the power of the RTWPBs to issue exemptions from the application of the wage orders subject to the guidelines issued by the NWPC. the NWPC promulgated NWPC Guidelines No. et al. and determining the time during which the employee must report for work or accomplish his assigned task. Inc... not just its end result.‖ The important factor to consider is still the element of control over how the work itself is done. including work assignment. the evidence on hand substantially shows that the company closed down due to serious business reverses. only after the degree of disability has been established by the company. (2014) The failure to faithfully comply with the company rules and regulations is considered to be a just cause in terminating one‘s employment. As such. the written statements of co-employees admitting their participation in a scheme to defraud the employer are admissible in evidence. Department of Agrarian Reform. monitoring the way tasks are done and their results. work supervision. The argument that the said statements constitute . and training. lay-off of workers and the discipline. despite the absence of summary administrative proceedings before the DAR Adjudication Board. if the dismissal is by virtue of a just or authorized cause. Pursuant to its statutorily defined functions. Spouses Estacion v Hon. et al. severity and circumstances of non-compliance. et al. v Ruizo.R. et al.. G. seaman's claim for disability benefits must fail for his obvious failure to comply with the procedure under the POEAStandard Employment Contract which he was duty bound to follow. the disagreement must be referred to a third doctor for a final assessment. The National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC). 163361 (2014) Control in employer-employee relationships addresses the details of day to day work like assigning the particular task that has to be done. working methods.R. depending on the nature. v Labrador.designated physician and. et al. No. 193628 (2014) Pursuant to existing jurisprudence. all aspects of employment. G. Accordingly.‖ Sutherland Global Services. the employer is liable for a seafarer's disability. G.. et al. the franchisors may impose guidelines that somehow restrict the petitioners‘ conduct which do not necessarily indicate ―control. and the RTWPB-NCR had the power to issue wage orders. province and industry. dismissal and recall of workers. et al. knowledge. the dismissed workers are entitled to an indemnity in the form of nominal damages. The failure to notify the respondents in writing of the closure of the company will not invalidate the termination of their employment. v Metro Manila Retreaders. 001-95 (Revised Rules of Procedure on Minimum Wage Fixing) to govern the proceedings in the NWPC and the RTWPBs in the fixing of minimum wage rates by region. Inc. ―An employer ‗has the right to regulate. G. The facts of the case show that the absence of a disability assessment by the company-designated physician was not of the doctor's making. an authorized cause for termination of employment. but the company has to pay them nominal damages for the violation of their right to procedural due process. No. 193107 (2014) In labor cases. processes to be followed. according to its discretion and best judgment. if the seafarer consulted with a physician of his choice whose assessment disagrees with that of the company-designated physician. Tesoro.. Inc. 171482 (2014) The NWPC had the authority to prescribe the rules and guidelines for the determination of the minimum wage and productivity measures.reviewer of the DAR decision in administrative cases involving compensation. but was due to respondent‘s refusal to undergo further treatment. the franchisee is required to follow a certain established system. Secretary.R. No. Section 1 of Rule VIII of NWPC Guidelines No. resulting from a work-connected injury or illness. Navotas Shipyard Corporation. working regulations. transfer of employees. 150326 (2014) Under the POEA-SEC. Splash Philippines. v The Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL).R. No.R. In the present case. 190053. No. G.. No. Non-compliance therewith renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory. 196142 (2014) The posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the decisions of the Labor Arbiter. et al. 201663 (2014) . Moreover. G. that must be complied with in order to confer jurisdiction upon the NLRC. which are summary in nature and decisions may be made on the basis of position papers.R. Castillo. because the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Olores v Manila Doctors College.hearsay because the authors thereof were not presented for their cross-examination does not persuade.R. the filing of the bond is not only mandatory. G. but a jurisdictional requirement as well.. et al.. No. Inc. v Prudential Life Plans. No.R. G. the fees imposed in Ordinance No. GUILLERMO LUSTIVA. 2003 up to its reversal by the Aichi Doctrine on October 6. SMART COMMUNICATIONS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. G. CS GARMENT. While the fees may contribute to the revenues of the Municipality. Neither the law nor the implementing rules state that a court ruling that has not attained finality would preclude the availment of the benefits of the Tax Amnesty Law. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.R. No. MUNICIPALITY OF MALVAR. Thus. DA-489-03 up to its reversal on October 6. G.R. 2010. G. et al. where it was held that the 120-day period under Section 112(C) of the NIRC is mandatory and jurisdictional. 202071 (2014). TEAM SUAL CORPORATION (FROMERLY MIRANT SUAL CORPORATION. No. No. which relates to actions for annulment of tax sales. a taxpayer can only rely on BIR Ruling No. when the Aichi Doctrine was promulgated. INC. No. 182399 (2014). as the exception goes beyond the scope of the provisions of the 2007 Tax Amnesty Law. 204429 (2014). this effect is merely incidental. assailing its constitutionality is beyond the jurisdiction of the CTA.R. 194105 (2014). vs.R. SILICON PHILIPPINES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. The statutory taxpayer who is directly liable to pay the excise tax on its petroleum products. Furthermore. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. so that under the VAT System the taxpayer will always have 30 days to file the judicial claim even if the Commissioner acts only on the 120th day. The 30-day period was adopted precisely to do away with the old rule that the taxpayer may file the judicial claim without waiting for the Commissioner‘s decision if the two-year prescriptive period is about to expire. PROCTER & GAMBLE ASIA PTE LTD. G. It is a mere scrap of paper from which the taxpayer cannot derive or acquire any right notwithstanding the supposed failure on the part of the CIR to raise the issue of the taxpayer‘s non-compliance with the 120-day period in the proceedings before the CTA Division. the exception issues and cases which were ruled by any court (even without finality) in favour of the BIR prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer‖ under BIR RMC 19-2008 is invalid.R. 188497 (2004).R. is in a position to claim the benefit of the ruling.. or does not act at all during the 120-day period. Section 267 of the Local Government Code of 1991. 2010. SILICON PHILIPPINES INC. 18 are not taxes. BATANGAS. PETROLEUM CORPORATION. Nos. vs. G. which included "cell sites" or telecommunications towers. and not primarily revenue-raising. A taxpayer claimant only has a limited period of thirty days from the expiration of the 120-day period of inaction of the CIR to file its judicial claim. DA-489-03 for the filing of its claim from the time of its issuance on December 10. the latter having been granted exemption from the payment of said excise tax under Sec. the taxpayer can no longer file a judicial claim for refund or credit of input VAT without waiting for the Commissioner to decide until the expiration of the 120-day period. INC. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. The taxpayer who filed its judicial claims within the validity of BIR Ruling No.TAXATION LAW Taxpayers with pending tax cases are still qualified to avail themselves of the tax amnesty program. Where the fees imposed in an ordinance issued by a municipality on an activity subject of government regulation are regulatory and not revenue-raising in nature.. G. The Taxpayer‘s failure to comply with the 120-day mandatory period under Section 112(C) of the NIRC renders its petition for review with the CTA void. Thus. is entitled to a refund or credit of the excise taxes it paid for petroleum products sold to international carriers.R. . Since the main purpose of Ordinance No. SPOUSES SILVESTRE AND ELENA PLAZA vs. 172909 (2014). COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. which shields the filing of its judicial claim from the vice of prematurity. the fees imposed are primarily regulatory in nature. vs. G. is not applicable in cases where the nullity of the auction was raised merely as a defense in a suit for injunction and damages. 184360 & 184361 (2014). 169778 (2014). With the 30-day period always available to the taxpayer. 18 is to regulate certain construction activities of identified special projects. The non-compliance with the mandatory 30-day period for the filing of a judicial claim is fatal to its refund claim on the ground of prescription. 135 (a) of the NIRC which embodies our compliance with our undertakings under the Chicago Convention and various bilateral air service agreements not to impose excise tax on aviation fuel purchased by international carriers from domestic manufacturers or suppliers. Raising such issue as a matter of defense does not convert the action to an action for annulment of tax sale. No. No. and that is attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. but to cases of inaction by the CIR as well. which refers to the period for interposing an appeal with the CTA.R. The grant of a refund or issuance of tax credit certificate in this case would not contravene the above provision. 169899 (2013). Prior payment of taxes is not necessary before a taxpayer could avail of the 8% transitional input tax credit.R. The 30-day period applies not only to instances of actual denial by the CIR of the claim for refund or tax credit. Nos. DA-489-03 which states that the taxpayer need not wait for the 120-day period to expire before it could seek judicial relief) to October 6. The Court can safely conclude that among the covered transactions liable for DST. even though the claim was prematurely filed without waiting for the expiration of the 120-day mandatory period. FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. The exemption is premised on the fact that prior to the promulgation of the Aichi decision. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs.R. where the law did not specify that the transfer and/or assignment of promissory note is to be taxed. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. DA489-03 where the BIR expressly ruled that the taxpayer need not wait for the expiration of the 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA. 183880 (2014). Section 173 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (1997 NIRC) states that the persons primarily liable for the payment of the DST are the person (1) making. Pursuant to ruling in CIR v. What is only required of him is to file his judicial claim within thirty (30) days after denial of his claim by CIR or after the expiration of the 120-day period within which the CIR can decide on its claim. (2) signing. the other party who is not exempt would then be secondarily liable. A transitional input tax credit is not a tax refund per se but a tax credit.R.R. 2003 (issuance of BIR Ruling No. notwithstanding the timely filing of administrative claims. the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120-30-day rule does not apply on claims for refund that were prematurely filed during the interim period from the issuance of Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Ruling No. . No. DA-489-03 on December 10. No. All that is required from the taxpayer is to file a beginning inventory with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). PHILACOR CREDIT CORPORATION vs. CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED vs. Therefore. G. Should these parties be exempted from paying tax. instruments or papers. 2010 (promulgation of the Aichi doctrine). TOLEDO POWER. G. 2010 when the Aichi doctrine was adopted. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. there is an existing interpretation laid down in BIR Ruling No. No. The assignee or transferee of a promissory note is not liable for the payment of DST as this transaction is not taxed under the law. et al. Thus. in the filing of judicial claims. G. No. must be filed within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when such sales were made. G. The refund or tax credit would not be unconstitutional because it is precisely pursuant to Section 105 of the old NIRC which allows refund/tax credit. San Roque Power Corporation. and the period of 30 days. INC. or (5) transferring the taxable documents. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. (4) accepting. a claim for the refund or credit of creditable input tax that is due or paid. the nature of such time requirement being mandatory. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs.173425 (2014). Section 112(D) speaks of two periods: the period of 120 days.R. Also. (3) issuing. there would be no basis to recognize an imposition. G. 2003 to October 6. MINDANAO II PARTNERSHIP. 190928 (2014). for VAT-registered persons whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated. 191498 (2014). where the taxpayer filed its judicial claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate prior to the date where the Aichi case was promulgated. 198729-30 (2014). CIR. The taxpayer can file his administrative claim for refund or credit at any time within the two-year prescriptive period. regardless of when the input VAT was paid. which serves as a waiting period to give time for the CIR to act on the administrative claim for refund or credit. compliance with both periods is jurisdictional. G. No. The reckoning frame would always be the end of the quarter when the pertinent sale or transactions were made. No. The period of 120 days is a prerequisite for the commencement of the 30-day period to appeal to the CTA. G. Under Section 112(A) of the NIRC. the CTA does not have jurisdiction over the case where the taxpayer‘s judicial claim was filed beyond the 30 day period..Strict compliance with the 120+30 day mandatory and jurisdictional periods can be dispensed with when the judicial claims are filed on December 10.R. Section 112 of the Tax Code does not prohibit cash refund or tax credit of transitional input tax. TEAM ENERGY CORPORATION vs. the 30-day period to appeal to the CTA is dependent on the 120-day period.. 197760 (2014). TEAM ENERGY CORPORATION vs. the CTA may still take cognizance of the same as it was filed within the period exempted from the 120-30day mandatory period. concert halls. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. circuses. and other events meant to be viewed by an audience. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has consistently ruled that the term gross receipts do not admit of any deduction. an excise tax since it is levied on the exercise by persons of privileges conferred by law. THE PROVINCE OF BENGUET. No. concert halls. as follows: (1) An administrative claim must be filed with the CIR within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales were made and (2) The CIR has 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the administrative claim within which to decide whether to grant a refund or issue a tax credit certificate. exhibitions. cinemas. and boxing stadia.R. forms part of its gross receipt for GRT purposes. even if subject to the final tax and excluded from taxable gross income.R. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION vs.R.e.R. Provinces are not barred from levying amusement taxes even if amusement taxes are a form of percentage taxes. concert halls.In claiming a tax refund or tax credit over an excess input VAT. 175108 (2013). or operators of theatres.R. circuses. Stipulations cannot defeat the right of the State to collect the correct taxes due on an individual or juridical person because taxes are the lifeblood of our nation so its collection should be actively pursued without unnecessary impediment. lessees. G. TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION vs. No. The 20% final tax withheld on a bank‘s passive income should be included in the computation of the Gross Receipts Tax (GRT). Nos. since the regulations do not provide for any deduction. circuses. G. swimming pools. Section 140 of the LGC expressly allows for the imposition by provinces of amusement taxes on the proprietors. Amusement taxes are percentage taxes. and other events meant to be viewed by an audience. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. exhibitions. Absent a statutory definition of the term. cinemas. cinemas. 183137 (2013). 187485/196113/197156 (2013). SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION. G. It follows that they cannot be considered as among the ‗other places of amusement‘ contemplated by Section 140 of the LGC and which may properly be subject to amusement taxes. 197117 (2013). FIRST LEPANTO TAISHO INSURANCE CORPORATION vs. No. 164155 & 175543 (2013). To charge DST on a transaction which was basically a compliance with a legislative mandate would go against its very nature as an excise tax. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. the BIR had consistently applied it in its ordinary meaning. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. Theatres. performances. It emphasized that interest earned by banks. G. Accordingly. are as follows: (1) an administrative claim must be filed with the CIR within two . MINDANAO II GEOTHERMAL PARTNERSHIP vs. Thus. Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) is by nature.R. i. performances. PELIZLOY REALTY CORPORATION vs. without deduction. 112 (D) of the 1997 Tax Code mandates that a taxpayer can file the judicial claim: (1) only within thirty days after the Commissioner partially or fully denies the claim within the 120-day period. hot springs and tourist spots do not belong to the same category or class as theatres. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. as long as the administrative claim before the CIR is filed within the two-year prescriptive period. and other places of amusement. resorts.. or (2) only within thirty days from the expiration of the 120-day period if the Commissioner does not act within the 120-day period. The Court summarized the rules on the determination of the prescriptive period for filing a tax refund or credit of unutilized input VAT as provided in Section 112 of the 1997 Tax Code. The interest earned refers to the gross interest without deduction. the 30-day period of appeal to the CTA need not necessarily fall within the two-year prescriptive period. boxing stadia. Nos. 193301/194637 (2013). The prescriptive period for filing a tax refund or credit of unutilized input VAT as provided in Section 112 of the 1997 Tax Code. and boxing stadia are bound by a common typifying characteristic in that they are all venues primarily for the staging of spectacles or the holding of public shows. G. ‗other places of amusement‘ must be interpreted in light of the typifying characteristic of being venues ―where one seeks admission to entertain oneself by seeing or viewing the show or performances‖ or being venues primarily used to stage spectacles or hold public shows. No. G. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION vs. This is because Sec. bath houses. vs. 193301 & 194637 (2013). it must be filed with the CTA within 30 days from the receipt of the CIR‘s decision denying the administrative claim or from the expiration of the 120-day period without any action from the CIR (120+30).R.R. Accordingly. and second.R. This shifting process. PROVINCE OF BATAAN. are mandatory and that failure to comply therewith can invalidate the sale in view of the requirements of due process. In which case. COMMISIIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE/ MINDANAO GEOTHERMAL PARTNERSHIP I v. in cases involving excise tax exemptions on petroleum products under Section 135. However. 464 otherwise known as "Real Property Tax Code" provides for the legal requirements to be complied with during a tax delinquency sale of properties. the following procedural requirements must concur: first. PAL‘s franchise grants it an exemption from both direct and indirect taxes on its purchase of petroleum products. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. METRO MANILA SHOPPING MECCA CORP. No. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION vs. No. appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals. PAL has the legal personality to file the claim for refund for the . G. fee.‖ is largely a contractual affair between the parties. 172892 (2013). the case or proceeding for refund has to be filed within two (2) years from the date of the payment of the tax. or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above. within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty day-period. In this regard. In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit. Failure of the taxpayer to file a written claim for refund/credit despite paying under protest is fatal to his cause of action. Hence. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE. INC. In this case. or charge or from the date the taxpayer is entitled to a refund or credit. VALBUECO. G. Presidential Decree No. G. G. in her official capacity as the City Treasurer of Manila. Nos. No. A perusal of Section 196 of the LGC reveals that in order to be entitled to a refund/credit of local taxes. otherwise known as ―passing on. This is commonly referred to as the "120+30" period which is jurisdictional.R.R. the taxpayer concerned must file a written claim for refund/credit with the local treasurer. it is clear that the prescriptive period for filing an administrative claim is within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales were made while for a judicial claim. ET AL. it is grave abuse of discretion to dismiss the petition for assistance in liquidation filed by a corporation undergoing liquidation on the ground of failure to secure tax clearance. Hence. 190818 (2013). Section 204(c) of the NIRC provides that it is the statutory taxpayer which has the legal personality to file a claim for refund. the statutory taxpayer can transfer to its customers the value of the excise taxes it paid or would be liable to pay to the government by treating it as part of the cost of the goods and tacking it on to the selling price. No. the latter must be allowed to claim a tax refund even if it is not considered as the statutory taxpayer under the law. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. the taxpayer affected may. NIPPON EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION vs. The requirements provided. MS. 173829 (2013). LIBERTY TOLEDO. Indirect taxes are those which are demanded in the first instance from one person with the expectation and intention that he can shift the economic burden to someone else. (2) While a judicial claim must be filed with the CTA within 30 days from the receipt of the CIR‘s decision denying the administrative claim or from the expiration of the 120-day period without any action from the CIR. the Court has consistently held that it is the statutory taxpayer who is entitled to claim a tax refund based thereon and not the party who merely bears its economic burden. G. vs. From the foregoing. the abovementioned rule should not apply to instances where the law clearly grants the party to which the economic burden of the tax is shifted an exemption from both direct and indirect taxes. The requirement of a tax clearance under Section 52(C) of the Tax Code of 1997 is not applicable to rural banks undergoing liquidation proceedings ordered by the Monetary Board of the BSP under Section 30 of the New Central Bank Act. a taxpayer questioning such delinquency sale has the burden to prove by preponderant evidence that the auction sale of the subject properties due to tax delinquency was attended by irregularities. 196907 (2013). Thus.years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales were made. MINDANAO II GEOTHERMAL PARTNERSHIP vs. which include notices and publication. G. good customs. petitioner bears the burden for the payment of VAT. G. There is indeed double taxation if a taxpayer is subjected to the taxes under both Sections 14 (Tax on Manufacturers. Failure to comply with the said invoicing requirements provide . 181277 (2013). and its stipulations are binding on them. TAMBUNTING PAWNSHOP. he must point to some specific provision of the statute in which that deduction is authorized and must be able to prove that he is entitled to the deduction which the law allows. A mere averment that the taxpayer has incurred a loss does not automatically warrant a deduction from its gross income. 175142 (2013). petitioner bears the economic burden for paying the VAT. Case law dictates that in a claim for tax refund or tax credit. cannot be used to allow the grant of tax refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate. that is. and the issuance of official receipts under that name. While by agreement of the parties. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. (5) for the same taxing periods – per calendar year. when the RP-Germany Tax Treaty does not provide for any pre-requisite for the availment of the benefits under said agreement.R. ROLANDO M. are to be construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer is well settled. An invoice must reflect. it must be stressed that there is nothing in RMO No. A taxpayer claiming the refund must comply with the invoicing and accounting requirements mandated by the Tax Code. as well as the revenue regulations implementing them before an administrative claim for refund or tax credit will be granted. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. No. Likewise. No. 1-2000. Double taxation means taxing the same property twice when it should be taxed only once. More so.R. morals. vs. Assemblers and other Processors) and 21 (Tax on Business Subject to the Excise. since these are being imposed: (1) on the same subject matter – the privilege of doing business in the City of Manila. The absence of official receipts issued in its name is tantamount to non-compliance with the substantiation requirements provided by law. the legal liability to pay the same to the BIR falls on respondent. G. paragraph V of the MOA obligates petitioner to pay the taxes due from the sale of the Genicon laparoscopic instrument. MENDIOLA vs. Indeed. (4) within the same taxing jurisdiction – within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Manila. 188550 (2013). therefore. INC. The rule that tax deductions. and (6) of the same kind or character – a local business tax imposed on gross sales or receipts of the business.. INC. An item of expenditure. unless the contract is contrary to law. COMMERZ TRADING INT'L. which would indicate a deprivation of entitlement to a tax treaty relief for failure to comply with the 15-day period. G. (3) by the same taxing authority – petitioner City of Manila. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. vs. SWEDISH MATCH PHILIPPINES INC.R.R. BONIFACIO WATER CORPORATION vs. which is defined as the imposition of comparable taxes in two or more states on the same taxpayer in respect of the same subject matter and for identical periods. THE TREASURER OF THE CITY OF MANILA. H. as required by law: (a) the BIR Permit to Print. 7794. A change in the name of the corporation being unauthorized and without approval of the SEC. No. (2) for the same purpose – to make persons conducting business within the City of Manila contribute to city revenues. Corollary to this rule is the principle that when a taxpayer claims a deduction. Value-Added or Percentage Taxes under the NIRC) of Tax Ordinance No. G. the applicant must prove not only entitlement to the claim but also compliance with all the documentary and evidentiary requirements therefor. as between petitioner and respondent. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. being in the nature of tax exemptions. No. 200895 (2013). DEUTSCHE BANK AG MANILA BRANCH vs. Tax conventions are drafted with a view towards the elimination of international juridical double taxation. No. public order or public policy. must fall squarely within the language of the law in order to be deductible. and (c) the word "zero-rated" imprinted thereon. INC.. No.passed on excise taxes because of its franchise. 173373 (2013). BIR must not impose additional requirements that would negate the availment of the reliefs provided for under international agreements.R.R. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. ―taxing the same person twice by the same jurisdiction for the same thing. A corporation who has paid 15% Branch Profit Remittance Tax (BPRT) has the right to avail (by way of refund) of the benefit of a preferential tax rate of 10% BPRT in accordance with the RP-Germany Tax Treaty despite non-compliance with an application with ITAD at least 15 days before the transaction for the lower rate. Basic is the principle that a contract is the law between the parties. vs. 198759 (2013). G. Hence. (b) the TIN·-V of the purchaser. the taxpayer can no longer file a judicial claim for refund or tax credit of unutilized excess input VAT without waiting for the Commissioner . With the 30-day period always available to the taxpayer. "the Commissioner may delegate the powers vested in him under the pertinent provisions of this Code to any or such subordinate officials with the rank equivalent to a division chief or higher. TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION vs. except only real property tax. G. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. and any subsequent claim for exemption shall be allowed only when sufficient proof has been adduced supporting the claim. 169234 (2013). It must be shown on the return of the recipient that the income received was declared as part of the gross income. G. city.. A claim for tax refund or credit. A corporation like the Philippine Airlines who has a franchise of its own cannot be subject to the minimum corporate income tax. whether before. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. PHILIPPINES. G. The claim must be filed with the CIR within the two-year period from the date of payment of the tax. The two-year prescriptive period applies only to administrative claims and not to judicial claims. The reason being. In no case is the local treasurer obliged to entertain the protest unless the tax due has been paid. 187485/G. Second. Section 206 of RA No. No. By providing that real property not declared and proved as tax-exempt shall be included in the assessment roll.R. Section 4 of the 1997 Tax Code provides that the "power to interpret the provisions of this Code and other tax laws shall be under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Commissioner. or after the effectivity of the Atlas doctrine. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.A. No. J. which again reinstated the 120+30 day periods as mandatory and jurisdictional. G. No.R. subject to such limitations and restrictions as may be imposed under rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Finance. registration. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. No. 171307 (2013). Consequently. who shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days from its receipt. No." COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. duties.sufficient ground to deny a claim for tax refund or tax credit." Section 7 of the same Code does not prohibit the delegation of such power. but pertains to the reasonableness or correctness of the assessment by the local assessor. shall be in lieu of all other taxes. and (2) the tax paid by respondent. under either of these alternatives. INC. and Third. the following requisites must be complied with: First. INC. et al. upon recommendation of the Commissioner. only after such payment has been made by the taxpayer may he file a protest in writing (within thirty [30] days from said payment of tax) to the provincial. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION. CAMP JOHN HAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. 197156 (2013).R. Thus. As a matter of fact. CENTRAL BOARD ASSESSMENT APPEALS. The 120day and 30-day periods are not merely directory but mandatory. like a claim for tax exemption. One of the conditions for a judicial claim of refund or credit under the VAT System is compliance with the 120+30 day mandatory and jurisdictional periods. G.as provided in PD 1590. at the very first instance. or municipal treasurer. DA-48903 on 10 December 2003 to 6 October 2010 when the Aichi doctrine was adopted.R. 179259 (2013). during. For a taxpayer to be entitled to a tax credit or refund of creditable withholding tax. (PAL). The fact of withholding is established by a copy of the statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld. TEAM (PHILIPPINES) OPERATIONS CORPORATION. whichever is lower. a question of fact which should be resolved. 7160 implies that the local assessor has the authority to assess the property for realty taxes. A claim for exemption from payment of real property taxes does not actually question the assessor‘s authority to assess and collect such taxes. vs.R. No. Section 252 emphatically directs that the taxpayer/real property owner questioning the assessment should first pay the tax due before his protest can be entertained. and other fees and charges. subject to review by the Secretary of Finance. Thus. 196113/G.R. except for the period from the issuance of BIR Ruling No. is construed strictly against the taxpayer. to wit: (1) respondent shall pay the Government either the basic corporate income tax or franchise tax.R. by the LBAA. the words ―paid under protest‖ shall be annotated on the tax receipts. its taxation shall be strictly governed by two fundamental rules. The taxpayer will always have 30 days to file the judicial claim even if the Commissioner acts only on the 120th day.R. Section 13 of PAL's franchise. or does not act at all during the 120-day period. 185728 (2013). PHILEX MINING CORPORATION vs. No. strict compliance with the 120+30 day periods is necessary for such a claim to prosper. license. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. royalties. and. 181276 (2013).R. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. Failure to comply with the 120-day waiting period violates the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and renders the petition premature and thus without a cause of action. DA-489-03 will shield the filing of a tax payer‘s judicial claim from the vice of prematurity when such claim is filed during its effectivity. VISAYAS GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY. and thus. Even though the sale of electricity by a power generation company is subject to zero-rated VAT.R. oppressive or confiscatory. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.R. are less likely to be gainfully employed. DA-48903 dated December 10. JESSIE CANTOS. in claims for refund or a tax credit for the unutilized creditable input VAT. The 20% senior citizen discount and tax deduction scheme are valid exercises of police power of the State absent a clear showing that it is arbitrary. the seller and the purchaser are considered entities different from one another. more prone to illnesses and other disabilities. G. with the effect that the CTA does not acquire jurisdiction over the taxpayer‘s petition. No. 180529 (2013). GST PHILIPPINES. Thus. the BIR Ruling No. When the 120+30 day mandatory periods were already in the law and BIR Ruling No. 184266 (2013). BANK OF COMMERCE. shall pay the ‗same taxes on real estate. used in the operation or conduct of the business of private establishments. and personal property exclusive of this franchise as other persons or corporations are now or hereafter may be acquired by law to pay. G. v. reckoned from the date of payment of the tax or penalty. G. at their age. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. Section 229 of the NIRC.. buildings. the first sentence of Section 5 specifically states that the petitioner. Where a taxpayer failed to wait for the requisite 120 days after the filing of its claim for refund with the BIR before elevating the case to the CTA. in need of subsidy in purchasing commodities. An entity claiming for refund or tax credit carries with it the burden of proving that not only is it entitled under the substantive law to the allowance of its claim for refund or tax credit but also that it met all the requirements for evidentiary substantiation of its claim before the administrative official concerned. hence. 190872 (2013).to decide until the expiration of the 120-day period. As to its nature an effects. INC. COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. BIR Ruling No. as the franchisee. or senior citizens for . On the contrary. although the regulation affects the pricing. No. INC. Nowhere in the language of the first sentence of Section 5 of RA 7678 does it expressly or even impliedly provide that petitioner‘s real properties that are actually. Although the 120-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional.R. However. 2003 provided a valid claim for equitable estoppel under Section 246 of the Tax Code. the purchaser company cannot be held liable for the payment of the deficiency Documentary Stamp Tax assessed against the seller company. Where the purchase and sale of identified assets between two companies under a Purchase and Sale Agreement does not constitute a merger as defined under Section 40 (C)(6)(b) of the Tax Code. a taxpayer has no excuse for not observing the 120+30 day period. it does not purport to appropriate or burden specific properties. No. the judicial claim is considered prematurely filed and cognizance thereof cannot be taken. APPLIED FOOD INGREDIENTS COMPANY. INC.R. the San Roque case provides exception to the strict compliance with the 120-day period.‘ DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES. G. in claims for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate. Section 112(A) of the NIRC is applicable and not Section 229. Failure of the taxpayer to observe the mandatory 120-day period is fatal to its claim and will render the CTA devoid of jurisdiction over the judicial claim. the profitability of a private establishment. The discount is intended to improve the welfare of the senior citizens who. for the use or benefit of the public. Thus. Thus. LUZON HYDRO CORPORATION vs. directly and exclusively used in its telecommunications business are exempt from payment of realty tax.R. the 120+30 day period is mandatory and jurisdictional. No. No. COMMISSION ON INTERNAL REVENUE. INC. its claim for refund or tax credit cannot be granted where no VAT official receipts and VAT returns have been presented to prove that it actually made zero-rated sales of electricity. vs. 180200 (2013). DA-489-03 expressly states that the "taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of Petition for Review. DA-489-03 had not yet been issued. which provides for a two-year period. 188260 (2013). is only pertinent to the recovery of taxes erroneously or illegally assessed or collected. G. the BIR Ruling No. for the filing of a claim of refund or tax credit. Furthermore.. No. G. when the transferee is party to the fraud as when it did not obtain the TCC for value or was a party to or has knowledge of its fraudulent issuance. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. INC. justify the grant of a refund or tax credit. the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even when he shifts the burden thereof to another. and absent any provision in the Code authorizing the refund or crediting of such excise taxes paid. G. For indirect taxes (such as valued-added tax or VAT). No. The taxpayer claiming the refund must further comply with the invoicing and accounting requirements mandated by the NIRC. the profitability of business establishments in order to pursue legitimate State objectives for the common good. Even if the tax is shifted by Petron to its customers and even if the tax is billed as a separate item in the aviation delivery receipts and invoices issued to its customers. he naturally expects the CIR to decide either positively or negatively. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. LASCONA LAND CO.R. The mere fact that petitioner‘s application for zero-rating has been approved by the CIR does not. is the proper party that can claim the refund of the excise taxes paid to the BIR.. Consequently. SILKAIR (SINGAPORE) PTE. it did not intend to limit it to a single remedy of filing of an appeal after the lapse of the 180-day prescribed period. No. the proper party to question or seek a refund of the tax is the statutory taxpayer. vs. vs. vs. when a taxpayer protested an assessment.that matter. after the TCCs have been fully utilized through settlement of internal revenue tax liabilities.R. G. PETRON CORPORATION. Inc. Dash Engineering Philippines. Because an excise tax is a tax on the manufacturer and not on the purchaser.. 184145 (2013). G. 171251 (2012).R. No. but merely regulates the pricing of goods and services relative to. More so.R. 166482 (2012). Said provision thus merely allows the international carriers to purchase petroleum products without the excise tax component as an added cost in the price fixed by the manufacturers or distributors/sellers. as well as by revenue regulations implementing them. the regulation does not go too far as to amount to ―taking. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION. AND LA FUNERARIA PAZ-SUCAT. The 120+30-day period in Section(d) (now subparagraph C) requires that upon the inaction of the CIR for 120 days after the submission of the documents in support of the claim. and. G. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.R. 112 is mandatory and jurisdictional that a judicial claim for refund must be denied if the same has been filed beyond the period prescribed as the Court of Appeals cannot validly acquire jurisdiction over the claim. provided. even . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. A transferee in good faith and for value of a Tax Credit Certificates (TCC) who has relied on the Department of Finance‘s One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center's representation of the genuineness and validity of the TCC transferred to it may not be legally required to pay again the tax covered by the TCC which has been belatedly declared null and void. The 120+30 day period under Sec. by itself. G. Conversely. the oil companies which sold such petroleum products to international carriers are not entitled to a refund of excise taxes previously paid on the goods. said transferee is liable for the taxes and for the fraud committed as provided for by law. because the law and jurisprudence have always contemplated a scenario where the CIR will decide on the protested assessment.R. LTD. and there being no express grant under the NIRC of exemption from payment of excise tax to local manufacturers of petroleum products sold to international carriers. A taxpayer cannot be prejudiced if he chooses to wait for the final decision of the CIR on the protested assessment. hence. G. No. 135 (a) should be construed as prohibiting the shifting of the burden of the excise tax to the international carriers who buys petroleum products from the local manufacturers. Hence. When the law provided for the remedy to appeal the inaction of the CIR. This Court has consistently held as fatal the failure to print the word ―zero-rated‖ on the VAT invoices or official receipts in claims for a refund or credit of input VAT on zero-rated sales. and the amount of profits or income/gross sales that such private establishments may derive from. SECRETARY OF THE DSWD. Precisely. Petron remains the taxpayer because the excise tax is imposed directly on Petron as the manufacturer. Sec. No. 188497 (2012). 185568 (2012). INC.‖MANILA MEMORIAL PARK. 175356 (2013). as the statutory taxpayer. The State can employ police power measures to regulate the pricing of goods and services. Petron. INC. that is. No. the tax payer has to file its judicial claim within 30 days from the lapse of the said period. senior citizens. R. No.R. regardless of the place . No. If. 9282 has vested the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) with the exclusive appellate jurisdiction over. Only portions actually. vs. The recipient of the service must be doing business outside the Philippines for the transaction to qualify for zero-rating under Section 108(B) of the Tax Code. ACCENTURE. Since building permit fees are not charges on property. CITY OF ANGELES. G. Since it partakes of the nature of an excise tax. No. 9337. G. the situs of taxation is the place where the privilege is exercised. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. they are not impositions from which Angeles University Foundation (AUF) is exempt. rather. G. G. In assessing Team Pacific Corporation‘s business tax and effectively denying its protest.R. the Municipal Treasurer of Taguig cannot be said to be performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function. prior payment of taxes is not a prerequisite to avail of a tax credit. To come within the purview of the provision. No. Tax refund is defined as the money that a taxpayer overpaid and is thus returned by the taxing authority. unlike a tax refund. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.A. FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. the government would be refunding money it did not collect. a successful claim for input VAT is made. Tax credit is not synonymous to tax refund. ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION vs. among others. TEAM PACIFIC CORPORATION vs. it is not enough that the recipient of the service be proven to be a foreign corporation.R. R. AND RUBIO GUIJON MADRIGALLO. No. it must be specifically proven to be a nonresident foreign corporation. The reason for such requirement is that it prevents buyers from falsely claiming input VAT from their purchases when no VAT was actually paid. et al. Section 71 serves as an exception to the rule on the unlawful divulgence of trade secrets. JOSEPHINE DAZA IN HER CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF TAGUIG. For this reason. It makes income tax returns public records and opens them to inspection upon order of the President of the Philippines. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. This fact does not automatically mean. No. The evidence presented by Accenture may have established that its clients are foreign. 168771 (2012). vs. G. INC. 190102 (2012). a refund. The failure of a taxpayer to print the word ―zero-rated‖ on its invoices or receipts is fatal to its claim for tax refund or tax credit of input VAT on zero-rated sales. absent such word. Tax credit. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. Prior payment of taxes is not required for a taxpayer to avail of the 8% transitional input tax credit because it is not a tax refund per se but a tax credit. appeals from the judgments. The provision relied upon by the Spouses Dipad prohibits employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) from divulging the trade secrets of taxpayers but does not address the confidentiality of ITRs. directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes are exempt from real property taxes. WESTERN MINDANAO POWER CORP. ROBERTO AND SANDRA DIPAD vs. 168856 (2012). G. It is any amount given to a taxpayer as a subsidy. 181136 (2012). where CASURECO III has its principal office and from where it operates. G. that these clients were doing business outside the Philippines. 189999 (2012). Moreover. A franchise tax is a tax on the exercise of a privilege. on the other hand. The tax privileges granted to electric cooperatives registered with NEA under PD 269 were validly withdrawn and only those registered with the CDA under RA 6938 may continue to enjoy the tax privileges under the Cooperative Code. INC.. No. resolutions or orders of the RTC in tax collection cases originally decided by them in their respective territorial jurisdiction which appeal should be perfected within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision and shall be made by filing a petition for review under a procedure analogous to that provided for under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. that is. 167732 (2012). R.if the claims were made prior to the effectivity of R. while those portions leased to private entities and individuals are not exempt from such taxes. her actions are not the proper subject of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. SPOUSES ROLANDO AND BRIGIDA OLIVAN. Furthermore.A. vs. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES. is an amount subtracted directly from one‘s total tax liability. No.R. 173-425 (2012). however. in contrast to the interpretation that ITRs cannot be divulged. or an incentive to encourage investment.R. Thus. . Having chosen to carry-over the excess quarterly income tax. Section 143(h) states that ―on any business subject to x xx value-added x xx tax under the National Internal Revenue Code. including rules and regulations. Under the old regulation. The Supreme Court holds that City Ordinance No. G. to the 10% preferential rate under Section 27(B) instead of the ordinary 30% corporate rate under the last paragraph of Section 30 in relation to Section 27(A)(1). Section 27(B) of the NIRC does not remove the income tax exemption of proprietary non-profit hospitals under Section 30(E) and (G). the remedies are still the same. The new rules compute gross revenues based on the actual amount received by the airline company as reflected on the plane ticket.R. 183553 (2012). The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. G. and the availment of one remedy still precludes the other. Thus. Consequently. proprietary non-profit educational institutions and proprietary non-profit hospitals. among the institutions covered by Section 30.‖ for purposes of computing the 3% Percentage Tax under Section 118(A) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). PHILIPPINE BRANCH (GF) vs. 168331 (2012). 15-2002 because tax laws. the supplier remains the statutory taxpayer even if the purchaser. INC. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. after the taxpayer opts to carry-over its excess tax credit to the following taxable period. namely. No..R.R.R. 195960 (2012). as amended. and once it had already done so. INC. But unlike Section 69 of the old NIRC. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 195909/G. CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER AND LIGHT CO. 179115 (2012). The effect of the introduction of Section 27(B) is to subject the taxable income of two specific institutions. 190680 (2012). GULF AIR COMPANY. 6-66 that was in effect. INC. No. G. UNITED INTERNATIONAL PICTURES AB vs. an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer. 192945 (2012). CAMARINES SUR III ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE. it could no longer make another one. vs. The right to claim a refund or be credited with the excise taxes belongs to the statutory payer. the controlling factor for the operation of the irrevocability rule is that the taxpayer chose an option. vs. the rate of tax shall not exceed two percent (2%) of gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year‖ from the lease of goods or properties. G. ST. Under the new law. the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even if he shifts the burden thereof to another. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.R. G..R. Hence. the question of whether or not it actually gets to apply said tax credit is irrelevant.where its services or products are delivered. G. this does not change the fact that during the relevant taxable period involved in this case. INC. G. G.. it was Revenue Regulations No. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and AYALA LAND. No. It partakes of an absolute waiver by the government of its right to collect what is due it and to give tax evaders who wish to relent a chance to start with a clean slate. (CASURECO III). While the petitioner‘s interpretation has been vindicated by the new rules which compute gross revenues based on the actual amount received by the airline company as reflected on the plane ticket. 9503-2005 is subject to the limits imposed by Sections 143 and 151 of the Local Government Code. definition of ―gross receipts. No. 182045 (2012). No. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. CITY OF IRIGA vs. operate prospectively unless otherwise legislatively intended by express terms or by necessary implication. Section 143 recognizes separate lines of business and imposes different tax rates for different lines of business. No. 191761 (2012). or seek a refund of. DIAGEO PHILIPPINES. CITY OF CAGAYAN DE ORO. INC. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER. the corporation cannot thereafter choose to apply for a cash refund or for the issuance of a tax credit certificate for the amount representing such overpayment. should include special commissions on passengers and special commissions on cargo. actually shoulders the burden of tax. vs.ASIA INTERNATIONAL AUCTIONEERS. A tax amnesty is a general pardon or the intentional overlooking by the State of its authority to impose penalties on persons otherwise guilty of violating a tax law. the carry-over of . No. INC. The proper party to question. in case of overpayment of income taxes. No. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.R.R. GF cannot insist on the application of Revenue Regulations No. No.R. The petition for relief should be filed within the 60-day reglementary period after the petitioner learns of the judgment under Rule 38. the option to carry-over excess income tax payments is now irrevocable. However. G. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. or seek a refund of. an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer. No. In claiming for a tax credit certificate or a tax refund out of withheld taxes. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even if he shifts the burden thereof to another because once shifted. vs. 172378 (2011). it can no longer seek refund of the unutilized excess income tax payments. the VAT-registered taxpayer must be able to establish that it does have refundable or creditable input VAT. 181298 (2011). ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. No.R.excess income tax payments is no longer limited to the succeeding taxable year. since the ATP is not indicated in the invoices or receipts. In addition.R.-PHILIPPINE BRANCH vs. Without this proof. but part of the purchase price or the cost of the goods or services sold. 179961 (2011). In the event that the withholding agents commit fraud against the government by not remitting the taxes so withheld. which taxes are held in trust for the government. No. KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION vs. however. 180909 (2011). G. as amended. it is no longer in the nature of a tax. 159471 (2011). and the same has not been applied against its output VAT liabilities information which is supposed to be reflected in the taxpayer's VAT returns. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. Thus. unutilized excess income tax payments may no longer be refunded. as it is the only way to determine the veracity of its claim. The taxpayer. To prove this. once a taxpayer opted to carry-over its excess income tax payments.R. G. the withholding of income tax and the remittance thereof to the BIR is the responsibility of the payor and not the payee. however. 179617 (2011). COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. Section 76 provides that a taxpayer has the option to file a claim for refund or to carry-over its excess income tax payments.R. is irrevocable. a claimant must be engaged in sales which are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated. ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION. EXXON MOBIL PETROLEUM AND CHEMICAL HOLDINGS. the invoices or receipts would have no probative value for the purpose of refund. Hence. Such proof of remittance is the responsibility of the withholding agent and not of the taxpayer-refund claimant. duly registered invoices or receipts evidencing zero-rated sales must be presented. these must refer to goods or properties with estimated useful life greater than one year and which are treated as depreciable assets used directly or indirectly in the production or sale of taxable goods or services. an application for tax refund/credit must be accompanied by copies of the taxpayer's VAT return/s for the taxable quarter/s concerned. The option to carry-over. 181298 (2011).BELLE CORPORATION vs.. Unutilized excess income tax payments may now be carried over to the succeeding taxable years until fully utilized. G. on the other hand. No. No. INC. G. SILICON PHILIPPINES. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.R. being a mandatory requirement. BELLE CORPORATION vs. No. As to the claim of refund for input VAT on capital goods. Pursuant to Section 57 and 58 of the NIRC of 1997. The proper party to question. When claiming tax refund/credit. No. Applications for refund of the unutilized excess income tax payments may no longer be allowed. there is no need for the claimant to prove actual remittance by the withholding agent (payor) to the BIR. Thus. The non-presentation of the Authority to Print (ATP) and the failure to indicate the word "zero-rated" in the invoices or receipts are fatal to a claim for credit/refund of input VAT on zero-rated sales. The denial of a claim for refund of input tax as a consequence for failure to imprint the words ―zero rated‖ is not a harsh penalty but is reasonable and must be strictly complied with. This is because payors of withholding taxes are by themselves constituted as withholding agents of the BIR. the only way to verify whether the invoices or receipts are duly registered is by requiring the claimant to present its ATP from the BIR.R. may apply the unutilized excess income tax payments as a tax credit to the succeeding taxable years until such has been fully applied pursuant to Section 76 of the NIRC. G. . is not. The failure to indicate the ATP in the sales invoices or receipts. G. such act should not prejudice the payee who has been duly withheld taxes by the withholding agents acting under government authority. It is the duty of the claimant to comply with the requirements. INC.R. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. including the imprinting of the words "zerorated" in its VAT official receipts and invoices in order for its sales of electricity to NPC to qualify for zerorating. Under Section 112 (A) of the NIRC. 529.D. It does not matter that it did not issue another policy to effect this change. the basic law prevails. 187425 (2011). 9337 is clear only as to the removal of petitioner's exemption from the payment of corporate income tax. As to the increase in the group insurance. No. the Court holds that the provision subjecting PAGCOR to 10% VAT is invalid for being contrary to R. Succinctly. because PAGCOR's charter. The Court cannot turn a blind eye to BOC's ineptitude and gross negligence in the safekeeping of Agfha's goods. 16-2005. RR No. Exemptions must be shown to exist clearly and categorically. Anent the validity of RR No. it is a renewal subject to DST. The renewal was not meant to restore the original terms of an old agreement. Nowhere in R. 169103 (2011). In case the corporation is entitled to a refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid.A.R. G. MANILA BANKER’S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION. Documentary stamp tax (DST) is levied on every document which establishes that insurance was made or renewed upon a life. by extending the tax exemption to entities or individuals dealing with PAGCOR in casino operations. another life is insured and covered. 9337 is it provided that petitioner can be subjected to VAT. in fact. 9337 provides. G. As applied to the case. No. the Court agrees with the lower courts' directive that. considering that they were in its custody and that they were in fact the subject of litigation.Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. and supported by clear legal provision. A. The burden of proof rests upon the party claiming exemption to prove that it is. G. tax exemptions are construed strongly against the claimant. therefore. As a rule. covered by the exemption so claimed. the Court agrees with the ruling of the CTA that AGFHA is entitled to recover the value of its lost shipment based on the acquisition cost at the time of payment and not at the time of importation. the Court held in a number of cases that the rate of exchange for the conversion in the peso equivalent should be the prevailing rate at the time of payment. whenever a master policy admits of another member. Thus. The Court is not likewise unaware of its lackadaisical attitude in failing to provide a cogent explanation on the goods' disappearance. subject to certain exceptions. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR) vs.A. because the said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law. PAGCOR is undoubtedly exempt from VAT because the law exempts from taxes persons or entities contracting with PAGCOR in casino operations. No. As to the basis of the conversion rate.‖ Petitioner is exempt from the payment of VAT. R. 4100. No.A. Hence. It is settled rule that in case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement said law. Section 7 (k) of R. Accordingly. No. 1869. the guaranteed continuity clause gave the insured the right to renew his life insurance policy which had a fixed term of twenty years. shall be discharged in the currency which is the legal tender in the Philippines. P.172087 (2011).A. as amended by R.R. THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE. AGFHA INCORPORATED. 9337. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs.A. the Court still holds that the Commissioner cannot escape its liability. 9337. 529 does not provide for the rate of exchange for the payment of foreign currency obligations incurred after its enactment. it is an insurance made upon life subject to DST. No. No. But since R. it is exempting PAGCOR from being liable to indirect taxes. No. with some of the contract's terms modified. is a special law that grants petitioner exemption from taxes. No. Hence. No. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. under the political doctrine of "state immunity. but instead it was meant to extend the life of an existing agreement. the doctrine must be fairly observed and the State should not avail itself of this prerogative to take undue advantage of parties that may have legitimate claims against it. the refundable amount shown on its final adjustment return may be credited against the estimated quarterly .A. No. the fact remains that insurance on another life is made and the relationship of insurer and insured is created between MBLIC and the additional member of that master policy. cannot go beyond the provisions of R. 16-2005. upon payment of the necessary customs duties by Agfha. the Commissioner‘s payment shall be taken from the sale or sales of goods or properties seized or forfeited by the Bureau of Customs. stipulations on the satisfaction of obligations in foreign currency are void. Payments of monetary obligations. Although it may be gainsaid that the satisfaction of Agfha's demand will ultimately fall on the government. and that. ―xxx Transactions which are exempt under international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory or under special laws xxx." it cannot be held liable for governmental acts (jus imperii). Under Republic Act No.R. is not a VAT invoice. 7432 applies. its acts are ultra vires. property or service. INC. Under Presidential Decree No. Beyond these limits. Microsoft's invoice. the VAT ceases to be a tax and simply becomes part of the cost that the buyer must pay in order to purchase the good. TIMBOL. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. No. G. The 20% sales discount granted by establishments to qualified senior citizens is now treated as tax deduction and not as tax credit. No. 160949 (2011). alone or together with others. No. 464 or the "Real Property Tax Code.income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years. but the buyer bears its burden since the amount of VAT paid by the former is added to the selling price. thus. STA. The cost of discount should be computed on the actual amount of the discount extended to senior citizens. VAT on tollway operations cannot be deemed a tax on tax due to the nature of VAT as an indirect tax. not exceeding four. Republic Act No. The requisites for the non-recognition of gain or loss under the foregoing provision are as follows: (a) the transferee is a corporation. and. gains control of the transferee. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. G. PROVINCE OF RIZAL. No. CITY OF PASIG." the authority to collect real property taxes is vested in the locality where the property is situated which requisite was reiterated in Republic Act No. Taxes may be imposed only by the government under its sovereign authority. DIAZ AND AURORA MA. The amount being claimed as a refund would remain in the account of the taxpayer until utilized in succeeding taxable years. As we have likewise declared in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. G. such option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for tax refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefor. (c) the transfer is made by a person. RENATO V. toll fees may be demanded by either the government or private individuals or entities. first in 2003 by Republic Act No. as amended. acting alone or together with others. 164050 (2011). a passbook of an interest-earning deposit account issued by a bank is a certificate of deposit drawing interest.R. also known as the 1991 the Local Government Code. A "VAT invoice" is an invoice that meets the requirements of Section 4.. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. and thus cannot give rise to any input tax.MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION vs. MICROSOFT PHILIPPINES.108-1 of RR 7-95. thus. INC. No. vs. It expressly states that all purchases covered by invoices other than a VAT invoice shall not give rise to any input tax. PRUDENTIAL BANK vs. it is imperative to first show that these properties are unquestionably within its geographical boundaries.. there is no prescriptive period for the carrying over of the same. 163653 and 167689 (2011). The only import of these provisions is that. LUCIA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT. A VAT-registered taxpayer is required to comply with all the VAT invoicing requirements to be able to file a claim for input taxes on domestic purchases for goods or services attributable to zero-rated sales. . The seller remains directly and legally liable for payment of the VAT. vs. G.R. 180173 (2011). Central Luzon Drug Corporation. 7160. Once the option to carryover and apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been made. (d) as a result of the exchange the transferor. 166838 (2011). which prescribes after two years from the filing of the FAR. 9257 and most recently in 2010 by Republic Act No.R.R. It can legitimately exercise powers of government only within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction. DST is imposed on certificates of deposit bearing interest pursuant to Section 180 of the old NIRC. G. INC. No. 9994. F. G. PL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES. A certificate of deposit need not be in a specific form. G. Petitioner is therefore entitled to a tax credit for the full 20% sales discounts it extended to qualified senior citizens. It is worthy to note that unlike the option for refund of excess income tax. The boundaries must be clear for they define the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of a local government unit. It is worthy to mention that Republic Act No. 180390 (2011). 193007 (2011). COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. this case covers the taxable years 1993 and 1994. (b) the transferee exchanges its shares of stock for property/ies of the transferor. FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.R. MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA. not exceeding four persons. as provided in Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. lacking the word "zero-rated‖. as an attribute of ownership. Once shifted. 7432 had undergone two (2) amendments. vs.R. Nos.R. while a local government unit is authorized under several laws to collect real estate tax on properties falling under its territorial jurisdiction. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. 185023 (2011).R. without regard to whether such rate is lower or higher than the tax rate that is actually being paid prior to January 1. 1996. since the receipts and invoices in this case cover sales made from 1999 to 2000.R. G. RCBC. to a taxable person. vs. While the payor-borrower can be held accountable for its negligence in performing its duty to withhold the amount of tax due on the transaction. No. the verified information must not only be filed under Section 281 of the Tax Code.R. No. The former cannot be made liable for the tax due because it is the latter who earned the income subject to withholding tax. Revenue Regulations No. the prices of the goods were often manipulated to yield lesser taxes. No. No. impliedly admitted the validity of those waivers. 164152 (2010). 8240 took effect.R. No. It provides for two periods: the first is the 3-year transition period beginning January 1. not on official receipts. 180006 (2011). as the taxpayer and the one which earned income on the transaction. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 7160 states that properties owned by the Republic of the Philippines are exempt from real property tax "except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted. so as to avoid any penalty that may arise from the non-payment of the withholding tax due.A. G. until December 31. created a new tax rate when it added in the last paragraph of Section 1 thereof. be struck down as invalid and of no effect. The liability for the tax. RCBC. JULIETA ARIETE. Section 143 of the Tax Reform Act of 1997 is clear and unambiguous. REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT. G. Since ad valorem taxes were based on the value of the goods. the portions of the properties not leased to taxable entities are exempt from real estate tax while the portions of the properties leased to taxable entities are subject to real estate tax. what applies is Section 4. 184428 (2011). the date when R.1 which requires the printing of the words "zero-rated" only on invoices. Congressional deliberations show that the shift from ad valorem to specific taxes introduced by the law was also intended to curb the corruption that became endemic to the imposition of ad valorem taxes.R.R. which are based on the volume of goods produced. No. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. 17-99. . During the 3-year transition period. remains liable for the payment of tax as the taxpayer shares the responsibility of making certain that the tax is properly withheld by the withholding agent. 1997. would prevent price manipulation and also cure the unequal tax treatment created by the skewed valuation of similar goods. (b) and (c) of Section 143 but increased by 12%. and the second is the period thereafter.‖ After the transitory period.The recording of the information in the Official Registry Book of the BIR is a mandatory requirement before a taxpayer may be excluded from the coverage of the VAP.A." Thus. 170257 (2011). 179632 (2011). RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION vs. 1999. 9337 that in 2005 required the printing of the words "zero-rated" on receipts. The law imposes the liability to pay real estate tax on the Republic of the Philippines for the portions of the properties leased to taxable entities. SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES POWER CORPORATION vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. it must also be duly recorded in the Official Registry Book of the BIR before the date of availment under the Voluntary Assessment Program(VAP). The liability of the withholding agent is independent from that of the taxpayer. Section 143 provides that ―the excise tax from any brand of fermented liquor…shall not be lower than the tax which was due from each brand on October 1. through its partial payment of the revised assessments issued within the extended period as provided for in the questioned waivers. remains with the taxpayer because the gain was realized and received by him. the qualification that the tax due after the 12% increase becomes effective ―shall not be lower than the tax actually paid prior to January 1. it is R. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION. 2000.108. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION. Section 143 provides that the excise tax rate shall be the figures provided under paragraphs (a). Actually. It is indisputable that the withholding agent is merely a tax collector and not a taxpayer.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. CITY OF PASIG. Estoppel is clearly applicable to the case at bench. G. however. The withholding agent is liable only insofar as he failed to perform his duty to withhold the tax and remit the same to the government. The imposition of specific taxes. No. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.Section 234(a) of Republic Act No. G.‖ Said qualification must. 2000 and therefore. It is sufficiently clear that for a person to be excluded from the coverage of the VAP. however. without regard to whether the revenue collection starting January 1. perforce. for consideration or otherwise. 2000 may turn out to be lower than that collected prior to said date. But. G. or description.R. the amendment in Article 61 of RA 9520. PHILIPPINE BRITISH ASSURANCE COMPANY. vs. or collected by any municipal. But with the full implementation of the VAT system on non-bank financial intermediaries starting January 1. levied. And beginning 2004 up to the present. the instant case is not a tax collection case. cooperatives are not required to withhold the corresponding tax on the interest from savings and time deposits of their members.A non-bank financial intermediary is subject to 10% VAT for the tax years 1996 to 2002.R.D. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. assessed. vs. the pawn ticket is proof of an exercise of a taxable privilege of concluding a contract of pledge. For purposes of taxation. Its franchise exempts it from paying any tax other than the option it chooses: either the "basic corporate income tax" or the two percent gross revenue tax. and other fees and charges of any kind. as the case may be. provincial. No. 179085 (2010). No. affirms the interpretation of the BIR that Section 24(B)(1) of the NIRC does not apply to cooperatives and confirms that such ruling carries out the legislative intent. No. 13 of P. G. While the Court recognizes the general rule that the grant of tax exemptions is strictly construed against the taxpayer and in favor of the taxing power.A. G. Since interest from any Philippine currency bank deposit and yield or any other monetary benefit from deposit substitutes are paid by banks. 2003. DUMAGUETE CATHEDRAL CREDIT COOPERATIVE (DCCCO). PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. 171586 (2010). The Court does not believe that the phrase "person having legal interest in the property" in Section 226 of the LGC can include an entity that assumes another person's tax liability by contract. Verily. such action would properly be a case based on a contract.FISHWEALTH CANNING CORPORATION vs. The framers of the LGC certainly did not contemplate that the listing. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.R. A motion for reconsideration of the denial of the administrative protest does not toll the 30-day period to appeal to the CTA. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. vs.R. 179800 (2010).R. petitioner is no longer liable for VAT but it is subject to percentage tax on gross receipts from 0% to 5%. 9238. registration. or national authority or government agency. INC. established. Section 13 of the franchise of respondent leaves no room for interpretation. royalties. G. nor did they intend to make the warrant of levy enforceable against it. PROVINCE OF QUEZON AND MUNICIPALITY OF PAGBILAO. this entity is a party foreign to the operation of real property tax laws and could not be clothed with any legal interest over the property apart from its assumed liability for tax. license. by virtue of R. An action based upon a surety bond cannot be considered a tax collection case. No. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs. 179343 (2010). nature. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. assessment and collection of VAT from non-bank financial intermediaries being specifically deferred by law. valuation. petitioner is liable for 10% VAT for said tax year. city. TAMBUNTING PAWNSHOP. G. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (BOC). It is settled that good faith and honest belief that one is not subject to tax on the basis of previous interpretations of government agencies tasked to implement the tax law are sufficient justification to delete the imposition of surcharges and interest. 182722 (2010). The tax to be paid by the grantee under said alternatives shall be in lieu of all other taxes. INC. . with the levy. INC. then petitioner is not liable for VAT during these tax years. Sec. Rather. There is therefore no basis in petitioner's assertion that a DST is literally a tax on a document and that no tax may be imposed on a pawn ticket. duties. Moreover. Insofar as the provisions of the LGC are concerned. and assessment of real property can be made in the name of such entity. No. No. however. 1590 states that the grantee shall pay either the basic corporate income tax based on the grantee‘s (PAL) annual net taxable income or its franchise tax of two percent of the gross revenues derived by the grantee from all sources whichever will result in a lower tax. (PAL). No. For the Court to consider an entity assuming another person's tax liability by contract as a person having legal interest in the real property would extend to it the privileges and responsibilities enumerated above.R. G. 185588 (2010). the CA has jurisdiction over the case. No. imposed. G. hence. specifically providing that members of cooperatives are not subject to final taxes on their deposits. 157594 (2010). 175097 (2010). it may be the subject of a claim for refund as an erroneously collected tax under Sections 204(C) and 229. the additional amount which Silkair paid is not a tax but a part of the purchase price which it had to pay to obtain the goods. no VAT shall be imposed to form part of the cost of goods destined for consumption outside of the territorial border of the taxing authority. SM PRIME HOLDINGS. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. the printing of the word "zero-rated" on the invoice helps segregate sales that are subject to 12% VAT from those sales that are zero-rated. the government would be refunding money it did not collect. INC. SAA must fall under the general rule. No.R. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. no longer under the creditable withholding tax system.A. The general rule is that resident foreign corporations shall be liable for a 32% income tax on their income from within the Philippines.).. This holds true even in the case of cinema/theater operators taxed under the LGC of 1991 precisely because the VAT law was intended to replace the percentage tax on certain services. vs. . Amendments to the VAT law have been consistent in exempting persons subject to amusement tax under the NIRC from the coverage of VAT. LTD. 184398 (2010). Silkair. estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned. SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. absent such word. as it is the company on which the tax is imposed by law and which paid the same even if the burden thereof was shifted or passed on to another. those destined for use or consumption within the Philippines shall be imposed with VAT. No. Hence. ultimately bears the tax burden. according to which. PANASONIC COMMUNICATIONS IMAGING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. 180042 (2010).R. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs.TOSHIBA INFORMATION EQUIPMENT (PHILS. 183505 (2010).e. The appearance of the word "zero-rated" on the face of invoices covering zero-rated sales prevents buyers from falsely claiming input VAT from their purchases when no VAT was actually paid. A careful reading of the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices leads us to agree with petitioner that the instant case is an exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. This reveals the legislative intent not to impose VAT on persons already covered by the amusement tax. the amount withheld under Section 114 is now treated as a final VAT. SILKAIR (SINGAPORE) PTE. which is Petron in this case. No. Even if the law does not expressly state that Ironcon's excess creditable VAT withheld is refundable. It bears stressing that even if Petron shifted or passed on to petitioner the burden of the tax. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. The proper party to question. INC. G. No. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION vs. G. Further. AND FIRST ASIA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.R. while. The Philippine VAT system adheres to the Cross Border Doctrine. It should be clarified that this ruling only refers to creditable VAT withheld pursuant to Section 114 prior to its amendment. a successful claim for input VAT is made. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.R.R. i. but this does not transform its status into a statutory taxpayer. As such. 178090 (2010). 180356 (2010). except for resident foreign corporations that are international carriers that derive income "from carriage of persons. G. or claim a refund or tax credit of an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer. SAA. being an international carrier with no flights originating from the Philippines. Words must be carefully chosen in order to avoid any confusion that could adversely affect the rights and interest of the taxpayer. G. No. No. does not fall under the exception. actual export of goods and services from the Philippines to a foreign country must be free of VAT. The requirement is reasonable and is in accord with the efficient collection of VAT from the covered sales of goods and services. After its amendment by R. G. No. as the purchaser and end-consumer. excess baggage. 9337. IRONCON BUILDERS AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) as well as his duly authorized representative must indicate clearly and unequivocally to the taxpayer whether an action constitutes a final determination on a disputed assessment. cargo and mail originating from the Philippines" which shall be taxed at 2 1/2% of their Gross Philippine Billings. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. If.R. Only lessors or distributors of cinematographic films are included in the coverage of VAT.R. G. G. the authority to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of the law. FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS). otherwise. 173854 (2010). and 3) The fact of withholding must be established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of the tax withheld. 160756 (2010). 166829 (2010). The Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions touching on the seizure and forfeiture of dutiable goods. INCORPORATED vs. No. and regular courts cannot interfere with his exercise thereof or stifle or put it at naught. but must remain consistent and in harmony with. MERLINO E.R.R. Such statutory lapse or intent. 162175 (2010). Rather. the decision becomes final and executory. G. This rule is embodied in Section 11 of RA 9282. The constitutional safeguard of due process is embodied in the fiat "[no] person shall be deprived of life. No. A taxpayer claiming for a tax credit or refund of creditable withholding tax must comply with the following requisites: 1) The claim must be filed with the CIR within the two-year period from the date of payment of the tax. infringe no constitutional limitation. and administering. The income from the trust fund investments is therefore exempt from the payment of income tax and consequently from the payment of the creditable withholding tax on the sale of their real property. It is settled that an appeal must be perfected within the reglementary period provided by law. No. Such authority is subject to the limitation that the rules and regulations must not override. RODRIGUEZ AND WIRA INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP. G. OSSORIO PENSION FOUNDATION. Regional trial courts are devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the BOC and to enjoin or otherwise interfere with these proceedings. 28(b)(7)(A). No. The tax-exempt character of the Employees' Trust Fund has long been settled.The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable classifications for purposes of taxation. may have allowed preliminary injunction where local taxes are involved. the burden of establishing the factual basis of a claim for a refund rests on the taxpayer. ANGELES CITY ELECTRIC CORPORATION. No. may file a petition for review with the CTA en banc.. Unlike the National Internal Revenue Code. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. petitioner has the personality to claim tax refunds due the Employees' Trust Fund. 160270 (2010). It is also settled that petitioner exists for the purpose of holding title to. have met the requirements of the law and the regulations and therefore qualify as reasonable retirement benefit plans within the contemplation of Republic Act No." CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS' ASSOCIATIONS. liberty or property without due process of law. vs. 4917 (now Sec. Jurisdiction to review decisions or resolutions issued by the Divisions of the CTA is no longer with the CA but with the CTA En Banc. THE HON. Tax Code). EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO. or exemption. INCORPORATED vs. ANGELES CITY vs. It is not the duty of the government to disprove a taxpayer's claim for refund. G. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. It is well settled that the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedings.. SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY vs. however it may be viewed. No. under Section 244 of RA 8424. The Secretary of Finance is granted. G. which provides that a party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of the CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial. et al. prohibition or mandamus.R. the law they seek to apply and implement. Regional trial courts are precluded from assuming cognizance over such matters even through petitions for certiorari.R.R. G. which included petitioner. INC. . COURT OF APPEALS AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. TFS. The BIR ruled that the private employees benefit trust funds. 2) It must be shown on the return that the income received was declared as part of the gross income. the tax-exempt Employees' Trust Fund established for the benefit of VMC's employees. the Local Tax Code does not contain any specific provision prohibiting courts from enjoining the collection of local taxes. G. 166134 (2010). Inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation. MIGUEL J.R. As such. Under the old provision. G. INC. once exercised. it was held that the remedy of the Government is to go after the grantees alleged to have perpetrated fraud in the procurement of the subject TCCs. vs.It is settled that provincial governments can levy excise taxes on quarry resources independently from the national government. providing. Article X of the 1987 Constitution and R. surcharges. the option to carry-over the excess or overpaid income tax for a given taxable year is limited to the immediately succeeding taxable year only. a TCC is effectively used up. The right of a withholding agent to claim a refund of erroneously or illegally withheld taxes comes with the responsibility to return the same to the principal taxpayer. When applied to the tax base. Zero-rated seller. No. can claim a refund or tax credit certificate. Paragraph 7.R. corollarily. A withholding agent has a legal right to file a claim for refund for two reasons. Once accepted by the BIR and applied towards the satisfaction of such a tranferee's tax obligations. In VAT-exempt sales..R.A. 7160. The clear intent in the amendment under Section 76 is to make the option. No. it is his duty to return what he . should the amount of the tax withheld be finally found to be less than the amount that should have been withheld under law. under Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997. 180385 (2010). LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY vs.A. to mean ―one (1) year from the date of the annotation of the sale of the property at the proper registry. debited and canceled such that there is nothing left to avoid or to cancel anew.A. G. 171766 (2010). INC. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. The government of Quezon City. 182364 (2010). Section 14 (a). No. “CITY MAYOR. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES. MAURICIO B. as an agent of the taxpayer. 180639 (2010). this provision runs counter to that of Section 261 of R. ALL OF QUEZON CITY. No. otherwise known as the Quezon City Revenue Code of 1993. As an agent of the taxpayer. The seller of such transactions charges no output tax but can claim a refund or a tax credit certificate for the VAT previously charged by suppliers. Section 14 (a). 171033 (2010). such rate obviously results in no tax chargeable against the purchaser. his authority to file the necessary income tax return and to remit the tax withheld to the government impliedly includes the authority to file a claim for refund and to bring an action for recovery of such claim. 7160. No. and penalties. This noncrediting of input taxes in exempt transactions is the underlying reason why the Tax Code adopted the rule on apportionment of tax credits under Section 104(A) whenever a VAT-registered taxpayer engages in both VAT taxable and non-VAT taxable sales. SP-91. he is considered a ―taxpayer‖ under the NIRC as he is personally liable for the withholding tax as well as for deficiency assessments. PETRON CORPORATION vs." ASIAWORLD PROPERTIES PHILIPPINE CORPORATION vs. No. the procedure in the collection of delinquent taxes on real properties within the territorial jurisdiction of Quezon City. G. Considering the protection afforded to transferees in good faith and for value. In contrast. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. HON. vs. among other things. Given the nature of the TCC's immediate effectiveness and validity. No. Zero-rated transactions generally refer to the export sale of goods and supply of services.R. To harmonize the provisions of the two laws. the application of the option to carry-over the excess creditable tax is not limited only to the immediately following taxable year but extends to the next succeeding taxable years. directly and legally liable for VAT. No. 163835 (2010).R. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. the taxpayer/seller shall not bill any output tax on his sales to his customers and. enacted City Ordinance No. Second. AMBANLOC. G. S-93. 7160 which provides that the one year redemption period shall be counted from the date of sale of the tax delinquent property. is not allowed any credit or refund of the input taxes he paid on his purchases. pursuant to the taxing power vested on local government units by Section 5. vs. transfer and utilization thereof. G.R. G. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION. SP-91. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. S-93 should be construed as to define the phrase ―one (1) year from the date of sale‖ as appearing in Section 261 of R. The tax rate is set at zero.R. Paragraph 7 of City Ordinance No. First. At first glance. irrevocable for the "succeeding taxable years. the Code provides that the one-year redemption period should be counted from the date of the annotation of the sale of the property at the proper registry. AT&T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES PHILIPPINES. said authority may only be exercised before the TCC has been fully utilized by a transferee which had no participation in the perpetration of fraud in the issuance. No. R. vs. 177127 (2010). otherwise. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. pawnshops are treated as non-bank financial intermediaries.R. Section 112(A) of the NIRC is the applicable provision in determining the start of the two-year period for claiming a refund/credit of unutilized input VAT. 184823 (2010). privilege.R. G. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and CLARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. 175124 (2010). In case of full or partial denial by the CIR. to ensure the safety. No. No. 172394 (2010). However. such option is irrevocable. PHILIPPINES. A taxpayer is entitled to a refund either by authority of a statute expressly granting such right. INC. H. vs.R. INC. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. UNITED AIRLINES. from the date of the submission of the complete documents in support of the application [for tax refund/credit]. TAMBUNTING PAWNSHOP. The substantial underdeclared income in the returns constitutes prima facie evidence of fraudulent return under Section 248(B) of the NIRC. J. as the case may be. and Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC are inapplicable as ―both provisions apply only to instances of erroneous payment or illegal collection of internal revenue taxes. even though incidentally. or under the principle of solutio indebiti requiring the return of taxes erroneously or illegally collected.R. first and foremost. NO. INC. it shall be taxed at the rate of 2½% of its GPB. G. A non-bank financial intermediary is no longer liable for VAT but it is subject to percentage tax on gross receipts from 0% to 5%. AICHI FORGING COMPANY OF ASIA. The questioned royalty fees form part of the regulatory framework to ensure ―free flow or movement‖ of petroleum fuel to and from the CSEZ. the remedy of the taxpayer is to appeal the inaction of the CIR to CTA within 30 days. 173863 (2010).‖ Section 112(D) of the NIRC clearly provides that the CIR has ―120 days. 179045-46 (2010). G. and from whom he derives his legal right to file a claim for refund. 178788 (2010). once the taxpayer exercises the option to carry-over and applies the excess creditable tax against the income tax due for the succeeding taxable years. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. Nos. INC. If an international air carrier maintains flights to and from the Philippines.. That failure to print the word ―zero-rated‖ in the invoices/receipts is fatal to a claim for credit/refund of input valueadded tax (VAT) on zero-rated sales. a taxpayer must prove not only his entitlement to a refund but also his compliance with the procedural due process as non-observance of the prescriptive periods within which to file the administrative and the judicial claims would result in the denial of his claim..R. while international air carriers that do not have flights to and from the Philippines but nonetheless earn income from other activities in the country will be taxed at the rate of 32% of such income. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE vs.CHEVRON PHILIPPINES. he would be unjustly enriching himself at the expense of the principal taxpayer from whom the taxes were withheld. vs.A. The fact that respondent have the exclusive right to distribute and market petroleum products within CSEZ pursuant to its JVA with SBMA and CSBTI does not diminish the regulatory purpose of the royalty fee for fuel products supplied by petitioner to its client at the CSEZ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. No.‖ within which to grant or deny the claim. In distinguishing tax and regulation as a form of police power. if after the 120-day period the CIR fails to act on the application for tax refund/credit. G. The Policy Guidelines was issued. If the purpose is primarily to raise revenue.R. For purposes of determining their tax liability. vs. G. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. INC.R. G. Secretary‘s ruling that the filing of criminal complaint for violation of Sections 254 and 255 of the NIRC cannot prosper because of lack of prior determination of the existence . the determining factor is the purpose of the implemented measure. The exercise of the option to carry-over precludes a claim for a refund. if the purpose is primarily to regulate. No. then it is deemed a regulation and an exercise of the police power of the state. INC. the taxpayer‘s recourse is to file an appeal before the CTA within 30 days from receipt of the decision of the CIR. or incentive in his favour. and good condition of the petroleum fuel industry within the CSEZ. G. In both cases. security.has recovered. SMART COMMUNICATION. No. Under Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997. then it will be deemed a tax even though the measure results in some form of regulation. On the other hand. THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY. revenue is generated. INC. the ends of justice and fairness should be served thereby. is well within the jurisdiction of the CTA to decide. the taxpayer‘s decision to carry-over and apply its current overpayment to future tax liability continues until the overpayment has been fully applied. Tax refunds. are construed strictly against the taxpayer. the issue at hand is whether or not the BIR's right to collect taxes had already prescribed. and work into forms convenient for use. The claimants have the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of their claim for refund or tax credit. 183868 (2010). No. RAUL M.R. COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. HON. To ―manufacture‖ is to ―make or fabricate raw materials by hand. AQUAFRESH SEAFOODS. 38. vs. SONY PHILIPPINES. applying the predominant use of property as the basis for the computation of the Capital Gains and Documentary Stamp Taxes. CAMUS ENGINEERING CORPORATION. the imported articles must not lose its original character. M. 174212 (2010). 169225 (2010).R. it mandates that the taxpayer‘s exercise of its option to either seek refund or crediting is irrevocable.R. The services rendered by the advertising companies. MARINA SALES. No. L. G.. paid for by Sony using SIS dole-out. and second. Section 69 of the 1977 NIRC: first. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs.. as when a clear sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence to support a finding of probable cause is ignored. it is to transform by any process into another form suitable for its intended use. INC. it cannot unilaterally change the zonal valuation of such properties to ―commercial‖ without first conducting a re-evaluation of the zonal values as mandated under Section 6(E) of the NIRC. G. While the CIR has the authority to prescribe real property values and divide the Philippines into zones. The second part of the provision covers other cases that arise out of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) or related laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). G. McGEORGE FOOD INDUSTRIES INC. the grant or denial of a motion for postponement is addressed to the sound discretion of the court which should always be predicated on the consideration that more than the mere convenience of the courts or of the parties. In the case at bar. No.R. such as in the exceptional case in which grave abuse of discretion is committed. Under Section 76. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. G.R. like tax exemptions. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. G. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. the exercise of an option is irrevocable and a decision to carry-over and apply tax overpayment continues until the overpayment has been fully applied to tax liabilities.R. 178697 (2010). were for Sony and not SIS. Non-printing the word ―zero-rated‖ on the sales invoices is a ground for the denial of a claim for VAT refund. No.. 177279 (2010).of fraud. No. no matter how many tax cycles it takes. is bereft of factual basis and contradicted by the evidence on record. No. Sony did not render any service to SIS at all. SIS just gave assistance to Sony in the amount equivalent to the latter‘s advertising expense but never received any goods. this .R. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 170389 (2010).. barter or exchange of goods or properties before any VAT may be levied. This issue of prescription. Section 76 of the 1997 NIRC wrought two changes to its predecessor. The appellate jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to cases which involve decisions of the CIR on matters relating to assessments or refunds. To fit into the category listed under the Tariff Harmonized System Headings calling for a higher import duty rate of 7%. No. Certain Guidelines in the Implementation of Zonal Valuation of Real Properties for RDO No. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. Secretary of Justice. INC. being a matter provided for by the NIRC.. GONZALEZ. As a rule. 174157 (2010).‖ Stated differently. There must be a sale. G. HAMBRECHT & QUIST PHILIPPINES. INC. Furthermore. HITACHI GLOBAL STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES PHILIPPINES CORP. The power of the Secretary of Justice to review does not preclude this Court and the CA from intervening and exercising our own powers of review with respect to the DOJ‘s findings. G. The validity of the assessment itself is a separate and distinct issue from the issue of whether the right of the CIR to collect the validly assessed tax has prescribed. properties or service from Sony. The mere filing of a protest letter which is not granted does not operate to suspend the running of the period to collect tax. shall apply only when the real property is located in an area or zone where the properties are not yet classified and their respective zonal valuation are not yet determined. art or machinery. PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PFDA)vs. VAT invoice and VAT receipt should not be confused as referring to one and the same thing. LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF LUCENA CITY. the said invoices and receipts. for its failure to send the PAN stating the facts and the law on which the assessment was made as required by Section 228 of R. The VAT invoice is the seller's best proof of the sale of the goods or services to the buyer while the VAT receipt is the buyer's best evidence of the payment of goods or services received from the seller. COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. are necessary to substantiate the actual amount or quantity of goods sold and their selling price (proof of transaction). METRO STAR SUPERAMA. G. and the best means to prove the input VAT payments (proof of payment). but also of the facts on which an assessment would be made. be followed because it is the only way to determine the veracity of Kepco's claims. the assessment made by the CIR is void. No. G. nevertheless. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. Thus. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. 185371 (2010). LUCENA CITY ASSESSOR AND LUCENA CITY TREASURER. No.R." the absence of which renders nugatory any assessment made by the tax authorities. Besides. the assessment itself would be invalid.R. except those portions which are leased to private persons or entities. Thus. local government units have no power to tax instrumentalities of the national government like the PFDA. KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION vs. and is therefore exempt from real property tax. G. Therefore.R. taken collectively. 178030 (2010). INC. Hence. The old requirement of merely notifying the taxpayer of the CIR's findings was changed in 1998 to informing the taxpayer of not only the law. .A. MILWAUKEE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION vs. Under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code.R.. PFDA is not liable to pay real property tax assessed by the Office of the City Treasurer of Lucena City on the Lucena Fishing Port Complex. No. the sending of a PAN to taxpayer to inform him of the assessment made is but part of the "due process requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment. No.discretion must be exercised intelligently. No. Otherwise. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS. CITY OF LUCENA. G. Verily. Furthermore. 181858 (2010). the Lucena Fishing Port Complex is a property of public dominion intended for public use. 173815 (2010). 8424. Even though VAT invoices and receipts are normally issued by the supplier/seller alone. the CTA En Banc correctly disallowed the input VAT that did not meet the required standard of substantiation. the invoicing and substantiation requirements must. although it is true that the CTA is not strictly governed by technical rules of evidence. After scrutinizing the testimonial and documentary evidence in the records of the case. ―What is critical in abandonment is intent which must be shown to be deliberate and clear. No. Article 415 of the Civil Code provided that the following are immovable property: the Land. buildings. MARTIN T. or develop his land to produce any crop. In this case. AL. positive and convincing evidence that their alleged possession and occupation were of the nature and duration required by law. as well as Article 450 referring to encroachments in bad faith. 2013) The real estate mortgage over the machineries and equipment is in full accord with the classification of such properties by the Civil Code of the Philippines as immovable property. v. v. whether express or implied. The length of time that they may have physically occupied the land is immaterial. ET. No. March 6. receptacles. oppressive or malevolent. G. GONZALES. b) determinate subject matter.R. According to jurisprudence. G. INC. the price must be fixed at the prevailing market value. March 6. (STAR TWO (SPV-AMC). (MERCY VDA.‖ It entails. they are deemed to have entered the same in bad faith. ET. and notorious possession and occupation of (2) agricultural lands of the public domain. 173622. 2013) In a judicial confirmation of title under original registration proceedings. Therefore. PEOPLE’S LANDLESS ASSOCIATION. 182449.R.R. reckoned at the time that the landowner elected the choice. it is found that the parties did not agree on the price and no consent was given. March 6.R. the owner of the land encroached upon – petitioner herein – has the option to require respondent builder to pay the price of the land. March 6. and (2) an external act showing such intent.‖ The intent must be established by the factual failure to work on the landholding absent any valid reason as well as a clear intent. continuous. v.R. and c) price certain in money or its equivalent. March 11. DE ROXAS v. LOVY PEREZ. No. March 6. No. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. fraudulent. PAPER CITY CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES. G. till. the relinquishment of possession of the lot for at least two (2) calendar years and the failure to pay the amortization for the same period. (HEIRS OF LORENZO BUENSUCESO v. G. among others. such . 169211. 181096. 2013) A contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. G. and not at the time that the property was purchased. the following requisites must concur: (1) a clear intent to abandon. (3) under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership. instruments or implements intended by the owner of tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land. 173926. exclusive. reckless. AL. except when prevented by war or force majeure. to cultivate. CAMARINES SUR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE. NG. there is no perfected contract of sale between PELA and Al-Amanah for want of consent and agreement on the price.(RENO R. 2013) For abandonment to exist. (ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. INC. the claimant must prove that the assailed actions of the defendant are not just wrongful. and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works. 2013) Squatters have no possessory rights over the land intruded upon. No. it may be allowed so long as the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss. in order to obtain exemplary damages under Article 2232 of the Civil Code. (4) for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title. or to use the land for any specific economic purpose continuously for a period of two calendar years. for a contract of sale to be valid.R. applicants may obtain the registration of title to land upon a showing that they or their predecessors-in-interest have been in (1) open. Thus.. OUR LADY’S FOUNDATION. which is shown as a separate element. 2013) Under Article 448 pertaining to encroachments in good faith.CIVIL LAW The grant of temperate damages is drawn from equity to provide relief to those definitely injured. INC. No. G. together with his farm household. The burden of proof in land registration cases rests on applicants who must show clear. xxx Machinery. all of the following essential elements must concur: a) consent or meeting of the minds. The term is defined as the ―willful failure of the ARB. 182378. roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil. but also wanton. On the other hand. March 20. accompanied by acts of a possessory character. even after he has chosen fulfillment. is "where it may be fairly inferred that the real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall secure the payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation.R. the Court looks beyond the title of the document. in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. (ALILEO A.R. ATTY. Granted that long. In determining whether a document is an affidavit or a contract. AL. Since the original transaction between the parties was a mortgage.B. SR. ET. 174240.The court shall decree the rescission claimed. The transferee gets the revocable and conditional ownership of the reservor.R. possession of real property is not affected by acts of a possessory character which are merely tolerated by the possessor. whenever the essential requisites for their validity are present. MAAMO. v. AL. (VEVENCIA ECHIN PABALAN. the CA correctly applied Article 1191. unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period. He may alienate it subject to the reservation. The reservor has the legal title and dominion to the reservable property but subject to the resolutory condition that such title is extinguished if the reservor predeceased the reservee. G. No." In the instant case. affords some evidence that possession has been exerted in the character of owner and under claim of right. 2013) . (SPOUSES MARTIRES v. March 13. and avoid its being dissipated into and by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant. 188986. Under Articles 444 and 1942 of the old Civil Code. this inference is unavailing to petitioners since Simplecio‘s continued possession of the property after his defeat in the ejectment suit was clearly upon the tolerance of respondents‘ predecessors-in-interest. He may also seek rescission. DELFIN GRUSPE. G. since the denomination or title given by the parties in their document is not conclusive of the nature of its contents. 2013) One of the circumstances provided for under Article 1602 of the Civil Code. RAMON DUMADAG. MENELIA CHUA. 194336. ET. No. 191431. it has been established that the intent of both petitioners and respondent is that the subject property shall serve as security for the latter's obligation to the former. 2013 The court ruled that the power to rescind the obligations of the injured party is implied in reciprocal obligations. No. (RODOLFO G. On this score. 2013) Reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of a reservable property to the third degree relatives belonging to the line from which the property originally came. partakes of the nature of a pactum commissorium. G. The transferee‘s rights are revoked upon the survival of the reservees at the time of the death of the reservor but become indefeasible when the reservees predecease the reservor.The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation.that the nature of their possession is presumed to have retained the same character throughout their occupancy. If the words appear to be contrary to the parties‘ evident intention. which provides thus: the power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones. (PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. the latter shall prevail over the former.. with the payment of damages in either case. March 20. No. The reservor is a usufructuary of the reservable property. THE HEIRS OF SIMEON A.R. March 11.. CRUZ AND ESPERANZA IBIAS v. G. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY. No. the intention of the parties is primordial and is to be pursued. 2013) Contracts are obligatory no matter what their forms may be. 174844.R. March 20. the subsequent assignment of ownership of the subject lots to petitioners without the benefit of foreclosure proceedings.. In this case. MAGLASANG v. In the construction or interpretation of an instrument. as provided for under Article 2088 of the Civil Code. If the terms of the document are clear and leave no doubt on the intention of the contracting parties. such as in this case. where a contract shall be presumed to be an equitable mortgage. The circumstances surrounding the execution of the disputed Deed of Transfer would show that the said document was executed to circumvent the terms of the original agreement and deprive respondent of her mortgaged property without the requisite foreclosure. the terms of the Joint Affidavit of Undertaking executed by the parties readily discloses that it contains stipulations characteristic of a contract. the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. INC. continued occupation. if the latter should become impossible. G. or which are due to his license. Armed Forces and Police Mutual Benefit Association. as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already acquired. the proper procedure is for the court to order a hearing to determine the nature of said adverse possession before it issues a writ of possession. Jr. They are not even necessary parties. 2013) The binding effect of any agreement between parties to a contract is premised on two settled principles: (1) that any obligation arising from contract has the force of law between the parties. No. 171298. (Spouses Ignacio F. (Ricardo Chu. Melania Caparas and Spouses Ruel and Hermenegilda Perez.R. invalid. (International Hotel Corporation v. and Dy Kok Eng v. 2013) In suits to recover properties. 385 is sufficiently served by allowing foreclosure proceedings initiated by GFIs to continue until a judgment therein becomes final and executory. 175428. No. No. its termination was subject to a condition – the happening of a future and uncertain event. China Banking Corporation.. Francisco B.Nevertheless. any kind of action for the recovery of co-owned properties. Considering that the agreement between the parties was not circumscribed by a definite period. G. shall depend upon the happening of the event that constitutes the condition. G. 2013) When one party enters into a covenant with another. April 10. Juico v. In this case. 187678 . No. April 10. FLORA A. However. This becomes more imperative where such party has been given a grant. 2013) The evident purpose underlying P.R. Article 1258 of the Civil Code specifically provides that consignation shall be made by depositing the thing or things due at the disposal of judicial authority. (MOLDEX RAELTY INC. SABERON. The contract to sell remains valid and subsisting. Jr. 2013) Consignation is necessarily judicial. A trust presumes the existence of a conflict involving one and the same property between two parties. The prevailing rule in conditional obligations is that the acquisition of rights. While the tenant is emancipated from bondage to the soil. 2013 A trust by operation of law is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of a property whose legal title is vested in another. 158361. (HEIRS OF LAZARO GALLARDO. No. et al. is likewise. April 10. without a restraining order. and (2) that there must be mutuality between the parties based on their essential equality. The said provision clearly precludes consignation in venues other than the courts. Any contract which appears to be heavily weighed in favor of one of the parties so as to lead to an unconscionable result is void. There is no trust created when the property owned by one party is separate and distinct from that which has been registered in another‘s name. Juico and Alice P.The lack of a license to sell or the failure on the part of a subdivision developer to register the contract to sell or deed of conveyance with the Register of Deeds does not result to the nullification or invalidation of the contract to sell it entered into with a buyer. G. only one of the co-owners. the respondent in this case is entitled to 50% refund under the Maceda Law. April 15. one having the rightful ownership and the other holding the legal title.. all co-owners are real parties in interest. Therefore. the landowner is entitled to his just compensation for the deprivation of his land.D. But if a parcel of land is occupied by a party other than the judgment debtor. temporary or permanent injunction against it being issued. 176289. G.R. G. under the land reform laws. Inc. ET AL. G. any one of them may bring an action. v.Spouses Oscar and Thelma Cacayorin v. 178952. namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-owned property. quantum meruit should apply in the absence of an express agreement on the fees. April 8. for a complete relief can be afforded in the suit even without their participation. Any stipulation regarding the validity or compliance of the contract which is left solely to the will of one of the parties. PORFERIO SOLIMAN. The other coowners are not indispensable parties. v. such as land. is an indispensable party thereto. the Caparas survey plan and the deed of sale between the petitioners and Miguela showed that the parcel of land sold to the petitioners is distinct from the consolidated parcels of land sold by Caparas to the spouses Perez. Furthermore. since the suit is presumed to have been filed for the .R. Joaquin.R.R.. ET AL. The intrinsic validity of the contract to sell is not affected by the developer‘s violation of Section 5 of PD 957. pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and the relevant jurisprudence. April 15. he must perform his obligations with fealty and good faith. No. 2013) The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A. Philippine courts are incompetent to substitute their judgment on how a case was decided under foreign law. Philippine courts only decide whether to extend its effect to the Filipino party. G. (POSEIDON INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SERVICES. (J PLUS ASIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. Philippine courts are limited to the question of whether to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines. deception or misrepresentation attended the execution of the waiver and quitclaim.R. 196049. G. the standard of care required of respondent is that of a good father of a family under Article 1173 of the Civil Code. (b) determinate subject matter. it is clear from the above-cited jurisprudence that petitioner‘s liability for the payment of interest is not by reason of the suretyship agreement itself but because of the delay in the payment of its obligation under the said agreement. and the other to pay therefore a price certain in money or its equivalent. 186475. it is expected from the purchaser of a valued piece of land to inquire first into the status or nature of possession of the occupants. consent to transfer ownership in exchange for the price. MUNICIPALITY OF ISULAN. one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing. After an assiduous assessment of the evidentiary records. however. April 15. G.M. No. No. No. The Deed of Sale executed by the petitioner and the respondent is a perfected contract of sale. (MINORU FUJIKI v. such as the presence of occupants/tenants thereon. petitioner should not be made to pay more than its assumed obligation under the surety bonds. Spouses Pono. et al. No. No. No. 2013) Where the person making the waiver. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country. 2013) A contract of sale is defined under Article 1458 of the Civil Code: By the contract of sale. has done so voluntarily. or on the status. Mario and Margie Lauron. INC.R. June 26. 2013) Since the contract between the parties is an ordinary one for services. 186014. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY. In the recognition of foreign judgments. (Spouses Vallido v. June 26. The test to determine whether negligence attended the performance of . No.R. June 26. G. v. April 15. it is also a firmly settled rule that where there are circumstances which would put a party on guard and prompt him to investigate or inspect the property being sold to him. UTILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION. TAMALA ET AL.. we have no option but to recognize the transaction to be valid and binding. The elements of a contract of sale are: (a) consent or meeting of the minds.. However. This connotes reasonable care consistent with that which an ordinarily prudent person would have observed when confronted with a similar situation. Absence of any evidence showing that fraud. 2013) It is a recognized principle that a person dealing on a registered land need not go beyond its certificate of title. There is no question that as a surety. with a full understanding of its terms and with the payment of credible and reasonable consideration. condition and legal capacity" of the foreign citizen who is a party to the foreign judgment. under the rule of lex nationalii expressed in Article 15 of the Civil Code. June 26. this Court holds that the petitioners are NOT buyers in good faith as they failed to discharge their burden of proof.R. 199650.benefit of all co-owners. 2013) Petitioner‘s liability under the suretyship contract is different from its liability under the law. 179011. 200173. They cannot decide on the "family rights and duties. all its elements being present. TITO R. (ALI AKANG v. the court is sufficiently convinced that a valid transaction took place.R. G. and (c) price certain in money or its equivalent. (Rey Castigador Catedrilla v.R. that is. The burden of proving good faith lies with the second buyer (petitioners herein) which is not discharged by simply invoking the ordinary presumption of good faith. G. Thus. In a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage involving a citizen of a foreign country. G. June 13. The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under administration only after the payment of all the debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same. No.R. an individual‘s right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code should not be confined to his house or residence as it may extend to places where he has the right to exclude the public or deny them access. 184589. 185891. Without making such inquiry. but also from the moment that it becomes subject to the judicial action of the judge.R. covers places. the buyer must be wary and should investigate the rights of those in possession. In this case. paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibits court officers such as clerks of court from acquiring property involved in litigation within the jurisdiction or territory of their courts. No. to look and see who is there upon it and what his rights are. 2013 The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. INC. or sitting on the "mirador su casa. SOLAS. No. P-01-1448 June 25. the probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and terminated. therefore. which an honest man of ordinary prudence is accustomed to exercise in making purchases. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. June 19. 179736. then he is guilty of negligence. JUANITA REYES. other individuals may not infringe on his right to privacy. SR. (SPOUSES HING v.an obligation is: did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not. A want of caution and diligence. ET AL.. the owner may rest secure." to avoid the possibility of losing his land. be proved with certainty In this case. Where the property is acquired after the termination of the case. HON. PERCIVAL DELA ROSA Y BAYER G. one cannot claim that he is a buyer in good faith. G. his duty is to read the public manuscript.R. No. is in contemplation of law. that is. A strong presumption exists that Torrens titles are regularly issued and that they are valid. A. The CA. The buyer who has failed to know or discover that the land sold to him is in adverse possession of another is a buyer in bad faith. 2013 . June 13. A Torrens title is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein. The rule is that as long as the order for the distribution of the estate has not been complied with. or even situations which an individual considers as private. 2013) Article 1491. (CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. No." therefore.M. a want of good faith. erred in limiting the application of Article 26(1) of the Civil Code only to residences. And as long as his right is recognized by society. June 26. A thing is said to be in litigation not only if there is some contest or litigation over it in court. For the prohibition to apply. G. it cannot be denied that the heirs of Magdua suffered pecuniary loss. No. G. When a man proposes to buy or deal with realty. (DEOGENES O. 194846. SABIDONG v. 2013) Thus. without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court. A property forming part of the estate under judicial settlement continues to be subject of litigation until the probate court issues an order declaring the estate proceedings closed and terminated. RODRIGUEZ v. 2013) When a piece of land is in the actual possession of persons other than the seller. LUCILA LABORTE SORIA. although the exact amount was not proved with certainty. ROSAROSO v. (HOSPICIO D. June 26. Once a title is registered. COURT OF APPEALS AND PHILIPPINE CHINESE CHARITABLE ASSOCIATION. 201723. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY. 2013) Temperate or moderate damages avail when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot from the nature of the case. the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. locations. Article 1491 of the Civil Code attaches.. no violation of paragraph 5. (RODOLFO S. NICOLASITO S.R.R. The phrase "prying into the privacy of another‘s residence. In other words. courts have no authority to alter a contract by construction or to make a new contract for the parties. June 3. without the knowledge and consent of petitioners and despite non-payment of the full price thereof. representations or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied on it.. in order for this doctrine to operate. However. the mere mention of the number of the presidential decree. 187587. v.R. SPOUSES MELVIN A. The publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. June 5. the rule is settled that the literal meaning of its stipulations should govern. when the terms of the contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties. 176425. No. G. No.R. the court finds that respondent Rowena‘s act of transferring the title to the subject land in her name. Thus. (SPOUSES RUBIN AND PORTIA HOJAS v. and in a mere supplement of the Official Gazette cannot satisfy the publication requirement. thus according him the opportunity to safeguard his rights. including those of local application and private laws. 175542. 2013) In a contract to sell. VICTORIA CABRAL ET AL. No. LOPEZ. No. G. and may be prejudicial to said title. the purpose of the foregoing stipulation is to apprise respondent of any action which petitioner might take on the subject property. (SPOUSES DELFIN O. ineffective. the title of such decree. 2013) All statutes. 193453.. TUMIBA-DECEASED ET AL. June 5. or doubt. As correctly pointed out by the petitioners. but is. did not make any representation. it has been ruled that courts cannot supply material stipulations or read into the contract words it does not contain. which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.g. a common law remedy designed for the removal of any cloud upon. in truth and in fact. 2013) The petitioner may vindicate its rights in the property through an action for quieting of title. In such cases. and justice and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act. have the force of law between the contracting parties who are expected to abide in good faith with their contractual commitments. G. INC. "with Secretary Tuvera").R. voidable. G. Moreover. The action for quieting of title may be brought whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest in real property by reason of any instrument. shall be published as a condition for their effectivity. good faith. v. (HEIRS OF MANUEL UY EK LIONG v. (GREEN ACRES HOLDINGS.. or unenforceable. or uncertainty affecting title to real property.. or proceeding that is apparently valid or effective. 2013) The law only requires (1) the posting of notices of sale in three public places. MAURICIA MEER CASTILLO ET AL. the supposed date of effectivity. When . encumbrance. June 5. not weasel out of them. INC. 171692. This Court holds that the DARAB decision in favor of Cabral satisfies all four elements of a cloud on title. a representation must have been made to the detriment of another who relied on it. fair dealing. after all.R. 2013) Obligations arising from contracts. PHILIPPINE AMANAH BANK AND RAMON KUE . Precisely. invalid. Indeed. A buyer who covertly usurps the seller's ownership of the property prior to the full payment of the price is in breach of the contract and the seller is entitled to rescission because the breach is substantial and fundamental as it defeats the very object of the parties in entering into the contract to sell. in the first place. v. Personal notice to the mortgagor is not necessary. claim. the seller retains ownership of the property until the buyer has paid the price in full. MILITARY SHRINE SERVICES – PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE ET AL. its whereabouts (e.R No. June 5.( NAGKAKAISANG MARALITA NG SITIO MASIGASIG. Since their duty is confined to the interpretation of the one which the parties have made for themselves without regard to its wisdom or folly. constitutes a substantial and fundamental breach of the contract to sell. courts will not relieve a party from the adverse effects of an unwise or unfavorable contract freely entered into. In the case at bar. TUMIBAY AND AURORA T. record. and (2) the publication of the same in a newspaper of general circulation. estoppel would not lie against one who. the parties to the mortgage contract are not precluded from exacting additional requirements.Estoppel is based on the grounds of public policy. No. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO. (SPOUSES ANGELES DICO AND CELSO DICO. and is broad enough to cover every instance in which one party is required to pay a debt for which another is primarily answerable. he committed a contractual breach sufficient to render the foreclosure sale on November 23. (SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS ET AL. The owner may recover his property if its return is feasible or.." and is "independent of any mere contractual relations between the parties to be affected by it. SALLY GO-BANGAYAN v. It is beyond question that Spouses Marañon never lost ownership over the subject lot. respondent became subrogated as a matter of course pursuant to Article 2207 of the Civil Code. When a property is taken by the government for public use. SPS. the aggrieved owner may demand payment of just compensation for the land taken. July 17.. No. No. 2013) The prescription of actions for the reconveyance of real property based on implied trust is 10 years. to whose rights he succeeds in relation to the debt. 179334. et al. 159213) Petitioner claims to have had an oral contract of attorney‘s fees with the deceased spouses.R. G.R. For failure of respondents to question the lack of expropriation proceedings for a long period of time. G. Development Bank of the Philippines. G." (VECTOR SHIPPING CORPORATION.R. et al. July 3. 2013. JR. No. 191247. Article 1145 of the Civil Code allows him a period of six (6) years within which to file an action to recover professional fees for services rendered.. SR. SPOUSES HERACLEO AND RAMONA TECSON. if it is not. and which in equity and conscience ought to be discharged by the latter. The rightful recipient of the disputed rent in this case should thus be the owner of the subject lot at the time the rent accrued. 177050. No. et al. only the properties acquired by them through their actual joint contribution of money. 201061. 2013) Rent is a civil fruit that belongs to the owner of the property producing it by right of accession. the reckoning point for purposes of the Dicos‘ demand of reconveyance based on fraud was their discovery of the fraud. because registration was a constructive notice to the whole world. VIZCAYA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION. BENJAMIN BANGAYAN. ROSARIO. G. 189316. which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed. G. LELLANI DE GUZMAN.. 2013) Benjamin and Sally cohabitated without the benefit of marriage. jurisprudence clearly provides for the remedies available to a landowner. in its original form and condition.petitioner failed to send the notice of foreclosure sale to respondent. they are deemed to have waived and are estopped from assailing the power of the government to expropriate or the public use for which the power was exercised. Such discovery was properly pegged on the date of the registration of the transfer certificates of title in the adverse parties‘ names.R.R. it bears . On this score. v.R. G. No. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. July 1. JR. Thus. 161211. 2013) The payment made to Caltex as the insured being thereby duly documented. property. BERNARD AND CRESENCIA MARAÑON. July 1. Verily. No. both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly excluded the 37 properties being claimed by Sally which were given by Benjamin‘s father to his children as advance inheritance. v. ET AL. G. (RANCISCO L. July 1. Thus..R. Respondents never asserted or provided any evidence that Spouses de Guzman refused petitioner‘s legal representation. July 10. 2013) The nature of reconstitution proceedings under RA 26 denotes a restoration of the instrument. subrogation is the "substitution of another person in the place of the creditor. v. or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In legal contemplation. For this reason. petitioner‘s cause of action began to run only from the time the respondents refused to pay him his attorney‘s fees.(Lim vs. 1981 null and void. Act No. Such power must be must express in clear and unmistakable language. No. Otherwise. Act No. Hence. in its original form and condition. No. as amended. that property acquired during marriage is conjugal. INC. states that special powers of attorney are necessary to convey real rights over immovable properties. DE ASIS. Article 1878 of the Civil Code. JR. 181359 August 5. G. HEIRS OF SPOUSES AGUEGO and MARIA ALTAMIRANO. No. Alejandro only sold his aliquot share of the subject property to the petitioner. G. Necessarily. If refused without just cause. Strict compliance with the requirements of the law aims to thwart dishonest parties from abusing reconstitution proceedings as a means of illegally obtaining properties otherwise already owned by other parties. (SPOUSES CLEMENCIO C. after the tender of payment has been refused or because of circumstances which render direct payment to the creditor impossible or inadvisable. In such case. NAMAEL AND LOURDES BONROSTRO v. Specifically.stressing that the nature of reconstitution proceedings under RA 26 denotes a restoration of the instrument. the law requires the companion acts of tender of payment and consignation. What applies in this case is Act No. the pieces of documentary evidence by Sally did not convince the Court as to the existence of agency. Further the special power of attorney mandated by law must be one that expressly mentions a sale or that includes a sale as a necessary ingredient of the authorized act. 2013) As a general rule. the tender of payment will discharge the debtor of the obligation to pay but only after a valid consignation of the sum due shall have been made with the proper court. there is no evidence to show that the other co-owners consented to Alejandro‘s sale transaction with the petitioner.G. which must be a possible thing. G. Joy Training effectively did not enter into a valid contract of sale with the spouses Yoshizaki. a contract of agency may be oral. 3344 applies to sale of unregistered lands. (SALLY YOSHIZAKI v. In the present case. To have the effect of payment and the consequent extinguishment of the obligation to pay. MUERTEGUI. 193874. As such. Tender of payment. 3. JOY TRAINING CENTER OF AURORA.R.R.R. it must be written when the law requires a specific form. 182349. for want of authority to sell Lot No. JUANITO F. (b) the subject matter. However. and the purchaser is buying the same from the registered owner whose title to the land is clean. July 24. produces no effect. 3344 expressly declares that any registration made shall be without prejudice to a third party with a better right. 2013) The presumption under Article 160 of the New Civil Code. does not apply where there is no showing as to when the property alleged to be conjugal was . (SPS. 2013) Tender of payment "is the manifestation by the debtor of a desire to comply with or pay an obligation. the purchaser who relies on the clean title of the registered owner is protected if he is a purchaser in good faith for value. 174978. In this case. Article 1874 of the Civil Code provides that the contract of agency must be written for the validity of the sale of a piece of land or any interest therein. the absence of a contract of agency renders the contract of sale unenforceable.R. 172346. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. without more." Consignation is the deposit of the proper amount with a judicial authority in accordance with rules prescribed by law. A related provision. Suffice it to state that the issue of the buyer‘s good or bad faith is relevant only where the subject of the sale is registered land. and (c) the price certain in money or its equivalent. SABITSANA. RICORDITO N. No. JUAN AND CONSTACIA LUNA. which provides for the system of recording of transactions over unregistered real estate. (REMAN RECIO v. 2013) Article 1544 of the Civil Code does not apply to sales involving unregistered land. No. July 24. G. reconstitution must be granted only upon clear proof that the title sought to be restored had previously existed and was issued to the petitioner. all the elements were present. 3344. JR v. the sale shall be void. SPS. 2013) A valid contract of sale requires: (a) a meeting of minds of the parties to transfer ownership of the thing sold in exchange for a price. July 31.. However. which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed.R. July 24. 174727. all lands of the public domain belong to the State and are inalienable. v. No. the agricultural land subject of the application needs only to be classified as alienable and disposable as of the time of the application. (BOBBY TAN. If the mode of acquisition is prescription. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.R. whether ordinary or extraordinary. that the new rate could only be applied prospectively and not retroactively. nonetheless. (ANTIPOLO INING (DECEASED). therefore. It should be noted.. provided the applicant‘s possession and occupation of the land dated back to June 12. In order that the title may prescribe in favor of a co-owner. GALLERY FRAMES AND/OR FELIPE BORDEY. (DARIO NACAR. LEONARDO R. v. By legal fiction. The presumption cannot prevail when the title is in the name of only one spouse and the rights of innocent third parties are involved.R. clear. the rate of legal interest for loans or forbearance of any money. August 14. to wit: (a) Agricultural lands of the public domain are rendered alienable and disposable through any of the exclusive modes enumerated under Section 11 of the Public Land Act. and (3) the evidence thereof is clear and convincing. the presumption may be rebutted only with strong. (ADELAIDA SORIANO v. may not be alienated or disposed. Moreover. goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments shall no longer be twelve percent (12%) per annum . (HEIRS OF . G. v. 2013) In the absence of an express stipulation as to the rate of interest that would govern the parties. 2013) As a general rule and pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine.R. Moreover. 172017 / G. 2013. August 12. and the burden of proof rests upon the party asserting it. Thereby. No. 171904 August 7. 1945. the following requisites must concur: (1) the co-owner has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the other co-owners.R. 2013. G. a conclusive presumption that the applicant has performed all the conditions essential to a government grant arises. No. ET AL. the debts of persons who in their own right are creditors and debtors of each other. August 13.as reflected in the case of Eastern Shipping Lines but will now be six percent (6%) per annum effective July 1. SURVIVED BY MANUEL VILLANUEVA ET. Consequently. No. or earlier. categorical and convincing evidence. 189871. The following are excepted from the general rule. 2013) A co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of the other co-owners. pursuant to Monetary Board Resolution No. and the applicant becomes the owner of the land by virtue of an imperfect or incomplete title. proof that the land has been already converted to private ownership prior to the requisite acquisitive prescriptive period is a condition sine qua non in observance of the law (Article 1113. AL. VEGA ET. G. The object of compensation is the prevention of unnecessary suits and payments through the mutual extinction by operation of law of concurring debts. (b) Lands of the public domain subsequently classified or declared as no longer intended for public use or for the development of national wealth are removed from the sphere of public dominion and are considered converted into patrimonial lands or lands of private ownership that may be alienated or disposed through any of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. Come July 1. AL. the land has already ceased to be part of the public domain and has become private property.R. Lands that are not clearly under private ownership are also presumed to belong to the State and. No. the twelve percent (12%) per annum legal interest shall apply only until June 30. If the mode is judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. G. GRACE ANDRADE. (2) such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the other co-owners. 2013) Compensation is a mode of extinguishing to the concurrent amount. this is an indication that the property belongs exclusively to the said spouse. when the property is registered in the name of only one spouse and there is no showing as to when the property was acquired by same spouse. BOBBY TAN.acquired. JR. 2013 the new rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be the prevailing rate of interest when applicable. Civil Code) that property of the State not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription. v. 181692. There must be strict proof of the exclusive ownership of one of the spouses. absent any clear repudiation of the co-ownership. 796. The damages cannot be apportioned among them. G. otherwise known as the Realty Installment Buyer Act. Articles 1191 and 1592 of the Civil Code are applicable to contracts of sale. No. The fact that the cause of the complaint must be substantial has often led to expressions in the opinions that to be a nuisance the noise must be deafening or loud or excessive and unreasonable. There is no question that the documents submitted by petitioner as evidence are all public documents. 2013) In a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. G. It is that the noise is of such character as to produce actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities. 6552 (Maceda Law) recognizes in conditional sales of all kinds of real estate (industrial. MALVAR v. No. They are jointly and severally liable for the whole amount. KRAFT FOOD PHILS. v. they deserve to be given evidentiary weight because they constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. No. FELISA CUSTODIO GANGAN ET AL. VALBUECO. They cannot insist upon an apportionment. Thus.A. AL. 2013) . (CZARINA T. The determining factor when noise alone is the cause of complaint is not its intensity or volume. pieces of documentary evidence issued by the NSO were offered but the NSO records custodian certifying the authenticity and due execution of the public documents did not testify in court. the books making up the civil register and all documents relating thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained. September 9. 6552 applies to contracts to sell. (MANUEL UY & SONS.A. the facts stated therein remain unrebutted since neither the private respondent nor the public prosecutor presented evidence to the contrary. 2013) Commercial and industrial activities which are lawful in themselves may become nuisances if they are so offensive to the senses that they render the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable. and non-fulfillment of the condition prevents the obligation to sell from arising. ownership remains with the vendor and does not pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price. rendering adjacent property less comfortable and valuable. No. No.MARIO MALABANAN v.. ET. INC. they are admissible in evidence even without further proof of their due execution and genuineness. which is simply an event that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring binding force. R. September 3. 166330. the RTC erred when it disregarded said documents on the sole ground that the petitioner did not present the records custodian of the NSO who issued them to testify on their authenticity and due execution since proof of authenticity and due execution was not anymore necessary. 2013) The two conditional deeds of sale entered into by the parties are contracts to sell. INCORPORATED.R. AL. except by themselves. as they both contained a stipulation that ownership of the properties shall not pass to the vendee until after full payment of the purchase price. while R. (SMART COMMUNICATIONS. for the purpose of each paying an aliquot part. v.. 179594. as joint tort-feasors. 179987. Joint tort-feasors are each liable as principals. In a conditional sale. to the same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves. G. joint tort-feasors are solidarily liable for the resulting damage. not only are said documents admissible. 6552.R. No. To differentiate. Thus.. a deed of sale is absolute when there is no stipulation in the contract that title to the property remains with the seller until full payment of the purchase price. 2013) Under Article 2194 of the Civil Code. If the noise does that it can well be said to be substantial and unreasonable in degree. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.. residential) the right of the seller to cancel the contract upon non-payment of an installment by the buyer. applies to the subject contracts to sell. Malvar and the respondents should be held solidarily liable to the Intervenor. INC. 204169. September 11. September 11. G. commercial. INC.R.R. (YASUO IWASAWA v. as in a contract to sell.A. There can be no fixed standard as to what kind of noise constitutes a nuisance. To stress. and reasonableness is a question of fact dependent upon all the circumstances and conditions. No.. September 11. The full payment of the purchase price partakes of a suspensive condition. 183952. As provided in Article 410 of the Civil Code. And in the instant case. Moreover. G. ET. As public documents. No.R. It is likewise not an excuse for any of the joint tort-feasors that individual participation in the tort was insignificant as compared to that of the other. R. joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rata. ARSENIO ALDECOA. v. (ANALITA P. Similarly.C. ET. ROMAGO. 2013) Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage. the parties to a contract must expressly agree that they are abrogating their old contract in favor of a new one. 2013) . September 18. LUIS U. and the creditor may enforce the obligation against both debtors. In the subject Contract of Lease. (JUAN SEVILLA. No. property acquired during the marriage is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through the couple‘s joint efforts and governed by the rules on co-ownership. within one year after the date of the issuance of the decree of registration. (HILARIA BAGAYAS v. or by subrogating a third person into the rights of the creditor. would be governed by coownership. INC. modified.R.. PARADA. not only were there no stipulations prohibiting any transmission of rights./ROMAGO. as in this case. 2013) In novation. the first and new debtors are considered obligated jointly. a subsequent obligation extinguishes a previous one through substitution either by changing the object or principal conditions. Thus. (PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY) v. September 23. 2013) The general rule is that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest except when the rights and obligations arising therefrom are not transmissible by (1) their nature. we held that the properties acquired during the union of the parties. In the present case. MEGAWORLD CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. The contract is the law between the parties. (2) stipulation or (3) provision of law.The settled rule is that novation is never presumed. and the fact that the creditor accepts payments from a third person. or diminished in a collateral proceeding. PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY. altered. by substituting another in place of the debtor. AL. HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE. G. the mere substitution of debtors will not result innovation. Nos.R. The latter definitely and clearly rejected the PRA‘s assignment of its liability under that contract to the HPMC. will result merely in the addition of debtors and not novation. 174665 and 175221. INOCENCION. A Torrens title can be attacked only for fraud. Novation requires (a) the existence of a previous valid obligation. No. If there is no agreement as to solidarity. ENGR. JR.R. G. G. No. The certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. September 18. 202370. (c) the extinguishment of the old contract. Nos. as found by both the RTC and the CA. The death of a party does not excuse nonperformance of a contract. and not by a collateral proceeding.R. Under this property regime. which involves a property right. There cannot be novation in this case since the proposed substituted parties did not agree to the PRA‘s supposed assignment of its obligations under the contract for the electrical and light works at Heritage Park to the HPMC. enlarged. 187308 and 187517. INC. (b) the agreement of all parties to the new contract. 183804. September 11. and (d) the validity of the new one. G. Salas did not rebut this presumption. but its very terms and conditions explicitly provided for the transmission of the rights of the lessor and of the lessee to their respective heirs and successors. SUBSTITUTING FOR RAMON INOCENCION (DECEASED) v. but whose marriage is nonetheless declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code. In a similar case where the ground for nullity of marriage was also psychological incapacity. who has assumed the obligation. and the rights and obligations thereunder pass to the successors or representatives of the deceased. In order for a new agreement to supersede the old one. September 25. 201787.R. nonperformance is not excused by the death of the party when the other party has a property interest in the subject matter of the contract. but must be clearly and unequivocally shown. Such attack must be direct. G. 2013) It is a well-known doctrine that the issue as to whether the certificate of title was procured by falsification or fraud can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose. The title represented by the certificate cannot be changed. v. ROGELIO BAGAYAS. EDEN VILLENA AGUILA. (S. 178008. INC. the current possessor.R. the same should not be confused with a conditional contract of sale. No. G. while the quality of contingency inheres in a contract to sell.. The thing sold can only be understood as delivered to the buyer when it is placed in the buyer‘s control and possession at the agreed place of delivery.R.. G. Moreover. 2013) Under the pari delicto doctrine. No. October 2. G. The prospective seller still has to convey title to the prospective buyer by entering into a contract of absolute sale. (FREDERICK VENTURA. it is a question of intention.. with the approval or acquiescence of the Board. ENDAYA and TRINIDAD L. 2013) The general rule is that rescission of a contract will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach. shall remain to be so until such time that his possession is successfully contested by a person with a better right. unless the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such an inquiry. No. v. in a conditional contract of sale. CAGATAO v. the fulfillment of the suspensive condition renders the sale absolute and the previous delivery of the property has the effect of automatically transferring the seller‘s ownership or title to the property to the buyer. 2013) It is not enough for a seller to show that he is capable of delivering the goods on the date he agreed to make the delivery. CARGILL PHILIPPINES. In a contract to sell. hence. Hence. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. INC. especially because there were no encumbrances annotated on Carlos‘ title. No. (OSCAR CONSTANTINO. It must be stressed that Article 1412 of the Civil Code that breathes life to the doctrine speaks of the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract with an illegal cause or object which does not constitute a criminal offense. ADRIANO and LEGASPI TOWERS 300. the fulfillment of the suspensive condition will not automatically transfer ownership to the buyer although the property may have been previously delivered to him. October 9. 181508. 174004. 190016. October 9. There has been no showing that Spouses Fernandez were aware of any irregularity in Carlos‘ title that would make them suspicious and cause them to doubt the legitimacy of Carlos‘ claim of ownership. a party cannot unilaterally and . ENDAYA. Cargill presented no evidence that it attempted to make other deliveries to complete the balance of Contract 5026. These acts constituted bad faith on part of petitioner. HEIRS OF SPOUSES EUSTACIO T. MARITES VENTURA-ROXAS v. The indefeasibility of a Torrens title as evidence of lawful ownership of the property protects buyers in good faith who rely on what appears on the face of the said certificate of title. 2013) To recover moral damages in an action for breach of contract. October 2. or abusive. October 9. (SAN FERNANDO REGALA TRADING. JR. (VIRGILIO G. in bad faith. the hiring of unqualified personnel being used as a ground for termination despite the fact that such hiring was upon their recommendation. a potential buyer is charged with notice of only the burdens and claims annotated on the title. at the Ajinomoto Pasig River wharf. they shall have no action against each other. He has to bring his goods and deliver them at the place their agreement called for. MAXIMA CONSTANTINO and CASIMIRA MATURINGAN v.R. reckless and malicious.R. the person claiming bad faith must prove its existence by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. It must be pointed that in the absence of a stipulation. constituted unjust and dishonest acts schemed by the petitioners to provide an appearance of validity to the termination. INC. and the repeated allegations of non-compliance even if respondents had corrected already what were complained of. but only for such substantial and fundamental violations as would defeat the very object of the parties in making the agreement. 197842. 2013) A person dealing with a registered land has the right to rely on the face of the Torrens title and need not inquire further. oppressive. or those in which the parties do not really intend to be bound thereby. G. GUILLERMO ALMONTE. The inappropriate dealings of Adriano to acquire financial gain at the expense of respondents. and it shall leave the parties where it finds them. (JAIME P. A stipulation designating the place and manner of delivery is controlling on the contracting parties. Hence. ALBERTO LASALA and LOURDES LASALA. As a doctrine in civil law. which can be inferred from one‘s conduct and/or contemporaneous statements. the parties to a controversy are equally culpable or guilty. No. G. the breach must be palpably wanton. HEIRS OF PEDRO CONSTANTINO. v.e. i.To note. It applies to contracts which are void for illegality of subject matter and not to contracts rendered void for being simulated.R. the rule on pari delicto is principally governed by Articles 1411 and 1412 of the Civil Code.On the other hand. The operative act which produces the resolution of the contract is the decree of the court and not the mere act of the vendor. By way of exception. ANGELA NARVAEZ. (EDS MANUFACTURING. without further change in the original relation between the complainant and the accused. 2013) A marriage. such as fraud. 189827. An express trust is created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No. 162826. Under Article 1191of the Civil Code. G. LIBERTY D. and undue influence. Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings. October 9. the equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties and the exercise of certain powers by the latter. Their understanding should not be affected by insanity. (NARCISO DEGAÑOS vs. MARIA B. intimidation. Even if Article 1191 were applicable. A judicial or notarial act is necessary before a valid rescission can take place. force. as a general rule. No. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Under said Article 2. but for loss of capacity to earn money. the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. No.R. PINEDA. A trust fund refers to money or property set aside as a trust for the benefit of another and held by a trustee. Consequently. There was no sale on credit in this case because ownership of the items did not pass from one party to the other. petitioner would still not be entitled to automatic rescission. even if the right to rescind is made available to the injured party. one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing while the other party obligates himself to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. G. drugs. and such intent cannot be inferred from the mere acceptance of payments on account of what is totally due. The indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof. October 16. There is also no novation made. 2013) In a contract of Sale. No. Consent must also be conscious or intelligent.. There must be proof of intent to extinguish the original relationship. is deemed implied in case one of the obligors shall fail to comply with what is incumbent upon him. G. LETICIA ALMAZAN. GOVERNMENT INSURANCE SERVICE SYSTEM. Under the Civil Code. or hypnotism. trusts are classified as either express or implied. LETICIA DE MESA AND ALFREDO D. consent is an essential requisite of marriage. the obligation is not ipso facto erased by the failure of the other party to comply with what is incumbent upon him. it must be (1) freely given and (2) made in the presence of a solemnizing officer. 2013) Trust is the legal relationship between one person having an equitable ownership in property and another person owning the legal title to such property. cannot produce novation. Thus. 198780. INC. and both the beneficial or unfavorable consequences of their act. The right cannot be exercised solely on a party‘s own judgment that the other committed a breach of the obligation. the right to resolve reciprocal obligations. contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship is NOT void ab initio on the ground of lack of consent.R. The acceptance of partial payments. October 16. v. A "freely given" consent requires that the contracting parties willingly and deliberately enter into the marriage. Under Article 2 of the Family Code. (GERSIP ASSOCIATION. in that the parties must be capable of intelligently understanding the nature of. PINEDA v.R. The party entitled to rescind should apply to the court for a decree of rescission. damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the .R. intoxication. October 14. ALBIOS. 162802. G. INC. 2013) Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code. Consent must be real in the sense that it is not vitiated nor rendered defective by any of the vices of consent under Articles 45 and 46 of the Family Code.extra judicially rescind a contract. while an implied trust comes into being by operation of law. But that right must be invoked judicially. for consent to be valid. HEALTHCHECK INTERNATIONAL INC. Article 4 of the same Code provides that the absence of any essential requisite shall render a marriage void ab initio. with intent to prejudice another. to undertake jointly the cultivation of a land belonging to the landowner. 174626. on the other hand.D.R. 187899. No. represented by CLAUDIA C. G. exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same. (PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK V." However. October 23. No. October 23. Tensuan presented a Certification dated July 29. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. ERNESTO LOPEZ AND FLORENTINA LOPEZ. (CALIFORNIA CLOTHING.R. 2013) Under the abuse of rights principle found in Article 19 of the Civil Code. INC. OCTOBER 23.. 2013) As proof that the subject property is alienable and disposable. The absence of any one requisite renders the application for registration substantially defective.D. 171136. No. 1968. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. In turn. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES-DAGUPAN BRANCH. applicants for registration of land title must establish and prove: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain.R. under Section 14(1) of P. Article 1385 states that rescission cannot take place when the things which are the object of the contract are legally in the possession of third persons who did not act in bad faith.. SHIRLEY G. 2013) Based on Section 14(1) of P. ET AL. G. ET AL. expressly or impliedly. October 23. NO. No. Malice or bad faith. or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. ANGELES. Map No. by itself. The foregoing requisites are indispensable for an application for registration of land title. No.absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.R. LYDIA CAPCO DE TENSUAN. The relationship cannot be presumed. 2013) A tenancy relationship is a juridical tie that arises between a landowner and a tenant once they agree. No. ABOITIZ. October 23. in accordance with Article 1385 of the Civil Code. or earlier. YBANEZ v. as a result of which relationship the tenant acquires the right to continue working on and cultivating the land. ET AL. is insufficient proof that a parcel of land is alienable and disposable. vs. SPS.R.C. continuous. ET AL. (HEIRS OF FLORENTINO QUILO v. 2013) . Good faith refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. and (3) that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12. 184369. a person must. 27-B L.. to validly prosper. the Supreme Court have declared unequivocally that a CENRO Certification. QUINONES. act in good faith. The CENRO is not the official repository or legal custodian of the issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring public lands as alienable and disposable. (ROBERT DA JOSE. ARUELO.R. 175822. AND MICHELLE S. 1999 issued by the CENRO-DENR which verified that "said land falls within alienable and disposable land under Project No. October 23. Article 1191 of the Civil Code expressly provides that rescission is without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing. CELERINA R. 1945. The question of whether a breach of contract is substantial depends upon the attending circumstances. The CENRO should have attached an official publication of the DENR Secretary‘s issuance declaring the land alienable and disposable. LUIS MIGUEL O. Also. 1529. No. 41141 dated January 3. 2623 under Forestry Administrative Order No. in the exercise of legal right or duty. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. He would be liable if he instead acted in bad faith. (2) that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open. 186332. G. Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land does not automatically convert the tiller into an agricultural tenant recognized under agrarian laws. 2013) Well-settled is the rule that rescission will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach of the contract. G. G. 1529. at the rate of 6% per annum.. a total nullity. this is made for a valuable consideration whose cost is equal to or more than the thing donated. DOLORITO. therefore. 2013) . the money debtor cannot be made liable for interest. or of any defect or restriction in the title of the seller or in his capacity to convey title to the property.R. GOCHAN. GOCHAN. an onerous donation imposes upon the donee a reciprocal obligation. No. he is not indispensable for the agreement to materialize. CARMEL DEVELOPMENT INC. G. (ORETO MIRALLOSA and all persons claiming rights and interests under him v. G. GOCHAN. 194201. is a consideration for future services. 171937. November 13. FELIX Y. G. JR. (VIRGINIA Y. which means that no one may thereafter invoke it nor may the courts be permitted to apply it in subsequent cases. BAUTISTA vs.R. As a third party to the agreement. and DOMINIC Y. BAUTISTA AND EMPERA TRIZ C. (b) the owner is in possession thereof.R. REPRESENTED BY TEODORA J. which services do not amount to a demandable debt. CALANASAN. SPOUSES BENITO LO BUN TIONG and CAROLINE SIOK CHING TENG. 194538. which refers to monetary interest. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK. November 27. to the exclusion of the seller/co-owner A party who is not the co-owner of a land subject of a compromise agreement cannot claim that he was defrauded when the parties in the compromise agreement entered into the same. SPOUSES VIRGILIO DOLORITO AND EVELYN C. the buyer was not aware of any claim or interest of some other person in the property. on the other hand. 171464. All these conditions must be present. (TING TING PUA v. ANDAL AND GRACIA G. G. A conditional/modal donation. . CALANASAN AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT v.R. LOUISE Y. the following conditions must be present: (a) the seller is the registered owner of the land. the collection of interest in loans or forbearance of money is allowed only when these two conditions concur: (1) there was an express stipulation for the payment of interest. They are. The remuneratory/compensatory type has for its purpose the rewarding of the donee for past services. petitioner is entitled only to the principal amount of the loan plus the allowable legal interest from the time of the demand. Novemeber 27. 2013) The rate of interest declared illegal and unconscionable does not entitle petitioners-spouses to stop payment of interest. whose value is inferior to the donation given. 198660. limitations or charges upon the donee.R. No. 2013. ET AL. No. 2013) Only the redeeming co-owner and the buyer are the indispensable parties in an action for legal redemption. Thus. specifically mandates that no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. liable to pay interest from the time they defaulted in payment until their loan is fully paid. GOCHAN III. November 25. It should be emphasized that only the rate of interest was declared void. A pure/simple donation is the truest form of donation as it is based on pure gratuity. To prove good faith. the buyer is under obligation to exercise extra ordinary diligence by scrutinizing the certificates of title and examining all factual circumstances to enable him to ascertain the seller's title and capacity to transfer any interest in the property. No. October 23. G. otherwise. 2013) An unconstitutional law produces no effect and confers no right upon any person. Not only the parties but all persons are bound by the declaration of unconstitutionality. 182314. (SPOUSES ELISEO R. and (3) at the time of the sale.Article 1956 of the Civil Code. GOCHAN v. CHARLES MANCAO.R. ANDAL v. SPOUSES MILA JALANDONI AND ANTONIO JALANDONI. Absent any of these two conditions. G. Lastly. No.. 2013) A buyer in good faith is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property. it also occurs where the donor imposes certain conditions. November 27. (SPOUSES BAYANI H. in other words. Thus. (2) the agreement for the payment of the interest was reduced in writing. The stipulation requiring petitioners-spouses to pay interest on their loan remains valid and binding. ESTEBAN Y. No. (CERILA J. It is. No. At this stage therefore. constituted fraud incidental to the performance of the obligation. 171428. November 11. G. as mortgagee or purchaser. First. MARY ANN O. this fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Verily. G. by act or omission. Inc. December 2. The petitioner. after deducting the mortgage debt plus the stipulated interest and the expenses of the foreclosure sale. TANKEH v. 182356. INC. 189145. 2013) The elements necessary to establish a quasi-delict case are: (1) damages to the plaintiff. Rebecca Biong. In this relation. (PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS VS. a party may seek its annulment on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation. and (3) the connection of cause and effect between such negligence and the damages.. December 04.R. however. No. 2013) While the petitioner claims that it was not obliged to pay any surplus because the balance from the proceeds was applied to the respondent‘s other obligations and to those of her attorney-in-fact. PARAGUYA vs. (ALEJANDRO V. STERLING SHIPPING LINES.R. 177921. (MODESTO SANCHEZ vs. RUPERTO V. ET AL.A party to a loan agreement cannot claim that the promissory note is void as to him on the ground of fraud if the same was not employed to deceive him into obtaining his consent. No. December 4. must be returned to the respondent. 2013) Well settled is the rule that the elements of laches must be proven positively. This exclusion from the management in the affairs of Sterling Shipping Lines. Leila A. Laches is evidentiary in nature.R. to show any supporting evidence showing that the mortgage extended to those obligations. (LAURA E.R. 200265.R. December 04. else the same would be barred. Thus. ALLIED BANK CORPORATION. 187661. after the lapse of the said period. was guilty. ANDREW SANCHEZ. SPOUSES BENIGNO V. Second. VICENTE ARENAS and ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST. No. cannot just simply apply the proceeds of the sale in its favor and deduct from the balance the respondent‘s outstanding obligations not secured by the mortgage. December 4.. Those issues must be resolved at the trial of the case on the merits. December 4. Jurisprudence has shown that in order to constitute fraud that provides basis to annul contracts. 2013) A party in a contract cannot claim that his obligation to pay to another is extinguished for the reason that his debtor failed to pay him and that the other party was witness to the same. G. G. Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that the period to contest a decree of registration shall be one (1) year from the date of its entry and that. (2) negligence. it must fulfill two conditions. (METRO CONCAST STEEL CORPORATION. Such is not a mode of extinguishment of an obligation. 179691.R.R. (Dra. TANKEH. the non-fulfillment of which prevents the prospective seller‘s obligation to convey title from becoming effective. a fact that cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings and cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss. No. wherein both parties will be given ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and defenses. No. (OPTIMUM DEVELOPMENT BANK vs. of the defendant or by some person for whose acts the defendant must respond. JOVELLANOS. No. YEUNG. vs. such action must be seasonably filed. The records showed that petitioner had been unjustly excluded from participating in the management of the affairs of the corporation. it failed. the fraud must be dolo causante or it must be fraud in obtaining the consent of the party. G. as in this case. the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of laches is premature. 2013) . Doing Business Under the Name and Style of Pongkay Trading. Dela Llana vs. there is no reason to depart from the CA‘s ruling that the balance or excess. JOVELLANOS and LOURDES R. G. the Torrens certificate of title issued thereon becomes incontrovertible and indefeasible. However. 2013) The full payment of the purchase price in a contract to sell is a suspensive condition. G. SPOUSES ALMA ESCUREL-CRUCILLO ET AL. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. 2013) It is an established rule that a Torrens certificate of title is not conclusive proof of ownership. G. the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis is not an instance of caso fortuito. the first element of consent is present. It has the ability to foresee such situation. (ACE FOODS. To be able to comply with this requirement. No.R. Clara‘s expense. SPOUSES CONRADO AND MARIA VICTORIA RONQUILLO. 2013) A contract of sale is classified as a consensual contract.There is unjust enrichment ―when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another. Clara already performed certain works on the project with an estimated value of. (ANTONIO LOCSIN II VS. G. 2013) Thus. 200602. December 11.. mere absence of the spouse (even for such period required by the law).. i.e. NO. 192105. No particular form is required for its validity. it is only proper that First Sta.R. December 10. the parties may reciprocally demand performance.. remains on a case-to-case basis. i. lack of any news that such absentee is still alive. The law did not define what is meant by ―well-founded belief.‖ It depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. LTD. that the absent spouse is still alive or is already dead. and the vendor may require the vendee to pay the thing sold. It aims to prevent undue enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to retain any benefit without paying for it. Hence. especially a corporation engaged in real estate enterprise. failure to communicate or general presumption of absence under the Civil Code would not suffice. since First Sta. or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice.R. while expressly reserving the ownership of the property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer.R. G. 184621. INC. (FILESTATE PROPERTIES. 2014) The principle of quantum meruit allows a party to recover the reasonable value of the thing or services rendered despite the lack of a written contract. January 13. INC. . equity and good conscience. MEKENI FOOD CORPORATION. No. so to speak. he/she believes that under the circumstances. because in a conditional contract of sale. A contract to sell may not even be considered as a conditional contract of sale where the seller may likewise reserve title to the property subject of the sale until the fulfillment of a suspensive condition.. a contract to sell is defined as a bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller. the present spouse must prove that his/her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts and inquiries to locate the absent spouse and that based on these efforts and inquiries. The principle states that a person must be paid with an amount that he deserves. It requires exertion of active effort (not a mere passive one).. MARIA FE ESPINOSA CANTOR. 2013) The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis cannot be said to be unforeseeable and beyond the control of a business corporation.185798. INC. in order to avoid unjust enrichment. more importantly. to completely deny it payment for the same would result in Rivelisa Realty‘s unjust enrichment at the First Sta. G. Its determination. which means that the sale is perfected by mere consent. the vendee may compel transfer of ownership of the object of the sale. Clara must be paid on a quantum meruit . In contrast. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. the full payment of the purchase price. Upon perfection of the contract. although it is conditioned upon the happening of a contingent event which may or may not occur. Such corporation is considered a master in projections of commodities and currency movements and business risks. MICRO PACIFIC TECHNOLOGIES CO. AND FIL-ESTATE NETWORK. Thus.e. No. December 09.‖ The principle of unjust enrichment requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification. and (2) that such benefit is derived at the expense of another. the absent spouse is already dead. VS. v. binds himself to sell the property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed upon. In the instant case. This conclusion proceeds from the premise that Article 41 of the Family Code places upon the present spouse the burden of proving the additional and more stringent requirement of ―wellfounded belief‖ which can only be discharged upon a showing of proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain not only the absent spouse‘s whereabouts but. ANGELITO L. 2014 Sps. The consent of both spouses is required before a conjugal property may be mortgaged. (FRANCISCO LIM v.R. The rule that even if the procurement of a certificate of title was tainted with fraud and misrepresentation. G. NO. the ownership of the subject property is reverted back to the original vendor. 160758. the court cannot apply such. G. v.. subject to the resolutory condition of repurchase by the vendor within the stipulated period.. EQUITABLE PCI BANK.R. are presumed to have been at fault or negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or got lost or destroyed. as a general rule. G. The due execution and authenticity of the subject SPA are of great significance in determining the validity of the sale entered into by Victorino and Ramon since the latter only claims to be the agent of the purported seller. January 15. (ROBERTO R. (EASTERN SHIPPING LINES. Since Sps.R.. However. GUARIÑA AGRICULTURAL AND REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION G. DAVID G. Since the spouses Vilbar did not cause the transfer of the certificate title in their name. common carriers. No. The said document. January 15. or to the person who has a right to receive them. however. Sarili. 2014) In sales with the right to repurchase. NO. dependent upon the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the principal contract. actually or constructively. 176043. NO. since the nature of the property was never alleged in the complaint or raised during trial by the petitioner. a mortgage contract is an accessory contract. v. January 15. However. 2014) Loans are often secured by a mortgage. readily indicates flaws in its notarial acknowledgment since the respondent‘s community tax certificate (CTC) number was not indicated thereon. The mortgage contract cannot be enforced unless the obligation in the contract of loan is due and demandable but left unpaid. A certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. A higher degree of prudence is required from one who buys from a person who is not the registered owner. 183198. DAVID v.R.R. INC.R. Eduardo fulfilled the conditions for the exercise of the right to repurchase.. or at the very least. Sarili‘s claim over the subject property is based on forged . AND MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE CO. January 15. EDUARDO C. G. by the carrier to the consignee. INC. annotate or register such sale in the original title in the name of Dulos Realty.basis. 2014) The presumption under Article 160 of the New Civil Code applies when the property in question was acquired during the lifetime of the husband and the wife and the subsistence of the marriage. Owing to this high degree of diligence required of them. 189618 January 15. have no indefeasible and incontrovertible title over Lot 20 to support their claim. presumption in the instant case. 2014) Registration is the operative act which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land. NO. (DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. January 15. Sarili purchased the subject property from Ramos on the strength of the latter‘s ostensible authority to sell under the subject SPA. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of.) The degree of diligence required of common carriers is extraordinary diligence. Since. 193986. No. 162365. FIRST STA. although the land object of the transaction is registered. and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered. 2014. LTD. BPI/MS INSURANCE CORP.. OPINION. (SPOUSES BERNADETTE AND RODULFO VILBAR v. such defective title may be the source of a completely legal and valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value is not applicable to the Sps. the title and ownership of the property sold are immediately vested in the vendee. NOW KNOWN AS THE BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK. INC. Once the conditions for the repurchase are complied with. It is not overcome by the fact that the property is registered in the name of the husband or the wife alone. (RIVELISA REALTY. he cannot be denied of acquiring the property by exercising his right to repurchase the same. which is the contract of loan. CLARA BUILDERS CORPORATION. when one of the parties to the marriage or one of the witnesses to the marriage testifies that the marriage took place. it is now well-settled that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property. No. No. January 15. may respondents acquire ownership over the said property? The Court held in the same case of Aznar. equity and good conscience. G. Thus. January 15. in turn.R. ―when a person unjustly retains a benefit at the loss of another. (MAGDALENA T. should refer to no less than a mental – not merely physical – incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which. DE AVENIDO v. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of ―psychological incapacity‖ to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. No. Undoubtedly.‖ as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten years and not otherwise. or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice. DE GRACIA G. 2014) There is an exception to the rule that accessory follows the principal.‖ (DOMINGO GONZALO v. TECLA HOYBIA AVENIDO. G. (THE HEIRS OF VICTORINO SARILI v. shall return the same to him. 2014) ―Psychological incapacity. However.R.. 2014) Unjust enrichment exists. (PEREGRINA MACUA VDA. for Article 22 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that ―[e]very person who through an act of performance by another. When Antonio recognized Andre . RODOLFO O. VILLASI v. they shall be treated separately. serves as an admissible evidence to prove the fact of marriage between Tecla and Eustaquio.R. Inc. LOURDES LABIOS MOJICA. G. SPOUSES FILOMENO GARCIA AND ERMELINDA HALILI-GARCIA. PEDRO F. the trustee may acquire the property through prescription even if he does not repudiate the relationship. 2014) Marriage may be proven by any competent and relevant evidence. February 12. JOHN TARNATE.. as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code. to petitioners. when there are factual and evidentiary evidence to prove that the building and the lot on which it stands are owned by different persons. the child is under no compulsion to use his father‘s surname. include their mutual obligations to live together. who was present during the marriage ceremony. 179597. observe love. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. January 15. acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground. that unlike in express trusts and resulting implied trusts where a trustee cannot acquire by prescription any property entrusted to him unless he repudiates the trust. or any other means. 173540.documents. 193517.R. 190106. it has been held to be admissible to prove the fact of such marriage. G. Where it can be duly established that the owner of the accessory is different from the owner of the principal. 2014) An illegitimate child may use the surname of his father if the latter has expressly recognized their filiation. 160600. HEIRS OF BERNARDINO TAEZA. January 22. No. (IGLESIA FILIPINA INDEPENDIENTE v.R. Hence. Hence. and of very recent vintage at that.‖ The prevention of unjust enrichment is a recognized public policy of the State. A long line of decisions of this Court. It is then incumbent upon the beneficiary to bring an action for reconveyance before prescription bars the same. the two properties should be treated separately. in constructive implied trusts. illustrates this rule. according to Hulst v. 2014) A constructive trust having been constituted by law between respondents as trustees and petitioner as beneficiary of the subject property. PR Builders. JR. no valid title had been transferred to them and.R. respect and fidelity and render help and support. February 03. No. LAGROSA. among others. the testimony of Tecla (wife) and Adelina. REPRESENTED IN THIS ACT BY HIS ATTORNEY-INFACT. 171577. No. (PHILIPPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. However. 2014) A contract where there is no mutuality between the parties partakes of the nature of a contract of adhesion. The law uses the word ‗may‘. Such buyer is not privy to the contract between the mortgagor and mortgagee.. (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. v. 174433. No. BARIC. signed and sealed in the name of the principal. Moreover. such cannot be construed to mean that the borrower is estopped from assailing the unilateral increase of interest rate. 182128. SPOUSES ENRIQUE MANALO & ROSALINDA JACINTO. DE GUZMAN. they must be given the proper notice of any proceeding involving the subject properties. 196894. 1529. G.R. 189477. No. if he subsequently purchases the property with notice of lis pendens. February 26. 2014) . Any obscurity will be construed against the party who prepared the contract. the creditor. No. February 18. cannot validly increase the interest rate unilaterally. No. No. PATRICIO T. the seller may transfer his title at any time and the lease merely follows the property as a lien or encumbrance. in an increase of interest rate. It is not prohibited from acquiring the property even while the forcible entry case was pending. and who caused the obscurity. March 05. the seller may still enter into a valid contract of mortgage. DANILO G. TERESITA TAN DEE. March 03. 2014) Where a bank was merely a purchaser or transferee of the property that has a pending forcible entry case. ET AL. 206248. (ONE NETWORK RURAL BANK. the latter being presumed the stronger party to the agreement. the mortgagor and mortgagee must respect the rights of the buyer over the subject property. YRAY. February 24.Lewis and Jerard Patrick as his sons.. RURAL BANK OF EL SALVADOR. As indispensable parties.R. he cannot claim to have a better right over the said property by interposing the argument that he is a mortgagee in good faith. in a case where two (2) parcels of land were attached by various creditors and the levies are annotated on the back of the titles of the subject properties. the buyer can make the necessary actions to protect her rights over the property. However.R. 179625. 2014) Even if on the outset. in her own name and in her own personal capacity. the seller retains ownership of the subject property. Thus. the agent. one creditor cannot file an action for cancellation of lien without giving notice to all parties-in. and without indicating that he is signing for and in behalf of his principal. INC. a party is a mortgagee in good faith.R. 193684. that it was signed by Concepcion. SUBSTITUTED BY REQUILDA B. Thus. G. because as the registered owner of the subject property. No. VS. which dictates that it is merely permissive. ET AL G. G. GRANDE v. CRISOLOGO v. G. they were under no compulsion or mandate to use the same. 2014) In a contract executed by an agent for a principal. in an action for the cancellation of memorandum annotated at the back of a certificate of title. February 19. and not upon the principal. 2014) Pursuant to Section 108 of PD No. as in the case of PNB.R.R. REPRESENTED BY MARIBEL FRIAS MARIE MICHELLE P. PETITIONER.R.interest. it cannot be made liable for nominal damages since it has not violated or invaded a right. ASUNCION P. G. the former is still bound to respect the transactions between respondents PEPI and Dee. INC. ET AL. 2014) In a contract to sell. (NICANORA G. (JESUS G. the contract must upon its face purport to be made. ET AL. hence. BUCTON (DECEASED). FELONIA AND LYDIA C. No. Even if the borrower paid the increased interest without protest. ANTONIO. the mortgage is only binding upon her. Despite the apparent validity of the mortgage between the petitioner and PEPI.. (GRACE M. explicitly shows on its face. CRISOLOGO AND NANETTE B. the agent. RESPONDENT. February 24. like other creditors whose lien over the subject properties appear on the back of the titles of the subject properties. DELGADO. the two children had the right to use the surname of Antonio.. the persons considered as indispensable include those whose liens appear as annotations. PETITIONER. G. (HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK v. When the Real Estate Mortgage. JEWM AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION. when the contract to sell ripens to an absolute contract of sale. . applicant‘s failure to prove that the subject land has been classified as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. ZURBARAN REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. (MARIANO LIM v. REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM. Where the lack of oxygen causing the patient‘s bradycardia during the operation could have been triggered by the vago-vagal and not the negligence of his attending physicians.R. March 10. GAERLAN. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION. acting as a Special Agrarian Court. ESTACION v. ET AL. which is vested in the Regional Trial Court acting as a Special Agrarian Court. Aside from the CENRO certification. March 12. No. March 24. March 19. RESPONDENT. No. 2014) An applicant for registration of title‘s mere reliance on a surveyor-geodetic engineer‘s notation in Survey Plan indicating that the survey was inside alienable and disposable land to prove that the land in question formed part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain is not sufficient to prove such fact. This is further bolstered when the contract clearly states that the surety is liable for all credit accommodations extended to the debtor. NO. G. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. ROSARIO DE GUZMAN VDA. No. ESTACION. to wit: (1) the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent. March 12. March 10.R.R. an application for original registration of title over a parcel of land must be accompanied by a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records in order to establish that the land is indeed alienable and disposable. res ipsa loquitur cannot apply. March 12. 200468. 2014) . both present and future obligations.In order to allow resort to the of res ipsa loquitur. SOLIDUM v. 2014) An application for registration of land must be accompanied by evidence showing that the land in question was within an area expressly declared by law either to be the patrimonial property of the State. 192717. Since the subject land was not mortgaged by the owner thereof and since the respondent Malarayat Rural Bank is not a mortgagee in good faith. PETITIONER. G. the first requisite being wanting. 2014) It is incumbent upon the respondent Malarayat Rural Bank to be more cautious in dealing with the spouses Guia. G. 2014) CENRO Certification stating that Lot 4342 falls within the alienable and disposable area is inadequate to prove that the subject lot is alienable and disposable. G. Such notation does not constitute a positive government act validly changing the classification of the land in question. JR. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. together with the interest and penalties due thereon. the following essential requisites must first be satisfied. the application for registration of title must be denied. The debtor is will still be liable for the principal of the loan. (SPOUSES JOSE M. (MACARIA ARGUELLES AND THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED PETRONIO ARGUELLES v. INC. 2014) Where a debtor obtained a loan six months after the execution of a Continuing Suretyship. (DR. 163767. FERNANDO P. SECRETARY. G. 192123.R. and the petitioner need not pass through the DAR for initial valuation. MALARAYAT RURAL BANK. has jurisdiction to determine just compensation at the very first instance. 2014) The Regional Trial Court. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. The determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function. 188539. Thus. 163361. DE JOSON. (MINDA S. G.. and inquire further regarding the identity and possible adverse claim of those in actual possession of the property.R. and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the person injured. No. Otherwise. 164408. A mere surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands of the public domain. such obligation of the debtor is still covered by such Continuing Suretyship. said bank is not entitled to protection under the law. G. the Court is left with no alternative but to deny the respondent‘s application for registration. No. No. HON. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. v. or to be no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth. (2) the instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged. especially since the spouses Guia were not the registered owners of the land being mortgaged. AND AGELINA T.R.R. The existence and availability of the right of appeal proscribes resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for availment of the latter is precisely that there should be no appeal. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REP. They were only stockholders of Arc Cuisine. et al. it may dismiss the petition outright but the ―specific reasons for such dismissal‖ shall be clearly set out.R. G. LORNA CASTIGADOR v. et al. should have (a) withdrawn their certiorari petition and instead raised the jurisdictional errors stated therein in their appeal or (b) at the very least. No. JR. As such. not to Cuenca. Under Section 5. LAGOS. March 4. REGION III v. JAIME FERNANDEZ Y HERTEZ. No.G. DANILO M. It is well-settled that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. 2011.. No. It has long been settled that the grant of a demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal. et al. March 4. filed a petition for certiorari assailing the RTC‘s order of default and a Notice of Appeal questioning the RTC‘s decision. however. 2013.R. not them.. Inc. This right could not also be asserted by Cuenca. 2013. Inc. NICOLAS. The Supreme Court finds and so holds that the grant of the demurrer for this reason alone was not supported by prevailing jurisprudence and constituted grave abuse of discretion. The rule on double jeopardy is subject to the exercise of judicial review by way of the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Court observes that Cailipan. prejudiced Arc Cuisine. meanwhile. IRENE VILLAMAR-SANDOVAL v. et al. et al. had the right under the substantive law to claim and recover such damages. There is no rule or law prohibiting the appeal of a judgment or part of a judgment in one case which is consolidated with other cases. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2013. severance is within the sound discretion of the court for convenience or to avoid prejudice. alone. et al. filed a complaint for damages sustained by the wrongful issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and the taking of the properties of Arc Cuisine. The chain of custody of the seized items must be presented by the prosecution as unbroken starting from the time the items were confiscated and eventually marked until the time they are presented in court. informed the CA‘s Twenty-First Division of the Decision rendered on the main case and the filing of their Notice of Appeal on January 22. BY THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.. JUDGE RAFAEL R. et al. wrongful or not. MARCH 6. An acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of repose as a direct consequence of the finality of his acquittal. Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. 184023. It is the burden of the defense. G. This rule. There is no dispute that the properties subject to the levy on attachment belonged to Arc Cuisine. Inc. DENR. The damages occasioned to the properties by the levy on attachment. it is incumbent that when a court finds no substantial merit in a petition for annulment of judgment. HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ORIBELLO. The petition need not categorically state the exact words extrinsic fraud.R. G. to prove that the chain of custody was broken. Inc. only Arc Cuisine. 184658. Inc. Cuenca. the allegations in the petition should be so crafted to easily point out the ground on which it was based. rather. 199501. JOSE CAILIPAN.REMEDIAL LAW The CA dismissed Castigador‘s complaint on the ground that there was no allegation that the petition is based on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. A motion to file a demurrer was granted after the prosecution‘s presentation of the testimonies of the apprehending officers because the prosecution failed to present the testimony of the confidential informant. 200727. et . The prosecution needs to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the offense. 188841. which had a personality distinct and separate from that of any or all of them. 2013 An order declared that the Republic was deemed to have abandoned one of the cases of a consolidated case but trial proceeded for the consolidated cases. March 6. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Further.R. The simultaneous filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be allowed since one remedy would necessarily cancel out the other. 2013 Cailipan. March 6. is not without exception. G.R. in their own right. No. R. et al.R. The practice of requiring convicts to appear before the trial courts for promulgation of the affirmance or modification by this Court or the CA of judgments of conviction in criminal cases is no longer allowed. et al. the purchaser‘s right to possession ripens into the absolute right of a confirmed owner. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. The Bank petitioned the RTC for the issuance of a writ of possession after title to the property was consolidated in its name. 2013. March 6. If the subject matter of the offense is generic and not identifiable. STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY. 2013 The CA dismissed Indoyon‘s petition for review on certiorari under Rule 43 for being non-compliant with the Rules of Court and various Supreme Court Circulars. No. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. was not even joined in the action either as an original party or as an intervenor. No. GEN. Ligot. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Senador asserted that the person named as the offended party in the Information is not the same person who made the demand and filed the complaint. the writ of amparo filed by Spouses Nerio. 173297. v. The writ of amparo does not envisage the protection of concerns that are purely property or commercial in nature. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL G. G. should have filed a petition for review on certiorari. Spouses Centeno‘s son. LIGOT. because Arc Cuisine. et al. But that did not happen herein. v. The RTC did not err in denying the Motion for Repromulgation of its judgment. to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes merely a ministerial function. an error in the designation of the offended party is immaterial. unless they did so in the name of the corporation itself. filed a petition for certiorari when the CA extended the freeze order against their properties. ALMUETE v. 2013. bought the property from his parents and remained in possession. March 6. Sec.R. 176944. 179611. No. 2013. March 12. No. 12 of the Rules of Court mandates the correction of the information. 201620. March 11. et al. 2013 It is essential in the prosecution of drug cases that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond reasonable doubt. 201845.al.R. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. However. Under Section 1. if the subject matter of the offense is specific and identifiable. Inc. March 12. 2013. Rule 110. No. Ligot. 200667.R. G. SPOUSES NERIO AND SOLEDAD PADOR AND REY PADOR v. not its dismissal. final order or resolution is a petition for review on certiorari. 2013 Gerry Centeno. Gen. INC. After consolidation of title in the purchaser‘s name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property. JACINTO C.R. RAMONCITA O. SENADOR v. March 6. The petition must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment. the fact that the substance illegally sold or possessed is. RURAL BANK OF STA. Lt. the proper remedy to question the CA‘s judgment. the issuance of a writ of possession. TOMAS CUENCA. unless it appears that the property is in possession of a third party claiming a right adverse to that of the mortgagor. et al. an error in the designation of the offended party is fatal and would result in the acquittal of the accused. Hence. No.R. LT. G. This means that on top of the elements of possession or illegal sale. No. At that point. after Barangay officials raided their ampalaya farm to search for marijuana plants cannot be issued. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts respecting the identity of the evidence are minimized if not altogether removed. the absence of the convicts on the day of promulgation of judgment did not affect its validity. G. G. In case of an error in the designation of the offended party in crimes against property. final order or . 183460. BARANGAY CAPTAIN BERNABE ARCAYAN. G. to assail the CA resolution which extended the effectivity period of the freeze order over their properties. and not a petition for certiorari. INC. EFREN S. in the first instance. Hence. upon proper application and proof of title. GERRY CENTENO. RET. EDGARDO ADRID Y FLORES. March 6. BARBARA (ILOILO). et al. the very substance adduced in court must likewise be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required sustaining a conviction. v. not the nomenclature of the offense. 202020. March 12. The RTC also denied the motions for reconsideration on the ground that a notice of hearing was not attached. on that day. G. G. When the RTC issues its decision and orders. No. Hence. BENEDICTO MARQUEZ Y RAYOS v. No. (b) such possession is not authorized by law. The RTC ruled on the issue of Isabel‘s transfer of rights even if it was not raised as an error. No. Under Supreme Court Circular 2-90. What controls is not the title of the Information or the designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in the Information. 2013. SURIGAO DE SUR v. 193706. as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. March 13. in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. in the present case. to 5:00 p. the only circumstances cited to implicate him in the crime are the following: (a) he passed through the shortcut to Wao around 3:00 p. the proper remedy therefrom is a Rule 42 petition for review. (b) Vicky did not see anyone else use that road from 3:00 p. However. No. Rule 37 of the Rules of Court and the right to appeal is lost. A motion unaccompanied by a notice of hearing is considered a mere scrap of paper that does not toll the running of the period to appeal. COURT OF APPEALSG. March 13. who must be given time to study and meet the arguments in the motion before a resolution by the court. No. 2013 Isabel filed 3 motions for reconsideration which were denied by the RTC.m. In other words. Under Section 18. (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proven. or of the denial of petitioner‘s motion for reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. it is the recital of facts of the commission of the offense. it is settled that the failure to strictly follow the directives of this section is not fatal and will not necessarily render the items confiscated from an accused inadmissible. These circumstances and facts must be absolutely incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis propounding the innocence of the accused. G. and (c) the soiled garments confiscated from him were identified to have been the same ones he was wearing then. or is closely related to an error properly assigned. MIKE ALVIN PIELAGO Y ROS v. 191271. As regards the failure of the police to strictly comply with the provisions of Section 21 of R. GERALD SORIANO ALIAS “PEDRO”. the circumstances presented by the prosecution do not form a solid and cohesive narrative that proves with moral certainty its contention that Soriano perpetrated these heinous acts. Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy.resolution appealed from.R.A. Nonetheless. 9165. circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when the concurrence of the following factors obtain: (a) there is more than one circumstance. even without this provision. and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. For the successful prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. an appeal taken to the Supreme Court or to the CA by a wrong or an inappropriate mode merits outright dismissal. even if they are not assigned as errors on appeal. . on 31 December 1998.R. March 13. Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The requirement of notice of hearing is an integral component of procedural due process that seeks to avoid "surprises that may be sprung upon the adverse party.m. 197207. To synthesize. or upon which the determination of the question raised by error properly assigned is dependent. which determines the crime being charged in the information. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. A second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 5. and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as would prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case. 2013 Under Section 4. Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.R. 2013. the fact that Pielago was charged with acts of lasciviousness did not preclude his conviction of rape by sexual assault. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. the following essential elements must be established: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug. the RTC is mandated to decide the appeal based on the entire record of the MTC proceedings and such pleadings submitted by the parties or required by the RTC. an appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review matters.m. The CA dismissed her petition on the ground that she lost her right to appeal when she filed a second motion for reconsideration. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.R. March 13. G.A. No. No. G. No. 3019 and the Sandiganbayan‘s resolution denying his motion to quash the information and suspending him pendent lite. ET. Once a case is dismissed for failure to prosecute. March 18." This remedy referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the questioned order. its imposition of suspension pendente lite. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. and not in a special civil action for certiorari before this Court. ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK (FORMERLY ANCHOR FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION) v. To interpret "personal knowledge" as referring to a person‘s reputation or past criminal citations would create a dangerous precedent and unnecessarily stretch the authority and power of police officers to effect warrantless arrests based solely on knowledge of a person‘s previous criminal infractions.R.R. 172588. 2013. or (2) if he fails to prosecute the action for an unreasonable length of time. will not suffice to satisfy the exacting requirements provided under Section 5. the cause of action must be complete.R.ISABEL N. March 13. Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that when the date given in the complaint is not of the essence of the offense. Failure to make a sufficient allegation of a cause of action in the complaint. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. 3(b) of R. Before a petition for certiorari can prosper. March 13. All valid conditions precedent to the institution of the particular action. 180681. that is. The remedy is not the filing of a special civil action for certiorari. NLC filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA without filing a motion for reconsideration before the RTC. 194104. ANIANO N. 2013 Villareal was arrested by PO3 de Leon while holding a plastic sachet and because PO3 de Leon recognized him as someone he arrested for illegal possession before. 201363. whether prescribed by statute. GUZMAN AND PRIMITIVA G. ZAPANTA v. 2013 The RTC dismissed the application for land registration of AFP-RSBS for failure to prosecute after it presented all its evidence and after it decided in its favor. Rule 110 and Section 11. rendering nugatory the rigorous requisites laid out under Section 5. unless the conduct of the adverse party has been such as to prevent or waive performance or excuse non-performance of the condition. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. March 18.R. G. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA CITY.R. such as the failure to allege exhaustion of all legal remedies in the complaint warrants dismissal. G. A Rule 65 petition is an inappropriate remedy to question the refusal of the Sandiganbayan to quash an information and. ENGR. Hence. AL. ANTHONY V. even for the same offense. 2013 Section 6. No. 2013. Besides. but the continuance of the case in due course. GUZMAN v. 170863. all the essential elements of the cause of action must be in existence. absolute certainty of evidence is not required. NAZARENO VILLAREAL y LUALHATI. An action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute in any of the following instances: (1) if the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of trial. Tigaz filed three pleadings assailing the Ombudsman‘s decision finding probable cause to indict him for violation of Sec. HENRY H. G. fixed by agreement of the parties or implied by law must be performed or complied with before commencing the action. TIGAZ v. 2013 Before an action can properly be commenced. ROLANDO Z. this has the effect of . the fact that the Information did not state the precise date of the commission of the crime did not automatically render the charge against Engr. March 20. In the determination of probable cause. it need not be proven as alleged. that he does not have any other "plain. G. "Personal knowledge" of the arresting officer that a crime had in fact just been committed is required. Zapanta for qualified theft invalid. FURIGAY. for opinion and reasonable belief are sufficient. No. the petitioner must be able to show. A previous arrest or existing criminal record. the complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any date within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action. or (3) if he fails to comply with the Rules of Court or any order of the court. Rule 113 in order to justify a lawful warrantless arrest. thus. any other defense contesting the finding of probable cause that is highly factual in nature must be threshed out in a full-blown trial. among others. 191178. MONTEALTO. NOVATEKNIK LAND CORPORATION v. No. In other words. Section 5 of the Rules of Court.an adjudication on the merits and is understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another action unless otherwise provided in the order of dismissal.R. ESTEBAN AND TEODORA ALYN ESTEBAN. Out of the total of 16 statements/affidavits corresponding to the respective witnesses. The word "may" in Rule 17. The Sandiganbayan denied the Republic‘s Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that it failed to observe the three day notice requirement. The circumstantial evidence linking Philip to the killing of Chase was derived from the bare recollections of Ariane. 2013 . Section 3 of the Rules of Court. Due to this single absence. hence. the dismissal should be regarded as an adjudication on the merits and is with prejudice. No law or jurisprudence would support the conclusion that such omission can be considered as a failure to prosecute on the part of the party presenting such witness. 2013. the present rules for which do not require a confrontation between the parties and their witnesses. 188956. 189843. does not require that the court receive the notice three days prior to the hearing date. G. No. 2013 Courts do not reverse the Secretary of Justice‘s findings and conclusions on the matter of probable cause except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion. Rule 15. and (2) there must be photograph(s) of the seized items taken in the presence of the aboveenumerated representatives. G. 191567. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. provides that the court may dismiss a complaint in case there are no justifiable reasons that explain the plaintiff's absence during the presentation of the evidence in chief. operates to confer on the court the discretion to decide between the dismissal of the case on technicality vis-à-vis the progressive prosecution. March 20. Section 3 of the Rules of Court. Rule 13. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. In so doing. it follows that the Republic filed the motion to the court 10 days in advance of the hearing date. 181458. all the circumstances must be consistent with one another and must constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion that a crime has been committed and that Philip and Teodora are probably guilty thereof. It was ruled that omission(s) in strictly following the provision are not fatal to the prosecution‘s case as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved and established with moral certainty. TRINIDAD DIAZ-ENRIQUEZ. March 20. AL. No. No. MARIE CALLO-CLARIDAD v. which provides that the time and date of the hearing must not be later than ten days after the filing of the motion. and of Guray and Corpus. to wit: (1) there must be a showing that a physical inventory was conducted in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel. ZENAIDA SORIANO AND MYRNA SAMONTE. Rule 17.R. Section 3 of the Rules of Court. G.A. and any elected public official. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. states that the date of the mailing of motions through registered mail shall be considered the date of their filing in court. II of R. 2013 The chain of custody provided for in Section 21(1). The CA correctly ruled that no prima facie evidence existed that sufficiently indicated Philip and Teodora‘s involvement in the commission of the crime. Section 4 of the Rules of Court. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). only nine were sworn to before a competent officer. ET. AFP-RSBS presented Ms. 9165. All that the Rules require of a witness is that the witness possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided therein. There is no substantive or procedural rule which requires a witness for a party to present some form of authorization to testify as a witness for the party presenting him or her. G. March 20. PHILIP RONALD P. unless there be a qualification in the order of dismissal that it is without prejudice. Alma Aban as its witness but her testimony was not considered because she did not present an authorization to testify from AFP-RSBS. it observed the 10-day requirement under Rule 15. ARMED FORCES OF THE PHIL.R. The lack of the requisite certifications from the affidavits of most of the other witnesses was in violation of Section 3. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction. March 20. No. The Republic has been actively involved in the trial for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth for two decades but was absent for one hearing. The rule was designed to avoid self-serving and unreliable evidence from being considered for purposes of the preliminary investigation.R. the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case. Art. the certifications were mandatory. RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM v. 2013 It is to be noted that in case of substituted service. 2013. G. Since the amount alleged in the Complaint by Spouses Dinglasan for the disputed lot is only P4." Relative thereto. March 20. April 1. ELENITA DINGLASAN and FELISIMO DINGLASAN. Thus. While indeed a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. Physical resistance is not an essential element of rape. and not the OSG.R. ARLIC ALMOJUELA. Neither does an inconclusive medical report negate the finding of rape. Also. G. beyond simply citing cases where the Court allowed the OSG to sign the certification.00 with the RTC. 184333. 4. Therefore. G. and the measure to test the validity of such document is preponderance of evidence. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for review on certiorari under the said Rule "shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment.000. its filing does not toll the running of the period to file an appeal by certiorari. Section 2. there should be a report indicating that the person who received the summons in the defendant's behalf was one with whom the defendant had a relation of confidence. SIXTO N. Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real property. are in the best position to know if another case is pending before another court. Rule 52 of the same Rules provides that "no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained. because they. The validity of the contents and execution of the subject Deed of Transfer were challenged in the proceedings where its prima facie validity was subsequently overthrown by the questionable circumstances attendant in its supposed execution. G. Section 2. MACH ASIA TRADING CORPORATION. 2013 Spouses Martires filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration and reckoned the 15 day period for filing an appeal with the Supreme Court from the date the CA denied the Second Motion for Reconsideration. No. If the OSG is compelled by circumstances to verify and certify the pleading in behalf of a client agency.R. all proceedings in the RTC are null and void. 180321. and the victim submits herself to her attacker because of fear. if credible. April 2. No. delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief. No. This is not the kind of service contemplated by law. MENELIA CHUA. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant. 2013 .000. the OSG should at least endeavor to inform the courts of its reasons for doing so. service on the security guard could not be considered as substantial compliance with the requirements of substituted service. No. it should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof. 194368. 189324.R. the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to a duly-notarized document is dispensed with. It was not shown that the security guard who received the summons in behalf of Chu was authorized and possessed a relation of confidence that Chu would definitely receive the summons. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 174240. This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the cruelty of public scrutiny.In rape cases." Since a second motion for reconsideration is not allowed. is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime and the medical certificate will then be rendered as merely corroborative. 2013. A medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim‘s testimony alone. the fact that a deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents. GILBERT PENILLA Y FRANCIA G. then unavoidably. the moral character of the victim is immaterial. No. The validity of the contents and the regularity of the notarization of the Deed of Transfer were challenged. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed. SPOUSES LEHNER AND LUDY MARTIRES v. When there is a defect in the notarization of a document. A defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument.R. It is necessary for the petitioning government agency or its authorized representatives to certify against forum shopping. March 20. EDITHA PADLAN v. CHU v.00. March 20.R. Spouses Dinglasan filed an action for cancellation of title involving real property valued at Php. ensuring that the latter would actually receive the summons. the MTC and not the RTC has jurisdiction over the action. No. No. SEC. 2013. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. et al. 195317. WELTCHIE RAYMUNDO AND EMILY RAYMUNDO v. No. SR. SEGUNDINA A. April 3. In instances where a complaint against a Punong Barangay is filed with the Ombudsman first. certified correct by the clerk of court of the RTC. (2) whether the action sought to be dismissed was filed merely to preempt the later action or to anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal. April 3. No. G. G. Consequently. 2013. and a liberal interpretation of the rules by which both parties are given the fullest opportunity to adduce proofs is the best way to ferret out such truth. The mere failure to attach copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition for review is not necessarily fatal as to warrant the outright denial of due course when the clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts. 2013. SPS.A petition for mandamus was filed to compel the Secretary of Justice to charge Dalandag for multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao massacre despite his admission to the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ. DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN. otherwise. CEB-35529 is the appropriate vehicle to determine the rights of FDCP and SM Prime. FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES v. In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion. 2013.R. No. JR. . et al.. i. NEMESIO FIRAZA. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. G. 197937. Court litigation which is primarily a search for truth must proceed. April 3. the objection is deemed waived. substituted by ASSET ASIA PACIFIC (SPVAMC) 2. MONTAÑO AND SUSANA P. 2013. the following considerations predominate in the ascending order of importance in determining which action should prevail: (1) the date of filing. it has for its purpose the vindication of a right in as much as the complaint similarly seeks the redress of one. but may not be compelled by writ of mandamus to act in a certain way. INC. As such counterclaim. In administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more disciplining authorities. 201449.. LEILA DE LIMA. with preference generally given to the first action filed to be retained. 197291. A case which has been suspended for 8 years due to LBP‘s opposition to the admission of an amended and supplemental complaint may be continued. 157445. INC. G. WELVIN DIU y KOTSESA. It has been consistently ruled that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. the body where the complaint is filed first. GALVEZ v. April 3. AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Under the established jurisprudence on litis pendentia.R.e. SM PRIME HOLDINGS. and (3) whether the action is the appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues between the parties. and which opts to take cognizance of the case. 2013. mandamus cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way the judgment and discretion are to be exercised. It is incumbent that trial should continue to settle the issues between the parties once and for all. v. Spouses Ugay filed an action for quieting of title while Firaza. 165838.R. to grant or deny such letter-request or motion. the Office of the Ombudsman exercises jurisdiction over the complaint to the exclusion of the Sandiganbayan. Jr.R. Such counterclaim is a permissible direct attack to the validity of the adverse party‘s torrens title. and other attachments of the petition sufficiently substantiate the allegations. G. FRANKLIN ALEJANDRO v. acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction.R. v. No. 2013. No. the Secretary of Justice may be compelled by writ of mandamus to act on a letter-request or a motion to include a person in the information. There can be no doubt Civil Case No. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea. filed a counterclaim.R. April 3. G. CLAUDIO AND EUFRECENA UGAY. April 3. SPS. et al.. which exercises concurrent jurisdiction. G. SPS. HONORIO C. April 3. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FACT-FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU. 173121. MONTAÑO. it involves a cause of action separate from that alleged in the complaint. . by NORMAN MESINA v. or was merely optional. et al. etc. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court. rep. Empleo. required that written notice be given to the judgment debtor. April 8.. INGLES. EDMUNDO VITERO.R. to the eventual outcome of the pending annulment case. Without such objection. in which case. et al. MONTANO T. The testimony of a rape victim must be given weight and credence. 2013.R. by THERESA FIAN YRAY. et al. 201816. 147186/G. the actions must be consolidated. A petition for the issuance of a writ of possession cannot be consolidated with an action for annulment of mortgage where title to the property has already been consolidated in favor of the mortgagor following the expiration of the one year redemption period except when title has not yet consolidated in favor of the mortgagor and this presumed right of ownership is contested and made the basis of another action. No. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. v. HON. The certiorari petition was verified by Josefina and Hector F. rep. G. TOLOSA AND MERLINDA TOLOSA v. 2013 Findings of fact of the trial court are not to be disturbed on appeal since conclusions as to the credibility of witnesses in rape cases depends heavily on the sound judgment of the trial court which is in a better position to decide the question. G. ESTEBANG. 2013. et al. 173641. v. v. 2013 The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. 141809/G. ALBERTO GONZALES y SANTOS aka TAKYO. INGLES. publication and posting sufficed. April 3. SPS. 2013. MESINA. No. HEIRS OF FAUSTINO MESINA and GENOVEVA S. No. INGLES. once and for all. April 3. Ingles—both of whom the Court finds competent to attest to the truth of the allegations of their petition. that the verification and certification was signed by at least one of Ingles. according to Altres v. No. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just.R. ESTRELLA T.who was competent to do so. 175327. April 3. HEIRS OF DOMINGO FIAN.R. notice of the execution sale to the judgment obligor was not required. via Circular No. ARSENIO J.. JOSEFINA F. he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.Under the 1964 Rules of Court. decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.R. G. when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered. etc. MAGPALE. It suffices. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. GERRY OCTAVIO y FLORENDO and REYNALDO CARIÑO y MARTI. G. CHARLES J. No. without prejudice.R. 8 amending Rule 39. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2013 An order for extrajudicial foreclosure given by an executive judge in the exercise of her administrative function is not a civil action of the Regional Trial Courts that may be the proper subject of an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. the issuance of the writ of possession remains the ministerial duty of the RTC until the issues raised in the annulment case are. the assessment of the trial court is controlling because of its unique opportunity to observe the witness and the latter‘s demeanor. No. April 8./JOSEFINA F. of course. Section 18 of the Rules of Court. and attitude especially during the cross-examination unless cogent reasons dictate otherwise. 178758. MARCELINO AND VITALIANA DALANGIN v.R. G. No. No. 183058.R. No. having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner . 2013. When the issue focuses on the credibility of the witnesses or the lack of it. that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff‘s failure to comply with the order. et al. 199219. et al./JOSEFINA F. conduct.R. considering that they are unquestionably principal parties-in-interest to their certiorari petition. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK. ESTRADA. CLEMENTE PEREZ. It was only in 1987 that the Court. and tainted the integrity of the shabu ultimately presented as evidence to the trial court. April 3. SR. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. The purchaser remains entitled to a writ of possession. G. April 3. et al. et al. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. he must so state in the form of an objection. HON. The indeterminateness of the identities of the individuals who could have handled the sachet of shabu after PO1 Dimla‘s marking broke the chain of custody. Otherwise stated. 182417. The affidavit was not identified and its averments were not affirmed by affiant Ignacio. 181182.E. April 10. April 10. 183658. who share a common interest in the property subject of the action and the fact that only one of the heirs executed the verification or certification of nonforum shopping will not deter the court from proceeding with the action. No. No. LOLITA QUESIDO y BADARANG. April 10. No. B. ADALIM v. No. Accordingly. 187740. Exhibit "4.R. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well. 182760. ROBERT P. 188633. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No.. April 10. No. G. v. PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY (PMMA) G.R. thereby needlessly causing a delay in the resolution of the case would be anathema to the purpose of delivering justice. In instances where appeals are filed out of time.R. April 10. hence failure to perfect the same renders the judgment final and executory.R. or when issues not raised in the pleadings are admitted. HEIRS OF LAZARO GALLARDO.. No appeal can be had of the trial court's judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code. INC. once it appears that there is a third party who is in possession of the property and is claiming a right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor. April 10. the Court finds this sanction too severe to be imposed on PMMA where the records of the case is devoid of evidence of willful or flagrant disregard of the rules on mediation proceedings. 2013. 165875.R. et al. et al. No. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v." on the other hand. The Heirs of Lazaro Gallardo are immediate relatives. G. No. 21. NARCEDA. R. INC. G. now GSIS FAMILY BANK v. April 10. FRANCISCO C. B. G. INC. JR. et al. formerly COMSAVINGS BANK.. ALBERT CHUA. 198682. 2013 Although the RTC has legal basis under A. Rule 18 of the Rules of Court to order the dismissal of the case. SAN DIEGO.R. It goes without saying. represented by ENGR. et al. 2013 Non-compliance with Sec. G. 2013. INC. No. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.A. ERNESTO TANINAS.R. INC. MANUEL TOLENTINO y CATACUTAN. 165863/G./LORENZANA FOOD CORPORATION v. ELVIRA A. IMPORTANTE v.G. that an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service themselves provide that administrative investigations shall be conducted without strict recourse to the technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable to judicial proceedings.R.E. however. 2013 Jurisprudence dictates that an affidavit is merely hearsay evidence where its affiant/maker did not take the witness stand. No. April 10. VILLAREAL (deceased) substituted by REYNALDO P. v. VILLAREAL.of testifying. and RIMPORT INDUSTRIES. 2013 To allow the presentation of evidence on a piece-meal basis. G. G. 2013. 189351. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA in relation to Section 5.R. No. REYNALDO G. Exhibit "3" must be excluded from the judicial proceedings being an inadmissible hearsay evidence.M. April 10. The obligation of a court to issue a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale ceases to be ministerial. 9165 does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible because what is essential is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved which would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. FERNANDO ASIA. SANDOVAL SHIPYARDS. ROYAL SAVINGS BANK. is considered secondary evidence being a mere photocopy . 2013. Boardwalk‘s appeal was not perfected because of its failure to timely file the Petition and to pay the docket and other lawful fees before the proper court which is the CA. et al. BOARDWALK BUSINESS VENTURES. appeal fees paid on the day of promulgation of a resolution. JIMMY CHUA CHI LEONG and SPOUSES EDUARDO SOLIS and GLORIA VICTA v. PORFERIO SOLIMAN.R. 178952. SAN DIEGO. 2013. R. but also by his omission. as the Civil Code itself provides that consignation shall be made by depositing the thing or things due at the disposal of judicial authority. et al. there must exist a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right. ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION v. and PO1 JOEL S. it must be clear. G. N THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF . ARMED FORCES AND POLICE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION. Factually. No. 191696. INC. PO1 ALFREDO P. No. liberty. G. The duty to investigate must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. April 11. No. when part of a writing or record is given in evidence by one party. 2013. COURT OF APPEALS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM. a petition for review.R. 171298. JR.. COMMISSION ON AUDIT v. to be one of law. within the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period. 179011. A person who occupies the land of another at the latter‘s tolerance or permission. 2013 The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. without any contract between them. in this case. G. April 11. No. 2013. 204700. RICARDO CHU. AGUSTIN. G. cannot be admitted to prove the contents of the purported undated handwritten receipt. The question. No. must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances and should avoid the scrutiny of the probative value of the parties‘ evidence. No.R. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT. MELANIA CAPARAS and SPOUSES RUEL AND HERMENEGILDA PEREZ. Rule 132 of the 1997 Rules of Court. 187317. the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. CAUBANG. April 10. Consignation is necessarily judicial.R. but have failed to discharge. As the Supreme Court has previously ruled. Once the issue invites a review of the factual findings of the RTC and of the CA. An Arbitration Committee rendered a decision which was contested by the other party as a judgment or a final order under the Labor Code. A petition filed under Rule 45 required the evaluation of the factual findings of the RTC and the CA. the question posed is one of fact that is proscribed in a Rule 45 petition. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES. 2013 The writ of amparo‘s curative role is an acknowledgment that the violation of the right to life. JR. Administrative powers here refer to those purely administrative in nature. as in this case. and when a detached writing or record is given in evidence. April 15. as opposed to administrative proceedings that take on a quasi-judicial character. MARCELO N. 198783. THE SPECIAL AUDIT TEAM. 2013. CARLITO C. not a petition for certiorari. RPWU should have filed with the CA. ENCINAS v. April 15. EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. hence the Rules of Court do not apply. April 15. April 10. INC. Accountability may attach to Arroyo. G. G. April 15. G. while the existence of the right need not be conclusively established. Under Section 17.R. or those who carry. any other writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. NAVAL and CRISPIN I. 2013. failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him. G. and not to the exercise of administrative powers. 175428.R. REY CASTIGADOR CATEDRILLA v.R. No. ROGELIO DANTIS v. is bound by an implied promise that he will vacate the same upon demand. 174788. Upon receipt of the Voluntary Arbitrator‘s Resolution denying RPWU‘s motion for reconsideration. A preliminary injunction is proper only when the plaintiff appears to be clearly entitled to the relief sought and has substantial interest in the right sought to be defended. 2013 A complaint for the consignation of a loan payment of a subdivision lot does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. JR. A decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. JULIO MAGHINANG. MARIO and MARGIE LAURON. and security may be caused not only by a public official‘s act. SPOUSES OSCAR AND THELMA CACAYORIN v.which. 2013. the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other.R. INC. who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure. No. OBEN v. and DY KOK ENG v. AMELIA AQUINO. as long as taxes are involved. 2013. 193160. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v.NORIEL RODRIGUEZ: NORIEL RODRIGUEZ v. EMERSON S.R. No. No. the alleged admission of the deceased Pedro Caparas that he entered into a sharing of leasehold rights with Modesta Garcia and Cristina Salamat cannot be used as evidence against Dominga Caparas as the latter would be unable to contradict or disprove the same. CACAYURAN. and REMEDIOS SILVERIO v. the outright dismissal of a petition. 2013 Under the Dead Man's Statute Rule. SPOUSES ARMANDO SILVERIO. April 17. G. regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property. 191805/G. violence or terror. 2013. April 17. BALUA G. SPOUSES CARLOS ABACAN AND ELIZABETH ABACAN. No. No. AND HEALTH MARKETING TECHNOLOGIES. 195649. Modesta Garcia. INC. No. et al. Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty. 180843. et al. it has been held that a taxpayer need not be a party to the contract to challenge its validity. 191667. PAGLAUM MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP. April 17. 2013 Issues raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court are deemed waived. DE CASTRO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.R. HOLY TRINITY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v.R. G. and CRISTINA SALAMAT v. if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by death. SR. DOMINGA ROBLES vda de CAPARAS. AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CEBU CITY AND CEBU PROVINCE. April 17. INC. AGAPAY NG INDIGENOUS PEOPLE RIGHTS ALLIANCE (A-IPRA) v. G. because these should have been brought up at the first opportunity. No.R. a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same. Otherwise. April 16. 204591. . CASAN MACODE MAQUILING v. 179018. v. ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO. the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue. NOTARY PUBLIC JOHN DOE. G. 183858. G. In Mamba v. Intervention of a rival candidate in a disqualification case is proper when there has not yet been any proclamation of the winner.R. v. It is well-settled that the sole issue in ejectment cases is physical or material possession of the subject property. A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants. CO. April 16. people have a right to question contracts entered into by the government. No. Thus. the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by strong hand. independent of any claim of ownership by the parties. No. the other party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction. EDUARDO M. or other mental disabilities. 181973. LINOG G. as unlawful detainer does not deal with the issue of ownership. G. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court‘s jurisdiction is allowed only when there are special and important reasons that are clearly and specifically set forth in a petition. in substitution of his deceased mother. Thus. KING & SONS. EMMANUEL A. where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court. GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO. 2013 CJ Sereno The Supreme Court‘s jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of electoral tribunals is exercised only upon showing of grave abuse of discretion committed by the tribunal. No. 2013. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. Funds coming from private sources become impressed with the characteristics of public funds when they are under official custody. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY. even though the parties may be different. April 16. the Supreme Court shall not interfere with the electoral tribunal‘s exercise of its discretion or jurisdiction. No. insanity.R.. 2013. APOLONIO GARCIA. CARLOS. 2013. 2013 It must be stated that the purpose of an action of forcible entry and detainer is that. April 17. G. et al. G. April 16. as a rule. J.R. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. Lara.R. The argument of Spouses Abacan that they subsequently acquired ownership of the subject property cannot be considered as a supervening event that will bar the execution of the questioned judgment.R.R. 194994. 180514. Fujiki. SPOUSES FELIX CHINGKOE and ROSITA CHINGKOE v. having been adequately established in the case at bar. with the knowledge of the opposing party. G. June 26. 2013 The granduncle. the recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is without prejudice to prosecution for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY. 191396. G. reference is made to it for that purpose. The recognition of the foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is a subsequent event that establishes a new status. SPOUSES FAUSTINO CHINGKOE and GLORIA CHINGKOE. April 17. 2013. 2013 In the absence of objection. SHINICHI MAEKARA. No. and REMEDIOS SILVERIO. DANTE L. the chain of custody of such items. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY. April 17. No. filed an action for recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying the second bigamous marriage of her marriage to Maekara. April 17. and the ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE. No. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. and is thus not covered by Article 266-B. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated. G. and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending. SR. G.R. "the term of prescription of the crime of bigamy shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine archipelago. The authority to grant immunity is not an inherent judicial function.R. 2013.R. SPOUSES WILLIAM AND REBECCA GENATO. at the request or with the consent of the parties. No. Congress has vested such power in the Ombudsman as well as in the Secretary of Justice. is a relative of the victim in the fourth civil degree. Moreover. 189280. No. No. 2013 Despite the failure of the apprehending officers to make an inventory of and to photograph the items seized from Aguilar. the decision to .R. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.R. the Sandiganbayan refused to recognize his immunity by declining to discharge him from the information as a state witness. 2013 After Mercado was granted immunity and placed under the witness protection program. DUMALAG. The failure of police officers to mark the items seized from an accused in illegal drugs cases immediately upon its confiscation at the place of arrest does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. Marinay‘s first spouse. is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court's direction. right and fact that needs to be reflected in the civil registry. G. a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. ALBERTO DELIGERO y BACASMOT. However. April 17. The Rules merely require. SPOUSES ARMANDO SILVERI. The recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is not a ground for extinction of criminal liability under Articles 89 and 94 of the Revised Penal Code. when. April 17. under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code. paragraph 5(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Nos. or when the original record of the former case or any part of it. represented by the DEPARTMENT FO THE PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH) v. MARILYN AGUILAR y MANZANILLO. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. that the entity exercising the right of eminent domain should state in the complaint that the true ownership of the property cannot be ascertained or specified with accuracy. 196049. 185518." MINORU FUJIKI v. 187677. G. in such eventuality. The existence of doubt or obscurity in the title of the person or persons claiming ownership of the properties to be expropriated would not preclude the commencement of the action nor prevent the court from assuming jurisdiction thereof. or more specifically the brother of the victim‘s grandfather. 184079/184490. April 17. G. Besides. and as a matter of convenience to all parties. they were nevertheless able to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence had been preserved.R. 2013.SPOUSES RICARDO and EVELYN MARCELO/SPOUSES EVELYN and RICARDO MARCELO v. Indeed. JR. v. Otherwise stated. 199650.R. of law. ROSANNA P. Precisely. EULOGIO DUMADAG.R. 194362. and where the marking was done. DATU NOT ABDUL. ARTEMIO A. BELICENA. PHILIPPINE HAMMONIA SHIP AGENCY. The petitioner cannot also assume that his motion has been granted if the CA did not immediately act. It was a grave error for the CA to rule that there was an unbroken chain of custody simply because the plastic sachet had been marked. SAURIN. G. the CIAC was included in the enumeration of quasijudicial agencies whose decisions or awards may be appealed to the CA in a petition for review under Rule 43.A. inventoried. 186475. transportation to the police station.In any case. 186137. it arises from the application of the law and jurisprudence on the conflicting assessments of the two sets of physicians. the turnover of the seized drugs at every stage – from confiscation from the accused. UTILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION. 2013 Under the requirements. In reviewing the legal correctness of a CA decision rendered under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Nos. DIALA and JOSEPH A. G. FELIPE S. No. INC. 7902 and promulgation of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. and found positive for shabu. J PLUS ASIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. and DORCHESTER MARINE. DE VERA. TAMALA. No. as amended. The CIAC rendered an arbitral award that was appealed to the CA through a Petition for Review under Rule 43. G. 2013. Courts should generally defer to the judgment of the prosecution and deny a motion to discharge an accused so he can be used as a witness only in clear cases of failure to meet the requirements of Section 17. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION). the Court examines the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it. the seized illegal drug must be marked in the presence of the accused and immediately upon confiscation. there is a question of law when the issue arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.employ an accused as a state witness must necessarily originate from the public prosecutors whose mission is to obtain a successful prosecution of the several accused before the courts. there is a question of fact when the issue involves the truth or falsehood of alleged facts. it is clear that only fifteen (15) days may initially be requested. or of fact and law. INC. JR. POSEIDON INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SERVICES. J. TITO R. First. by which the corpus delicti presented in court is shown to be one and the same as that which was retrieved from the accused or from the crime scene. it must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties or any of them. Abad For a question to be one of law. and presentation to the court must be shown and substantiated. A petition was filed to assail a CA decision rendered under Rule 65 where it failed to pass upon the intrinsic correctness of the NLRC decision. June 26. June 26.R. Second. conveyance to the chemistry lab. the late response cannot be used as an excuse to delay the filing of its pleading as a party cannot make any assumption on how his motion would be resolved. 2013.. and not strictly on the basis of whether the NLRC decision under review is intrinsically correct. In the present case. June 26. No. This marking must be supported by details on how. ANDUTAN. LTD. The chain-ofcustody rule is a method of authenticating evidence.R. 185729-32. With the amendments introduced by R. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BO-OC and JOEL S. sent to the crime laboratory for analysis. No. a motion is submitted to the court for resolution and we . 2013. ANTONIO P. Two crucial links must be complied with. as well as the witnesses to the marking. Such review of the CIAC award may involve either questions of fact. June 26. not the thirty (30) days petitioner requested. the controversy arises not from the findings made by Hammonia and Dorchester‘s physicians which contradict the fit-to-work certification of the company-designated physician. ULDARICO P. FERNANDEZ. despite the fact that the integrity of the confiscated item throughout the entire process had never been established. RAUL C. G. CABOTAJE. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. when. v. Abdul was convicted despite the evidentiary gaps in the testimonies of the police officers. 2013. G. No. Rule 119. June 26.R. DESMOND G. June 26. 2013 The allegation of petitioners that they are not the owners of the subject property. No. where he is given broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists for the purpose of filing a criminal information in court. CAGUIOA. G. Determination of probable cause may be either executive or judicial. PETER LINDA y GEROLAGA G. A written admission.R.R. 189846. No. VIRGINIA DE LOS SANTOS-DIO. LTD. the doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty finds application. 178947. to the time the shabu was marked and turned over to the crime laboratory for examination. G. 2013. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court.G. 2013 We have reiterated in jurisprudence that when the credibility of a witness is in issue. 2013 The Supreme Court has been regular in its declaration that "inconsistencies in a rape victim‘s testimony do not impair her credibility. even if given without the assistance of counsel. RAMIL MORES. the task of evaluating the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is best left to the RTC.R. 2013PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 200507. and not during custodial investigation. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. as in this case where accusedappellant testified that he did not know any of the members of the team. cannot be upheld especially when the corporation who is managed by the family of petitioners. thus making them unable to remove the installed surveillance cameras on the corporation‘s building. LTD. and WESTDALE ASSETS. especially when the arrest falls under the instances when a valid warrantless arrest can be made. MONICA MENDOZA y TRINIDAD. CARLOS L. June 26. upon receipt of the information from the confidential informant. No. More so in this case. When the witness rendered a clear and direct narration of the details of the buy-bust operation from the moment the team was organized. in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 74.R. as authorized representative of H. which had the opportunity to scrutinize the witnesses directly during the trial. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. TANENGGEE v. as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. Olongapo City. No. 191267. can be admitted in evidence. and TIMOTHY J. BPI FINANCE CORPORATION. They are thus considered . 179448."Besides. its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof. No. andabsent any showing of ill-motive or bad faith on the part of the arresting officers. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No. WILSON T. EQUITIES. June 26. TIMOTHY J. June 26. 2013. G.S. June 26. June 26.cannot allow any assumption that it would be granted.The second is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. No. especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape. GO v. said findings are generally binding upon this Court. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. DESMOND. 179079. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. June 26.R. during a preliminary investigation. ROMAN ZAFRA y SERRANO. should fail. 2013. Regional Trial Court. as petitioner‘s written statement was given during an administrative inquiry conducted by his employer in connection with an anomaly/irregularity he allegedly committed in the course of his employment. G. the findings of fact of the trial court.R. 199354. thus making the seized items the fruit of the poisonous tree. 2013 The defense of the accused that she was arrested without a valid warrant. JUDGE RAMON S. June 26. The first is made by the public prosecutor.R. 197363. No. since it is settled that when the trial court‘s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court.R.. the landholdings cultivated by respondents which are portions of the subject lot were improperly placed under PD 27 through OLT. The Court‘s jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the respondent had ceased in office during the pendency of the case. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY. No. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ALMAGRO v. INC. The farm is considered expropriated and placed under the coverage of the land reform law. only questions of jurisdiction may be inquired into. it is definitely outside the coverage. Respondent had no right to claim prescription because a CLT had already been issued in favor of petitioner. or the use and enjoyment of the club‘s facilities and privileges while employed with the company.M. GARCIA v. 2013. and necessarily cannot properly be placed under the umbrella. TAN. SPS. G. RAYMUNDO CODERIAS. his title is only limited to the usufruct. 2013. No. Once jurisdiction is acquired. June 25. expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Commission. 2013. No. then the "newly discovered evidence" was properly admitted by respondent COMELEC. 2013 In order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative case. No. 180476. June 19. DRILON." JESUS C. CONRADA O.parties-in-interest in the present case. No. June 26. special proceedings. June 19. . SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING v. for herself and in behalf of minor children. only questions of law may be put into issue while in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. naturalization. and ALLAN CHOACHUY. CENTURY IRON WORKS. 2013 It must be emphasized that the COMELEC is not bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules of procedure in the presentation of evidence.e. 179736. as represented by his Attorney-In-Fact. JOSEPH EDUARD. INC.MENDOZA. SIME DARBY PILIPINAS. of PD 27. June 19." In view of the fact that the proceedings in a petition to deny due course or to cancel certificate of candidacy are summary in nature. G. 179267. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSEPH SOCORRO B. No. the complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the respondent. 184116. June 26. agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy. since the landholdings cultivated by respondents are primarily devoted to vegetable production. BANAS. MANUEL AMAYA. 179685. respondent had neither the right to evict petitioner nor to claim prescription. 2013. As such.PD 27 encompasses only rice and corn land. 2013 In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.. v. 2013 . ELETO B. MARLON M. Thus.R. A. and RICARDO MERCADO G. G..R. SR. In the instant case. and BENITO CHUA v. THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T.R. June 25. It is settled that RTCs have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute. as the RARAD found. Mendoza continued to do so. and LUCILA MERCADO. criminal.Despite being informed by Sime Darby to stop using the facilities and privileges of the club share. Thus. DR. Inspite of its designation as a family court. Sime Darby properly sought injunction in this case. admiralty or insolvency. CODERIAS v. Under Section 2 of Rule I.R. the RTC of Bacolod City remains possessed of authority as a court of general original jurisdiction to pass upon all kinds of cases whether civil.R. Bacolod City. and ROSALIE JAYPEGARCIA. G. Respondent‘s cessation from office x x x does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against him while he was still in the service nor does it render said administrative case moot and academic. 207264. REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. CARAG. SR. June 25. RETIRED JUDGE GUILLERMO ANDAYA. in order to prevent further damage and prejudice to itself. it is not lost by reason of respondent‘s cessation from office. No. While the share was bought by Sime Darby and placed under the name of Mendoza. guardianship. namely: JO-ANN. G. 202247. RAUL R. SR. i. JESUS MERCADO. "this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law.R. the COMELEC Rules of Procedure "shall be liberally construed in order x xx to achieve just. represented by its Administrator. RTJ-09-2181. G. land registration. JESUS B.R. all surnamed GARCIA. ESTATE OF JUAN CIDOCO. Regional Trial Court-Branch 41. No. JESSE ANTHONE. Presiding Judge. UNIVAC DEVELOPMENT INC. Precisely. 2013. The CA can grant a petition when the factual findings complained of are not supported by the evidence on record. 195777. Since respondent‘s motion to dismiss was filed after petitioner has completed the presentation of its evidence in the trial court. No. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Sunday. and the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. 2013. G. 2013. COURT OF APPEALS AND LOLITA G. JR. 182072. 173946. represented by ANASTACIO G. G. 177812. Minor inconsistencies in the narration of the arresting officers do not detract from their essential credibility as long as their testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically believable. 2013. and NEPTUNE SHIP MANAGEMENT SVCS. is that "any extension of time to file the required pleading should x x x be counted from the expiration of the period regardless of the fact that said due date is a Saturday.The finding of the credibility of the testimonies of the arresting officers should prevail over the testimonies of the accused-appellant and his friend-witnesses especially so when their respective testimonies were inconsistent on material points. June 19. so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.. It means that whatever is once irrevocably established the controlling legal rule of decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case whether correct on general principles or not. YOUNG. They create the necessity of presenting evidence to rebut the prima facie . Sunday or legal holiday." The correct rule. June 19. June 19. 157020. we cannot simply disregard the contradicting testimonies of the accused-appellant on one hand and his witnesses on the other as to the place where the arrest was made. INC. TOLEDO. Thus. No. The question as to what part of the body of the accused did the police officers recover the money does not dissolve the elements of illegal sale and possession as minor inconsistencies do not negate or dissolve the eyewitnesses‘ positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. SORIANO." REINIER PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING. G. CAPTAIN FRANCISCO B. BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES.R. BENEDICT HOMAKY LUCIO. The disputable presumptions provided under Rule 131. No.R. The law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. June 19. 3 operate against an adversary who has not introduced proof to rebut them. 169214.It is elementary rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. June 19. on one hand. we can say that the filing of the motion to dismiss was a mere ploy on the part of respondent to delay the prompt resolution of the case against her. v. No. when it is necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice./PRIMARY STRUCTURES CORPORATION.R. ARTHUR CABUSAS. PTE.M.R.R. when the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the LA. G. INC. G. June 19. The clarification provided in A. are conflicting. and when necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case. June 19. v. the findings of the Labor Arbiter. v. No. WILLIAM M. The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied the motion to dismiss filed by the respondent. No. thus we are constrained to determine the facts of the case. according to the clarification. 2013.GUEVARRA. G. 191391. contrary to the contention of petitioner.R. only questions of law must be raised. Sec. ARDIENTE. or holiday. Even assuming that these were not substantial enough to doubt the credibility of the testimonies of the defense witnesses. what such clarification wanted to address is the erroneous claim that "the period of extension" in such a case "is to be reckoned from the next working day and not from the original expiration of the period. the CA can review the finding of facts of the NLRC and the evidence of the parties to determine whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding that there was no illegal dismissal against respondent. In petitions for review under Rule 45. 00-2-14-SC actually covers a situation where the due date falls on a Saturday. GENALYN D. v. Here. LTD. G. CONCRETE SOLUTIONS. FERDINAND CASTRO. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. 2013. on the other. No. 2013. INC. SPOUSES MANUEL SY AND VICTORIA SY v. The distinction between an appeal under Rule 45 and a special civil action under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 could not be anymore overstated in remedial law. ROSAROSO. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. The test for determining whether the supposed error was one of "law" or "fact" is not the appellation given by the parties raising the same. RODRIGO A. ARIEL R. BALOIS.R. especially so if the crime is rape. VERDILLO v. if considered. JESSEBEL CALIANGA. if no proof to the contrary is presented and offered. June 18. rather. 192287. 2013. in which case. amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT and GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR). RODRIGO A. June 19. because the presumption stands in the place of evidence unless rebutted. circumstantial evidence may be resorted to by the courts. ATTY. No. where there is no dispute as to the facts.R. ROSAROSO. IRENEO M. As to the credibility of witnesses. and GRACE EVANGELISTA. the trial judge can better determine if witnesses are telling the truth. CENANDO. 194247. 2013. G. 182130. substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. ANTONIO D. No. G. otherwise. But the requirement for such intervention was still for the petitioner to demonstrate clearly that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.R.R. 182132. LUCILA LABORTE SORIA. 2013. A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal charge. 2013. CALIANGA. even if there are no eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime. ALGERICA D. 191877. ROSAROSO. might affect the result of the case. 194846. That happens when the Secretary of Justice acts in a limited sense like a quasi-judicial officer of the executive department exercising powers akin to those of a court of law. 2013.case they created. June 19. it is one of fact. LABINDAO v. unless such findings are tainted with grave abuse of discretion. No. No.PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT and GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR) v.R. June 18. SPOUSES HAM SOLUTAN and LAILA SOLUTAN. ARTURO S. Moreover. it is a question of law. ATTY.R. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. JESSEBEL CALIANGA. the question of whether or not the conclusions drawn from these facts are correct is a question of law. and IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS ALBERTO v. BERNESTO DELA CRUZ @ BERNING. the one who has that burden is relieved for the time being from introducing evidence in support of the averment. MANUEL D. COURT OF APPEALS. CALIANGA. No. IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS ALBERTO and BENJAMIN D. THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF MUNTINLUPA. GIL ANTHONY M. and GRACE EVANGELISTA.R. On the other hand. G. the Constitution and the Rules of Court precisely limits the permissible scope of inquiry in such cases only to errors of . and CLEOFE R. June 19. being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. ROSA REYES. the courts could intervene in the Secretary of Justice‘s determination of probable cause only through a special civil action for certiorari. ARTURO S. BENJAMIN D. by the presumption. MARQUEZ. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which. will prevail. G. by restricting the review of judgments or resolutions of the COA only thru a special civil action for certiorari before this Court. BALOIS v. G. 2013. GIL ANTHONY M. ROSAROSO. G. THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MUNTINLUPA CITY. The rationale behind the general rule rests on the principle of separation of powers. June 19. G. No. it is whether the reviewing court can resolve the issues raised without evaluating the evidence. 183091. REYNA. REYES and CARLOS REYES. CALIANGA. In other words. and which. CALIANGA. No. As defined. The burden of proof remains where it is but. Courts of law are precluded from disturbing the findings of public prosecutors and the DOJ on the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the purpose of filing criminal informations. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. and MERIDIAN REALTY CORPORATION. HOSPICIO D. THE HON. Indeed. 2013. REYNA. June 19. its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. Pursuant to the above-mentioned rule. June 18.jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. REBLORA v. 2013. 2013.. 2013 . Hence.R. ELISA FAYLONA MAGPANTAY. the fact that petitioner was proven to have drawn and issued a check and that the same was subsequently dishonored for inadequate funds leads to the logical conclusion that the fact from which her civil liability might arise. A supervening event consists of facts that transpire after the judgment became final and executory. JIMMY F. ELIZABETH MONZON. 2013. i. ABELARDO JANDUSAY v. Under Section 13. HEIRS OF MARIA F. G. indeed. DARMA MASLAG v. 160786. SAMUEL SHERWIN LATARIO Y ENRIQUE. ROBERTO B. BELINDA FLORES. already constitutes circumstantial evidence of misappropriation or conversion of said properties to petitioner‘s own personal use. 2013. appellants’ claim of unreasonable search and seizure must fail. or substantially changes the rights or relations of the parties therein as to render the execution unjust. DE FAYLONA. FLORES. A supervening event is an exception to the execution as a matter of right of a final and immutable judgment rule. FLORES. 185719. SIMPLICIA O. MYRA COLLADO Y SENICA. No." The factual milieu of this case clearly shows that the search was made after appellants were lawfully arrested. and REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF BENGUET. it can be deduced that the prosecution was able to establish the presence of the first and fourth elements. No. Prosecution's failure to prove the second and third elements of the violation of BP 22. Hence. impossible or inequitable. MARK CIPRIANO Y ROCERO. The arrest of the appellants was lawful. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. No. There are two modes of appealing an RTC decision or resolution on issues of fact and law. G. FLORES. MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN. 174908. June 17. and HEIRS of TOMASA BANZUELA VDA. MARIETTA FAYLONA CARTACIANO. DANILO FLORES. No. including matters that the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial because such matters were not yet in existence at that time. It is done by filing a Petition for Review with the CA. The second mode is a petition for review under Rule 42 in cases where the RTC exercised its appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions.R. Simply put. G. ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES G. June 17. The first mode is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 in cases where the RTC exercised its original jurisdiction. or of new circumstances that develop after the judgment attained finality. 173330. simple errors of judgment committed by the COA cannot be reviewed—even by this Court. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. Hence. June 17. the funds of the association of the year 2000 which were received by him in trust.R. (1) a person draws and issues a check and (4) the check is dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds or credit. upon demand.R. 185129. the subsequent search and seizure made by the police officers were likewise valid. HECTOR. No. the distinction between these two modes of appeal lies in the type of jurisdiction exercised by the RTC in the Order or Decision being appealed.e. WILLIAM GESTON. June 17. June 17. The fact that petitioner failed to account for. FLORES. unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. AND REYNALDO RANADA Y ALAS. No. As such. only if it directly affects the matter already litigated and settled. "[a] person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. MARITES FLORES. EDNA F. It is done by filing a Notice of Appeal with the RTC.R. MERLINDA COLINA.R. the RTC correctly entertained the respondent‘s appeal of the civil aspect of the case. exists. LUCILLE DOMINGO v. 195842. G. ABRIGO and DEMETRIO ABRIGO v. 2013. JACINTO FAYLONA. namely.PRIVATIZATION and MANAGEMENT OFFICE v.R. The same R. AS HEIR OF DECEASED MIGUEL BARCELONA v. on the contrary. No. trivial and inconsequential to affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. No. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. and their explanations having been accepted by the Trial Court. STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT and/or PHILIPPINE ESTATE CORPORATION. MATILDE S. Besides. It should be noted that the witnesses saw the incident from different vantage points. Neither can mandamus be issued unless a clear right of the bidder is shown. MARI ANTONETTE N. CAMACHO. 2013 The nature of the proceeding for reconstitution of a certificate of title under R. 2013 The ‗material inconsistencies‘ asserted by the accused-appellant which allegedly create grave doubts are. it has been held. EMMANUEL C. after proper proceedings. June 13. PETRON CORPORATION. (1) the former judgment must be final. 194062. and SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED. PALICTE. or of the rights asserted and relief prayed for. HEIRS OF MARCELO SOTTO.R. The purpose of such a proceeding is merely to have the certificate of title reproduced. June 13. REPUBLIC GAS CORPORATION. and. ORLANDO REYES. that minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not destroy the witnesses' credibility but even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.R. No. (ii) identity of subject matter. (2) the former judgment must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. time and again. 200402. 2013 Mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion by a public officer on whom the law imposes the right or duty to exercise judgment in reference to any matter in which the officer is required to act. No. June 17.A. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.A. The assertion by petitioner that parts of onw of the witness‘ testimony were inconsistent with that of the other witnesses cannot be given credence. which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed. and latter being direct witnesses to the incident. June 13. 26 denotes a restoration of the instrument. 194384. June 13. the former being a passive eyewitness. JOSELITO RAMOS v. G. June 13. (3) the former judgment must be a judgment on the merits. G. TY. and SALVACION BARCELONA. DANILO C. However. No.The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before a certiorari petition may lie. As such. regardless of which party is successful. FERRER SUAZO and ALVIN U. JOEL REBOTAZO y ALEJANDRA. REPRESENTED BY: LOLIBETH SOTTO NOBLE. this rule is not absolute as jurisprudence has laid down several recognized exceptions permitting a resort to the special civil action for certiorari without first filing a motion for reconsideration. EDWARD M. the inconsistencies having been fully and sufficiently explained during trial by the witnesses themselves. the latter were able to observe events that the latter might have overlooked or failed to see. and FILEMON C. No. SOTTO. SOTTO. SOTTO.R. No. TY v. in its original form and condition. Mandamus does not lie if the right is doubtful. TY. 159691. SOTTO. 2013. its purpose being to grant an opportunity for the court a quo to correct any error attributed to it by re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. too minor. 2013 . G. No. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION. the relief being founded on the same facts. 2013 Res judicata exists when as between the action sought to be dismissed and the other action these elements are present.R. 26 specifies the requisites to be met for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution of a certificate of title. 192913. G. (iii) identity of causes of action in both actions such that any judgment that may be rendered in the other action will.R. and (4) there must be between the first and subsequent actions (i) identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions. Failure to comply with any of these jurisdictional requirements for a petition for reconstitution renders the proceedings null and void. in the same form it was in when its loss or destruction occurred. CRISTINA C. G. ARNEL U. 185604. No. committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously. HON. RODRIGUEZ v.R. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS. June 10. interventions have been allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule. or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to or decisive of the controversy. INC. ST. G. over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs. 2013 The jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB is only limited to cases involving agrarian disputes. G. G. June 13. 2013 Although Rule 19 is explicit on the period when a motion to intervene may be filed. ATTY. therefore. SANTOS C.While the provisions of the Rules of Court apply to Special Agrarian Court proceedings. as represented by Fritzi C. when the petition for review of the judgment has already been submitted for decision before the Supreme Court. 202791. Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. Interventions have also been granted to afford indispensable parties.. LIM. RICARDO D. 2013 In the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked. No. TAN. 200882.DEOGENES O. GONZALEZ. it is negative. Basic is the rule that the "jurisdiction of a tribunal. Pantoja. and it cannot make this determination without looking into the evidence of the parties. in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. WILLIAM C. No. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM. Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the accused. PARAMOUNT HOLDINGS EQUITIES. in its assailed decision or resolution. DAR-Laguna v. the appointment of a commissioner or commissioners is discretionary on the part of the court or upon the instance of one of the parties. including incidents arising from the implementation of agrarian laws.R.R. we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision. JOSEPH ACADEMY OF VALENZUELA and DAMASO D. misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LEANDRO LEGASPI. in her capacity as the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer. 185821. unlike in expropriation proceedings under the Rules of Court. No. the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court.R. To be sure.R. ROJAS CHUA. G. when demanded by the higher interest of justice. No.And since neither party objected to the appointment of commissioners. June 13. 182957. v. June 13. G. Furthermore. LOPEZ. No. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. 176838. and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory. G. JIMMY CHUA. BENJAMIN SIM. June 13. ST. who have not been impleaded. could grant the petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC. G. INC. including a quasi-judicial office or government agency. 2013 Denial is intrinsically a weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.R. the trial court‘s findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal. JOSEPH ACADEMY OF VALENZUELA FACULTY ASSOCIATION (SJA VFA)-FUR CHAPTER-TUCP v. the proper fees to be paid to them should likewise be governed by the Rules of Court. PERCIVAL DELA ROSA y BAYER. whimsically. self-serving evidence that cannot be given evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. ABEL DIAZ. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. June 13. 2013 The CA. 2013 In a Rule 45 review. 201723. the former indisputably deserves more credence and evidentiary weight. LEE and STEWART C. June 13. 184589. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE CHINESE CHARITABLE ASSOCIATION. INC. 2013 What is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or . it is clear that. No. MAXIMA P. In this relation. ROBERTO CALLESA. Under this principle. RENA TO E. REMEDIOS BARRENO. G. the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal is for a valid cause.. No. . ARELLANO. in his official capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Balanga. 173829. BAUTISTA. PROVINCE OF BATAAN. Bataan. and the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. INC.R. BONGOT. such as the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification.CALLO.administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs. cannot be given weight. FERNANDEZ. the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim. G. EDWIN P. INC. June 10. ALETA. means that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Accused. CALLO. ADOLFO G. 2013 Out-of-court identifications. ALFONSO M. thus. PHILIPPINE COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY INC. and since such were not refuted nor disputed by complainants herein. might conceivably opine otherwise. June 10. we have no recourse but to uphold their due execution. INC. there is no preponderance of evidence on his side if such evidence is insufficient in itself to establish his cause of action. JIMMY C. For no way exists for the courts to evaluate the factors used in determining the admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identifications. JOSE ARMANDO CERVANTES CACHUELA and BENJAMIN JULIAN CRUZ IBANEZ. ESCALANTE v. the quantum of proof which the employer must discharge is substantial evidence which. the court will find for the defendant. equally reasonable.R. VICHUACO. 200094. ADELIA T. BENJAMIN JULIAN CRUZ IBANEZ. TEOFILO GONZAGA G. CAMARA. June 10. NONAY. No. represented by its Provincial Governor ANTONIO ROMAN.R. JOHN A. No. even if other minds. They should not be made to suffer the consequences of the negligence of the Notary Public in following the procedures prescribed by the Notarial Law. The absence of an independent in-court identification by Zaldy additionally justifies our strict treatment and assessment of Lino‘s testimony. the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal. G. CALLO. as defined in case law. 175900. committed the imputed crime. 191752. when the same is not supported by detailed narrations. No. and/or GREGORY ALAN F. SAMSON F. Bataan. FEDERICO A. Failing in which. PINON. EMMANUEL M. in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by different fora upon the same issues.R. waivers. CAMARA. GENARO F. COST ALES. That being said. JULITO B. and MILAGROS H. NILO B. and quitclaims.R. BENIGNO M. 2013. and such was done in this case. and PASTOR P. and/or DANNY Z. VIGILLA. AQUINO. Parties who appear before a notary public to have their documents notarized should not be expected to follow up on the submission of the notarial reports. FREDERICK D. 2013 It is the swearing of a person before the Notary Public and the latter‘s act of signing and affixing his seal on the deed that is material and not the submission of the notarial report. June 10. Accused-Appellant. in his official capacity as Registrar of the Register of Deeds of Balanga. the length of time between the crime and the identification. No. v. and EUGENIO SALINAS v. REYES v. LILIBETH AMETIN. even if the evidence of the plaintiff may be stronger than that of the defendant. 2013 In termination cases. DAMO. KAPISANANG PANGKAUNLARAN NG KABABAIHANG POTRERO. BACHAR. DRANREV F. SURIGAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE. there can be conviction if the prosecution can establish the appellants‘ participation in the crime through credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence that leads to the inescapable conclusion that the accused. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2013. DIONISIO and MARITES CASIO. and none other. FERNANDEZ. The "equiponderance of evidence" rule states that when the scale shall stand upon an equipoise and there is nothing in the evidence which shall incline it to one side or the other. 187722. LINDA C. G. VALBUECO. June 10. Such notarization gives prima facie evidence of the due execution of the releases. which is the illegal object itself.. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution and demolition issued pursuant thereto. in the first place. June 5. INC. it is the trial court‘s duty and obligation to exercise the same when properly invoked. Blg. Where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several tribunals. G. ENRIQUE T. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2013 An action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property.No one shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger.SPO1 Dela Victoria‘s claim that the sachet of shabu presented in court was the same one confiscated from Calumbres. G. is a real action but it is an action in personam. SUCGANG and NILO IGTANLOC. in order for this doctrine to operate. G. has distinctly defined and granted the MTCC with jurisdiction. a representation must have been made to the detriment of another who relied on it. a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court.R. 2013 First level courts are clothed with the power to preliminarily resolve questions on the ownership of real property. or re-conveyance. it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction. or if a sachet of anything was in fact seized from Calumbres. v.R. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. In other words. in line with the regulatory philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi-judicial agencies in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. HEIRS OF SPOUSES DIONISIO DELOY and PRAXEDES MARTONITO. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY vs.Jurisprudence accords a different treatment with respect to an appeal in a criminal case filed with the Office of the Ombudsman and that remedy is to file with this Court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.R. both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter. JULIO E. solely on the presumption of regularity of one‘s performance of duty. Through estoppel. No. and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court.The solo performance by SPO1 Dela Victoria of all the acts necessary for the prosecution of the offense is unexplained and puts the proof of corpus delicti. No. 129. VICTORIA P. estoppel would not lie against one who. VICTORY M. and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying on it. VICTORIA P. PHILIPPINE AMANAH BANK AND RAMON KUE. MEYCAUA YAN BRANCH. cannot be taken at its face value. Thus. JOSEPH NOEL C. 175542. Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded.P. the MTCC should have taken cognizance of the complaint as it was well within its jurisdiction to do so. fair dealing. and justice and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act. When the law bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific matters. v. SR. SPOUSES RUBIN AND PORTIA HOJAS v.GREEN ACRES HOLDINGS. G. Nos. No. did not make any representation. No definite answer can be established regarding the question as to who possessed what from the time of the alleged apprehension until the trial of the case. GLORIA CALUMBRES y AUDITOR. G. and REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF BULACAN. considering that B. June 10. Thus. June 10.R. if necessary. G. 2013. as amended. 192893. No. 2013 Appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43. as correctly ruled by the CA. ALBERTO PAT-OG. 2013 Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the same parties or subject matter at the same time by two or more separate tribunals. This doctrine is based on the grounds of public policy. 193453. AMANDO P. CABRAL. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB). for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing. 194382. in serious doubt..R.R. PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR. 187896-97. the body that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others. GREEN . representations or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied on it. in which case. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS). 2013. represented by POLICARPIO DELOY. June 5. CABRAL v. FILCON READY MIXED. June 5. No. Moreover. INC. LONGBOAN I OFFICE OF THE AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATOR. SPS. MORAGA and VICTORIA SORIANO. 198755. good faith. CONTES v. to arrive at the proper and complete determination of the question on physical possession or possession de facto. In the same manner. an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it. We are left in doubt whether or not the sachet of shabu allegedly seized from Calumbres was the very same object offered in court as the corpus delicti. FERNANDEZ. June 5. the quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual administratively liable is substantial evidence. PIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. No. June 5. G. DELIA R. stringent compliance therewith is fully justified. Overall Deputy Ombudsman. if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. CARAGUE. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. Formerly PUP President. JR. except in actions in rem or quasi in rem. The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. Officer-in-Charge. CEFP Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP). They cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. INC. 188024. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE . DR. Mesa. HON. G. It was laid down by Congress as a safety precaution against potential abuses by law enforcement agents who might fail to appreciate the gravity of the penalties faced by those suspected to be involved in the sale. OSMEÑA I. DAYANG W. SUBALDO. Sta. June 5. in their own behalf and in behalf of the other officials and employees of DA-RFU XII. ISAIAS ALBANO. MACMOD. Formerly Acting Ombudsman. No. June 5. BUISAN. 179492. use or possession of illegal drugs.R. ALVAREZ. RAKMA B. GERVACIO. represented by ABUSAMA M.R. JR.R. MONTAÑER. June 5. TAYUAN. JANET BAY. Jurisdiction over the defendant in an action in rem or quasi in rem is not required. No. 2013 In administrative cases. LILY REYES. 172334. G. RODRIGO RONTOS y DELA TORRE v. MORAGA and VICTORIA SORIANO and FILCON READY MIXED. KAMENZA. No. only questions of law may be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. G. SIDENO.ACRES HOLDINGS. ALID. Manila. now Associate Professor. Finance and Politics (CEFP). 2013 . TABONG. College of Economics. the Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to review evidence on record and assess the probative weight thereof.. QUIJANO. civil as well as criminal. NICOLAS V. 156759. Office of the Ombudsman. JESUS R. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. 2013 Jurisdiction over the person.R. No. or jurisdiction in personam –the power of the court to render a personal judgment or to subject the parties in a particular action to the judgment and other rulings rendered in the action – is an element of due process that is essential in all actions. 2013 Settled is the rule that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of an accused by the complainant. especially when they are affirmed by the CA. MARGARITO P. CO. June 5.ALLEN A. GALANG. June 5.. Positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter. Formerly Dean. Under the principle that penal laws are strictly construed against the government. FRANCISCO R. Section 5. G. DANNUG. Dr. 183205.R. No. BAYAO. is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. OFELIA M. prevails over a denial which. HELEN M. ZENAIDA P. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANNA MAE A. SPOUSES ENRIQUE T. FLORENCE S. ABDULWAHAB A. PUSTA.R. INC.. The settled rule provides that factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight. MACASAET. G. 195523. ROMAN R. AND RANDY HAGOS vs. JR. and the court acquires jurisdiction over an actionas long as it acquires jurisdiction over the resthat is thesubject matter of the action. UDTOG B. Dr. 2013. ELIZABETH B. LIMBA. 2013 This Court has emphasized the import of Section 21 as a matter of substantive law that mandates strict compliance.REGIONAL FIELD UNIT XII (DA-RFU XII) vs. JOHN S. Furthermore. Rule 133 of the Rules of Court defines substantial evidence as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. The purpose of summons in such action is not the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant but mainly to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process. ERNESTO GANI y TUPAS. NEILA P. " "It does not diminish the complainant‘s credibility or undermine the charges of rape when the delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm. "The filing of complaints of rape months. to impede the due administration of justice. courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired. June 05. convincing. if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. particularly if she is a minor. JR." PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible. however.R. 189836. LUA. 191730. GUILLERMO LOMAQUE.R. June 5. 2013 The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. justice. Though there are deviations from the required procedure. the act must be done willfully and for an illegitimate or improper purpose. and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. JOSE TORRES. 182855. No. No. The writ exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint and as an effective defense of personal freedom. G. represented by the CENTER FOR MEDIA FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY (CMFR).R. June 05. The prosecution witnesses‘ positive identification prevails over the mere denial of appellant. but such conduct which tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or. June 05. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. candid and categorical testimony of the complainant. 2013 "AAA‘s" momentary inaction will neither diminish nor affect her credibility. considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Moreover. SUSAN LIM-LUA v. MELINDA QUINTOS-DE JESUS. SUPERENTENDENT VENANCIO TESORO. it is well-settled that denial. No. It is issued only for the lone purpose of obtaining relief for those illegally confined or imprisoned without sufficient legal basis. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court‘s order. G. G. through its Chairperson. DAVAO PRISONS AND PENAL FARM. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. G. PANABO CITY. 2013 Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority. G. 2013 In a prosecution for rape. G. DIGOS DAVAO DEL NORTE. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. No. even years. what is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.respondent‘s act was not contumacious considering that he had not been remiss in actually providing for the needs of his children. It is not issued when the person is in custody because of a judicial process or a valid judgment. MRS. Respondent admittedly ceased or suspended the giving of monthly support pendente lite granted by the trial court. ARIEL CALARA. June 5. ALEXANDER "LEX" ADONIS. When unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense. This rule is. in some manner. DIRECTOR. and dignity. Youth and immaturity are . they do not impair their credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant. says that she has been raped. and the NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES (NUJP). it is negative and self-serving and merits no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. MR. 2013 Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit. ROMEO BUSTAMANTE. specially by one who exercises moral ascendancy over the victim. which is immediately executory. the former deserves more credence. 2013 The Court has held that although there may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details. When the offended party is of tender age and immature. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. June 05. depending on the circumstances attendant thereto. 175279-80. after their commission may or may not dent the credibility of witness and of testimony.R. However. through its Executive Director. MR.R. not established solely by compliance with the prescribed physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the enumerated persons. is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law because denial cannot prevail over the positive. as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 197039. DANILO Y. and as between the positive declaration of the complainant and the negative statement of the appellant. MYLENE TORRES. since when a girl. v. No. 189297. To constitute contempt.The ultimate purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve a person from unlawful restraint.R. Nos. Basic considerations of due process dictate that theories. and inflection of the voice are potent aids in ascertaining the witness’ credibility. Verily. June 5.generally badges of truth and sincerity. 190818. June 5. LIBERTY M. gesture. Moreover.R. 202690. accused-appellant was in the immediate vicinity of the locus criminis at the time of commission of the crime. INC. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. No.. but as a matter of fairness. TOLEDO. especially in the face of conflicting testimonies.. INC. SM PRIME HOLDINGS. for the defense of alibi to prosper. Considering her tender age. 2013. CTA Division’s grant of respondents’ motion for extension falls squarely within the law. CORP. 2013. Rule 60 of the Rules of Court that requires the applicant to make a . the party invoking such should be able to show that the procedural oversight or lapse is attended by a genuine miscalculation or unforeseen fortuitousness which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against so as to justify the relief sought. 203041. 193747.. In this accord. and attitude under grilling examination. G. As between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand. 2013. Prior demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin. G. The standard of care required is that which an ordinarily prudent man bestows upon his important business. G.. SY v. These are important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the truth. the reglementary period provided under Section 3. 2013 The Court held that the original period for filing the petition for review may be extended for a period of fifteen (15) days. except when their factual bases would not require presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party in order to enable him to properly meet the issue raised.R. It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor. conduct. 200329. the emphasis. METRO MANILA SHOPPING MECCA CORP. No. G. ACE HARDWARE PHILIPPINES. the duty rests on every counsel to see to adopt and strictly maintain a system that will efficiently take into account all court notices sent to him. INC. indeed.R. INC. JOLLIMART PHILS. AAA could not have invented a horrible story. INC. and SURPLUS MARKETING CORPORATION v. MOISES CAOILE... In the case at bar. RICARDO PIOSANG. the former is generally held to prevail. and a mere denial and alibi on the other. No. since there is nothing in Section 2. 2013 Settled is the rule that a party who adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and decided by the lower courts or tribunals will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal.. in her official capacity as the City Treasurer of Manila. In other words. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. For. JOSELITO C. MINA. A claim of excusable negligence does not loosely warrant a relaxation of the rules. SHOEMART. June 5. Rule 8 of the RRCTA is extendible and as such.R. may be extended for another period not exceeding fifteen (15) days. and the trial court has the opportunity and can take advantage of these aids. the appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. not because of the strict application of procedural rules. HEALTH AND BEAUTY.R. June 05. MS. G. issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court would not ordinarily be considered by a reviewing court. BORROMEO v. which for the most compelling reasons. SUPER VALUE. No. STAR APPLIANCES CENTER. No. JUAN T. HENRY L. June 5. and THE CITY OF MANILA. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY. When a party files an appeal bond amounting to at least 90% of the amount it was adjudged to pay.R. July 03. G. When there is only one witness to the crime and that he was familiar with both the victim and the accused. after all. July 01. No. and Sections 18 and 27 of R. JOEMARI JALBONIAN alias “BUDO. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK. 198789. "For although the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of evidence. 192394. which grants the Office of the Ombudsman the authority to promulgate its own rules of procedure. No. 2013. 6770. No. 179643. it must be proved. Finding of guilt based on the testimony of a lone witness is not uncommon. 196529. the Court of Appeals has no authority nor discretion to stay such decision as this would tantamount to an encroachment on the rule-making powers of the Ombudsman under the Constitution.R. LOOYUKO. G.R. alibi and denial are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.demand on the possessor of the property before an action for a writ of replevin could be filed. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No. 2013. It has been settled that affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. et. June 3.R. G. No. ROY D. The bond requirement on appeals may be relaxed when there is substantial compliance with the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC or when the appellant shows willingness to post a partial bond. PASOS v.R. July 1. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. al. 2013. If the rigid and pedantic application of procedural norms would frustrate rather than promote justice. The sole issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the property involved. G. Further. June 3. 2013.R. raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership. ANDRES MARIANO and DOROTEO GARCIA. the Court always has the power to suspend the rules or except a particular case from its operation. such payment can be considered as substantial compliance. REGGIE BERNARDO. 2013. ERNESTO L. NATIVIDAD v. INC. 180281. the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. 2013 When the Office of the Ombudsman decides on a case. Absent clear and convincing evidence. 182963. WILLIAM T. it can therefore be established that such witness is telling the truth. OFFICE OF THE . substituted by his legal heirs TERESITA C. SPOUSES DEO AGNER and MARICON AGNER vs. June 3. preponderance is not necessarily with the greatest number and conviction can still be had on the basis of the credible and positive testimony of a single witness. LOOYUKO. No. No. however. When the defendant. intended to promote rather than defeat substantial justice. not only that the assailant was in another place when the crime was committed. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. GO v. Prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not an indispensable requirement in an unlawful detainer case brought by a vendee or other person against whom the possession of any land is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of a right to hold possession. for alibi to prosper. independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties.A. but that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission altogether. particularly if defects of jurisdiction appear to be present. The broader interests of justice and equity demand that we set aside procedural rules as they are. ALBERTO T.” G. FERNANDO MARIANO. 185734. 2013 When the parties executed a compromise agreement. NAMELY ALVARO YPON. There is no provision of the Rules disqualifying parties declared in default from taking the witness stand for non-disqualified parties.R. No. ALFREDO C. the five-year period to enforce the same shall be suspended. 179638. No. hence. July 03. will not acquire jurisdiction over the case. the determination as to the propriety of the fees or as to the amount thereof will have to be held in abeyance until the main case from which the lawyer‘s claim for attorney‘s fees may arise has become final. July 03.R. a complaint is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if.OMBUDSMAN v. but only insofar as the merits of the action for revival is concerned. The law does not provide default as an exception. 2013 The allegation that the petitioners are the lawful heirs is not sufficient to be entitled to the relief. 2013 When there is a delay in the execution of the decision caused by the respondent for his own advantage. LONTOC. this court to which it was filed. DE CHAVEZ. July 03. . et al. MIRANDA. Cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. FRANCISCO L. HEIRS OF NUMERIANO MIRANDA. 198240. which is already final and executory. July 03. While the provisions of Rule 57 are silent on the length of time within which an attachment lien shall continue to subsist after the rendition of a final judgment.R.AL. 186366. No. G. allows exceptions when execution may be made by motion even after the lapse of five years. It is different and distinct from the original judgment sought to be revived or enforced. The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses excludes the operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned in the Rules. G. HEIRS OF MAGDALENO YPON. ROLANDO L. v. No. et al. 2013 A party aggrieved by a decision of a court in an action for revival of judgment may appeal the decision. or the sale is had under execution issued on the judgment or until the judgment is satisfied. 2013 When a witness takes participation in a case. such agreement does not extinguish the obligation of the debtor. G. This is because what determines the nature of the action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. admitting what appears solely on its face to be correct. ERNESTO M. the determination to be made by the courts will be premature. ANDRESS NAVARRO. G. It is wellsettled that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. LIM. HEIRS OF JOSE FERNANDO v. ET. While a claim for attorney‘s fees may be filed before the judgment is rendered.R. may no longer be reversed. These exceptions have one common denominator: the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment obligor and/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage. JR. 203241. No. In this relation. he may do such as an incident in the main action or have it instituted in a separate action. v. SERRA. ETC. SR.R. An action for revival of judgment is a new and independent action. or the attachment discharged or vacated in the same manner provided by law. REYNALDO DE BELEN. G. 198680. 2013 When petitioner files a claim for attorney‘s fees. any complaint instituted by them shall not prosper for failure to state a cause of action. or modified. 2013 When a party fails to specify the assessed value of the property subject matter of the action. No. The original judgment. There is a need to institute a separate special proceeding for heirship before the said heirs can be considered real parties-in-interest and without such. The Rules of Court provide that a final and executory judgment may be executed by motion within five years from the date of its entry or by an action after the lapse of five years and before prescription sets in. LAZARO. No.RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. the attachment to his property should continue to subsist such obligation is fully complied with. JR. SPOUSES TITO S. PABLO R. THE HEIRS OF THE LATE DR. LUISA NAVARRO MARCOS v. v. altered. July 08. July 08. July 10.R. 172206. FEDERICO A. LAZARO and CARMEN T. This Court. SR. it is only mandated that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided in the Rules of Court. the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for. jurisprudence dictates that the said lien continues until the debt is paid. however. G.R. G. GAUDIOSO PONTERAS RICAFORTE. Otherwise. SPOUSES JAVIER and MA. a cross-claim which is not set up shall be barred. et. G. JR. 17611 July 17. 191566. v. JULY 15. 199114. No. CDO WATER DISTRICT and GASPAR GONZALEZ.ROSARIO..R. This is because the result of the independent civil action is irrelevant to the issue of guilt or innocence of the accused. CAROLINA B. EDGARDO V. it then fails to perform its bounden-duty to make an independent evaluation of the merits of the case. JOSE v. No. 2013 When a witness fails to positively identify the accused as the victims assailant and that there are inconsistencies between his affidavit and testimony. July 17. in her capacity as then Administrator of POEA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT. or every erroneous conclusion of law or fact. fixes the reckoning point of the period of disallowance at an erroneous date. 161921.R.R. v. No. having no knowledge of a prior dismissal. constitutes grave abuse of discretion. al. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 189028. JOYCE V. would establish the essential elements of the crime defined by law. CHRIS CORPUZ y BASBAS. NO. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G. There is no basis to treat the co-parties as such when it cannot be shown that there was a cross-claim filed against said co-parties.R. 2013 When a trial court merely denied a motion for being ―unmeritorious‖ without further elaborating on the bases of its conclusion. petitioner is already barred from doing so in the present petition. et al. et.R. the same cannot be granted. Standing is the determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication." It is a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the information. G. the same shall not affect his credibility. JR. Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. NATIONAL ARTIST FOR LITERATURE VIRGILIO ALMARIO. v. Not only should they show that the act is invalid but they must sustain that they may suffer as a result of its enforcement. ODTUHAN. or for defects which are apparent in the face of the information. it does not tantamount to a grave abuse of discretion. JR.R. No. ROSALINDA DIMAPILIS-BALDOZ. he must first establish that he has a direct and personal interest. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. for failing to set up a cross-claim against her co-defendants before the RTC. PURITA SUAREZ. The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the material averments in an Information is whether or not the facts alleged therein. ARDIENTE v. al. A motion to quash information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law. Under Section 2. July 17. July 16. July 17. G. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. G. Not every error in the proceedings. represented by CHAIRMAN REYNALDO VILLAR and COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole.R. G. RAFAEL JOSE CONSING. No. Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters – not to the central fact of the crime – do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of witnesses‘ declarations. which are hypothetically admitted. 2013 Co-parties before the RTC and CA cannot be made adversary parties in a petition for review on certiorari. 2013 When a party assails the legality of an official act. The abuse of discretion to be qualified as "grave" must be so patent or gross as to constitute an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty or to act at all in contemplation of law. 191247. 191068. July 10. Such failure of the RTC constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. ESPINO. 2013 When the commission. Thus. G. LELLANI DE GUZMAN. ARLEEN DE GUZMAN. 161075. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. July 16. THERESA PASTORFIDE. 2013 . JR. No. No. 2013 An independent civil action based on fraud initiated by the defrauded party does not raise a prejudicial question to stop the proceedings in a pending criminal prosecution of the defendant for estafa through falsification. 2013 When a party files a motion to quash information for bigamy based on the trial court‘s declaration that his marriage is null and void ab initio. G.R. DR. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. BOBBY “ABEL” AVELINO y BULAWAN v. G. G. The object of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of the detention.R.R. Rule 17 of the COMELEC‘s Rules of Procedure defines the requirements for a hearing and these serve as the standards in the determination of the presence or denial of due process. 168651 & 169000. such request is premature.When there are inconsistencies with the testimonies of two witnesses. v. A rape victim is not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident. G. 2013 When a party files motion for reconsideration which is not set for hearing. MARVIN CRUZ. or is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge with jurisdiction or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record. 197250. 179786. 2013 When a party is detained for legal reasons. 181444. PANGILINAN. 2013 When the victim commits a mistake in remembering the dates when she was raped. Equally well-settled however.R. July 23. G. Rule 132. it must give the latter the opportunity to be heard and to adduce evidence as to their continuing compliance with the requirements for the accreditation. identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance. Thus. it must be established first that the records would have been offered as evidence for admission in court. 201728. Section 36. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R.R. July 17. No. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PHILS. July 17. JOSIELEN LARA CHAN v. CHAN G. 206844-45/G. No. 2013. July 17. such does not contradict the fact that she did not consent to the sexual act. 2013 . JUDGE HERIBERTO M. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA y HANDAYA. a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party. July 17.R. so humiliating and painful that she might in fact be trying to obliterate it from her memory. ABBOTT LABORATORIES. July 17. and.R. Furthermore. July 23.R. JOHNNY T. this does not exculpate the accused from criminal liability and does not ignore the fact that one witness was able to unequivocally identify the accused as the gunman. The fact that the inventory was made at the accused-appellant‘s house and not at the scene of the buybust operation did not adversely affect the chain of custody. no such other action or claim is pending. No. July 24. Otherwise.R. if the detention is found to be illegal. ROLANDO P. it renders the motion without no legal effect. ALCARAZ. 2013 When the COMELEC reviews the registration of party lists. ROGER R. G. COALITION OF ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CITIZEN IN THE PHILIPPINES v. ET AL. 192571. integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs seized from accused-appellant were preserved. No. No. This requirement is mandatory Basic is the rule that every motion must be set for hearing by the movant except for those motions which the court may act upon without prejudice to the rights of the adverse party. 206982. G. is that the writ will not issue where the person in whose behalf the writ is sought is out on bail. DAYCO v. states that objections to evidence must be made after the offer of such evidence for admission in court. No. 160739. ANITA MANGILA v. to require the release of the detainee. No. If there is no such similar pending case. she cannot avail of the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy. However. et al. COMELEC. It is considered a pro forma motion which shall not toll the reglementary period of the appeal. No. Section 5(a) of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that the plaintiff is obliged to declare under oath that to the best of his knowledge. No.. a formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. It cannot be denied that once a person gains familiarity of another. 2013 A plaintiff who files a case should provide a complete statement of the present status of any pending case if the latter involves the same issues as the one that was filed. If it is shown that the illicit drugs seized from accused-appellant are the same illicit drugs marked and subjected to physical inventory then the chain of custody was continuous and the identity. 2013 When a party to a case wishes to request for subpoena duces tecum. G. POSADAS and DR. PEARLIE ANN F. a deaf-mute is competent to be a witness so long as he/she has the faculty to make observations and he/she can make those observations known to others. 2013 When a land dispute or problem is lodged before COSLAP. v. July 24.When a party fails to comply with a pre-requisite mandated by law. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as. ANTONIO. Under EO 561. 2013 When there are clear inconsistencies in the testimony or presentation of the facts of the prosecution.R. the accused cannot be convicted guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction. G. July 24. there is a mandatory publication notice required under the Rules of Court. PROVINCE OF CAGAYAN. The inability to hear and speak may prevent a deaf-mute from communicating orally with others but he/she may still communicate with others in writing or through signs and symbols and. JOSEPH LASAM LARA. Outside said scope. July 24. in which case. No. 2013. If the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence. 195528. it is not assumed that it has jurisdiction over it. A mentally retarded may be a credible witness. G. The law clearly requires that (a) notice of the petition should be published in two (2) successive issues of the Official Gazette. timber concessions.R. remain functional and allow him/her to make observations about his/her environment and experiences. Moral certainty only is required. 181539. RICORDITO N. et. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BASES CONVERSATION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. injunction is not proper. EDWIN ALEMAN y LONGHAS. the civil case does not involve a prejudicial question. The acceptance of her testimony depends on the quality of her perceptions and the manner she can make them known to the court. Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility. Where the complainant‘s right is doubtful or disputed. Substantial compliance with this jurisdictional requirement is not enough. v. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. excluding possibility of error. G. G. A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed. because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. and (b) publication should be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of hearing. No. G. DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.R. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. The acceptance of her testimony depends on the quality of her perceptions and the manner she can make them known to the court. or reservation grants. INC. G. 197537. No. he does not therefore acquire any legal right to be protected by an injunction. Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. 2013 . such as his/her sense of sight. represented by HON. the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted. July 24. JOSE CLARA y BUHAIN. No. the instances when the COSLAP may resolve land disputes are limited only to those involving public lands or those covered by a specific license from the government. No. such as pasture lease agreements. 193874.R. the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf. July 24. 192896. 2013 The victim‘s mental retardation does not affect her credibility of her testimony. produces absolute certainty. DE ASIS. as in this case. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION.R. ALVARO T. COSLAP has no authority to resolve the case before it. al. JR. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R.R. sketches. No. No. Thus. July 24. or if there is no necessity that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case. 188500. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NINOY ROSALES y ESTO. 2013 When the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on the same facts. SPS ARGOVAN and FLORIDA GADEITANO v. 2013 When a party causes a publication short of the thirty-day period preceding the hearing. 188767. July 24. A deaf-mute may not be able to hear and speak but his/her other senses. G. Also. The distinction between questions of law and questions of fact is well-defined.M. Before appointing a receiver. G. on the other hand. No." in estate proceedings. Although the appointment of commissioners is mandatory. TERESA C. 2013 When courts appoint a receiver. v. EVE CABOVERDA-YU. it is considered as a prohibited pleading and as such. July 30. without injuring or affecting that interest. et al. 2011 OF CHIEF PUBLIC ATTORNEY PERSIDA RUEDA-ACOSTA REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM THE PAYMENT OF SHERIFF’S EXPENSES. No. for and in behalf of MARIA LOURDES ELISE QUIAZON. A question of fact. G. DOMINILDA ESPINA-CABOVERDE. AGUILAR. because the State cannot be estopped by the omission. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts.. is one who would be benefited in the estate. G. When the agencies and their public records are involved and affected by any decision rendered in a petition for correction filed by a party.R. MICHAEL J. Such petition covers only questions of law. or one who has a claim against the estate. other than that the commissioners should not number more than three and that they should be competent and disinterested parties. 2013 The daughter of the deceased may be entitled to the issuance of letters of administration as she is one of the preferred persons enumerated by law to such. the Court will dismiss it. July 31. 2013 . however. 175844. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No. LOURDES BELEN. The absence of opposition from government agencies is of no controlling significance. such as an heir. 186610. POLICE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT DIMAPINTO MACAWADIB v. 182280. 11-10-03. exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.R.R. et al. A second motion for reconsideration may be allowed if there are extraordinarily persuasive reasons therefor. G. 2013 When a person is not impleaded in a case. G. the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is not proper. in his absence. They are indispensable parties. there was no contravention to Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. mistake or error of its officials or agents. v. July 29. July 29. This rule. in estate proceedings.NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. et al. he has the right to vindicate his claim in a separate action. AMELIA GARCIA-QUIZON. 203585. The principle that a person cannot be prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which he was not made a party conforms to the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. Not being a party to the case.R. et al. RE: LETTER DATED APRIL 18. is not absolute. the phrase "next of kin" refers to those whose relationship with the decedent Is such that they are entitled to share in the estate as distributees. SALVADOR AND NENITA CRUZ. O’PALLICK. No. without whom no final determination of the case can be had. No.R. such as a creditor. A. it is thus required that they are made parties to said proceeding. courts should consider: (1) whether or not the injury resulting from such appointment would probably be greater than the injury ensuing if the status quo is left undisturbed. An "interested party. 165386. July 29. the Rules do not impose any qualifications or restrictions on the appointment. An indispensable party is defined as one who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made. 2013 When a party files a second motion for reconsideration. he cannot be bound by the decision therein and consequently. July 29. and upon express leave of court first obtained. G. it must not only consider the reasons given by the owners of the properties. July 29. questions of fact are not reviewable and cannot be passed upon by the Court unless exceptions are found to exist. 2013. No. and (2) whether or not the appointment will imperil the interest of others whose rights deserve as much a consideration from the court as those of the person requesting for receivership. In this relation. SPS. When a party raises issues involving questions of facts. 189121. 2013 When the PAC was appointed as commissioners for the determination of just compensation. MA. SARABIA MANOR HOTEL CORPORATION. No. MILA CABOVERDE TANTANO and ROSELLER CABOVERDE v.R. he was not given the opportunity to present his case. THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTORATE FOR PERSONNEL AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT. circumstantial evidence may be availed of. 181119. RODRIGO C. 147257. July 31. COURT OF APPEALS. there should first be a demand to pay or to comply with the terms of the lease and a demand to vacate. RHODORA PRIETO v. there is no ground to believe that the court gravely abused its discretion when it subsequently dismissed the petition. As a ministerial function of the court. however. such pendency does not bar the issuance of a writ of execution/writ of possession after said foreclosure.R. 2013 When a witness commits discrepancies relating to minor details and collateral matters. sale of the mortgaged properties and the lapse of the one-year period. July 31. It is the owner's demand for tenant to vacate the premises. the judge need not look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure. Where a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleges grave abuse of discretion. DYCOCO v. the proper remedy therefore should be appeal. and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face. when the tenant has failed to pay the rents on time. 188708. If. NERI v. 2013 Consolidation is a procedural device granted to the court as an aid in deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously while providing justice to the parties. When there are two criminal cases that are consolidated together. 2013 When the court liberally allows the petitioner-spouses to file their petition five days after the extended period.R.R. July 31. No. July 31.R. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client. SPOUSES JESUS DYCOCO and JOELA E.R. G. MARCELO. No. 172504. 2013 When a petitioner wishes to file an action for unlawful detainer. et al. MARCELO and CARMEN T. the order partakes of a final adjudication. No. July 31. 2013 When there is absence of direct evidence to prove that the appellant caused the crime charged of him. 2013 . August 07. When a party resorts to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. it must be shown that there is no plain. 2013. the petitioner should establish that the respondent court or tribunal acted in a capricious. It is an oft-repeated doctrine that the testimony of even ―a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as such testimony is found to be clear and straight-forward and worthy of credence by the trial court. arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 202243. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. ALPADI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.R. This is so because "grave abuse of discretion" is well-defined and not an amorphous concept that may easily be manipulated to suit one‘s purpose. July 31. A petition for certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal. MARK ANTHONY ESTEBAN v. it must be for the purpose of expediency and speedy disposition of justice. which is not excusable. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK. ARNEL ALICANDO y BRIONES v. speedy and adequate remedy available to it other than such petition. especially if one‘s own negligence or error in one‘s choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. No. If not. FAUSTINO T. even if the basis is grave abuse of discretion. 197725.When there is a pending civil case challenging the validity of a mortgage or its foreclosure. When an appeal is available. certiorari will not prosper. G. To justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. ROMULO L.R. under Rule 41. G. SPS. which make unlawful withholding of possession. 2013 When a party is deprived of his day in court because of her counsel‘s failure to notify him. NAGTALON v. No. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. the same shall be denied. and tenant‘s refusal or failure to vacate. No. CHINGKOE and GLORIA CHINGKOE v. G. whimsical. No. ALAMANDA MACABANDO. G. such is not excusable and cannot be considered by the court. No. 191025. as these are the questions that should be properly decided by a court of competent jurisdiction in the pending case filed before it. such testimony does not affect the veracity of the witness‘ declarations. the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. The failure of a party‘s counsel to notify him on time of the adverse judgment to enable him to appeal therefrom is negligence. Mere failure to pay rents does not ipso facto make unlawful tenant's possession of the premises. DONNA C. G. July 31. G. G. Republic of the Philippines. represented by THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS.R. 183608. an action to annul the same is already barred from being questioned in another case despite the fact that they are in different actions. a writ of prohibition is not proper.a. 2013 When a person commits a crime he offends two entities namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the political entity called the State whose law he has violated. the proper function of a writ of prohibition is to prevent the doing of an act which is about to be done. No. and the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question. in Section 12. THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA AND ASEOCHE. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. G. Conclusiveness of judgment does not require identity of the causes of action for it to work. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 2013 A trial court judge may immediately dismiss a criminal case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. chastity or property has been actually or directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act or omission. 2013 When the CA does not affirm the RTC‘s findings of facts. BAELLO. the Supreme Court may then review the findings of fact of the appellate court. August 07.k. G. 2013 A Motion for Reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari. 191424. No.When the acts being prevented by a party have already been accomplished. such as when the lower courts‘ findings of fact are conflicting. and (2) the individual member of the society whose person. . a former judgment between the same parties will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit.R. August 07. COURT OF TAX APPEALS ET AL. It is not intended to provide a remedy for acts already accomplished. ALFEO D. G.R. LEE PUE LIONG a. In order to be qualified as "grave. 183014. right. FRIA. The judge‘s dismissal of a case must be done only in clear-cut cases when the evidence on record plainly fails to establish probable cause – that is when the records readily show uncontroverted. 2013 When the validity of a land title has long been settled in a previous case. is the party to whom the offender is civilly liable. As a general rule. 181658. PAUL LEE v. THE MONETARY BOARD OF THE BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS and THE PHILIPPINE EPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION. If a particular point or question is in issue in the second action. ETC. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. 168137. be observed that the judge‘s power to immediately dismiss a criminal case would only be warranted when the lack of probable cause is clear. and therefore the private individual to whom the offender is civilly liable is the offended party. ET AL. 175685. August 07. the Court enumerated the exceptional circumstances when the Supreme Court may review the findings of fact of the CA. G. It must.R. 200858. however. Furthermore. Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. No. ET AL. As a rule. ATTY. public or private.R." the abuse of discretion must be so patent or gross as to constitute an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty or to act at all in contemplation of law. it therefore did not gravely abuse its discretion.R. No. it is reasonable to assume that the offended party in the commission of a crime. A prohibition is a preventive remedy seeking that a judgment be rendered which would direct the defendant to desist from continuing with the commission of an act perceived to be illegal. established facts which unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the crime charged. August 07. August 07. ANGELES BELLATE. No. JOSEJINA C. VIVAS. However. such as when both have ruleddifferently on the identity of the lands in a case. ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OR EUROCREDIT COMMUNITY BANK v. CORAZON B. CHUA PUE CHIN LEE. No.R. 2013 When a court grants a motion to release founded on legal bases supporting its . SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. its findings of fact being conclusive. The rationale for the rule is that the law intends to afford the NLRC an opportunity to rectify such errors or mistakes it may have committed before resort to courts of justice can be had. August 07.v. and thus. the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the CA is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to it. G. honor. the party must establish the following requisites: (a) the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial. 2013 When a party wishes to appeal a decision rendered by the CSC. MAYOR JEJOMAR C. No. It is stated in Section 11. No. GIRON.R. the issuance of injunctive relief is improper. The jurisdiction of the CA over petitions for review under Rule 43 is not limited to judgments and final orders of the CSC. ET AL. SENDAD. LEILA F. ET AL. August 13. It is sufficient that there is probable cause to file such case. The Rules of Court mandate two sets of notices to different potential oppositors: one given to the persons named in the petition and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties. it is not a ground to have the case dismissed. G. 2013 When a person wishes to correct or change the entries in the Civil Registrar regarding her name and status. ODENA. G. the identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity. or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. HADJI PANGSAYAN T. and (c) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. COURT OF APPEALS.R. MASAYUKI HASEGAWA v. FLORD NICSON CALAWAG v. August 19. CITY GOVERNMENT OF MAKATI. free from doubt or dispute. subject matter and cause of action and that judgments were issued on the merits. the same should be through a petition for certiorari and mandamus. it is required that the indispensable parties must be impleaded in the proceedings. G. v. 2013 . G. the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction presents a fourth requirement: it is justified only in a clear case.It bears to stress that the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration is not a mere technicality of procedure.A finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. 2013 When a party wishes to compel another do a duty expected of the latter. Summons must. AS REPRESENTED BY HON. August 07. states that neither the misjoinder nor the non-joinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an action. therefore. August 07. and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.R. No. 191661. Accordingly. LUGSANAY UY. be served not for the purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses. 2013 When there is a similarity of parties. No. G. It is a jurisdictional and mandatory requirement which must be strictly complied with.R. but can extend to appeals from awards. which is to implead other persons in the case. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both. G. DR. August 19. unless these are patently shown to have been made with grave abuse of discretion. EMERITA B.R. 198010. However. 155943. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2013 When there is a failure on the party to comply with Section 5. final orders or resolutions issued by the latter. BINAY v. August 12. 175977. 207412/207542. No. NORMA S. the CA has jurisdiction over the case and the proper recourse is a petition for review under Rule 43. DR. MARY SHEILA ARCOBILLAS. Rule 65.R. 184536. No. to be entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VISAYAS. However. he does not have a clear legal right and. therefore. CARLOS BAYLON. ESPIA. The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions. 2013 A party who files a complaint against another need not show proof that the acts alleged of happened. the two actions are considered the same./ MICAH P. a subsequent filing of an action involving the same elements are barred by the prior judgment. ABDULRAHMAN v. 179648. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. The prosecutor‘s findings on the existence of probable cause are not subject to review by the courts. judgments. When the complainant‘s right is thus doubtful or disputed. G. August 14. (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO AND GUIAMALUDIN A. ET AL.R. No. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. G. However. when a case is still ripe or premature. IN HIS CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR OF NAGCARLAN.Settled is the rule that for the courts to exercise the power of judicial review. constitutes a ground for the summary dismissal of the actions involved. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money. the following must be extant: (1) there must be an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial power. files a petition for continuing mandamus may institute the same with the RTC having jurisdiction of the place in controversy. the Court has recognized exceptions to the strict application of such rules. LAGUNA AND DR. which is appeal. Forum shopping is treated as an act of malpractice and. CASTELLS AND SHALIMAR CENTI-MANDANAS v. 07-7-12-SC. No. over the person of the defendants or over the issues framed in the pleadings.R. SUMITOMO CORPORATION / SUMITOMO CORPORATION v. No. A special civil action for continuing mandamus shall be filed with the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred. 2013 When a party files another petition while one that is identical to it is pending before another tribunal. DOLOT. ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v.R. RODOLFO R.R. the court should not admit the same due to non-compliance with the reglementary period prescribed by the court. 186613. G. G. courts may nevertheless extend the same. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. No. August 28. ARACELI J. August 28.M. RAMON PAJE. INC. but only for the most compelling reasons where stubborn obedience to the Rules would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice. like filing an action for prohibition. however. G. (2) the question must be ripe for adjudication." Hence. VENZON v. From time to time. No. since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice.. 178031. 188514. ANGELO G. as amended by A. HON. August 27. That being a final decision. and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the Courts of First Instance would depend on the amount of the claim. No. 2013 When a trial court dismissed a case involving a rural bank. CHAIRMAN OF THE BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN-SORSOGON v. ROSENDO R. Parajes. it is nonetheless principally for the collection of a sum of money representing the same and is thus not capable of pecuniary estimation.R. 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. represented by Lourdesita E. ANGELES. To be sure. MARICRIS D. August 28. It may either be over the nature of the action. CORALES. No.R. 196723/G. LAGUNA V. ET AL. G. a party cannot pre-empt by prematurely seeking judicial intervention. which is the power and authority of the court to hear. subject to its sound discretion. VIRGINIA M. 196728. IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES.R. is conferred by law. which now disallows an extension of the 60-day reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari. 2013 When the petitioners allege that the main purpose of their complaint is for collection of Agent‘s Compensation. 2013 . Rule 65 of the Rules. FRANCISCO. 2013 A party who. try and decide a case. RURAL BANK OF BUENAVISTA. there constitutes a ground for forum shopping since the relief sought is the same. the rule against forum shopping seeks to prevent the vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and in the process creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues. MARIA LOURDES D. No.R. Commission and Damages. 2013 When a party files a motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari. and (3) the person challenging must have the "standing. in this accord. the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation. the proper recourse that petitioner should have availed of is the remedy under Rule 41. August 28. and not Rule 65. despite the rigid wording of Section 4. G. CABRERA v. 172293. It is wellsettled that procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard. IN HIS CAPACITY AS MUNICPAL MAYOR OF NAGCARLAN. ASIA CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. the same must be treated as a dismissal with the character of finality. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES. 199199. after complying with the requirements laid down by law. August 27. ET AL. No. over the subject matter. Jurisdiction. G. v. the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished. it is sufficient that the Republic prove their demand through a preponderance of evidence. As such. and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases. August 28. would amount to res judicata in the other case. ANASTACIO AMISTOSO. they also cannot be adversely affected by the outcome of such proceeding. defendants or intervenors.R. would concoct a story of defloration.R.. No. Preponderance of evidence refers to the comparative weight of the evidence presented by the opposing parties. RITA KANAPI v. allow an examination of her private parts. B. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. that alone would be sufficient to convict the accused. LUZ REYES BAKUNAWA. to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. RALLOS v. 201447. 202651. CITY OF CEBU G. it has been defined as "the weight. G. 2013 The testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction. 2013 . (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. AND ARLENE STA.R. APOLIARIO MANALILI. August 28. No.In a case of reconveyance or recovery of ill-gotten wealth. REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. STA. the reliefs being founded on the same facts. 2013 Persons who are not parties to a case. The petitions from Rule 45 and Rule 65 are not the same. the proper recourse from such is not to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 but instead. a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for the availment of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. As a general rule. August 28. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. such death extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. FELY Y. regardless of which party is successful. MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA NG STAYFAST PHILS.R. August 28. August 28.. 180418. RITA & CO. Appeals 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 latter court. GUECO." and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term greater weight of the evidence or greater weight of the credible evidence.R. INC. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. 2013 When a party inappropriately files a petition for review instead of a required notice of appeal. YALONG v. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action that may be resorted to only in the absence of appeal or any plain. August 28. A complaint-in-intervention cannot be treated as an independent action as it is merely an ancillary to and a supplement of the principal action. G. ANGELINE M. 155306. they cannot participate in the proceedings of the same. grounded as it is on the criminal case. especially of tender age. The filing of a motion for reconsideration before resort to certiorari will lie is intended to afford the public respondent an opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case. LUCENA B. It is proof that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. 2013 When an accused dies pending appeal of his conviction. G. such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions. considering that no young woman. G. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. No. if the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable. and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to public trial. August 28. 191253. Consequently. 2013 When the petitioner filed other pending actions involving the same people. No. No. the same shall be dismissed. 187174. credit. ET AL.R. INC. Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) identity of parties. 2013 When the NLRC promulgates a decision. same reliefs prayed for and essentially the same issue. No. No. there exists forum shopping because the elements of litis pendentia are present.193078. The complaint-in-intervention essentially latches on the complaint for its legal efficacy so much so that the dismissal of the complaint leads to its concomitant dismissal. either as petitioners. and value of the aggregate evidence on either side. If credible and convincing. Testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence.R. ET AL. 170604. 194948. it then proceeded to say that the defense was not pleaded during trial so that it cannot be considered on appeal. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. September 02. a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. the Best Evidence Rule does not apply.R. No.R. EXPLORATION PERMIT APPLICATION OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY. This is not correct. September 2. and may no longer be modified in any respect. a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment. 169461.R. The Heirs of Maximo Alvarez and Valentina Clave filed a complaint for quieting of title and damages against Margarita Prodon. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence. in furtherance of justice. and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. BAYBAY. G. FREDDY SALONGA Y AFIADO. No. there will be no suspicion as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized articles.R. The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a written document are the subject of the inquiry. whether or not objection is interposed by any party. No. It would include testimony about every link in the chain. As principle that since the statement in the pleading is conclusive on the pleader. for its execution and over all its incidents. G. the entry states that the property had been sold to them with a right of repurchase. even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law.R. When a court has already ruled on a matter binding over an issue.R. the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. and to control.The doctrine of judicial stability states that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be interfered with by any court of concurrent jurisdiction. ALVAREZ AND VALENTINA CLAVE. BIENVENIDO CASTRO. G. Under the doctrine of immutability of judgment. therefore. it is unaffected by any contrary proof submitted by the pleader. September 02. and the defendant is not precluded from presenting evidence other than the original document. G. 2013 When the drugs confiscated from the accused were properly accounted for and forthrightly submitted to the Crime Laboratory. SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF PANGASUGAN. HEIRS OF MARGARITA PRODON v. FIRST GAS POWER CORPORATION v. the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment. 2013. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2013 . the decision shall become final and executory.When the court ignored the fact that an objection was raised in the motion for reconsideration. REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL. August 28. G. The deed of sale with the right of repurchase had been lost. G. When there is a single eyewitness. 162226. 189822. The chain of custody rule is a method of authenticating evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. 2013. Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity of the witness‘ declarations. September 02. in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received. The rationale for the same is founded on the concept of jurisdiction – verily. 2013. another court cannot set aside the ruling of said court which is of co-equal and coordinate standing. They alleged that Prodon maliciously made an entry in the TCT of the property of the respondents. No. to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts. No. No. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. her testimony is sufficient to support a conviction so long as such testimony is found to be clear and straight-forward and worthy of credence by the trial court. 2013 When a party fails to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal. September 02. HEIRS OF MAXIMO S. 189125. where it was and what happened to it while in the witness‘ possession. JOJIE SUANSING. In an action for quieting of title based on the inexistence of a deed of sale with right to repurchase that purportedly cast a cloud on the title of a property. LEYTE v. Thus. Alberto Lagaray filed a complaint for estafa against Gilbert Reyes for allegedly placing orders over the phone and issuing a check with insufficient fund as payment. September 4. In order to overcome the presumption of innocence. ROSALINDA PUNZALAN. Such defense is "effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on accused-appellant the burden of proving the alleged relationship by substantial evidence. In the examination of a person. No. Nothing in the Rules gives the court the authority to order such person or corporation to pay the judgment obligee and the court exceeds its jurisdiction if it orders the person who denies the indebtedness to pay the same. corporation. G. did not have his day in court. 200508. The rule is based not only upon the respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the executive department but upon practicality as well. considering that the former‘s Manifestation and Motion for Ocular Inspection was denied. If the Prosecution fails to discharge its heavy burden. The respondents filed their separate petitions before the DOJ. Due process dictates that a court decision can only bind a party to the litigation and not against innocent third parties. The Bill of Rights guarantees the right of an accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. from both parties. The Court held that an "execution of a judgment can only be issued against one who is a party to the action. then it is not only the right of the accused to be freed. September 2. the Prosecution is required to adduce against him nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. AAA went to the motel voluntarily. G. Since HOLCIM was not given an opportunity to rebut the petitioners‘ evidence. The DOJ ordered the filing of separate informations against the respondents. ET AL. MICHAEL GAMALIEL J. No. to receive further evidence. it becomes the Court‘s constitutional duty to acquit him.R. It must be noted that AAA.R. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No. HOLCIM PHILIPPINES. The sweetheart defense is an affirmative defense that must be supported by convincing proof. and such person. INC. LIGAYA ESGUERRA. 157943. No. 2013 The pendency of an administrative case for specific performance brought by the buyer of residential subdivision lots in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) to compel the seller to deliver the transfer certificates of title (TCTs) of the fully paid lots is properly considered a ground to suspend a . she trusted Rivera and went along with him because of his assurance that he could help her find a new employment. or other juridical entity who has the property of such judgment obligor or is indebted to him. Alberto Ligaray expressly admitted that he did not personally meet the person with whom he was transacting over the telephone. 182571. It cannot be argued that because AAA voluntarily went with Rivera to the Ilang-Ilang Lodge. The DOJ reconsidered its findings and ruled that there was no probable cause. RANDALL PUNZALAN AND RAINIER PUNZALAN v. September 4. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned orders without giving HOLCIM the chance to be heard. who was not in good terms with a co-worker. she consented to have sex with him. It a sound judicial policy to refrain from interfering in the conduct of preliminary investigations and to leave the DOJ a wide latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution of the supposed offenders. or juridical entity denies an indebtedness. To presume otherwise would be non sequitur. corporation. and not against one who. She easily believed Rivera who convinced her that he could help her look for a new job. wanted a change in employer. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT REYES WAGAS. 2013 Rivera claimed that AAA was his girlfriend and that sexual intercourse was consensual. The respondents elevated the matter to the CA. justice will be better served if the trial court determines first the existence of documents relative to HOLCIM‘s payments made to de Guzman. The CA annulled and set aside the recent Resolutions of the DOJ. v.The Office of the City Prosecutor dismissed the complaints filed against the petitioners for lack of sufficient basis both in fact and in law. PLATA AND RUBEN PLATA. not being a party thereto. 2013. this time. G. the court may only authorize the judgment obligee to institute an action against such person or corporation for the recovery of such interest or debt. Such proof is not only in relation to the elements of the offense. CHRISTOPHER RIVERA Y ROYO. September 2. 2013. G. and if the same is not done.R. 160316.R. but also in relation to the identity of the offender." Independent proof is required. Under the doctrine of separability. absent any clear showing of abuse. and not the DARAB. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. an arbitration agreement is considered as independent of the main contract. ET AL. G.R. are . The Court reiterates the well-settled rule that." An irreparable injury to authorize an injunction consists of a serious charge of. and certainly does not fall within the concept of irreparable damage or injury. Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the rule relative to the issuance of injunction where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy. or when the property has some peculiar quality or use. Thus. if proven. the property it affects. The complaint is centered on the fraudulent acts of the MARO. It is the DAR and not the DARAB that has jurisdiction. This question involves the DAR‘s determination of whether the subject land is indeed exempt from CARP coverage – a matter involving the administrative implementation of the CARP Law. OPPEL. and the regional director that led to the issuance of the CLOA. Here. A question of fact exists when the doubt is on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. v. 166836. 2013 Plameras was found guilty of violation of RA 3019 by the Ombudsman. G. namely. especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. the arbitration agreement may thus be invoked regardless of the possible nullity or invalidity of the main contract. The CA issued a TRO in order to stop the demolition order.R. v. 189874. He appealed via petition for review under Rule 45. and not by any accurate standard of measurement. The administrative determination is a logical antecedent of the resolution of the criminal charges based on non-delivery of the TCTs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. September 4. CASIMIRO N. injury that is actual. Here. September 4. A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should cover only questions of law. RODULFO VALCURZA AND BEATRIZ LASAGA. TAMPARONG. v. Questions of fact are not reviewable.R. 2013 The DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered CLOAs relating to an agrarian dispute between landowners and tenants. Petitioner insists that his transaction is related to the mother contract between the DECS and CKL Enterprises. or damage that can be estimated only by conjecture." immense loss in profit and possible damage claims from clients" and the cost of the billboard which is "a considerable amount of money" is easily quantifiable. INC. 2013 Petitioner may still invoke the arbitration clause of the 2005 Lease Contract notwithstanding the fact that it assails the validity of such contract. "An irreparable injury which a court of equity will enjoin includes that degree of wrong of a repeated and continuing kind which produce hurt. This is due to the doctrine of separability. its findings of facts. a preliminary injunction is not warranted. INC. so that its pecuniary value will not fairly recompense the owner of the loss thereof. ET AL. September 4. G. inconvenience. Rather. SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES. MAKATI ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATION.R. or is destructive to. which culminated in a case filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. It is settled that a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued only to prevent grave and irreparable injury. rules and regulations . JR. arbitrariness or capriciousness committed by the lower court. substantial. INC. in cases concerning the cancellation of CLOAs that involve parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees – cases related to the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws. A question of law exists when the doubt is on what the law is on a certain set of facts. is fully compensable by damages. there is no "irreparable injury" as understood in law. G. that is. However.the jurisdiction is with the DAR. where the Ombudsman absolved the DECS officials. No. the issue of whether the CLOA issued to petitioners over respondent‘s land should be cancelled hinges on that of whether the subject landholding is exempt from CARP coverage by virtue of two zoning ordinances. respondent‘s complaint does not allege that the prayer for the cancellation of the CLOA was in connection with an agrarian dispute. Being a separate contract in itself. any damage petitioner may suffer is easily subject to mathematical computation and. Second. either physically or in the character in which it has been held and enjoined. ET AL. PARO. v. No. No. 2013. September 4.criminal prosecution for violation of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 182371. ET AL. 957 on the ground of a prejudicial question. the damages alleged by the petitioner. ATTY. HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU. 198075. and demonstrable. First. No. which has meanwhile become final and executory. No. ENGINEER MANOLITO P. Br. 184732. COMMISSION ON AUDIT. 187268. No. such error or ambiguity may be clarified by reference to the body of the decision itself. Ordinarily. he was not denied due process. PLAMERAS v. thus. No. v. therefore. This time. 23-632-2000. v. INC. He was able to file the Motion for Reconsideration. 2013 There can be no forum shopping in the instant case because the grounds cited by private respondent in its motions to dismiss filed in 1998 and in the present case are different. CORAZON S. CRUZ UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE. the Court herein will not go to the extent of entirely dismissing Civil Case No. Under the 1996 HLURB Rules of Procedure. however. 167484. ET AL. Br. No. The Court does not lose sight of the fact that respondents‘ Complaint is primarily for abatement of nuisance. Mendoza was afforded due process despite his claim that he had never personally received a copy of the Notice of Disallowance/s. JOVITO C. contains a clerical error or an ambiguity arising from an inadvertent omission. Petitioner Mendoza. SMART COMMUNICATIONS.R. MIAA‘s participation was confined to the refutation of the appellant‘s assignment of errors. September 10. September 9. what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard. G. G. In 1998. bars the re-litigation of the issue of employer-employee relations between private respondent and petitioners. ARSENIO ALDECOA. 2013 Jurisprudence dictates that the appellee‘s role in the appeal process is confined only to the task of refuting the assigned errors interposed by the appellant. an opposition to an application for a locational clearance for a cellular base station or a complaint for the revocation of a locational clearance for a cellular base station already issued. and respondents alleged the lack of HLURB requirements for the cellular base station. 23-632-2000 before the RTC. JOHN PACHEO. G. CA. 2013 In the application of the principle of due process. As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course. Keeping in mind that the right to appeal is essentially statutory in character. G. The CA cannot take cognizance of MIAA‘s position that the venue was improperly laid since. VILLA CORAZON CONDO DORMITORY v. not to seek nullification of petitioner‘s locational clearance. the motion to dismiss is based on the argument that the final and executory decision in the Perez case serves as res judicata and. the relief prayed for in private respondent's motion to dismiss subject of the instant case is founded on totally different facts and issues. failure to comply with the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction will result in the dismissal of the case for lack of cause of action. private respondent again cites res judicata as a ground for its motion to dismiss. There is no showing that respondents availed themselves of administrative remedies prior to instituting Civil Case No.binding and conclusive upon this Court. The Commission gave due course to the Motion and ruled on the merits.R. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Since the appellee is not the party who instituted the appeal and accordingly has not complied with the procedure prescribed therefor. As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course. ET AL. 2ND AND 19TH DIVISIONS AND HAWAIIAN PHILIPPINE COMPANY. G. which is the "essence of administrative due process. Thus. it is highly erroneous for the appellee to either assign any error or seek any affirmative relief or modification of the lower court‘s judgment without interposing its own appeal. but to support their chief argument that said cellular base station is a nuisance which needs to be abated. 2013 It is an established rule that when the dispositive portion of a judgment. The CA committed a reversible error in sustaining the dismissal of the Pasig case on the ground of improper venue because the same was not an error raised by Cruz who was the appellant before it.R. September 9. 2013. HERNANDO BORRA. In the instant case. MENDOZA v. However. 166330.R. as amended.R. September 11. 195395. 06-09-10699-97. No. The very contents of the . has been duly afforded an opportunity to explain his side and seek a reconsideration of the ruling he assails. being the appellee. he merely assumes a defensive stance and his interest solely relegated to the affirmance of the judgment appealed from. is within the original jurisdiction of the HLURB Executive Committee. he was not denied due process. September 4. MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY. the basis for such ground is not Perez but the final and executory decision in RAB Case No. filed this case on March 16. v. The general rule.body of the Decision dated July 21. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.A. As a public document.R. No. September 11. MANUEL UY & SONS./RAFAEL CONSING. No. LETICIA I. the change in the date of the commission of the crime of homicide is a formal amendment . does not affect the essence of the offense nor deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court permits a formal amendment of a complaint even after the plea but only if it is made with leave of court and provided that it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.. September 11. Nos. The vendee. is modified where only a part of a certain property is expropriated. Section 14. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION/FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION v. In such a case. 83165 were the subject matter of the petition therein. which is clearly beyond the 10-year prescriptive period. RAFAEL JOSE CONSING. 2013 . INCORPORATED. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. the respondent‘s right to due process was not violated as it was given the opportunity to oppose such defense. No.it does not change the nature of the crime. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS v. that is. Non-fulfillment of the obligation to pay on the due date. and is not prejudicial to the accused. ET AL.R. 2013 Actions based upon a written contract must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues. ET AL.R. the latter prevails because affidavits taken ex-parte are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in court.. No. 167274-75 undoubtedly reveal that both CA G. Nos. 2008 rendered by this Court in G. INC. 80675 and CA G. would give rise to an action by the vendor. G.R. ETC. the Court finds that Consing. The general rule is that the just compensation to which the owner of the condemned property is entitled to is the market value. to the remaining part of the property. In this case. the action has prescribed. hence. however. HON. MARISSA MACARAIG-GUILLEN. 2013 The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. v. Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Court.R. 6552. September 11. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. the remaining property of the owner suffers from impairment or decrease in value. 2013 DPWH wanted to expropriate portions of the properties of BPI. BPI claimed for the inclusion of the value of its building in determining the just compensation although it was never taken by the government. G. 1974. Nos. if any. on November 15.‘s complaint properly states a cause of action since the allegations there insufficiently bear out a case for damages under Articles 19 and 26 of the Civil Code. JR. JR. KUMMER v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. VALBUECO. If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained. Even though the ground of prescription was raised only for the first time before the Supreme Court. SP No. It is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and genuineness. September 11.. The chemistry report showing a positive result of the paraffin test is a public document. 167274-75& G. The inquiry is into the sufficiency. No actual taking of the building is necessary to grant consequential damages. it should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be presented by the defendants. 20303. 2013 The discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him since ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete. 174461. UNICAPITAL INC.R. G. v. the person who made the report need not be presented in court to identify. ET AL. describe and testify how the report was conducted. SP No. the rule on authentication does not apply. As between the joint affidavit and the testimony given in open court. 179594.R. the owner is not restricted to compensation for the portion actually taken. It is clear that consistent with the rule on amendments and the jurisprudence. No. September 11.R. he is also entitled to recover the consequential damage.R. G. G. which date of reckoning may also apply to any action by the vendee to determine his right under R. 2001. not the veracity of the material allegations. Consequential damages are awarded if as a result of the expropriation. 192576. Jr. It is well within the authority and discretion of the Court to resolve such issue of prescription as provided under Section 1. respondent herein. 175277 & 175285. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt. the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. 2013 The Court observes that grave abuse of discretion taints a public prosecutor‘s resolution if he arbitrarily disregards the jurisprudential parameters of probable cause./HERMINIO T. 2009 Decision of this Court in Orix Metro Leasing and Finance Corporation v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.C. for the purpose of filing a criminal information. BIBAT-PALAMOS. was only informed of its destruction when Colorado filed its Manifestation. long after the September 11. case law states that probable cause. Nos. otherwise. 169823-24. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed by the suspects. Thus. we have ruled that while baptismal certificates may be considered public documents. ET AL. 2013 When a supervening event renders the execution of a judgment impossible or unjust. 183804. there is no question that the respondent is the real party in interest who stood to be directly benefited or injured by the judgment in the complaint below. the CA and this Court. G. the placing of his name by the mother. HERMINIO T. dated July 29.R. 2013 A high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation. 28001 (corruption of public officials) and Criminal Case No. No. 2010. ERNESTO DY v. PARADA OF GENLITE INDUSTRIES. 28002 (violation of Section 4(a) of RA No.3019) have sufficiently complied with the requirements of Section 6. September 11.R. ET AL. and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. G. As such. They are not necessarily competent . A supervening event is a fact which transpires or a new circumstance which develops after a judgment has become final and executory. A certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of the certificate. doctor. 196200. ENGR. Neither can such birth certificate be taken as recognition in a public instrument. This includes matters which the parties were unaware of prior to or during trial because they were not yet in existence at that time. LEONARDO A. the sinking of M/V Pilar-I can be considered a supervening event. REPRESENTED BY ENGR. DISINI v. if the father did not sign in the birth certificate. ELISEO AGUILAR v. and therefore it has no separate juridical personality to sue or be sued. G. Rule110 of the Rules of Court. GINA M. It has no probative value to establish filiation to the alleged father. The test does not require absolute certainty as to the presence of the elements of the offense. September 11. M/V "Pilar-I" and Spouses Ernesto Dy and Lourdes Dy attained finality on January 19. G. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. exists when the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. An order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence. S. otherwise. In determining probable cause. they can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacraments on the dates so specified. it does not exist as a separate entity apart from its owner. PARADA. No. not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. a motion to dismiss or to quash on the ground that the complaint or information charges no offense may be properly sustained. LUIS U. In this case. 197522. who did not have possession of the ship. In particular. HON. September 11.R. registrar.The verification and certification of non-forum shopping in the complaint is not a jurisdictional but a formal requirement. there would no longer be any need for the Prosecution to proceed to trial.R. Petitioner. or other person is incompetent evidence of paternity. SANDIGANBAYAN. No. petitioner could not have known of the worsened condition of the vessel because it was in the possession of Colorado. 2010. DISINI v. Genlite Industries is merely the DTI-registered trade name or style of the respondent by which he conducted his business. 2013 It is axiomatic that a complaint or information must state every single fact necessary to constitute the offense charged. As the sole proprietor of Genlite Industries. the interested party can petition the court to modify the judgment to harmonize it with justice and the facts. During the course of the proceedings in the RTC. The informations in Criminal Case No. MEGAWORLD CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. September 11. and any objection as to non-compliance therewith should be raised in the proceedings below and not for the first time on appeal. As to the Baptismal Certificate of Christian Paulo Salas also indicating petitioner as the father. 171206. or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law or ordinance. NARCISO SALAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. There is no eyewitness to the shooting of the victim. FLAVIANO MAGLASANG AND SALUD ADAZA-MAGLASANG. Lest it be misunderstood. NOW SUBSTITUTED BY FIRST SOVEREIGN ASSET MANAGEMENT (SPV-AMC). an election of one remedy operates as a waiver of the other. 2013 In our jurisdiction. 2013. the parties were nonetheless amply heard thru their pleadings. G. the absence of abrasions or contusions in AAA‘s body is inconsequential.R. 203315. ET AL. What is necessary is that the force employed against her was sufficient to consummate the purpose which he has in mind. undoubtedly. JOEY BACATAN. September 23. September 18. 2005 hearing on the propriety of issuing a Writ of Preliminary Injunction did not push through. 171633. THE COURT OF APPEALS. G. 187731. since it merely notified. There is no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction where a party was not deprived of its day in court. Sufficient force does not mean great or is of such character that is irresistible. September 23. Prosecution‘s key witness testified that he saw the respondents went to the house of the victim and he received a call from the victim asking for help. 2013 In rape cases. G. 2013 The CA set for hearing on January 4. (ii) the facts from which the inference is derived are proven. NAMELY. Notably. respondent sought to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgage of the properties previously belonging to Sps. jurisprudence tells us that direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix from which a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. ERINEO S. Hence. MALIKSI. REMULLA v. and (iii) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. For this purpose. pursuant to the provision of Rule 68 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. No. ET AL. the propriety of issuing a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. therefore.R. a real party in interest since it stands to be either benefited or injured by the execution of the compromise judgment. No. September 18. OSCAR A. September 18. it did not exercise the first option of directly filing a claim against the estate. all considerations of whether it was more or less irresistible are beside the point. This hearing did not push through. 180284. SPO1 ALFREDO ALAWIG. Although the scheduled January 4. It is sufficient to sustain a conviction if (i) there is more than one circumstance. G. 2013 . HEIRS OF THE LATE SPS. The rules on evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. availed of the third option. the probate court of the outstanding amount of its claim against the estate of Flaviano and that it was currently restructuring the account. their estates) and. v. No. as petitioners assert. SPOUSES CARMELITO AND ANTONIA ALDOVER v. Maglasang (and now. he may be allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose. JUANITO VICTOR C. the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance because it is not an element of rape. Likewise. 2005.. Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Cavite. ANNABELLE MATUSALEM. G. the respondents tested positive for gunpowder nitrates. G. hence. respondent is now precluded from filing a suit to recover any deficiency amount as earlier discussed. No. In this case.R. No. Nonetheless. as long as it brings about the desired result. As a taxpayer. No. having unequivocally opted to exercise the third option of extra-judicial foreclosure under Section 7. ETC.evidence of the veracity of entries therein with respect to the child‘s paternity. As then Vice-Governor and Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Cavite.R. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. as it was heard and had exhaustively presented all its arguments and defenses. Thus. MAGLASANG.R. the remedies available to the mortgage creditor are deemed alternative and not cumulative. September 11. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION. he represents the interests of the province itself which is. a remedy is deemed chosen upon the filing of the suit for collection or upon the filing of the complaint in an action for foreclosure of mortgage.R. 167174. Rule 86. 2013 Remulla is not a party to the compromise but he has the legal standing to file the petition before the Court either in his personal capacity as taxpayer or as then Vice-Governor and. 1988 Decision of the RTC in LRC Case No. G. No. and taxpayers and infractions which the government could prospectively commit if the enforcement of the said law would remain untrammeled. In the case at bar. 2013 P02 Aldea marked the seized items not at the crime scene but at the police station in the presence of Ocfemia. At best. except as otherwise provided in these rules. Petitioners‘ flimsy objections on Rachel‘s lack of education and inability to read and tell time carry no weight and cannot overcome the clear and convincing testimony of Rachel as to who killed her father. what is required is that the marking be made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate confiscation. September 25. Without any justiciable controversy. On the other hand." Thus. Aniceta‘s testimony is an independent relevant statement: offered only as to the fact of its declaration and the substance of what had been relayed to Aniceta by Marilou. 197550. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. Private respondents only assert general interests as citizens. G. The "chain of custody" requires that the "marking" of the seized items – to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. 185383. over which the Court has no original jurisdiction.R. In one case. especially on the purported fight between Wilfredo and Jesus that ended in Wilfredo‘s death. Absent any of the said conditions. that is. the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on chain of custody.R. lie beyond judicial review for lack of ripeness. then. 2013 While non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid. 204603. To rebut this presumption.R. Moreover. Aniceta‘s testimony as such carries no probative weight. she is deemed to have followed such requirements. Private respondents‘ petition for declaratory relief failed to demonstrate how they are left to sustain or are in immediate danger to sustain some direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the assailed provisions of RA 9372. Then again. "Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition. not only was there no justifiable ground offered for the non-compliance with the chain of custody requirement. Aniceta‘s testimony is mainly hearsay.R. and (ii) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. which are derived from his own perception. any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated contraband. HERMINIO HARRY ROQUE ET. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. a red flag that casts reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti. there was an apparent failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items to ensure the identity of the corpus delicti from the time of seizure to the time of presentation in court. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. the petitions have become pleas for declaratory relief. since no issue was raised as to Antonia Victorino's compliance with the prerequisites of notice and publication. As a consequence. not as to the truth thereof. In land registration proceedings. there is no necessity to give personal notice to the owners or claimants of the land sought to be registered in order to vest the courts with power and authority over the res. G.". 2013 The Rule on Examination of a Child Witness specifies that every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. 10371. 2013 Petitioner did not receive a notice of the August 15. AL. Section 36 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court explicitly provided that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge. ET AL. ARTURO ENRIQUEZ Y DE LOS REYES. September 25. EDWIN IBANEZ Y ALBANTE. To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. declaratory actions characterized by "double contingency. GIOVANNI OCFEMIA Y CHAVEZ. 197813. G. No. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. being in rem. the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the child's competence. the non-compliance is an irregularity. "Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition. No." where both the activity the petitioners intend to undertake and the anticipated reaction to it of a public official are merely theorized. petitioner is deemed sufficiently notified of the hearing of .Respondents filed a petition for declaratory relief. this is true only when "(i) there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance. A land registration case is a proceeding in rem. September 24. September 25. No. assailing the constitutionality of certain sections of RA 9372. 185728. No. which again reinstated the 120+30 day periods as mandatory and jurisdictional. JR. during. G. Consequently. like a claim for tax exemption. at the very first instance. 169234. 2013 The two-year prescriptive period applies only to administrative claims and not to judicial claims.R. In no case is the local treasurer obliged to entertain the protest unless the tax due has been paid.R. Thus. 2013 A claim for tax refund or credit. v. G. and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of such discretion.Antonia's application. The taxpayer will always have 30 days to file the judicial claim even if the Commissioner acts only on the 120th day. subject to such limitations and restrictions as may be imposed under rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Finance. the following requisites must be complied with: First. September 30. the taxpayer can no longer file a judicial claim for refund or tax credit of unutilized excess input VAT without waiting for the Commissioner . or does not act at all during the 120-day period. Thus. 2013 Section 252 emphatically directs that the taxpayer/real property owner questioning the assessment should first pay the tax due before his protest can be entertained. With the 30-day period always available to the taxpayer. who shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days from its receipt. The fact of withholding is established by a copy of the statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld. Section 206 of RA No. a question of fact which should be resolved. subject to review by the Secretary of Finance." Section 7 of the same Code does not prohibit the delegation of such power. Second. "the Commissioner may delegate the powers vested in him under the pertinent provisions of this Code to any or such subordinate officials with the rank equivalent to a division chief or higher. 197156. VICTORINO. A claim for exemption from payment of real property taxes does not actually question the assessor‘s authority to assess and collect such taxes. Hence. October 8. October 2. No. city. The claim must be filed with the CIR within the two-year period from the date of payment of the tax. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION). ETC. or after the effectivity of the Atlas doctrine. DA-48903 on 10 December 2003 to 6 October 2010 when the Aichi doctrine was adopted.R. CAMP JOHN HAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. by the LBAA. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE/ PHILEX MINING CORPORATION v. GREGORIO SINGIAN. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CRISANTA GUIDOENRIQUEZ v. ALICIA I. September 30. the words ―paid under protest‖ shall be annotated on the tax receipts. strict compliance with the 120+30 day periods is necessary for such a claim to prosper. One of the conditions for a judicial claim of refund or credit under the VAT System is compliance with the 120+30 day mandatory and jurisdictional periods.R. except for the period from the issuance of BIR Ruling No. or municipal treasurer. No. October 16. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. CENTRAL BOARD ASSESSMENT APPEALS. G. No. ET AL. 195011-19. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION/ TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION v. whether before. 7160 implies that the local assessor has the authority to assess the property for realty taxes. It must be shown on the return of the recipient that the income received was declared as part of the gross income.R. G.. and any subsequent claim for exemption shall be allowed only when sufficient proof has been adduced supporting the claim." COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. only after such payment has been made by the taxpayer may he file a protest in writing (within thirty [30] days from said payment of tax) to the provincial.R. ET AL. 2013 The grant or denial of a Demurrer to Evidence is left to the sound discretion of the court. No. TEAM (PHILIPPINES) OPERATIONS CORPORATION [FORMERLY MIRANT (PHILIPPINES) OPERATIONS CORPORATION). Section 4 of the 1997 Tax Code provides that the "power to interpret the provisions of this Code and other tax laws shall be under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Commissioner. No. 196113/G.. The 120day and 30-day periods are not merely directory but mandatory.R. petitioner cannot claim that she is denied due process. As a matter of fact. and Third. 180427. Nos. upon recommendation of the Commissioner. is construed strictly against the taxpayer. 187485/G. 2013 For a taxpayer to be entitled to a tax credit or refund of creditable withholding tax. By providing that real property not declared and proved as tax-exempt shall be included in the assessment roll. G. but pertains to the reasonableness or correctness of the assessment by the local assessor. 505. 186433. 2013 The buy-bust team failed to take pictures of the seized drugs immediately upon seizure and at the site of accused-appellants‘ apprehension.R. It is a settled rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review. 198318. the failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory and to photograph the sachets of shabu. were not proven. DA-489-03 will shield the filing of a tax payer‘s judicial claim from the vice of prematurity when such claim is filed during its effectivity.R. (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case. if properly considered. DA-489-03 dated December 10. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFONSO G. INC. the BIR Ruling No. 2013 . 9165. do not render the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence or automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody of the said drugs. Thus. However. the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the CA are conclusive and binding on the Court. PUYAT. G. or. is hearsay since the person who prepared it was not presented in court to authenticate it. as repeatedly pointed out by the petitioners. v.00. 2003 provided a valid claim for equitable estoppel under Section 246 of the Tax Code. in so far as the determination of the actual indebtedness is concerned. BIR Ruling No. (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting. as well as to mark the sachets at the place of arrest. after the partial payment of P600. Jurisprudence has decreed that. and the remaining indebtedness. (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. DA-489-03 expressly states that the "taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the lapse of the 120day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of Petition for Review. assuming it really did not. ASIR GANI Y ALIH AND NORMINA GANI Y GALOS. It is unacceptable for the RTC to simply come up with a conclusion that the payment of P600. as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.to decide until the expiration of the 120-day period. Petitioners argue that the Breakdown of Account which the RTC used as a basis in awarding the claim. to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation. or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee. (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent.86. and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties. in dangerous drugs cases. G.000. No. Failure to comply with the 120-day waiting period violates the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and renders the petition premature and thus without a cause of action. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. the RTC‘s ruling. the BIR Ruling No. surmises or conjectures. 2013. with the effect that the CTA does not acquire jurisdiction over the taxpayer‘s petition. To our mind. GST PHILIPPINES. (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court. The entries in the Breakdown of Account and their corresponding amounts are not supported by the respondent‘s presented evidence. the San Roque case provides exception to the strict compliance with the 120-day period.R. November 27. G. absurd or impossible. No. Although the 120-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional. (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based. Petitioners filed review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the SC. would justify a different conclusion. is incomplete. that the remaining amount of indebtedness amounts exactly to P460. The itemized expenses. No. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion. without any showing of how this balance was arrived at. and to mark and make an inventory of the same in the presence of all the persons named in Section 21 of Republic Act No. (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken. October 17. NUCCIO SAVERIO AND NS INTERNATIONAL INC. as affirmed by the CA . the Court had recognized several exceptions to this rule.00 did not extinguish the debt.000. which. 190872. However. was merely derived by the RTC from the Breakdown of Account. November 27. 2013. November 27. 9165. Roderick Palconet. or in the case of a non-resident defendant . the RTC should have suspended the proceedings and refer the filing of the claim before the COA.R. and the lack of participation of the representatives from the media. Enriquez filed with the SC a petition for review dated 19 August 2011 challenging the IBP Board of Governors‘ 5 June 2008 and 26 June 2011 Resolutions. The IBP Board of Governors‘ Resolutions did not become final. he was working at the construction site with his nephew. and the IBP‘s recommendations imposing the penalty of suspension from the practice of law or disbarment are always subject to this Court‘s review and approval. 9165 reveals the existence of a clause which may render non-compliance with said procedural rule non-prejudicial to the prosecution of drug offenses.SPOUSES DAVID AND MARISA WILLIAMS v. cannot. 190180. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. It exercises such disciplinary functions through the IBP. Resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors are only recommendatory and always subject to the Court‘s review. Hence. because it sought Fernando‘s execution of a deed of absolute sale based on a contract which he had previously made. MARISSA CASTILLO Y ALIGNAY. nephew of the accused. The Supreme Court exercises exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law.C. it must necessarily come from disinterested witnesses. Nos. such money claim should have been first brought to the COA. Petitioner Fernando claimed that RTC Imus lacked jurisdiction over the case as it involved an adjudication of ownership of a property situated in Makati City. Section 2. 197592 & 20262. November 27. Rule 4 of the Rules of Court then governs the venue for the respondent‘s action. Respondent‘s collection suit being directed against a local government unit. Cavite to compel the petitioners to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale over the a lot situated in Makati covered by TCT No.R. No. ATTY. The testimony of appellant‘s nephew. and any elected public official in the operation. ROBERTO VELASCO. November 27. as amended by Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. the integrity and the evidentiary value of the illegal drugs used in this case were duly preserved and the chain of custody of said evidence was shown to be unbroken. ENRIQUEZ.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 1445. 2013 Accused denied the charges against him and pointed out that during the times and dates the alleged criminal acts took place. which is undoubtedly coming from a close relative. It is established by jurisprudence that in order for a corroboration of an alibi to be considered credible. 2013 The appellant argues that the police officers who apprehended her failed to strictly comply with the procedural requirements of Section 21(1). petitioner is not estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction even after the denial of its notice of appeal and before the CA. Under Commonwealth Act No. 327. it is the COA which has primary jurisdiction over money claims against government agencies and instrumentalities. specifically. a personal action. the suit was still essentially for specific performance. the failure to take photographs and to make an inventory of the seized evidence.R. 7329. RUDY T. A. 2013 William Francisco filed a complaint for specific performance with RTC of Imus. Notwithstanding the procedural error. 220530 Fernando‘s name. Moreover. G. a perusal of Section 21. Article II of Republic Act No. the Department of Justice (DOJ). Despite the seemingly mandatory language used in the procedural rule at issue. JODY KING CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. No.King Construction filed a money claim against the Province of Aklan with the RTC of Marikina. Atty. or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides. 190318. was presented in court in order to corroborate his alibi. THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN v. Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. be described as disinterested and unbiased. but it does not relinquish its duty to form its own judgment. in any way. The Spouses Williams filed opposed the petition for review because it was filed out of time. Although the end result of the respondent‘s claim was the transfer of the subject property to his name. G. Disbarment proceedings are exercised under the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. G. November 27. NO. It provides that personal actions "may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides. However. the defense failed to substantiate its claim that such integrity and evidentiary value of the subject drug was adversely affected by the police officers‘ handling thereof. A written demand . NO. G.R.R. No. those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. In this case. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS G. 198718. The 23 respondents in G. 9165 which identifies the said requirements does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible. The general rule that the certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case. 32. November 27. No. respondent bank is entitled to a writ of possession.A. 2013 Lilia Tulop filed an ejectment case against the Generoso Enesio with the MTC. Hence. however. 2013 The 23 respondents filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals but only nine of the respondents had signed the verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the petition.R." GENEROSO ENESIO v. 2013 The petitioner mortgaged the subject property to respondent bank. The rule directs courts to conduct hearings only when necessary to clarify factual matters. will not render [the accused]‘s arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible. that under reasonable or justifiable circumstances. without prejudice to the eventual outcome of the said case. petitioner took over Lot No. NOVEMBER 27." The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. What is essential is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused are preserved. Petitioner. the prosecution‘s failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of Republic Act No.R. 9165. Cavite. 2013Sometime in 1995. G. November 27. Spouses Sia filed suit questioning the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage.SPOUSES TEODORO and ROSATIO SARAZA and FERNANDO SARAZA v. 183923. 203433. LILIA TULOP. No. 171282. "This procedure is in keeping with the objective of the Rule of promoting the expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases. Respondent bank consolidated its ownership over the property and a new title was issued in its favor. as in this case.R. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense. failed to redeem the property within the one-year redemption period. Generoso posited that the MTC should have conducted a preliminary hearing and received evidence to determine the existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. the filing of his case with the RTC of Imus was proper. "as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.where he may be found. The verification signed by nine of the respondents substantially complied with the verification requirement since respondents share a common interest and cause of action in the case. The property was foreclosed and sold in a public auction where respondent bank was the highest bidder. 181873. petitioner failed to pay the loan despite demand. 2013 The buy-bust team failed to make an inventory and to take photographs of the subject drug. in reality it is not. November 27. G. SIA v. NO. The noncompliance with Section 21 of R. EFREN BAUCA ET AL. As expressly provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. WILLIAM FRANCISCO. Despite the pending suit for annulment of the mortgage and Notice of Sheriff‘s Sale. FAISAL LOKS Y PELONYO. it became the ministerial duty of the court to issue the writ of possession applied for by respondent bank. Mendoza: This Court has. MTC proceeded with the pre-trial conference and required the parties to submit position papers. otherwise. SKM ART CRAFT CORPORATION v. the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the certification requirement. G. . November 27. Hence. 171282 were employed by petitioner SKM Art Craft Corporation which is engaged in the handicraft business. in many cases. No. As the Court explained in People v. SPOUSES PIO DATO AND SONIA Y. No." Considering the respondent‘s statement in his complaint that he resides in Imus. ejectment cases merely require the submission by the parties of affidavits and position papers. at the election of the plaintiff. Upon maturity of the loan. held that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect. Clearly. November 27. 191756. The one-year prescriptive period for filing a case for unlawful detainer is tacked from the date of the last demand. In the case at bar. it was error on the part of the trial court to state that appellant‘s silence should be deemed as implied admission of guilt. CANTOS. justice. 2013 . The acts of respondent in issuing the Warrants of Levy and in effecting the public auction sale of petitioner‘s real properties.letter was sent sometime in April 2002 . Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority.R.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INC. were neither intended to undermine the authority of the court nor resulted to disobedience to the lawful orders of Branch IX. justice. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court‘s order. this right cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel and any admission obtained in violation of this rule shall be inadmissible in evidence. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. respondent filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer before the MeTC. It is a defiance of the authority.On January 14 2003. RTC took appellant‘s silence and passiveness when he was confronted by "AAA" with the rape charge at the police station as an implied admission of guilt. CARMEL DEVELOPMENT INC. 2013. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 194538. it did so still within the one-year prescriptive period imposed by the rules. we find that appellant‘s alibi did not sufficiently establish that he was working at a construction site when AAA was raped and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed. the appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. Likewise. No. JONAS GUILLEN Y ATIENZA. 2013 Pursuant to a court‘s order respondent issued Warrants of Levy against several delinquent properties of the petitioner. or dignity of the court which tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice party-litigants or their witnesses during litigation. in some manner. he was exercising his basic and fundamental right to remain silent. 180200. v.R. Digital Telecommunications made a request to the respondent to lift the warrant invoking the final Decision in Civil Case No. No. This was corroborated by another defense witness Allan Talinghale. In fact. For the defense of alibi to prosper. 3514 decreeing petitioner‘s exemption from the payment of real property tax is binding upon respondent. G. G. 2013 Appellant claimed that he was at work at the time of the AAA was raped. the reason being that the other party has the right to waive the right of action based on previous demands and to let the possessor remain on the premises for the meantime. to impede the due administration of justice.R. his silence should not be taken against him. JESSIE E. DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES. petitioner filed with the RTC a Petition for Indirect Contempt. MORETO MIRALLOSA v. November 25. 199494. WELMO LINSIE Y BINEVIDEZ. November 25. When respondent sent petitioner a demand letter in April 2002 and subsequently filed the Complaint in January 2003.R. November 27. G. No. G. the corroborating testimony of defense witness Talinghale does not discount the possibility that appellant may have left the construction site to commit the dastardly act he was charged with and came back afterwards. but such conduct which tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or. Since the warrants remained unlifted. These properties were advertised and sold at public auction. At that stage. and dignity. when appellant remained silent when confronted by the accusation of "AAA" at the police station. Thus. The RTC rendered a decision finding the appellant guilty of the rape. He merely performed a ministerial function which he is bound to perform under Sections 176 and 177 of RA 7160. No. proof of the victim‘s age cannot be recognized.Natalio Hilarion was charged with statutory rape for raping AAA. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. is not absolute. if clear and credible. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NATALIO HILARION Y LALIA. 3. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him. In the absence of a certificate of live birth. Arpon. the standard of comparison must be as close as possible in point of time to the suspected signature. 5. M-4356-04 is not reliable because there was no showing who supplied the same. 2. On the other hand. c. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable. No. 2013 a. however. November 25. or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age. However. It may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 2013 Roberto Garcia was charged with rape for raping AAA." The testimony of AAA anent her age and the absence of denial on the part of Garcia are not sufficient evidence of her age. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old. In the absence of a certificate of live birth. a six (6) years old girl. While it is true that a notarized document. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old. We stress that age is an essential element of statutory rape. G. there is nothing on record to prove the qualifying circumstance that "the victim is a child below 7 years old. 201105. a three (3) year old girl. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. When . it was observed that in order to bring about an accurate comparison and analysis. resort to technical rules is no longer necessary and the instrument may be stricken off for being spurious.R. Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: a. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. November 25. 4. this presumption. and has in its favor the presumption of regularity. either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance. like an SPA. Thus. Lamentably. The mother simply testified without prior proof of the unavailability of the recognized primary evidence. In this case. the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. the Court established the guidelines in appreciating age.R. of the victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40. her age was not one of the subjects of stipulation during the pre-trial conference. the testimony. the information regarding the age of AAA as indicated in Medico Legal Report No. 206095. following the rule that all doubts should be interpreted in favor of the accused. In People v. AAA and her mother testified that AAA was six (6) years old at the time she was rape but no documentary evidence was presented to prove the same. G. No. b. when the dissimilarity between the genuine and false specimens of writing is visible to the naked eye and would not ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer. hence the victim's age must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. as follows: 1. carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age. ROBERTO GARCIA Y PADIERNOS. In the present case. authentic document. the records are completely devoid of evidence that the certificates recognized by law have been lost or destroyed or were otherwise unavailable. In brushing aside the expert witness‘ testimony. the principal relief sought. November 20. GENESIS INVESTMENT. SPOUSES GONZALO and TRINIDAD GO. b. 2013 Under Rule 41 of the Rules. 181622. November 20. INC. 165585. GSIS admitted the material allegations of PGAI‘s complaint warranting the grant of the relief prayed for. depending on the nature of the attendant circumstances of the case. On the basis of these admissions. The second mode of appeal. is within the jurisdiction of the RTC. the opinion of handwriting experts on the forged document is no longer necessary. this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money. Ownership and real rights over real property are acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of ten years. jurisprudence dictates that an answer fails to tender an issue if it does not comply with the requirements of a specific denial as set out in Sections 8 and 10. provided that the occupant is in good faith and with just title. November 20. and the reliefs prayed for. resulting in the admission of the material allegations of the adverse party‘s pleadings. The conclusion of the appellate court that prescription has already set in is erroneously premised on the absence of forgery and the consequent validity of the deed of sale. the Supreme Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. HEIRS OF THE LATE FELIX M. however suggests that the nature of the suit. the complaint. it is a form of judgment that is exclusively based on the submitted pleadings without the introduction of evidence as the factual issues remain uncontroverted. BUCTON v. the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation. (c) it failed to pay PGAI the fourth and final reinsurance premium installment. G. 2013 In this relation. where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money. governed by Rule 42 of the Rules. INC.. (2) a petition for review to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. HEIRS of CEFERINO EBARASABAL. and (3) a petition for review on certiorari directly filed with the Court where only questions of law are raised or involved. It is only where pure questions of law . Rule 8 of the Rules. 188395. PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE. of law. In particular. records disclose that in its Answer. an appeal from the RTC‘s decision may be undertaken in three (3) ways. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. No. GSIS admitted that: (a) it made a request for reinsurance cover which PGAI accepted in a reinsurance binder effective for one year.R. the allegations therein. G. where the money claim is purely incidental to. and are cognizable by Regional Trial Courts. namely: (1) an ordinary appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.so established and is conspicuously evident from its appearance. as the Spouses Go believed it to be. It also did not refute the allegation of PGAI that it settled reinsurance claims during the reinsured period. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. the Court finds that the CA did not err in affirming the propriety of a judgment on the pleadings. 2013 In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation. G. it must be stressed that possession by virtue of a spurious title. and (d) it received demand letters from PGAI. The first mode of appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules is available on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and of law. No. In this case. However. Although the causes of action of respondents pertains to the title. cannot be considered constructive possession for the purpose of reckoning the ten-year prescriptive period. or mixed questions of fact and of law. v.R. or a consequence of. No. (b) it remitted only the first three reinsurance premium payments to PGAI. However. the assessed value of which falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC. A prescriptive title to real estate is not acquired by mere possession thereof under claim of ownership for a period of ten years unless such possession was acquired with color of title and good faith. As such. is brought to the CA on questions of fact. possession and interest of each of the contending parties over the contested property. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money. and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. The third mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is filed with the Court only on questions of law.R. However. However. it is only when there is constructive seizure of the land. 170618. their testimonies are still "evidence not of what the witness knows himself but of what he has heard from others. INC. effected by the publication and notice. MIRO. G. the credit of the assertor becomes the basis of inference. "The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to it. raising the issues of falsity and of forgery of the signatures in the bail bond. the hearsay rule does not apply. the Chabons did not make any mention of the ownership or occupancy by the Philippine Army and did not indicate any efforts or searches they had exerted in determining other occupants of the land. and is not equivalent to proof. its findings of fact being conclusive. 2013 The rule on conclusiveness of factual findings is not an absolute one.are raised or involved can an appeal be brought to the Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. boundaries and technical description of the land being registered. as mere allegation and speculation is not evidence. if an extrajudicial utterance is offered. when the petitioner questioned the RTC‘s ruling. it was. No. even granting that the said official was negligent. Nowhere in their affidavits did they specifically allege that they saw Alingasa remit the collections to Erederos. being part of a military reservation. shall be published in the Official Gazette for two consecutive times. hence. the CA may resolve factual issues. v. MARILYN MENDOZA VDA. such as the IPO. which questions are purely of fact and must be resolved before the CA and not proper under Rule 45 certiorari petition. the subject lands. ANTONIO BACAS. November 20. The rule in this jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. It is a well-settled rule that the Republic or its government is not estopped by mistake or error on the part of its officials or agents. the IPO Director General‘s relaxation of procedure was a valid exercise of his discretion in the interest of substantial justice. November 20. the assertion can be received as evidence only when made on the witness stand. for the proceedings being in rem. It is this publication of the notice of hearing that is considered one of the essential bases of the jurisdiction of the court in land registration cases. The records show that not one of the complainants actually witnessed the transfer of money from Alingasa to Erederos and Mendoza. in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas v. As in the case. b. and their relaxation or suspension should only be for persuasive reasons and only in meritorious cases. Despite the respect given to administrative findings of fact. In any case. When the application is set by the court for initial hearing. 172532 172544-45. 2013 a. to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. G. the CA found no substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the respondents are guilty of the administrative charges against them. G. that jurisdiction over the res is vested on the court. Granting that the persons representing the government was negligent. the Ombudsman‘s findings can be reversed. and indicating the location. it should be noted that the IPO had already obtained the originals in the related Cancellation Case earlier filed before it. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. therefore. No. review and re-evaluate the evidence on record and reverse the administrative agency‘s findings if not supported by substantial evidence.R. the doctrine of estoppel cannot operate against the State. addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the lot being registered and the adjoining owners. it is then that notice (of the hearing). are inalienable and cannot be the subjects of land registration proceedings. and. in fact. The theory of the hearsay rule is that when a human utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted.R. Nos." However. Here. BIRKENSTOCK ORTHOPAEDIE . FAR EASTERN SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. Since. the doctrine of estoppel cannot be taken against the Republic. 2013 The primordial policy is a faithful observance of procedural rules. November 20. 182913." PRIMO C. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. DE EREDEROS.R. subject to the test of cross-examination. While petitioner submitted mere photocopies as documentary evidence. This is especially true with quasi-judicial and administrative bodies. Such omission constituted extrinsic fraud. not as an assertion to prove the matter asserted but without reference to the truth of the matter asserted. which are not bound by technical rules of procedure. 2013 But while it is true that the prosecution has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court. 2013 Decisions of administrative or quasi-administrative agencies which are declared by law final and unappealable are subject to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness. the Office of the Ombudsman‘s Decision exonerating respondents from the administrative charges had resolved all issues raised by petitioner. G. Since.GMBH AND CO. KG v. However. Nonetheless. or of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. G. No. when correctly appreciated. DAGAN v.R. Here the issue is whether the facts alleged in the informations in the subject criminal cases make out a case for the crime of technical malversation. It is the court‘s bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the same. would warrant a different conclusion. Nos. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. November 18. The rule is that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not by the caption of the information or the citation of the law allegedly violated but by the actual recital of facts in that information. WILLIAM C. 2013 . the Court will not hesitate to reverse the factual findings. November 19. No. 184083. No. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY. it is in a proper exercise of discretion when it found the evidence adduced by petitioner as wanting to support the administrative charges brought against respondents. any disposition the prosecutor may afterwards deem proper should be addressed to the court for its consideration and approval. or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented. 3135 has no requirement for the determination of the mortgaged properties‘ appraisal value.R. ROLANDO P. on a finding that it had no jurisdiction over the complaint. Nothing in the law likewise indicates that the mortgagee-creditor‘s appraisal value shall be the basis for the bid price. Thus. once the case is filed. 164068-69. when the lower courts grossly misunderstood the facts and circumstances that.R. November 18. such petition should be initially filed with the Court of Appeals in observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. G. an examination of the issues shows that the claimed errors primarily question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the lower courts' conclusion that is proper for a question of fact. or upon proof of gross abuse of discretion.TERESA RAMOS.R. 194307. a review of the lower courts' findings may be made. the decision of the Ombudsman may be reviewed. CRESENCIASTA.R. November 19. THE SANDIGANBAYAN. modified or reversed via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. the informations show that there is no allegation in the informations that the P2 million and P6 million grants to COCOFED had been earmarked for some specific expenditures. nor that the bid should be at least equal to the properties‘ current appraised value. fraud or error of law. 179181. G. 173183. Neither is there any rule nor any guideline prescribing the minimum amount of bid. 2013 A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts. SYCAMORE VENTURES CORPORATION v. Under the circumstances. It must be noted that a prejudicial question is a prior issue whose resolution rests with another tribunal. no necessity of determining the mortgaged properties‘ current appraised value or any showing of the existence of any prejudicial question warrants the suspension of the foreclosure proceedings. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. November 20. DE LA CUESTA v. the truth or falsehood of the facts being admitted. No. PHILIPPINE SHOE EXPO MARKETING CORPORATION. 2013 Act No. Nevertheless. considering that a special civil action for Certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. G. as an exception. Further. When such administrative or quasi-judicial bodies grossly misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion. but at the same time is necessary in the resolution of another issue in the same case. the trial court‘s assessment . petition for relief) through no fault of petitioner. 181983. 2013 Although Section 2 of Rule 47 provides that a petition for annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. a case becomes a contest of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. Settled is the rule that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge. As there has been conflicting finding between RTC and CA. 2013 The Court looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court. In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. When it comes to credibility. CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIAL GASES.R. P/SUPT. However. G. Further. jurisprudence has recognized denial of due process as an additional ground. November 13. 2013 It is a settled rule that the Court examines only questions of law on appeal and not questions of facts. a review of facts necessitates question of fact. However. The reason for the restriction is to prevent this extraordinary action from being used by a losing party to make a complete farce of a duly promulgated decision that has long become final and executory. Only when there exist special circumstances in the case which when coupled with the retraction raise doubts as to the truth of the testimony or statement given. It is a recourse equitable in character. This deference to the trial court‘s appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility. An action to annul a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy. it may be considered as an independently relevant statement and may be admitted to show that utterances were made. LAMSEN. Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned. can retractions be considered and upheld. INC. No. Since the eyewitness positively identified the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. the testimony is a self-serving allegation.R. The unreliable character of the affidavit of recantation executed by a complaining witness is also shown by the incredulity of the fact that after going through the burdensome process of reporting to and/or having the accused arrested by the law enforcers. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. November 13. G. No. When CIGI‘s installation manager. which means those facts which are derived from his own perception. v. November 13. GOCHAN v. which is not equivalent to proof. It is settled that an affidavit of desistance made by a witness after conviction of the accused is not reliable. the approved compromise agreement serves as the final judgment that settles the controversy. such as when the factual findings of the courts a quo are conflicting. jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by the Court. appeal. the said complaining witness would later on declare that all the foregoing is actually a farce and the truth is now what he says it to be in his affidavit of recantation. no further defense could negate the lower court‘s appreciation and finding of guilt. executing a criminal complaint-affidavit against the accused. The rationale for the rule is obvious: affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses. A witness may not testify as to what he merely learned from others either because he was told or read or heard the same. G. 200029. allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no adequate or appropriate remedy available (such as new trial. 182314. November 13. No. the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge had the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not. BASILIO VILLARMEA Y ECHAVEZ. 2013 The issue of whether or not there was indeed a buy-bust operation primarily boils down to one of credibility.In criminal cases. VIRGINIA Y. that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. CHARLES MANCAO. attending trial and testifying against the accused. ARTEMIO E. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 198338. testified a request in writing was made but no evidence was submitted.R. A review of the evidence presented reveals that respondent failed to show any artifice or extrinsic fraud being committed against the Spouses Paray. hence CA‘s decision of setting aside the compromise agreement is grounded on surmises or conjectures.R. which is not to be granted indiscriminately. No. and deserves only scant attention. ALABANG MEDICAL CENTER. even if the evidence might not be overwhelming. a final judgment may no longer be altered.R. When the accused raised the affirmative defense that sexual relations exist between him and the victim. he admitted that AAA was still 13 years old when the rape was committed. TERESA DE GUZMAN. No. insisted that the incident occurred on October 20. be it the highest Court of the land. The requirement is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the act or omission complained of. No. 1999. which may be caused by the natural fickleness of memory. AAA testified that she was 13 years old on July 20. November 13. November 13. Further. we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it. in the absence of the foregoing documents (certificate of live birth or authentic document). 2013 The sweetheart theory as a defense. the first element of rape. when accused-appellant. Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. A notable exception is the presence of conflict of findings of fact between or among the tribunals' rulings on questions of fact. 192941. rendered it. not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. amendment or modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law and regardless of what court. November 13. 176702. 2013 . and is even conclusive and binding. consisted the supervening event that justified the NLRC in modifying its final resolution. November 13. substantial evidence is required to support any findings. necessarily admits carnal knowledge. MARCELINO A. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.deserves great weight. The inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses‘ testimony does not negate positive finding of guilt specially. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.170904. MARILYN SANTOS and ARLENE VALERA. G. 2013 The rule that the Court will not disturb the CA' s findings of fact is not an absolute rule that admits of no exceptions. the coupling element of rape.R. it leaves the prosecution the burden to prove only force or intimidation. DANIEL ALCOBER. where the inconsistencies pertains to minor details. even tend to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of the prosecution witnesses because they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony. we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it. however. G. An examination of the records shows that the Ombudsman's appreciation of the evidence is in accord with reason and common experience so that it successfully proved. 2013 As a rule. 1999 and that her birthday was in February. even if the alteration. G.R. however. it necessarily entails that evidence must be adduced to support the claim. G. Settled is the rule that discrepancies on minor matters do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution‘s evidence as a whole or reflect on the witnesses‘ honesty. as in this case. 193190. These inconsistencies. This Court cannot be any clearer in laying down the rule on the quantum of evidence to support an administrative ruling: In administrative cases. if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. the complainant‘s testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. BANI RURAL BANK INC. Pursuant to number 4 of the guidelines in appreciating age. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance. Effectively. No. Dechavez's dishonesty. No. An exception to this rule is the existence of supervening events which refer to facts transpiring after judgment has become final and executory or to new circumstances that developed after the judgment acquired finality. including matters that the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial as they were not yet in existence at that time. The presence of strained relations between petitioner and respondent. In ruling for legal correctness. DECHAVEZ. amended or modified. In the case at bar.R. hence minor inconsistencies that attended their testimony did not negate finding of guilt. What petitioner seeks to rectify pertain to the appellate court‘s failure to uphold the findings of facts of the lower court. Further. the reference is to facts. G. November 11. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint. November 13. the petition is simply a continuation of the appellate process proper for a petition under Rule 45.R. in legal contemplation. 2013 A core requisite before a warrant shall validly issue is the existence of a probable cause. the warrant is deemed not based on probable cause and is a nullity.R. an examination of the allegations made by respondent in his complaint shows that the case principally dwells on the propriety of the assessment made by petitioner against respondent as well as the validity of petitioner‘s act in preventing respondent from participating in the election of the corporation‘s Board of Directors. KENNETH MONCEDA. jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. Consequently. For this claim to prosper. their veracity. No. No. G. The issues on damages can still be resolved in the same special commercial court just like a regular RTC which is still competent to tackle civil law issues incidental to intra-corporate disputes filed before it.The rule is that inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses. The defense of alibi. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. frame-up is an allegation that can easily be concocted. its issuance being.R. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and LING NA LAU. is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff. MEDICAL PLAZA MAKATI CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION v. 2013 The nature of an action. ALEJANDRO V. (2) when errors of judgment are averred. Such minor inconsistencies even enhance their veracity as the variances erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. In any case. irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The rule is that every act or omission punishable by law has its accompanying civil liability. No. an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. or the weight of their testimony. November 11. The application and the issuance of the search warrant is was coupled with the required probable cause as shown by the complainant‘s trademark certificate. ROBERT H. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. November 11. it is explicitly clear that the corresponding civil action is deemed included and that a reservation to file such separately is not allowed.R. CENTURY CHINESE MEDICINE CO v. and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules. this Court has the discretion to treat a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari as a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari. however. TANKEH v. This is allowed if (1) the Petition is filed within the reglementary period for filing a Petition for review. G. Being corporate in nature. the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity of official acts of government officials. even if the Petition is one for the special civil action of certiorari. arbitrary. the testimony of the prosecution witness was straightforward. 2013 As can be gleaned. G. 2013 Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction. not errors of judgment. 171428. meaning the existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched. If the accused. Though denominated as an action for damages. data or information personally known to the applicant and the witnesses he may present. the issues should be threshed out before the RTC sitting as a special commercial court. with respect to criminal actions for violation of BP 22. 188526. do not affect either the substance of their declaration. Though inconsistent. As such. as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it. when referring only to minor details and collateral matters. an error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctable through the original civil action of certiorari. 181416. is not found to be criminally liable. Absent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified. And when the law speaks of facts. CULLEN. it does not necessarily mean that he will not likewise be held . DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. when a court exercises its jurisdiction. No. 176269. a conclusion reached in one case should be doctrinally applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same. The principle states that a judgment on the merits in a previous case rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction would bind a subsequent case if. susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute." meaning that the questions raised for constitutional scrutiny are already ripe for adjudication. 208566. the acquittal was just based on reasonable doubt and it did not change the fact that she issued the subject check which was subsequently dishonored upon its presentment. (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil. "there must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused was acquitted. Thus. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. This rule more specifically applies when (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required. 199067. the focal point of stare decisis is the doctrine created. 192183. there is no justiciable controversy. a person‘s acquittal must be based on the fact he did not commit the offense. 2013 Jurisprudence provides that an actual case or controversy is one which "involves a conflict of legal rights.R. an assertion of opposite legal claims. The acquittal of the accused from the criminal charge operated as a supervening event that mooted the petition and a resolution on validity of the order or suspension could no longer affect his rights as a ranking public officer. for the sake of certainty. PURIFICACION F. GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. absent any powerful countervailing considerations. HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N.civilly liable because extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. No. Unless a person is injuriously affected in any of his constitutional rights by the operation of statute or ordinance. 2013 Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy for a denial of a motion to dismiss attended by grave abuse of discretion. DECEMBER 2. entrenched under Article 8 of the Civil Code. OCHOA JR. Scrutinizing the contours of the system along constitutional lines is a task that the political branches of government are incapable of rendering precisely because it is an exercise of judicial power. G. November 11. No. In order to be completely free from civil liability. and of causes of action. he has no standing. HADJI HASHIM ABDUL v. The focal point of res judicata is the judgment. The intrinsic constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System" is not an issue dependent upon the wisdom of the political branches of government but rather a legal one which the Constitution itself has commanded the Court to act upon. "Bogarts." G.R. 2013. 184496. On the other hand. and an adjudication thereof would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest however intellectually challenging.R. In other words. BELGICA v. where the issue has become moot and academic. 2013 For a court to exercise its power of adjudication there must be an actual case or controversy. there exists an identity of parties. between the first and second actions. of subject matter. Though the accused has been acquitted from the criminal charge.R. however. G." Related to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the requirement of "ripeness. The principle. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that. the accused may still be held civilly liable since this does not mean he did not commit the act complained of. even though the parties may be different. November 19. ANDY ZULIETA a. FELIPE.k. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN. is not necessarily civilly free because the quantum of proof required in criminal prosecution (proof beyond reasonable doubt) is greater than that required for civil liability (mere preponderance of evidence). While an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and non- . like cases ought to be decided alike. A person acquitted of a criminal charge. G. evokes the general rule that.a. NO. No. If the acquittal is based merely on reasonable doubt. November 11. NISSAN GALLERY-ORTIGAS v. DECEMBER 4. In this case. but before the filing of. the grounds not falling under these four exceptions may be considered as waived in the event that they are not timely invoked. or correct any previous error committed in its forum. 168979. which require presentation and appreciation of evidence. The affirmative defense of prescription does not automatically warrant the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. reasons of law. premature resort to the courts necessarily becomes fatal to the cause of action of the petitioner. either simultaneously or successively. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed. or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions. MODESTO SANCHEZ v. Equally important to this provision is Section 1. comity and convenience prevent the courts from entertaining cases proper for determination by administrative agencies. INC. and (iii) identity of cause of action. Therefore. ANDREW SANCHEZ. there resulted a premature fling of the petition as the proper recourse is to seek relief before the CSC. and 4) prescription. It must be noted that the ultimate relief sought by De Guzman was the reversal of the resolution on his dismissal. Since De Guzman pursued the remedies of petition for certiorari and appeal. (b) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Where the respondent‘s motion to dismiss was filed after the filing of an answer. and (d) there must be between the first and the second actions (i) identity of parties. and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case. There is forum shopping where there exist: (a) identity of parties. If the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits. certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to address an order of denial made without or in excess of jurisdiction. there was no judgment on the merits as the dismissal of the complaint against De Guzman was a result of a fact-finding investigation only for purposes of determining . otherwise it is deemed waived. a fact that cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings and cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss. well settled is the rule that the elements of laches must be proven positively. 187661. the ground relied upon in the motion should have been raised as an affirmative defense. the relief being founded on the same facts. In order that res judicata may bar the institution of a subsequent action. It is presumed that an administrative agency. forum shopping was committed.R. (c) it must be a judgment on the merits. the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim. (ii) identity of subject matter. 3) res judicata. except for the following grounds: 1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. ROVILA WATER SUPPLY. It is also apparent from the pleadings that both parties denied each other‘s allegations. the following requisites must concur: (a) the former judgment must be final.R. Upon closer inspection of the complaint. REBECCA PACAÑA-CONTRERAS and ROSALIE PACAÑA v. if afforded an opportunity to pass upon a matter. regardless of which party is successful would amount to res judicata. the motion should be filed within the time for. the outright dismissal of the action is not proper where there are factual matters in dispute. Rule 16 of the Rules of Court provides for the period within which to file a motion to dismiss under the grounds enumerated. Hence. 2013 The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is that the courts must allow the administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. will decide the same correctly. and not alternative or cumulative remedies. NO. However. it would seem that there are several possible scenarios that may have occurred given the limited set of facts. it cannot be determined in a motion to dismiss. Those issues must be resolved at the trial of the case on the merits wherein both parties will be given ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and defenses. Laches is evidentiary in nature. G. Forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action. (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for. it is not apparent from the complaint that the action had already prescribed. The first paragraph of Section 1. that have long been held to be mutually exclusive. G. When DeGuzman‘s filed his petition for certiorari and mandamus before the CA. Specifically. for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. Furthermore. Contrary to petitioner‘s contention. 2013 Furthermore. Hence. NO. DECEMBER 2. Rule 9 of the Rules of Court which states that defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.appealable. 2) litis pendencia. DE GUZMAN. 9165 is a matter of substantive law. any errors should be corrected through appropriate judicial remedies. 21 of R. 198113. 9165 the mandatory procedure that law enforcers must observe following the seizure of such substance. MENDEZ. RALLOS. the prosecution must show that the dangerous drugs seized from the accused and subsequently examined in the laboratory are the same dangerous drugs presented in court as evidence to prove his guilt. 173590. DECEMBER 11.RE: LETTERS OF LUCENA B. must be based on his rational and logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case brought before him. SP No. The inhibition must be for just and valid causes. 2013 The jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB is only limited to cases involving agrarian disputes. It deleted the Community Tax Certificate among the accepted proof of identity of the affiant because of its inherent unreliability.R. The rule does not give the judge the unfettered discretion to decide whether he should desist from hearing a case. NO. the decisions made by DARAB were without force and effect. in the proper cases. however.M. 21 of R. requirement . 2008 which refer to the amendment of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. IPI No. partiality and prejudgment will not suffice in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence and without fear or favor. as they are the ones who directly deal with the parties-litigants in their courtrooms. JR.A.R. G. The disqualification of a judge cannot be based on mere speculations and surmises or be predicated on the adverse nature of the judge‘s rulings towards the movant for inhibition. Having the administrative or disciplinary complaint be an alternative to available appropriate judicial remedies would be entirely un-procedural. The Court has of course held that non-compliance with the procedural safeguards provided in Sec. 9165 and its IRR would not necessarily void the seizure and custody of the dangerous drugs for as long as there is a justifiable ground for it and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 02-8-13-SC dated February 19. The mere imputation of bias. including incidents arising from the implementation of agrarian laws. the State must prove not only the elements of each of the offenses. particularly those related to their adjudicative functions. The issue of voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience and sound discretion on the part of the judge. the defective jurat in the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is not a fatal defect because it is only a formal. which cannot be simply brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. FOR ALLEGED ACTS/INCIDENTS/OCCURENCES RELATIVE TO THE RESOLUTION(S) ISSUED IN CA-G. Nevertheless.PHILIPPINE POSTAL CORPORATION.A.A. Congress outlined in Sec. 12-203-CA-J. G. A. FERDINAND BAUTISTA Y SINAON.R.whether a prima facie case exists. despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties. DECEMBER 9. 06676 BY COUIRT OF APPEALS EXECUTIVE JUSTICE PAMPIO ABARINTOS and ASSOCIATE JUSTICES RAMON PAUL HERNANDO and VICTORIA ISABEL PAREDES. NO. As the buy-bust team did not show the that there was justifiable reason to deviate from the procedure. WELLER JOPSON v. To prove the corpus delicti. v. NO. failing in which the State will be unable to discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. AND DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. Since the dispute between the petitioner and respondent involved a non-agricultural property and no tenancy relation exists between them. This discretion is an acknowledgement of the fact that judges are in a better position to determine the issue of inhibition. the extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition if the errors were jurisdictional. G. No. DECEMBER 10.R. not a jurisdictional. Indeed. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. When prosecuting the sale or possession of dangerous drugs like shabu. To ensure that this is done right and that the integrity of the evidence of the dangerous drugs is safeguarded. It must prove as well the corpus delicti. The decision on whether he should inhibit himself. like appeal in due course or. COURT OF APPEALS AND CRISANTO G. FABIAN O. 191538 . DECEMBER 11. it must be stressed that the step-by-step procedure under R. 2013. 2013 We have consistently held that an administrative or disciplinary complaint is not the proper remedy to assail the judicial acts of magistrates of the law. 2013. For the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case. which must aver the existence of the right and the violation of the right. there were other pieces of evidence presented or there were other circumstances prevailing to support the fact in issue. 3135. its findings are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that the trial court overlooked. (3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. However. G. and unreasonable delay would greatly prejudice the complainant. disregard such evidence. NO. Further. (8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim. ADVANCE PAPER CORPORATION AND GEORGE HAW v.R. in addition to the failure to object to the admissibility of the subject evidence. the documents does not fall under the exception to the hearsay rule. before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court.MARK JEROME S. However. ARMA TRADERS CORPORATION. DECEMBER 11. injunction must be issued only at the instance of a party who possesses sufficient interest in or title to the right or the property sought to be protected. G. 2013 If the redemption period expires without the mortgagor or his successor-in-interest redeeming the foreclosed property within one year from the registration of the sale with the Register of Deeds. the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute as it admits of the following exceptions: (1) when there is a violation of due process. Furthermore. (10) when the rule does not provide a plain. his testimony was hearsay. while the mortgagor. if resort to a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be made by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction. we cannot simply ignore the millions of pesos at stake in this case. However. Hence. To do so might cause grave injustice to a party. a situation that this Court intends to avoid. The issue of credibility of witnesses is to be resolved primarily by the trial court because it is in the better position to assess the credibility of witnesses as it heard the testimonies and observed the deportment and manner of testifying of the witnesses. loses all interest in the property. NO.176897. (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question. (9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings.R. since the testimony of Haw was based not on his personal knowledge as he was not present during the document‘s preparation. but for failure to timely object on the matter. on its own. the sales invoice formed part of the records of the case. (5) when there is irreparable injury.that the Court may waive. Accordingly. (7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable. it must so state in the form of a timely objection and it cannot raise the objection to the evidence for the first time on appeal. Accordingly. and the court cannot. misunderstood. 2013 Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. speedy and adequate remedy. It is proper only when the applicant appears to be entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint. (13) where the rule of qualified political agency applies and (14) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot. and (11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. 190566. The rule is that failure to object to the offered evidence renders it admissible. he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the means of administrative processes afforded him or her. (12) where no administrative review is provided by law. DECEMBER 11. hearsay evidence whether objected to or not cannot be given credence for having no probative value. the title over the property consolidates in the purchaser. As with all equitable remedies. or whose averments must in the minimum constitute a prima facie showing of a right to the final relief sought. The issuance of a writ of possession to the purchaser becomes a matter of right upon the consolidation of title in his name. has been relaxed in cases where. by failing to redeem. The consolidation confirms the purchaser as the owner entitled to the possession of the property without any need for him to file the bond required under Section 7 of Act No. the conditions for the issuance of the injunctive . This principle. When a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered. MAGLALANG v. then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be sought. or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case. (6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION. (4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned. however. JR. the Rules oblige not only the lawyers but the parties as well to appear for this purpose before the Court. JOVY CABCABAN. or a right which is merely contingent and may never arise. An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse. a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 filed a month late from the lapse of the period to file the same will not warrant the relaxation of the Rules. such as a warrant of arrest or a search warrant. G.R. On the other hand. Petitioner‘s State Solicitors‘ initial attendance during the pre-trial conference could not be equated to the personal appearance mandated by Section 4. NO. AND NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NPC). CHRISTOPHER LUMBO AND MILAGROS LUMBO. 208290.R.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NO. ET AL. 2014 A warrant. The general rule is that parents should have custody over their minor children. preparedness to go into the different subject assigned by law to a pre-trial. 162757. but taking an active role during the said proceedings. January 13. DECEMBER 11. and when a party "fails to appear at a pre-trial conference be may be non-suited or considered as in default. It is presumed that a judicial function has been regularly performed. a trial judge‘s finding of probable cause may be set aside and the search warrant issued by him based on his finding may be quashed if the person against whom the warrant is issued presents clear and convincing evidence that when the police officers and witnesses testified.. NO. but also in cases involving the rightful custody over a minor. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO). When a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is made by a trial judge. merely constitutes process. order or resolution sought to be assailed. innocent and negligent omissions or misrepresentation of witnesses will not cause the quashal of a search warrant. The obligation in appear denotes not simply the personal appearance. rather than care for such children. the finding is accorded respect by reviewing courts. Rule 102 of the Rules of Court. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF MINOR SHANG KO VINGSON YU SHIRLY VINGSON SHIRLY VINGSON DEMAISIP v. or to prevent the perpetration of an act prohibited by statute. 2013 Consistently with the mandatory character of the pre-trial. there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules. absent a showing to the contrary. The duty to appear during the pre-trial conference is not by mere initial attendance. impairing their growth and well-being and leaving them emotional scars that they carry throughout their lives unless they are liberated from such parents and properly counselled.writ are: (a) that the right to be protected exists prima facie. or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. treat them cruelly and abusively. they committed a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth on matters that are essential or necessary to a showing of probable cause. drastic in its nature. not only in cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty. the conformity of the public prosecutor is not necessary before an aggrieved party moves for reconsideration of an order granting a motion to quash search warrants.R. While there are recognized exceptions to such strict observance. But the State has the right to intervene where the parents. hence. 2013 In the absence of any convincing justification. G. Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is explicit in stating that certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment. or the mere physical presentation by a party of one‘s self. but connotes as importantly. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. Section 4. Rule 18 of the Rules of Court. 14817. an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. It is a special and peculiar remedy. (b) that the act sought to be enjoined is violative of that right. G. DECEMBER 11. Clearly then. Indeed. to be protected by injunction. However. means a right clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law. 201715. 2013 Under Section 1. The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case. DECEMBER 11. UDK no. a right. the writ of habeas corpus is available. and made necessary because of a public necessity. A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery. JUANITO CASTANEDA. THE HON. and (c) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. . 2014 The general rule.D.R. G. a similar motion seeking to extend the period for filing a motion for reconsideration is prohibited in all other courts. but they become and remain the law of the case in all other steps below or above on subsequent appeal. the rule against double jeopardy is not without exceptions. that when an appellate court has once declared the law in a case. January 13. INC. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. In this case. FIRST STA. The 15-day period for filing a motion for new trial or reconsideration is non-extendible. CONSUELO C. HANZ CALAPIZ. Technical precision of description is not required.The things to be seized must be described with particularity. LUMANTAS. It is only necessary that there be reasonable particularity and certainty as to the identity of the property to be searched for and seized.R. and erroneous conclusions based on said evidence. No grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to a court simply because of its alleged misapplication of facts and evidence.R. ENCARNACION C. reagitation. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. In short. Hence. notwithstanding that the rule thus laid down may have been reversed in other cases. VILLAREAL v. NO. NO 166995. or (2) Where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances. v. as the name implies. concerns only legal questions or issues thereby adjudicated in the former . 2014 While a motion for additional time is expressly permitted in the filing of a petition for review before the Court under Section 2. The acquittal of an accused does not prevent a judgment from still being rendered against him on the civil aspect of the criminal case unless the court finds and declares that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. DR. and that no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to the CA. acted without jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION AND CHERRYLL L. YU v. But the law of the case. There being no delict. JANUARY 15. In the case. reexamination. is that legal conclusions announced on a first appeal. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The doctrine of law of the case simply means. CLARA BUILDERS CORPORATION. The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. M. the filing of a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration did not toll the 15-day period before a judgment becomes final and executory RIVELISA REALTY. 163753. DENNIS T. NO. JANUARY 13. with different effects on the civil liability of the accused. and the civil action. 2014 Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal. However. even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established. the People is burdened to establish that the court a quo. civil liability ex delicto is out of the question. NO. so that the warrant shall not be a mere roving commission. JANUARY 15. which are: (1) Where there has been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial. therefore. However. This instance closes the door to civil liability. hence the rule against double jeopardy operates making the judgment of acquittal final and no longer appealable. 161106. in such case. there is no deprivation of due process or a mistrial committed against petitioner. Without the rule there would be no end to criticism. if any. whether on the general law or the law as applied to the concrete facts. A search warrant fulfills the requirement of particularity in the description of the things to be seized when the things described are limited to those that bear a direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. and not errors or mistakes in the findings and conclusions of the trial court. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction. G.R. 189618. ALIGA. G. 2014 A judgment of acquittal may be assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court without placing the accused in double jeopardy. there would be endless litigation. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY. he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. nakedly and boldly put. not only prescribe the duty and limit the power of the trial court to strict obedience and conformity thereto. its declaration continues to be the law of that case even on a subsequent appeal. G. which may be instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. and reformulation. v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2014 Clearly. as provided for under Section 7 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. A piece of document will remain a scrap of paper without probative value unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for which it is offered.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard in testing the credibility of a witness.R. 202122. The certified xerox copies should be accorded the full faith and credence given to public documents. Rule . In administrative proceedings. Thus. JANUARY 15. GUARIÑA AGRICULTURAL AND REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. the only thing the RTC was asked to do when the case was remanded to it by the CA was to determine the damages respondent is entitled to for the loss of the use and enjoyment of the property when the property was taken from it in 1974. the failure of respondent to answer the charges against him despite numerous notices. FABRICIO. No. January 15. but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. the Section 2 and 3. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction. If credible and convincing. ROGELIO JUAN A. an administrative proceeding for disbarment continues despite the desistance of a complainant. the allegations in the complaint. The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the trial court to base its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly on the evidence offered by the parties. a vantage point denied appellate courts-and when his findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. provided. Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. 5581. it is merely a continuation of the trial of the original complaint filed in 1992 only for the purpose of receiving the evidence of the damages which respondent allegedly suffered as alleged in the original complaint. The formal offer of evidence allows the parties the chance to object to the presentation of an evidence which may not be admissible for the purpose it is being offered.R. However. it is clear that the court considers the evidence only when it is formally offered." Besides. these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court. No law or rule requires the corroboration of the testimony of a single witness in a rape case. NO. The certified xerox copies of the marriage contracts. January 15. the case was not considered a new case where an amendment of the complaint may still be allowed. January 14. 160758. 1996.R. by substantial evidence. CELERA. G. that alone would be sufficient to convict the accused.ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG v. NO. the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case. since no evidence proving damages was received and passed upon when the RTC issued its Order dated March 29. Hence. are admissible as the best evidence of their contents.appeal. or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same. when the case was remanded to the RTC for the purpose of computing the damages. 183860. Rather. A. Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Therefore. Since human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions. inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim‘s testimony are generally expected. or in this case. settled is the rule that the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction. NO. ATTY. there are instances when the Court relaxed the foregoing rule and allowed evidence not formally offered to be admitted. PAGSANJAN TOURISM CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE and LELIZA S. A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape. if the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable. 2014 Under Section 34. 2014 The recognized rule in this jurisdiction is that the "assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor on the witness stand. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal. as even a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. 2014. BERNABE PAREJA.C. issued by a public officer in custody thereof. G. the complainant has the burden of proving. G. Furthermore. RODOLFO LABORTE and PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY v. the courts must observe the clear boundary provided by Section 3. JANUARY 15. MAGDALENA T. rather. or near the time of the transaction to which they refer. JANUARY 15. (5) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. Land Bank neither identified the persons who made the entries in the passbooks nor established that they are already dead or unable to testify. resolves to do so. FILOMENO GARCIA G. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2014 For a question to be one of law.R. in which case. An execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. TETRO ENTERPRISES. the claimant must first unmistakably establish his ownership or right of possession thereon. 190106. before the court can exercise its supervisory power to direct the release of the property mistakenly levied and the restoration thereof to its rightful owner. Rules of Civil Procedure on amendments of pleading find no applicability in this case. it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence. Section 16. VILLASI v. G. 2014 It is a basic principle of law that money judgments are enforceable only against the property incontrovertibly belonging to the judgment debtor. Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. on the other hand. such person has all the right to challenge the levy through any of the remedies provided for under the Rules of Court. it is a question of law. and. All that the Spouses raised were their postulation as title holders of the land and the presumption of ownership over improvements built thereon. the party offering them must establish that: (1) the person who made those entries is dead. was able to show documentary proof of ownership. as well as their relation to each other and to the whole. INCORPORATED. the Court‘s jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition is limited to the review of pure questions of law. 192371. (3) the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated therein. Generally. January 15. The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and convenience for it fulfills the purpose that the evidence is intended to achieve. is a question of fact and thus proscribed in a Rule 45 petition. outside the country. YATCO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES. G. the power of the court in executing judgments extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor alone. it is a question of law. or an independent "separate action" to vindicate his claim of ownership and/or possession over the foreclosed property.10. 183015. EMMANUEL OÑATE. however.172551." They may. The right of a third-party claimant to file a terceria is founded on his title or right of possession. the Spouses Garcia failed to prove that they have a bona fide title to the building as they were unable to present credible evidence to prove their ownership. While the deposit entries in the bank‘s passbook enjoy a certain degree of presumption of regularity. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. G. absent any opposition from the other party. courts are not authorized to "take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge. or (2) the court. they are mere prima facie proof of what are stated therein. in which case. or unable to testify. The test in determining whether a question is one of law or of fact is "whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence. 2014 . 2014 As a general rule.R. NO. However. otherwise. the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.R." Any question that invites calibration of the whole evidence. Rule 39 specifically provides that a third person may avail himself of the remedies of either terceria. Corollary thereto. it is equivalent to proof. to determine whether the sheriff has rightly or wrongly taken hold of the property not belonging to the judgment debtor or obligor. (4) the entries were made in the professional capacity or in the course of duty of the entrant. Before entries made in the course of business may qualify under the exception to the hearsay rule and given weight.R. January 15. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. in its discretion. it is a question of fact. the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same. Indeed. and if the property belonging to any third person is mistakenly levied upon to answer for another man‘s indebtedness. whereas Villasi. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. (2) the entries were made at. In the case. take judicial notice of a decision or the facts prevailing in another case sitting in the same court if: (1) the parties present them in evidence. In either case. NO. Thus. NO. NO. and in this sense. Credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by prosecution witnesses especially so when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. (2) file a supersede s bond. JANUARY 15. The reason for disallowing an appeal from an interlocutory order is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action. HON. An interlocutory order deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered. JIMMY H. This interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures. Section 1.R. and (d) prescription of action. (b) litis pendentia . NO. namely: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. while as a rule. Then is certiorari under Rule 65 allowed to be resorted to. 200304.R. G. JANUARY 15. An interlocutory order may be the subject of an appeal. G. but only after a judgment has been rendered. HERMINIA ACBANG v. Having failed to move for the quashing of the information against them before their arraignment. MARIANO FAVIS SR v. JANUARY 15. (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit. appellants are now estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest. G. (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search). but the defendant. It is so inferable from the opening sentence of Section 1 of Rule 9 stating that defense and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. 2014 Any objection. and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea on arraignment. for. the defense is deemed waived. for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as there are incidental questions raised by him and as there are interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court. (c) res judicata . DONALD VASQUEZ.F. 185922. 2014 A judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately executory. is not absolute and such warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in instances of (1) search of moving vehicles. (3) customs searches. and (3) periodically deposit the rentals becoming due during the pendency of the appeal. provided that the interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. with the ground for appealing the order being included in the appeal of the judgment itself. and search incidental to a lawful arrest. to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto. which necessarily suspends the hearing and decision on the merits of the action during the pendency of the appeals. (4) waiver or consented searches. The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. Any irregularity was cured upon their voluntary submission to the trial court‘s jurisdiction. NO. 164246. The filing of the notice of appeal alone perfected the appeal but did not suffice to stay the immediate execution without the filing of the sufficient supersedeas bond and the deposit of the accruing rentals. Permitting multiple appeals will necessarily delay the trial on the merits of the case for a considerable length of time. however. the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrest. 2014 The propriety of the special civil action for certiorari as a remedy depended on whether the assailed orders of the RTC were final or interlocutory in nature. Failure to allege in the complaint that earnest efforts at a compromise has been made but had failed is not one of the exceptions. LUCZON. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. and will compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses. must: (1) perfect an appeal. JUANA GONZALES. The objective of the Rules of Court in requiring the inventory and appraisal of the estate of the decedent is ―to aid the court in revising the accounts and determining the liabilities of the executor or the . HEIRS OF DR. The last includes a valid warrantless arrest.Rule 16 treats of the grounds for a motion to dismiss the complaint. Since the Acbangs perfected an appeal but failed to file the required superseadeas bond. unless there be evidence to the contrary. It must be distinguished from the grounds provided under Section 1. Rule 9 provides for only four instances when the court may motu proprio dismiss the claim. the immediate execution of the judgment in an ejectment suit cannot be stayed.R. Rule 9 which specifically deals with dismissal of the claim by the court motu proprio. (2) seizure in plain view. Upon such failure. to stay its immediate execution. No. an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest. " In the case. JANUARY 15. The third requirement sets the time for the filing of the action.R. the entire proceedings are set aside without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court. It is a judicial proceeding for the enforcement of one's right of possession as purchaser in a foreclosure . the judgment of the court. and only if the judgment. The proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex parte and summary in nature. and in making a final and equitable distribution (partition) of the estate and otherwise to facilitate the administration of the estate. must be filed within four years from the discovery of the extrinsic fraud. No. The objective of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order is to undo or set aside the judgment or final order. as the case may be. as long as it remains unreversed. Further. 2014 The doctrine of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment postulates that "when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. the CA may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein. G.administrator. the parties involved in the previous case and the case at bar were the same parties raising the same relief. TERESITA V.R. 167998 was rendered by the CA under its jurisdiction and was a judgment on the merits. as well as those supporting the petitioner‘s good and substantial cause of action or defense. Pinausukan must be mindful of and should closely comply with the following statutory requirements for the remedy as set forth in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. if based on extrinsic fraud.R. The trial court cannot adjudicate title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate but are claimed to belong to third parties by title adverse to that of the decedent and the estate. The action. and thereby grant to the petitioner an opportunity to prosecute his cause or to ventilate his defense. and if based on lack of jurisdiction. the RTC that presides over the administration of an estate is vested with wide discretion on the question of what properties should be included in the inventory. The second requirement limits the ground for the action of annulment of judgment to either extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Given the extraordinary nature and the objective of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order. not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the decedent. appeal. 159926 . should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them. All that the trial court can do regarding said properties is to determine whether or not they should be included in the inventory of properties to be administered by the administrator. FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY.‖ Hence. It is a proceeding wherein relief is granted without giving the person against whom the relief is sought an opportunity to be heard. ROXAS BOULEY ARD.PINAUSUKAN SEAFOOD HOUSE. 156407. If the ground relied upon is lack of jurisdiction. THELMA M. If the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud. v. must be brought before it is barred by laches or estoppel. There is no dispute that the jurisdiction of the trial court as an intestate court is special and limited. INC. The fourth requirement demands that the petition should be verified. G. MERCADO. The first requirement prescribes that the remedy is available only when the petitioner can no longer resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial. It is a judicial proceeding brought for the benefit of one party only and without notice by the court to any person adverse of interest. the judgment rendered in G. and should allege with particularity the facts and the law relied upon for annulment. or when an opportunity for such trial has been given. an ex parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession is a non-litigious proceeding. By its very nature. final order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud. petition for relief or other appropriate remedies through no fault of the petitioner. JANUARY 20. NO. 2014 A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting. ARANAS v. NO. G. judges of regular and special courts.R. In any of the foregoing instances. the administrative case shall also be considered a disciplinary action against the respondent justice. Judgment in both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution.sale. It is thus settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the sale. CAMPOS v. and the Canons of Professional Ethics. The rule on chain of custody under the foregoing enactments expressly demands the identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. It is not an ordinary suit filed in court. who had already consolidated their title over the extra-judicially foreclosed property.C. could either grant or dismiss the petition based on an evaluation of whether or not the MTCC gravely abused its discretion by capriciously. EMMA MONDEJAR. as a method of authenticating evidence. the proscription on appeals in small claims cases. Owing to its nature. the remedy of appeal is not allowed. MARQUEZ v. NO. is merely ministerial in nature. The issuance of a writ of possession in favor of Sps. judge or court official concerned as a member of the Bar. The trial court has no discretion on this matter. 2014 Some administrative cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan. by which one party sues another for the enforcement of a wrong or protection of a right. however. the writ of possession becomes a matter of right. unlike an appeal. 184045. ATTY. AIDA R. January 22. 2014 Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision. The buyer can in fact demand possession of the land even during the redemption period except that he has to post a bond in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that . it is therefore incumbent upon petitioner to establish that jurisdictional errors tainted the MTCC Decision. Hence. the Code of Professional Responsibility. January 20. 3135. As such. Nevertheless. SPOUSES NICASIO C. does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 8644. INC. NO. immediately move for its execution. CAMPOS AND CHARMAINE R. 2014 It is an established rule that the purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale is entitled to the possession of the property and can demand that he be placed in possession of the same either during (with bond) or after the expiration (without bond) of the redemption period therefor.R. a petition for certiorari. or for such other forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers. G. v. Verily. he is entitled to the possession of the said property and can demand it at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title. A. ELISEO M. 2014. Marquez. A. similar to other proceedings where appeal is not an available remedy. LZK HOLDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. Moreover. ANG NETWORK. 187973. Section 33. thus. or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to the controversy. CAMPOS. 200804. After the consolidation of title in the buyer‘s name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property. G. whimsically.L. JANUARY 22. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK. and the court officials who are lawyers are based on grounds which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar for violation of the Lawyer‘s Oath. Its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is merely a ministerial function. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court pertinently provides that the possession of the mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure unless a third party is actually holding the property by adverse title or right. NO. ALISTAIR R. as amended. any talk of discretion in connection with such issuance is misplaced. is an original action designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not of judgment. and the prevailing party may. January 22. The RTC. in turn. MARQUEZ AND ANITA J. admits of an exception. CAMPOS. The ministerial issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale. or the prevention or redress of a wrong. The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in a public auction is a ministerial act. NO. SPOUSES ALINDOG.R. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution‘s case. by the swearing officer. January 22. Where there is no evidence that the witnesses of the prosecution were actuated by ill motive. Article II of R. January 22. necessarily collateral or primary. Further. which may not be proven by secondary evidence when the instrument itself is accessible. determined from its face or recital of its contents but by parol evidence. in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received. findings of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked.the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. besides the loss. It is well-settled that immaterial and insignificant details do not discredit a testimony on the very material and significant point bearing on the very act of accused-appellants. the execution of a document may be proven by the parties themselves. Given the natural frailties of the human mind and its capacity to assimilate all material details of a given incident. Verily. and.A. the prosecution must still prove that (a) there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance. should they be unable to comply with the procedures laid down under Section 21. having heard the witness and observed his demeanor. failure to produce the document. its authenticity is not necessarily. Evidence of the execution of a document is. Proofs of the execution are not dependent on the existence or non-existence of the document. 173540. CARLITO VALENCIA v. Even when the document is actually produced. Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate. It is the contents. as a matter of fact.A. misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the disposition of the case. 9165. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. when available. The court confounded the execution and the contents of the document. DE AVENIDO v. has to be shown as foundation for the introduction of secondary evidence of the contents. it is presumed that they were not so actuated and their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. G. G. such proofs of the contents: due execution. slight inconsistencies and variances in the declarations of a witness hardly weaken their probative value. Although the Court has ruled that non-compliance with the directives of Section 21. in the last analysis. NO. No. Otherwise. PEREGRINA MACUA VDA. in the judgment of the court. the non-compliance with the procedures must be justified by the State‘s agents themselves. even a person‘s birth certificate may be recognized as competent evidence of the marriage between his parents. TECLA HOYBIA AVENIDO. Truly. 2014 While a marriage certificate is considered the primary evidence of a marital union. NO. and has been unable to find it. it is not regarded as the sole and exclusive evidence of marriage. from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence. it being in a better position to decide such question. where it was and what happened to it while in the witness‘ possession. No. or even by those to whom the parties have previously narrated the execution thereof. At the most. It would include testimony about every link in the chain. The Court has also held that the loss may be shown by any person who knows the fact of its loss. Article II of R. 198804. the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. 2014 The issue raised by accused-appellant involves the credibility of the witness. a sufficient examination in the place or places where the document or papers of similar character are usually kept by the person in whose custody the document lost was.R. The arresting officers are under obligation.R. which is best addressed by the trial court. by witnesses who saw and recognized the signatures of the parties. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. or by anyone who has made. Hence. conduct. It generally consists of parol testimony or extrinsic papers. to establish its execution may effect the weight of the evidence presented but not the admissibility of such evidence. As long as the . if at all. and attitude under grueling examination. to explain why the procedure was not followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. the requisites under the law would merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience. or who has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument has indeed been lost. 4) in three (3) legibly typewritten or printed copies. January 27. the relief prayed for. 2) verified by the appellant himself in accordance with Section 4. and 5) accompanied by i) proof of payment of the required appeal fee. Insisting on such requirement even on appeal is a prerogative of the NLRC under its rule making power considering the great volume of appeals filed with it from all over the country. G. ii) posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule. The remedy of intervention is not proper where it will have the effect of retarding the principal suit or delaying the trial of the action. or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which. January 22. The Bagano case has been settled by the court having jurisdiction and was based on the merits. Indeed. 2014 Res judicata refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the former suit. Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC specifically requires that a) The appeal shall be: 1) filed within the reglementary period provided in Section 1 of this Rule. 3) in the form of a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof. G. humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and have the offender apprehended and punished. as amended. The elements of res judicata are as follows: (1) the former judgment or order must be final. 192479. An independent controversy cannot be injected into a suit by intervention. Section 4. and iv) proof of service upon the other parties.R. hence res judicata cannot be raised to bar determination of the issue. and its assessment of their probative weight are given great respect if not conclusive effect. Intervention is not intended to change the nature and character of the action itself. iii) a certificate of non-forum shopping. Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. DANILO T. of subject matter and cause of action. But this assumes that such client has given counsel a notice of dismissal so the latter could immediately cease to represent him.testimonies of the witnesses corroborate one another on material points. CANONERO. NO. because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame. the proper course is for the would–be intervenor to litigate his claim in a separate suit. and with a statement of the date the appellant received the appealed decision. SPOUSES EDITHO AND HERA DUMALAGAN. NO. G. the issue of double sale as alleged cannot be injected into the Bagano case. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2014 A client has of course the right to dismiss and replace his counsel of record as provided in the second paragraph of Section 26 above. which is based on facts peculiar to the transaction between Bagano and petitioners. . as in this case. 2014 Factual findings of the trial court. the Bagano case and the present controversy does not point to similarity of the parties or to the cause of action presented.R. especially a minor. NO. identity of parties. would alter the outcome of the case. Nonetheless. (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits. 186622. DIONES BELZA v. Hence. resolution or order. January 22. its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses. hence.R. 201860. PEBLIA ALFARO AND THE HEIRS OF PROSPEROUS ALFARO v. between the first and the second action. (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. minor inconsistencies therein cannot destroy their credibility. Courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault. such intervention will not be allowed where it would enlarge the issues in the action and expand the scope of the remedies. it would have been more prudent for newly hired counsel to refrain from entering his appearance in the case until he has ascertained that the previous counsel has been dismissed from it. if considered. misconstrued. and (4) there must be. unless it ignored. It is not proper where there are certain facts giving the intervenor‘s case an aspect peculiar to himself and differentiating it clearly from that of the original parties. b) A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period of perfecting an appeal. misunderstood. MARCELINO DADAO. or to stop or delay the placid operation of the machinery of the trial. ASUNCION. EDUARDO P. at the first instance. relaxation of the Rules is warranted. the burden of proving that the dismissal is for a just or valid cause rests on the employers. either in cash or surety bond.. Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court similarly provides that entries in official records are an exception to the rule. to our mind.R. ALL SURNAMED DIMAGUILA v. in an amount equivalent to the monetary award. (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification. MONTEIRO. they are exceptions to the hearsay rule and are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. ultimately. are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. as certified true copies of original public records.R. Here. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. NO. 2014 Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that an admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof. Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides that through estoppel. In relation thereto. Section 3(d) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification. As such. supervise and manage the conduct of cadastral surveys. and GLORIA. the mere filing of a formal charge. we have consistently held that rules should not be applied in a very rigid and strict sense. FRANCISCO AND WILLIAM HOW v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. In termination disputes. (2) the witness‘s degree of attention at that time. The DENR is the department tasked to execute. and conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees. (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness. Failure on their part to discharge such burden will render the dismissal illegal. fall under the exception to the best evidence rule. JUAN. The employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal before shifting to the employer the burden of proving the validity of such dismissal. the Labor Code requires the posting of a bond. The rule provides that entries in official records made in the performance of the duty of a public officer of the Philippines. even if other minds. G. G. an admission is rendered conclusive upon the person making it. The quantum of proof which the employer must discharge is substantial evidence. Section 24 of Rule 132 provides that the record of public documents may be evidenced by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody or the record. However. the Court has adopted the totality of circumstances test wherein the following factors are taken into consideration: (1) the witness‘s opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime. WILFREDO GALVEZ. G. and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. FLORO MANIGO. with the public prosecutor and. NO. 178184. INC. January 27. and may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake. When there has been substantial compliance. no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. JOSE AND SONIA A. 201011. accusations. to the . January 29. might conceivably opine otherwise. except when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. Nonetheless.THERESITA. Section 7 of the same Rule provides that when the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. The cadastral maps and the list of claimants. Unsubstantiated suspicions. NO. 2014 The determination of probable cause for purposes of filing of information in court is essentially an executive function that is lodged. The document's trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty. Cadastral maps are the output of cadastral surveys. 2014 In order to perfect an appeal from the Decision of the Labor Arbiter granting monetary award. Anent the best evidence rule. does not automatically make the dismissal valid. This is especially true in labor cases wherein the substantial merits of the case must accordingly be decided upon to serve the interest of justice. or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. As to the hearsay rule. equally reasonable. 194612. the rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application when the employer denies having dismissed the employee.In ascertaining whether an out-of-court identification is positive or derivative. PATROCINIA.R. January 27. its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. RICARDO. GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES. there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules. fell on a Sunday.Secretary of Justice. in the instant case. This is in accordance with the amendment introduced by A. 07-7-12-SC where no provision for the filing of a motion for extension to file a petition for certiorari exists. NO. which date is beyond the expiration of the period sought to be extended. there are exceptions to the strict application of the 60-day period rule. (9) fraud. a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. However. However. which is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. Thus. 2009 to file her petition or a motion for extension.R. accident. v. unlike in the original Section 4 of Rule 65 which allowed the filing of such a motion but only for compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days. Nevertheless. neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case. private respondent had until September 7. (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play. and their findings with respect to the existence or non-existence of probable cause are generally not subject to review by the Court. as September 6. February 3. No. as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. such as (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons. 179367. COURT OF APPEALS. (12) importance of the issues involved. THE NAMARIS PHILIPPINES.k. the last day for filing such pleading. the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. while it is clearly stated that the CTA has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions." UNILEVER PHILIPPINES. mistake or excusable negligence without appellant‘s fault. orders or resolutions of the RTCs in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction. It is settled that in cases where an assailed judgment or order is considered final. Consistent with this rule. Hence. INC. The prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice have wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigation. G. 2014 A petition for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. PAUL D. G. NO. A perusal of RA 9282 amending RA 1125 would show that. 2009. To justify judicial intervention. 2014 There is no dispute that the assailed Resolutions of the CA are in the nature of a final order as they disposed of the petition completely. (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory. 2009. INC. However.R. (5) the merits of the case. vs. What is merely required is "probability of guilt. (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default. there is no categorical statement under RA 1125 as well as the amendatory RA 9282. which provides that the CTA has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari assailing interlocutory orders issued by the RTC in local tax cases filed before it The prevailing doctrine is that the authority to issue writs of certiorari involves the exercise of original jurisdiction which must be expressly conferred by the Constitution or by law and cannot be implied from the mere existence of appellate jurisdiction. it can be fairly interpreted that the power of the CTA includes that of determining whether or not there .M. 2009.a. MICHAEL TAN a. January 29. 191215. The determination of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not. (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt. the settled policy of non-interference in the prosecutor‘s exercise of discretion requires the courts to leave to the prosecutor and to the DOJ the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. TAN. (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. the counting 60 days from private respondent‘s counsel‘s receipt of the June 29. the motion was filed only on September 8. the remedy of the aggrieved party is appeal. this policy of non-interference is not without exception. 2009 NLRC Resolution on July 8. (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules. On the strength of the constitutional provisions under Article VIII. petitioner should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. and all the evidence of the parties had already been admitted and examined. the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed. such letters were lame attempt to comply with the notice requirement. we cannot nullify the proceedings before the trial court where all the parties had been given the opportunity to contest the allegations of respondent. not the nullification of marriage as there was no marriage to speak of. Respondent indeed sought. by constitutional mandate. PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES vs. Thus. and (2) grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment. unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter. February 10. except only in some instances. KEMPLIN. in allowing the correction of the subject certificate of marriage by cancelling the wife portion thereof. It will be presumed that a party who does not serve written interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its case if it later opts to call the adverse party to the witness stand as its witness. the failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from the accused will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the said items have been preserved. 2014 While we maintain that Rule 108 cannot be availed of to determine the validity of marriage. NO. Otherwise stated. the trial court did not. CARIDAD H. NO. Rule 25. and (3) rebut the evidence presented against them by the management. 205453. HARLAND B. THE CITY OF MANILA vs. and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period. but the correction of the record of such marriage to reflect the truth as set forth by the evidence. among which is. it is there to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial. 185145. During the hearing or (3) After determining that termination of employment is justified. G. February 5. NO.has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in issuing an interlocutory order in cases falling within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the tax court. and thus prevent the calling party from straying or harassing the adverse party when it takes the latter to the stand. the court may limit the inquiry to what is relevant. February 4. which move cannot be allowed in the petitioner‘s presentation of its evidence-in-chief. UNITED TOURIST PROMOTIONS vs. The steps on how to comply with procedural due process in terminating an employee: (1) The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them. This is embodied in Section 6. It. follows that the CTA. The Court is generally bound by the CA‘s factual findings. Further. One of the purposes of the above rule is to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays. when the said findings are contrary to those of the trial court or administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions from which the action originated. it likewise prevents the calling party from conducting a fishing expedition or bungling its own case. Although letters were sent to Kemplin. HON. declare the marriage void as . (2) present evidence in support of their defenses. is vested with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in these cases. February 5. Another reason for the rule is that by requiring prior written interrogatories. GLENN SALVADOR and DORY ANN PARCON G. 2014 As a rule. In the case. 2014 In a buy-bust operation. No. SPOUSES VICENTE AFULUGENCIA and LETICIA AFULUGENCIA vs. specifying the criminal suits filed against Kemplin. the rule not only protects the adverse party from unwarranted surprises or harassment. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO.R.R. 2014 It is settled that Rule 45 limits us merely to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision.R. 190621. Metrobank‘s officers were sought to be presented by the petitioner as its initial witness and to present documents in the possession of Metrobank. thus. G. it merely made a declaration on the expiration of the employment. the employers shall serve the employees a written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been considered. the employers should schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein the employees will be given the opportunity to: (1) explain and clarify their defenses to the charge against them. without however. 175723 . G. in civil cases.R. GRECIA-CUERDO. for the charges against Kemplin were not specified. the procedures were followed. (2) After serving the first notice. in any way. 200915. No. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. et al. Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. such as the petitions filed in the instant consolidated cases. G. it must necessarily tend to obstruct the orderly and fair administration of justice. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. G. JOSE MANUEL DIOKNO and MONIQUE CU-UNJIENG LA'O G. are primarily questions of fact that are normally not within the purview of a petition for certiorari. the petition is dismissible outright for being accompanied by a defective certification of non-forum shopping having been signed by Atty. 205956. Agustin . NO. P/SUPT.R. HANSEL M.R. The certification against forum shopping must be signed by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by the attorney. 189538. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. February 12. SATURNINO C. the evidence is unclear as to where the responsible police officer marked the seized substance and whether it was done in Merlita‘s presence. as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it. the matters therein alleged were not connected with the plaintiff‘s complaint. 3(d). However. jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.there was no marriage to speak of. issues and causes of action. All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Though Merlita's denial and alibi as a defense are weak. Hence. influencing the court. February 10. This uncertainty concerning a vital element of the crime warrants overturning the judgment of conviction. INC. G. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. February 12. 2014 Non-payment of docket fees is a jurisdictional defect. Anent the counterclaims interposed by defendant for the collection of certain sum of money adverted earlier hereof. it is also not clear from the evidence which police officer did the marking. ABANDO. A violation of this rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under Sec. February 11. OLAYBAR. HON. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint. 2014 The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue.R. or obstructing the administration of justice. The counterclaims could stand independently from the plaintiff‘s complaint hence they are a sic permissive counterclaims. et al. NO. NO. 2014 Issues involving the finding of probable cause for an indictment and issuance of a warrant of arrest. EPHREM S. 176830. February 11. MERLITA PALOMARES y COSTUNA. BIGNAY EX-IM PHILIPPINES. Although the counterclaims were denominated as compulsory in the answer.183191. 2014 In the case at bar. this Court could not exercise jurisdiction over the same as defendant did not pay the docket fees therefor. 171590. vs. For such certification is a peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal party. In fact. NO. the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the principal parties themselves and not by the attorney. 2014 The nature of an action. MARANTAN vs. G. an assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties.R. such cannot relieve the prosecution the burden of presenting proof beyond reasonable doubt that an illegal transaction actually took place. OCAMPO vs. MERLINDA L.G. TRINIDAD VALLEY REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. as petitioners are doubtless aware. ATTY. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. upon the theory that in such a case. is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff.R. 2014 It has been repeatedly emphasized that in the case of natural persons. No. A public utterance or publication is not to be denied the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press merely because it concerns a judicial proceeding still pending in the courts. February 12. even though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature.R. instead of the complainants as the principal parties. ATTY. EMMANUEL D. AGUSTIN, et al. vs. ALEJANDRO CRUZ-HERRERA. G.R. NO. 174564, February 12, 2014 The testimony of the offended party in crimes against chastity should not be received with precipitate credulity for the charge can easily be concocted. Courts should be wary of giving undue credibility to a claim of rape, especially where the sole evidence comes from an alleged victim whose charge is not corroborated and whose conduct during and after the rape is open to conflicting interpretations. While judges ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation that a rape victim undergoes as she seeks justice, they should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is to render justice based on the law. The numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of private complainant have created reasonable doubt in Our mind. In view of the foregoing considerations, the presumption of innocence in favor of appellant must be upheld considering that the evidence brought forth in trial falls short of the quantum of proof to support a conviction. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FELIMON PATENTES Y ZAMORA. G.R. NO. 190178, February 12, 2014. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the law and cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court. The rule is well-settled that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised for the first time on appeal. RICARDO L. ATIENZA AND ALFREDO A. CASTRO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. NO. 188694, February 12, 2014 The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in the other. Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements are present, namely: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amounts to res judicata in the action under consideration. There is no question that the ultimate objective of each of the actions was the return of the properties to the Estate in order that such properties would be partitioned among the heirs. In the other cases, the petitioners failed to attain the objective because Palicte‘s right in the properties had been declared exclusivse. There was between Civil Case No. CEB-24293 and the other cases a clear identity of the parties, of subject matter, of evidence, and of the factual and legal issues raised. The Court saw through the petitioners‘ "ploy to countermand the previous decisions‘ sustaining Palicte‘s rights over the properties." HEIRS OF MARCELO SOTTO vs. MATILDE S. PALICTE, Respondent. G.R. No. 159691, February 17, 2014 When the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court‘s observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. The straightforward, candid and intrepid revelation in coming forward to avenge the immoral defilement upon her person is more convincing and plausible compared to the weak and uncorroborated defense of petitioner. Despite the minor inconsistencies in her testimony, her general statements remained consistent throughout the trial as she recounted the sordid details of her tormenting experience in the hands of her own father. EMILIO RAGA y CASIKAT vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 200597, February 19, 2014 Without any prior order or at least a motion for exclusion from any of the parties, a court cannot simply allow or disallow the presentation of a witness solely on the ground that the latter heard the testimony of another witness. It is the responsibility of respondent's counsel to protect the interest of his client during the presentation of other witnesses. If respondent actually believed that the testimony of Kenneth would greatly affect that of Stephen's, then respondent's counsel was clearly remiss in his duty to protect the interest of his client when he did not raise the issue of the exclusion of the witness in a timely manner. DESIGN SOURCES INTERNATIONAL INC., et al. vs. LOURDES L. ERISTINGCOL G.R. No. 193966, February 19, 2014 Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the Court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court‘s orders, but such conduct which tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice. Respondent‘s willful disregard and defiance of this Court‘s ruling on a matter submitted for the second time before his office cannot be countenanced. By acting in opposition to this Court‘s authority and disregarding its final determination of the legal issue pending before him, respondent failed in his duty not to impede the due administration of justice and consistently adhere to existing laws and principles as interpreted in the decisions of the Court. CITY GOVERNMENT OF BAGUIO, et al. vs. ATTY. BRAIN S. MASWENG. G.R. No. 188913, February 19, 2014 Where a party was afforded the opportunity to participate in the proceedings, yet he failed to do so, he cannot be allowed later on to claim that he was deprived of his day in court. Notice and hearing is the bulwark of administrative due process, the right to which is among the primary rights that must be respected even in administrative proceedings. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. LUCENA D. DEMAALA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and OMBUDSMAN. G.R. No. 173523, February 19, 2014. Settled is the rule that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. As such, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. Evidently, the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the appellant‘s guilt for the offense of illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VICENTE ROM. G.R. No. 198452, February 19, 2014 It is a fundamental principle in jurisprudence involving rape that the accused may be convicted based solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. In this regard, we defer to the trial court‘s assessment of the credibility of AAA‘s testimony, most especially, when it is affirmed by the Court of Appeals. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MERVIN GAHI. G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014 In this case, the proceedings for indirect contempt have not been initiated. To the Court‘s mind, the September 3, 2007 Resolution could be treated as a mere reiteration of the September 10, 2002 Order. It is not yet a "judgment or final order of a court in a case of indirect contempt" as contemplated under the Rules. The recourse provided for in the Rule 71 is clear enough: the person adjudged in indirect contempt must file an appeal under Rule 41 (Appeal from the Regional Trial Courts) and post a bond for its suspension pendente lite. Obviously, these were not done in this case. Instead, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules and did not post the required bond, effectively making the September 3, 2007 Resolution final and executory. CAPITOL HILLS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC., et al. vs. MANUEL O. SANCHEZ. G.R. No. 182738, February 24, 2014 Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party is taken into legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or any proper party. Case law instructs that an attachment is a proceeding in rem, and, hence, is against the particular property, enforceable against the whole world. Accordingly, the attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. Applying these principles to this case, the Court finds that the CA erred in holding that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the Assailed Orders as these issuances essentially disregarded, inter alia, Ligon‘s prior attachment lien over the subject property patently anathema to the nature of attachment proceedings which is well-established in law and jurisprudence. LETICIA P. LIGON vs. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56 AT MAKATI CITY, et al. G.R. No. 190028, February 26, 2014 While a government office may prohibit altogether the filing of a motion for reconsideration with respect to its decisions or orders, the fact remains that certiorari inherently requires the filing of a motion for reconsideration, which is the tangible representation of the opportunity given to the office to correct itself. Unless it is filed, there could be no occasion to rectify. Worse, the remedy of certiorari would be unavailing. Simply put, regardless of the proscription against the filing of a motion for reconsideration, the same may be filed on the assumption that rectification of the decision or order must be obtained, and before a petition for certiorari may be instituted.. PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. PHILTRANCO WORKERS UNION-ASSOCIATION OF GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS (PWUAGLO). G.R. No. 180962, February 26, 2014 The disallowance of the notice of appeal signifies the disallowance of the appeal itself. A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is a mode of appeal of a lower court‘s decision or final order direct to the Supreme Court. However, the questioned Order denying her notice of appeal is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken. The Rules of Court specifically provides that no appeal shall be taken from an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal. Rather, the aggrieved party can elevate the matter through a special civil action under Rule 65. Thus, in availing of the wrong mode of appeal in this petition under Rule 45 instead of the appropriate remedy of Rule 65, the petition merits an outright dismissal. CORAZON MACAPAGAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 193217, February 26, 2014 The Ombudsman-imposed penalties in administrative disciplinary cases are immediately executory notwithstanding an appeal timely filed. An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. Thus, no error can be attributed to the CA when it ruled that the penalties imposed by the Ombudsman against petitioners are immediately executory. Immediate execution argues against the outlandish notion that the Ombudsman can only recommend disciplinary sanctions. FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR and HONORE R. HERNANDEZ vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, et al. G.R. NO. 197307, February 26, 2014 Although strict compliance with the rules of procedure is desired, liberal interpretation is warranted in cases where a strict enforcement of the rules will not serve the ends of justice; and that it is a better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice would result. Petitioners could not afford to engage the services of a private counsel and so were represented by the PAO. As has been repeatedly stated all over the records, PAO, SAC-PAO in particular, failed them, Hence, the Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, relaxed the rules and decides to allowed the action for the revival of judgment filed by petitioners. RUFA A. RUBIO, ET AL. vs. LOURDES ALABATA. G.R. NO. 203947, February 26, 2014 The force and violence required in rape cases is relative and need not be overpowering or irresistible when applied. For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation be so great or be of such character as could not be resisted – it is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. In the case at bench, AAA‘s categorical, straightforward and positive testimony revealed that the appellant was armed with a gun and the same was pointed at her while she was ordered to lie down and to take off her clothes, to which she acceded because of fear for her life and personal safety. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MANOLITO LUCENA y VELASQUEZ. G.R. NO. 190632, February 26, 2014. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even to those present. Consequently, the proceedings before RTC-Br. 14 were null and void. To turn a blind eye to the said nullity and, in turn, rule as improper the recourse to Rule 65 by the lack of legal standing is to prolong the denial of due process to the persons whose interests are indispensible to the final disposition of the case. It will only result in a protracted litigation as Spouses Crisologo will be forced to rely on a petition for the annulment of judgment before the CA (as the last remaining remedy), which may again reach this Court. To prevent multiplicity of suits and to expedite the swift administration of justice, the CA should have applied liberality by striking down the assailed orders despite the lack of legal standing on the part of Spouses Crisologo to file the Rule 65 petition before it. Besides, this lacking requirement, of which Spouses Crisologo were not even at fault, is precisely the reason why this controversy arose.JESUS G. CRISOLOGO and NANETTE B. CRISOLOGO v. JEWM AGROINDUSTRIAL CORPORATION. G.R. NO. 196894, MARCH 3, 2014 Orders denying motions for reconsideration are not always interlocutory orders. A motion for reconsideration may be considered a final decision, subject to an appeal, if it puts an end to a particular matter, leaving the court with nothing else to do but to execute the decision. An appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal of a complaint is effectively an appeal of the order of dismissal itself. It is an appeal from a final decision or order. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP G.R. NO. 171496, MARCH 3, 2014 It is entrenched in our jurisprudence that perfection of an appeal in a manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of making judgment final and executory. While dismissal of an appeal on technical grounds is frowned upon, Article 223 of the Labor Code which prescribes the appeal bond requirement, however, is a rule of jurisdiction and not of procedure. Hence, there is a little leeway for condoning a liberal interpretation thereof, and certainly none premised on the ground that its requirements are mere technicalities. The finding of the Labor Arbiter holding the petitioners liable for illegal dismissal is binding on them. Not having been timely appealed, this issue is already beyond our jurisdiction to resolve, and the finding of the Labor Arbiter can no longer be disturbed. CO SAY COCO PRODUCTS PHILS, INC., et al. v. BENJAMIN BALTASAR, ET AL. G.R. NO.188828, MARCH 5, 2014 When the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, he need not prove nonpayment for it is presumed. The creditor's possession of the evidence of debt is proof that the debt has not been discharged by payment. In this case, respondent's possession of the original copies of the subject Trust Indenture Certificates strongly supports his claim that petitioner Bank's obligation to return the principal plus interest of the money placement has not been extinguished. The TICs in the hands of respondent is a proof of indebtedness and a prima facie evidence that they have not been paid. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC.) v. ARTURO P. FRANCO, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: MAURICIA P. FRANCO, ET AL. G.R. NO. 180069, MARCH 5, 2014 The lower courts erred in giving weight to the presumption of regularity in the performance that a police officer enjoys in the absence of any taint of irregularity and of ill motive that would induce him to falsify his testimony. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. It should be noted that the presumption is precisely just that – a presumption. Once challenged by evidence, as in this case, it cannot be regarded as binding truth. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JERRY CARANTO Y PROPETA. G.R. 193768, MARCH 5, 2014 The general rule that an assignment of error is essential to appellate review and only those errors assigned will be considered applies in the absence of certain exceptional circumstances. As exceptions to the rule, the Court has considered grounds not raised or assigned as errors in instances where: (1) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within the contemplation of the law; (3) matters not assigned as errors on appeal, whose consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; (4) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; (5) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are closely related to the assigned error/s; and (6) matters not assigned as errors on appeal, whose determination is necessary to rule on the question/s properly assigned as errors. The present case falls into the exceptions. We find no error by the CA in resolving the issues on the nature and duration of the petitioners‘ possession and on the alienable character of the subject land. These issues were apparently not raised by the Republic in its appeal before the CA, but are crucial in determining whether the petitioners have registrable title over the subject land. SPOUSES MARIO AND JULIA CAMPOS v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. NO. 184371. MARCH 5, 2014 A writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy; it is auxiliary, an adjunct of, and subject to the determination of the main action. It is deemed lifted upon the dismissal of the main case, any appeal therefrom notwithstanding. Upon the dismissal of the main case by the RTC, the question of issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction has become moot and academic. Upon the dismissal of the main action, the question of the non-issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction automatically died with it.SPOUSES SILVESTRE O. PLAZA AND ELENA Y. PLAZA v. GUILLERMO LUSTIVA, ELEODORA VDA. DE MARTINEZ AND VICKY SAYSON GOLOSENO. G.R. NO. 172909, MARCH 5, 2014 The defense points out that the prosecution failed to present direct evidence that the accused Enojas, Gomez, Santos, or Jalandoni took part in shooting PO2 Pangilinan dead. This may be true but the prosecution could prove their liability by circumstantial evidence that meets the evidentiary standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: 1) there is more than one circumstance; 2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and 3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Here the totality of the circumstantial evidence the prosecution presented sufficiently provides basis for the conviction of all the accused. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NOEL ENOJAS Y HINGIPIT, ET AL. G.R. NO. 204894. MARCH 10, 2014 A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued upon the concurrence of the following essential requisites, to wit: (a) the invasion of right sought to be protected is material and substantial; (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. While a clear showing of the right is necessary, its existence need not be conclusively established. Hence, to be entitled to the writ, it is sufficient that the complainant shows that he has an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in his complaint. In the present case, the Court finds the RTC grant of injunction to be in order. There is no question that when the Pagbilao Development Corporation bought the properties from the vendors, it had full knowledge that there were questions involving ownership of the parcels of land it bought. Likewise there is no question that Pagbilao Development Corporation did not take any step to have the annotation or encumbrance in each title cancelled. Inevitably, PDC is deemed to have obtained the properties subject to the outcome of the litigation among the heirs of Arsenio. PEDRO LUKANG v. PAGBILAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND EDUARDO T. RODRIGUEZ G.R. NO. 195374. MARCH 10, 2014 The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has been tampered with and in such case, the burden of proof rests on the appellant. Here, appellant miserably failed to discharge this burden. Moreover, and as aptly observed by the CA, appellant did not seasonably question these procedural gaps before the trial court. Suffice it to MARCH 10.D. NO. as we have already discussed exhaustively in our Decision. the property. he assailed the validity of the conviction in the guise of a petition supposedly assailing the denial of probation. BUESER. are actions considered to be in the nature of proceedings in rem or quasi in rem. et al. 2014 In the present case. G. petitioner cannot make up his mind whether to question the judgment. MARCH 10. NO. No. we now demand that AMALI‘s authorized representative to show cause in writing why they should not be held in indirect contempt of court for bringing the unfounded and baseless charges against respondent Justices not only once but twice. on the other hand. In the instant case. NO. In the latter condition.say that objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. These cases are cognizable exclusively by RTCs. which seeks to make appeal and probation mutually exclusive remedies. or apply for probation. are incapable of pecuniary estimation. et al. may not be in the actual custody of said court. G. and vigilance that the circumstances justly demand. ENRIQUE ALMERO Y ALCANTARA v.M. 191360. NO. its fundamental right to be heard was not respected from the outset. hence. the principal relief sought. DANTON Q. 192123. and interfere with the due performance of their work for the Judiciary. consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do. Verily. There is potential custody .R. and.D. though at all times within the potential power of the court. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G. AMALI fell short of the requirements for establishing its charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment against respondent Justices. whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law. SURVIVING HEIRS OF ALFREDO R. 2014 Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care. The RTC and the CA should have been alert to this fundamental defect. MARCH 10. whereby such other person suffers injury. 12-204-CA-J.R. VILLON AND HON. or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings. 1990. G. HON. BAUTISTA v. AGAINST COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES HON. 968. OCA IPI NO. While he did not file an appeal before applying for probation. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money. The complainant may be held liable for indirect contempt of court as a means of vindicating the integrity and reputation of the judges and the Judiciary. Ospital ng Maynila was not at all a party in the proceedings. this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money. 2014 Forfeiture proceedings.R. or a consequence of. Hence. Reckless imprudence. The Court rules that the complaint to redeem a land subject of a free patent is a civil action incapable of pecuniary estimation. RICARDO R. 2014 Unfounded administrative charges against sitting judges truly degrade their judicial office. Hence. It is a well-settled rule that jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. which is necessarily deemed a waiver of his right to appeal. RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DISBARMENT OF AMA LAND INC.R. precaution. such that: Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process. SESINANBO E. FRANCISCO LINDO AND WELHILMINIA LINDO. an act from which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act. In so doing. the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation. MARCH 12. MARCH 11. and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the RTCs would depend on the amount of the claim. as amended by P. no person can be prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which he was not made a party. 188191. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. ROSARI A. But where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective. FERNANDO SOLIDUM v. without malice. DR. Such a rule would enforce the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. where the money claim is purely incidental to. 2014 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. 208232. he attempted to circumvent P. SHERWON BIS Y AVELLANEDA. 000.R. MARCH 12. While it is a basic rule of evidence that the original copy prevails over a mere photocopy. Moreover. JR. disregarding these findings of facts when shown that the administrative body committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously. MACRH 12. Conspiracy makes all the assailants equally liable as coprincipals by direct participation. when proper. LOLITA ALCAZAR.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.when. 2014 In this jurisdiction. there is no harm if in a case. the . JIMENEZ. NESTOR B. Respondent‘s failure to present the original copy of the Acknowledgment during the taking of her testimony for the second time.C. G. NO. Hence.R. NO. 2014 The procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. the power of the court over the property is impliedly recognized by law. If the rules are intended to ensure the proper and orderly conduct of litigation. clearly. JESUS J.R. 2014 Petitioners‘ admission that the five affiants were their former employees is binding upon them. While they claim that respondent was the employee of their suppliers Mayol and Apondar. G. DIOSDADO B. since Ma. NO.00. MARCOS. the the Republic‘s interest over the Arelma assets has already been recognized in an earlier decision rendered by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court. INC.R. it is because of the higher objective they seek which are the attainment of justice and the protection of substantive rights of the parties. FIGUERAS AND BIENVENIDO VICTORIA. NO. courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice.R. v. These findings. JR. does not materially affect the outcome of the case. petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving their own affirmative allegation. 196960.456. MARCH 12. however. SPOUSES FERNANDO AND MA. NO. Thus. NO. MARCH 12. 2014 In an appeal to the SC of a CA decision dismissing a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction under Rule 47 for lack of proof of authority and affidavit of service of filing as required by Section 13 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure.R. JR. MARCH 12. REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT DELFIN CHUA. NO. Elena was not a signatory to the Acknowledgment. 186621. COMING. DIAMOND TAXI AND/OR BRYAN ONG v. The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. A. While the subject properties are in the US. unless the adverse party specifically denies them under oath. and the presentation of a mere photocopy thereof at said hearing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges. 190724. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G. Erwin‘s liability is not diminished since he and the others with him acted with concert in beating up and ultimately killing Joey. they did not submit proof that the latter were indeed independent contractors. both the original and a photocopy thereof are authenticated. ERWIN TAMAYO Y BAUTISTA. 183034. ELENA SANTOS v. are not infallible. courts generally accord great respect and finality to factual findings of administrative agencies. whimsically or arbitrarily disregarding evidence or circumstances of considerable importance that are crucial or decisive of the controversy. FELIPE LLAMAS. 2014. G. 189505 & G. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES/ IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS vs. ATTY. 9116. Hence only Fernando may be held liable for the judgment amount of P1. G. applies only to parties to such instrument. 2014 Assuming that the prosecution witnesses failed to identify exactly who inflicted the fatal wounds on Joey during the commotion. the court held that ―While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed. v. the rule that the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted. The Court found no merit in respondent‘s contention that complainants have no personality to file a disbarment case against him as they were not his clients and that the present suit was merely instituted to harass him. MARCH 12. from the nature of the action brought. 189434. This doctrine espousing comity to administrative findings of facts cannot preclude the courts from reviewing and. SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN. AND/OR ESTANISLAO AGBAY v. identified and formally offered in evidence by the party proponent. FERDINAND R. the three-day notice requirement is not a hard and fast rule. LUI ENTERPRISES. NO. the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. In the present case. The Regional Trial Court of Makati declared Lui Enterprises in default when it failed to answer the complaint within the required period. the only legal issue raised by petitioner is whether the trial court based its determination of just compensation on the factors provided under existing laws and jurisprudence. just compensation must not be arrived at arbitrarily. NO. and the question presented before us calls for a review of the CA‘s conclusion that the documents and evidence presented by petitioner are insufficient to support her application for registration of title. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. and has been indeed heard through the pleadings filed in opposition to the motion. should no longer be subject to cavil. JOSE T. v. as sanctioned by Section 1 of Rule 65. MARCH 12. The aggrieved party may then seek redress from the courts through a petition for certiorari under Section 1. the requirements of procedural due process are substantially complied with. a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court covers only questions of law.R. 2014 The preventive suspension order is interlocutory in character and not a final order on the merits of the case. 192100. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. NO. It was the height of injustice for the CA to dismiss a petition just because the motion for extension reached the ponente‘s office beyond the last date prayed for. as in the instant case. 191455. MARCH 12.R.R. ASIA PACIFIC INTEGRATED STEEL CORPORATION. we find that the trial court did not judiciously determine the fair market value of the subject property as it failed to consider other relevant factors such as the zonal valuation. the purpose behind the three-day notice requirement is deemed realized. When there is no dispute as to the facts. FELIX NG. CAPULONG. 201643. There being a finding of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. 192717. MARCH 12. G. It failed to prove the excusable negligence. excusable negligence must be properly alleged and proven. G. When the adverse party had been afforded the opportunity to be heard. 2014 A motion that does not comply with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is a worthless piece of paper which the clerk of court has no right to receive and which the court has no authority to act upon. 2014 The almost four months that lapsed before the records reached the ponente‘s office was caused by the gross incompetence and inefficiency of the division personnel at the CA.‖ DREAMLAND HOTEL RESORT AND WESTLEY J. or saving a particular case from the operation of technicalities when substantial justice requires it. as amended. 201601. NO. Nevertheless. Indeed.relaxation of procedural rules. G. NO. tax declarations and current selling price supported by documentary evidence.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.. the Makati trial court did not err in refusing to set aside the order of default. In this case. MARCH 12. 2014 As a rule. NO. MARYLOU CABRERA v. MINDA S. it was certainly imperative for the CA to grant incidental reliefs. MARCH 12. INC.R. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. Hence. Thus. In this case. G. . there seems to be no dispute as to the facts. Lui Enterprises filed a motion to set aside order of default without an acceptable excuse why its counsel failed to answer the complaint. 2014 In an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. we must not lose sight of the fact that Capulong likewise prayed for other remedies. G. GAERLAN v. While it is true that the primary relief prayed for by Capulong in his petition has already been voluntarily corrected by the Ombudsman by the issuance of the order lifting his preventive suspension. G. 193494. For a question to be one of law. the petition is properly filed. Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court. JOHNSON. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION AND THE PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS. Even when a motion is filed within the required period. is a question of law. PRENTICE v.R.R. but determined after an evaluation of different factors. the question of whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct or not. In such case. 2014 There should be no inexplicable delay in the filing of a motion to set aside order of default. MARCH 12. only questions of law may be raised. STEPHEN B. 228. G. convincing and more than merely preponderant.R. SPOUSES RUFINO R. This notwithstanding. possession de facto and not possession de jure. Petitioners undeniably failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence against the genuineness and authenticity of the deed. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY. MARCH 17. They are not required to ensure that it would be received by the court on or before the last day of the extended period prayed for. i. NO. MARCH 19. CAPCO. Though no party can assume that its motion for extension would be granted. v. INC. 2014 . the validity of the property‘s conversion and the petitioners‘ claimed ownership of the property. MARCH 17. v. as well as the laws governing the powers and functions of the NHA as the property‘s acquiring entity. the courts may pass upon that issue to determine who between the parties has the better right to possess the property. et al.‖ SPOUSES EDMUNDO DELA CRUZ AND AMELIA CONCIODELA CRUZ v. ZAULDA v. METROPOLITAN FABRICS. NO. et al. MARCH 17. CAPCO AND MARTY C. 176055. the timeliness of the filing of the Complaint for unlawful detainer is not an issue in this case. et al.D.R. 6657. the MeTC and the RTC correctly passed upon the issue of ownership in this case to determine the issue of possession. 181055. No.. when and how entry into the property was made by the defendants applies only when the issue is the timeliness of the filing of the complaint before the MTC. Hence. G.2014. 2014 The requirement that the complaint should aver.e. No. 2010. The rules allow parties to file a pleading by registered mail. ZAULDA. Instead. they are proscribed in a Rule 45 petition—The settled rule is that the Court‘s jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to resolving only questions of law. it must be emphasized that ―the adjudication of the issue of ownership is only provisional. the deed should be upheld. the resolution of this petition‘s core issue necessitates the prior determination of two essentially factual issues. et al. this petition‘s core issue is a question of law that a Rule 45 petition properly addresses. NO. therefore.‖ But ―where the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership. thereby belying the intervention of fraud. otherwise. As presented. INC. and was entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. No. 2014 The petitioners essentially assail in this petition the validity of the NHA‘s acquisition of the property. it was admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. any denial thereof should be reasonable. ISAAC Z..G. PROSPERITY CREDIT RESOURCES. However.The petitioners could not also be faulted that the motion for extension of time was received by the CA on September 13. 201234. the spouses Dela Cruz by their own ownership while the spouses Capco by the ownership of Rufino as one of the heirs of the alleged true owner of the property. and had in its favor the presumption of regularity. in relation to P. G. Hence.A. HEIRS OF AMADA A.e. ―The only issue in an ejectment case is the physical possession of real property.‖ Here. Thus. As questions of fact.. the contrary evidence must be clear. in view of the prohibition on sale or disposition of agricultural lands under E. and not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property. 154390. HEIRS OF TERESITA MONTOYA. NO. The contested deed of real estate mortgage was a public document by virtue of its being acknowledged before notary public. Resolution of this petition‘s core issue requires the proper interpretation and application of the laws and the rules governing the government‘s agrarian reform program. 27 and Section 6 of R. the failure of the Complaint to allege when and how the spouses Capco came into possession of the property does not mean that the MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over it.R. To rebut its authenticity and genuineness. their actuations even demonstrated that their transaction with respondents had been regular and at arms-length.R. i. As a notarized document.O. However. the deed carried the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. both parties anchor their right to possess based on ownership. as jurisdictional facts. while the judgment remains unreversed or unvacated by proper authority. The. in effect went into the merits of the defense. G. In other words. AND JANETTE G. is conclusively settled by the judgment therein. NO. 2014 J. Hence. the Lanuzo heirs.R. NO. NENA E. at the time of their production for examination. MARCH 19. The rule is well settled that the act of an accused in posting bail or in filing motions seeking affirmative relief is tantamount . 146880 is one of the properties donated by the spouses Cornelio and Nieves to Angel and whether such donation was valid have been necessarily settled in Civil Case No. we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review. MARCH 24. he effectively assumed the function of a trial judge in the evaluation of the pieces of evidence and. and was there judicially passed on and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. LANUZO. BARRY LANIER AND PERLITA LANIER v. NO. Only those whose mental condition. is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others are disqualified. G. LABRADOR. thereby. 2735. NO. of the challenged NLRC decision. in the same court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or a different cause of action. 189176. 2014 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In a rape case filed by a mental retardate. JERRY OBOGNE G. rather than be dismissed from the service.R. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it. LARRY S.R. the Court held that mental retardation per se does not affect a witness‘ credibility. 2014 The party alleging the negligence of the other as the cause of injury has the burden to establish the allegation with competent evidence. NO.R.R. When the Secretary of Justice concluded that there was planting of evidence based on the lone fact that the raiding team arrived ahead of the search team.While the determination of probable cause is primarily an executive function. In ruling for legal correctness. identity of cause of action is not required but merely identity of parties and identity of issues. 158916. 199740. LAGAZO v. 2014 The Court agrees with petitioner's contention that private respondent's act of posting bail and filing his Motion for Consolidation vests the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over his person. confines this Court to a review of the case solely on pure questions of law. For res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment to apply. who failed to establish by preponderance of evidence that the negligence on the part of the company was the proximate cause of the fatal accident of Balbino could not recover damages. as far as concerns the parties to that action and persons in privity with them. MARCH 19. As the issues of whether Lot J of Psd. BJDC CONSTRUCTION v. not a review on appeal. ET AL. 161151. the Court would not hesitate to interfere if there is a clear showing that Secretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in making his determination and in arriving at the conclusion he reached. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERIVES (PHILIPPINES). PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. acted outside his jurisdiction. and cannot be again litigated in any future action between such parties or their privies. HEIRS OF CORNELIO MIGUEL v. G. 193107. HEIRS OF ANGEL MIGUEL. The NLRC glossed over Labrador‘s repeated violations that led the latter to request that he be allowed to resign to preserve his reputation for future employment. they can no longer be relitigated in Civil Case No. G. 2014 The doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment states that a fact or question which was in issue in a former suit. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO. MARCH 24. A mental retardate may be a credible witness. The CA gravely misappreciated the import of the evidence on record and can even be said to have disregarded it. INC. the parties carrying the burden of proof. the proof required is preponderance of evidence. If the action based on negligence is civil in nature. he. not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented. When he made a determination based on his own appreciation of the pieces of evidence for and against the accused. MARCH 24. 1185. Rule 15 of the Rules of Court when they scheduled the hearing on their ―Very Urgent Motion to Cite Defendants In Contempt‖ just one day after they filed the said pleading. including the original seventy-two (72) hours provided herein. The investigation conducted by the investigating lawyers of the OCA revealed at least two (2) instances when he was out of his assigned post/station during regular office hours. to be contumacious. 168539. NO. within the aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours. NO. which adversely affect the prompt delivery of justice. JOHNI GLENN D. MARCH 26. 2014 . being without authority. 2011 when the cases were first raffled to him. to hinder the implementation of a judgment. et al. G. MARCH 26. NO. A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the special civil action of certiorari. Substantial evidence shows that respondent is guilty of loafing. A. if filed.to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court. 2014 Loafing is defined under the Civil Service rules as ―frequent unauthorized absences from duty during office hours. implies willfulness. under Rule 58 he had 24 hours to act thereon. GO. Moreover... such as where a rigid application of the rule will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice or if there was substantial compliance. In no case shall the total period of effectivity of the temporary restraining order exceed twenty (20) days. vs. PAGCOR is not justified in failing to file a requisite motion for reconsideration. G. RUNES. the judge before whom the case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order shall be extended until the application for preliminary injunction can be heard. et al. The Court does not now find that Judge Jurado acted in bad faith or with ill will or malicious motive when he granted the TRO extension and later the preliminary injunction. He failed to sufficiently refute these findings. NO. P-12-3055.R. Respondent‘s two absences from his post. INC. It constitutes inefficiency and dereliction of duty.R. HENRY T. 174758. INC. any motion that does not comply with the requirements of Rule 15 should not be received for filing and. On the contrary. directly or indirectly.R. NO. G. OLAIREZ. THUNDERBIRD PILIPINAS HOTELS AND RESORTS.OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. 199528. but he shall immediately comply with the provisions of the next preceding section as to service of summons and the documents to be served therewith. if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury. is not entitled to judicial cognizance. bad faith or with deliberate intent to cause injustice. MARCH 25. can already be characterized as frequent. 197942-43/G. A conduct. the executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a single-sala court may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance. Thereafter. which is clearly not the case here. It would have been irregular and unreasonable for him to act on the extension of the 72-hour TRO on June 6. et al. and besides. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION v. As a rule. BABY NELLIE M. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2014 Subject to Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 58 the. SLU was well within its rights to appeal the decision and not immediately heed the demand of the Olairez group. it behooves PAGCOR to observe the applicable rules and keep in mind that the Court will not take lightly any non-observance of our settled rules as if they are mere technicalities. 2014 The supposed inaction of the SLU and its officials when the Olairez group visited the school to demand their compliance with the decision was not borne out of a contumacious conduct tending. Records reveal that the Olairez group violated the three-day notice rule on hearing of motions as provided in Section 4. subject only to some exceptions.R. MARCH 26. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY. While the question of whether to give due course to the petitions is addressed to the discretion of the Court. and to observe the hierarchy of courts.‖ The word ―frequent‖ connotes that the employees absent themselves from duty more than once.M. a writ of execution issued upon a final judgment adjudicating the ownership of land to a party may authorize putting her in possession although the judgment does not specifically direct such act. G. Proceedings in administrative investigation are not strictly governed by the technical rules of evidence. Anonymous Complaint Against Otelia Lyn G. this Court is convinced that AAA‘s unwavering narration of how she was raped. NO. P-12-3093. MANILA DOCTORS COLLEGE AND/OR TERESITA O. Hence. together with her positive identification of her own father as the one who raped her. It is enough that the party is given the chance to be heard before the case against him is decided. the petition for review of Limson is outrightly rejected for this reason. EMMANUEL M. PASCUAL v. MARCH 31. REVELINA LIMSON v. ET AL. It urges the Court to undo the findings of fact of the OCP. NO. nor may it go beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed.A court employee who was charged with dishonesty cannot claim that the admission of documentary evidence which were mere photocopies and were obtained without her consent constitute a violation of her right to due process. which must be distinctly set forth. However. the NLRC had all the opportunity to review its ruling and correct itself. No.M. MARCH 31.R. But the Court is not a trier of facts. 2014 The petition for review of Limson projects issues of fact. Thus. the CA erred in dismissing the Rule 65 petition filed by Olores. but more importantly. the Secretary of Justice and the CA on the basis of the documents submitted with her petition. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. JOSEFINO L. 162063. MARCH 26. A. are worthy of belief. 2014 After a careful review. Section 1 of Rule 45. and cannot analyze and weigh evidence. Rules of Court explicitly requires the petition for review on certiorari to raise only questions of law. Palapag. a writ of execution should strictly conform to every particular of the judgment to be executed. 2014 The rationale for the requirement of first filing a motion for reconsideration before the filing of a petition for certiorari is that the law intends to afford the tribunal. For the defense of alibi to prosper. Court Interpreter. March 26. G. Maceda. 2014 As a general rule. MARCH 31. Physical impossibility refers not only to the geographical distance between the place where the accused was and the place where the crime was committed when the crime transpired. 162205.R. TURLA. the execution is void if it is in excess of and beyond the original judgment or award. DAQUIOAG. 201663. G. Municipal Trial Court. Otherwise stated. in the application of the principle of due process. JESUS BURCE. EUGENIO JUAN GONZALEZ.R. LEONORA A. board or office an opportunity to rectify the errors and mistakes it may have lapsed into before resort to the courts of justice can be had. 201732. They are summary in nature. what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard. NO.R. the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime. 2014 . administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. Northern Samar. the facility of access between the two places. G. Indeed. Accordingly. OLORES v. NO. In the instant case. and not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. OCA IPI No. (2013) A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party‘s free act or deed. no judicial officer should have to fear or apprehend being held to account or to answer for performing his judicial functions and office because such performance is a matter of public duty and responsibility. the judge was motivated by hatred. He should. A. therefore. What is most essential in indirect contempt cases. Inc. Mejica. 12202-CA-J. he also serves the ends of justice. et al. The responsibility to faithfully observe and respect the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer because of his solemn oath under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. does honor to the bar. and interfere with the due performance of their work for the Judiciary. Second. Indeed. the petitioner must be given the opportunity to comment on the charge against her. greed or some other similar motive in issuing the judgment. Patricio V. Unfounded administrative charges against judges truly degrade the judicial office. Plainly. No. Agbulos v. RE: Verified Complaint of AMA Land. The failure of the judge to correctly interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively liable. there must be an order requiring the petitioner to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt. Thus. and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.. Rosekker A. Respondent‘s failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only damage to those directly affected by the notarized document but also in undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. the showing of culpability on the part of the judicial officer should be nothing short of proof beyond reasonable doubt. legally applied.LEGAL ETHICS In administrative proceedings where the charge equates to a criminal offense. the ground for liability. and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client. only if found guilty will petitioner be punished accordingly. Atty. Finally. Viray. especially because the charge is penal in character. He owes entire devotion to the interest of the client. 7350 (2013) Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client. Baldado v. save by the rules of law. be held liable for such negligence not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. Bueser. the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. thus. warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client‘s rights. A. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client. A. since he . No. against Hon. Atty. In other words.M. Bad faith is. Danton Q.C. Aquilino A. Augusto P. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices. there must be a hearing and the court must investigate the charge and consider petitioner‘s answer. Third. however. respondent Judge's obstinate disregard of established rules of procedure amounts to gross ignorance of the law or procedure. Knowingly rendering an adjust judgment constitutes a serious criminal offense.C. revenge. the complainant must not only prove beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is patently contrary to law or not supported by the evidence but that it was also made with deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. 9120 (2013) The following procedural requisites must be complied with before petitioner may be punished for indirect contempt: First. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question. such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. is that the alleged contemner be granted an opportunity to meet the charges against him and to be heard in his defenses. were never given a chance to explain the circumstances behind the results of the judicial audit. Lazaro. In fine. Grageda. Furthermore. Bitas. Unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct and constitutes gross inefficiency that warrants the imposition of an administrative sanction against the defaulting magistrate. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. 9259 (2013) . more importantly when there is no valid showing that the said collections were actually used for the said transfer. he also violates Rule 18. and lasts until his effective release by the clients. Regional Trial Court.03. No.M. fairly. but not used for the purpose. and with reasonable promptness. Anna Liza Valmores-Salinas v.C. An inhibition must be for just and valid reason. Johnny Pesto v. He thereby violates his Lawyer's Oath to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his client. should be immediately returned. Branch 7. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. RTJ-13-2342/A. Manuel “Lolong” M. Tacloban City. Every attorney owes fidelity to the causes and concerns of his clients. A. No. An inexcusable failure to decide a case within the prescribed 90-day period constitutes gross inefficiency. A lawyer‘s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed to him by his client. Rodica v. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. the absence of such rules should not serve as license to recommend the imposition of penalties to retired judges who. A. However. Marcelito Millo.M. Adm. RTJ-10-2235 (2013) Mere allegations of impartiality against the respondents cannot be the sole basis for the grant of a Motion for Inhibition against them. Judge Crisologo S. Corollary to this constitutional mandate. No. No. Section 5.M. cessation from office by reason of resignation. the same is not lost by the mere fact that the public official or employee was no longer in office during the pendency of the case. Office of the Administrator Court v. This is because the filing of an administrative case is predicated on the holding of a position or office in the government service. Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to perform all judicial duties efficiently. trial judges are mandated to decide and resolve cases within 90 days from submission for decision or resolution. by which he is called upon to serve his client with competence and diligence. Office of the Court Administrator v. Jiz. especially when the charge is without basis. Jasper Junno F. Leonardo E. RTJ-12-2335 (2013) An attorney who conceals his inefficiency and lack of diligence by giving wrong information to his client regarding the matter subject of their professional relationship is guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court. No. once jurisdiction has attached.M. If after his retirement a judicial audit has been conducted and it was found that he is indeed liable. Jinon v. he is expected to take every reasonable step and exercise ordinary care as his clients‘ interests may require. A. death or retirement is not a ground to dismiss the case filed against the said officer or employee at the time that he was still in the public service or render it moot and academic. warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions such as suspension from office without pay or fine on the defaulting judge. 9612 (2013) A lawyer engaged for his services regarding the recovery of a land title which the other party refuses to convey to his client cannot by himself lease the subject property to any third person and collect rentals as payment for expenses incurred in the process of the title transfer. the complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the respondent public official or employee. et al. RTJ-12-2318 (2013) In order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative proceeding. The mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose. such as for the processing of transfer of land title. Atty. In that time. Judge Fernando G. Atty. The mandate to promptly dispose of cases or matters also applies to motions or interlocutory matters or incidents pending before the magistrate. during their incumbency. No. Gloria P. Jesus L. though the Court concedes that there are no promulgated rules on the conduct of judicial audit. A. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the clients.disregarded the basic procedural requirements in instituting an indirect contempt charge. A. His duty to safeguard the clients‘ interests commences from his engagement as such. Case No. Fuentes III.C. 9615 (2013) Under the 1987 Constitution. However. Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala and Stenographer Myrla del Pilar Nicandro. Charlie L. good manners and right conduct are expected of all judicial officers and employees. or defraud. Surigao City. A lawyer‘s duty to prevent. deceive. Atty. Further. A. Unless the reins of control and supervision over the administrative aspect of the adjudicatory process are tightened. not only in the performance of official duties. wrongfully inflicts upon any person any bodily harm. The permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. the client.M. counsel‘s signature serves as a certification that (1) he has read the pleading. Reynaldo S. MTJ-12-1818 (2013) The personal letters written by the respondent seeking for the mercy of the Supreme Court in order to lighten the penalties imposed upon her were treated as Motions for Reconsideration. No.M. Jr. Dishonesty has been defined as the disposition to lie. The delay in deciding a case within the reglementary period constitutes a violation of Section 5. untrustworthiness. by affixing one‘s signature to a pleading. Professionalism. imprisonment or other injury. Cebu City and Mr. The purpose is to protect the public. Thus. subject to disciplinary action. Office of the Court Administrator v. Teves. who under color of his office. any agency. Employees of the judiciary should be living examples of uprightness. Janus T. 9604 (2013) Employees of the judiciary should be very circumspect in how they conduct themselves inside and outside the office. Any transgression or deviation from the established norm of conduct. Branch 4. efficiently. (2) to the best of his knowledge. the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Atty. under the Rules of Court. the swift and efficient delivery of justice will be impeded and rendered illusory. fairly and with promptness. for the latter are not the guardians of the former‘s responsibility. is trifling with the judicial processes to evade a final judgment. respect for the rights of others. the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of. Although he may delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer. Sheriff IV. No. Grave abuse of authority has been defined as a misdemeanor committed by a public officer. Hon. and Victoria Ravelo-Camingue v. Thus. A. personal or corporate. In the present case. Jaime dela Pena Sunit. information and belief there is good ground to support it. Bancolo‘s authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him.M. and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. Tapay and Anthony J. RTJ-06-1974 (2013) The signing of the Complaint by the office secretary of the respondent upon his own instructions constituted an unauthorized practice of law as it is the lawyer‘s duty and not that of his secretary. Filing of multiple Motions for Reconsideration in the guise of personal letters to whoever sits as the Chief Magistrate of the Court. or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by. Any scandalous behavior or any act that may erode the people‘s esteem for the judiciary is unbecoming of an employee. work related or not. or at the very least not to assist in. Rustia v. so as to preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts in the community. Regional Trial Court. Presiding Judge. but also by the efficiency with which disputes are resolved. or excessive use of authority. Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates judges to perform all judicial duties. Antioco Bonono. it is an act of cruelty. respondent cannot be held liable for grave abuse of authority. Rodrigo E. it is counsel alone who has the responsibility to certify to these matters and give legal effect to the document. Municipal Trial Court in Cities. Bancolo and Atty. lack of honesty. A. the law makes it misbehavior on his part. but also in their personal and private dealings with other people. Carmen P.It is the duty of every judge to resolve the cases submitted before them promptly. amounts to a misconduct. A judge cannot simply take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of her court personnel. cheat. Edano v. Branch 29. including the delivery of reserved decisions. Rosabella M. and (3) it is not interposed for delay. probity or integrity in . he may not delegate it to a non-lawyer. A.C. severity. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character. Tormis. No. lack of integrity. to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law. It matters not that his acts were not work-related. the court. the acts complained of against the respondent are not connected to the performance of his duty as a sheriff. And. Jarder. The honor and integrity of the judicial system is measured not only by the fairness and correctness of decisions rendered. P-12-3073 (2013) Falsification of time records constitutes dishonesty. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. No. Branch Clerk of Court. Judge Nilo Malanyaon. Wacas. lack of fairness and straightforwardness. malpractice. he need not require them to show their valid identification cards. Bacolod City. The Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct. A judge may not involve himself in any activity that is an aspect of the private practice of law. There is no affinity between the blood relatives of one spouse and the blood relatives of the other. Judge Wacas is not disqualified under Sec. deceive or betray. Quirino P. Tabuk City. thus causing complainants shame and embarrassment.M. Judge Anastacio C. Atty. P-12-3044 (2013) Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly prohibits sitting judges from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients. 40. act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice. The conduct of court personnel. Necessario. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. but not to the wife of his wife‘s brother. There is no affinity between the husband‘s brother and the wife‘s sister. Kalinga. powers. et al. Rufon v. Sonia C. A. A husband is related by affinity to his wife‘s brother. court employees cannot engage in a shouting match. from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk. This Court has consistently directed the employees of the judiciary to exercise self-restraint and civility at all times. Ignorance of the law is a mark of incompetence. 09-3243-RTJ (2013) Solemnizing marriages even if the requirements submitted by the couples were incomplete and of questionable character constitutes gross inefficiency. this is called affinitas affinitatis. if the notary public knows the affiants personally. must always be beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. duties. which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. No. prevent them from extending favors to their own private interests. privileges and functions of the office of an attorney are inherently incompatible with the high official functions. No. Office of the Court Administrator v. Solemnizing marriages where legal impediments existed during cohabitation such as the minority status of one party constitutes gross ignorance of the law. MTJ-07-1691 (2013) The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly disqualifies a notary public from notarizing a document where the affiants are related to him within the fourth civil degree of affinity. A. No. Judge Marcelino K. Bernard N. Genita. 1 of Rule 137 to hear Election Case No. The act of a judge coaching her daughter who is the counsel of the respondent during a hearing is considered as engaging in private practice of law. an attorney who accepts an appointment to the Bench must accept that his right to practice law as a member of the Philippine Bar is thereby suspended. Violation of the disqualification rule under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is not a sufficient ground to disbar a notary public since he did not commit any deceit. gross misconduct or gross immoral conduct. Decena v. The prohibition is based on sound reasons of public policy. A. Branch 52. Failure to ensure the payment of solemnization fees constitutes neglect of duty. Thus. Tiggangay v. A. It also aims to ensure that judges give their full time and attention to their judicial duties. OCA IPI No.. Jandoquile v. respondents‘ acts of "shouting" while angrily pointing their fingers at the complainants in front and in the presence of so many court personnel and visitors. discretion and privileges of a sitting judge.M. ignorance thereof is considered as an indication of lack of integrity.principle. A.M. The judge‘s act of doing so renders him guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge. Judge Anatalio S. Legal researcher II.M. Regional Trial Court. and where the law involved is elementary. duties. Decena and Rey C. Johnwell W. regardless of the beneficiary of the activity being a member of his immediate family. Branch 25. Revilla. and assure the public of their impartiality in the performance of their functions. Manuelito P. Jr. No. act with vulgarity or behave in such a way that would diminish the sanctity and dignity of . Thus. disposition to defraud. cannot be allowed or tolerated. 9514 (2013) Respondents as security guards to the premises of the Hall of Justice cannot be fully exonerated from liability. While they may have been properly moved to call attention to an apparent irregularity. or any other serious ground for disbarment under Section 27. RTJ-10-2217 (2013) Complainant‘s complaint charging the respondent with Impropriety and Partiality cannot hold water on the basis that respondent is defendant‘s second cousin by affinity since the former‘s aunt is married to an uncle of the defendant. and it shall continue to be so suspended for the entire period of his incumbency as a judge.C. considering that the rights. His acceptance of an appointment to the Bench inhibits him from engaging in such practice. Hence. On the other hand. Regional Trial Court. whose representative has just been elected as Executive Vice President. Tenoso v. Each region. Thus. It is not only an exercise of its constitutional and statutory mandated duty. they should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations. Marcial M.G Liza S. Isabel E. A. Theresa G. For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government. 8292 (2013) If a misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. should be respected. Clerk IV. A.G Johnna E. Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Iloilo City. Anselmo S. she must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing.C.C. both of the Office of the Clerk of Court. subject once more to the rule on exclusion. if said misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. It is proper that he be sanctioned. may be elected for another term as Executive Vice-President in the new rotational cycle.M. A. then a lawyer may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar. Zerrudo. A violation of the rotation rule in any election shall be penalized by annulment of the election and disqualification of the offender from election or appointment to any office in the IBP.M. and Salvacion D. as their conduct is subject to the everconstant scrutiny of the public. even when confronted with rudeness and insolence. then he may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar. Respondents' breach of this mandate not only showed a paucity of professionalism but also unjustifiably embarrassed complainants. regardless of respondents' motivations. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service. can no longer have its representative elected for the same position in subsequent elections until after all regions have had the opportunity to be elected as such. all regions. their transgression of the bounds of decency warrants the imposition of a penalty as provided by law. These . et al. Sermonia. Atty. No. making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. other lawyers and the general public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as public instruments. Atty. In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines: Atty. P-13-3108 (2013) In misrepresenting himself as a notary public. respondent's conduct falls miserably short of the high standards of morality. No.C. Rosario Berenguer-Landers and Pablo Berenguer v. shall have the opportunity to have its representative elected as Executive Vice-President of the IBP.the courts.. hence. Florin. The order of rotation by exclusion shall be without prejudice to the regions entering into a consensus to adopt any pre-ordained sequence in the new rotation cycle provided each region will have its turn in the rotation. Otherwise said. Evidently. courts. Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court. Clerk of Court IV. Ma. the Court wields a continuing power of supervision over the IBP and its affairs like the elections of its officers. A. respondent committed acts of deceit and falsehood in open violation of the explicit pronouncements of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 09-5-2-SC/A. precepts and doctrines for the purpose of steering the members of the bench and the bar to the proper path. et al v. A region. Hence. No. provided that. except the region whose representative has just served the immediately preceding term. No. integrity and fair dealing required from lawyers. However. for notarization converts a private document to a public instrument. the election for the position of Executive Vice President shall be on a strict rotation by exclusion basis. Millado v. At the end of the rotational cycle. a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility. 5119 (2013) All directives coming from the Court Administrator and his deputies are issued in the exercise of this Court‘s administrative supervision of trial courts and their personnel. as enumerated under Section 3. 8384 (2013) The Constitution has empowered the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning the integrated bar. Rogelio A. perhaps higher than her brethren in private practice. Notarization is not a routinary. Echanez. but also of its symbolic function of providing guiding principles. respondent exposed party-litigants. Generally speaking. meaningless act. A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. The duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. As noted by the Investigating Commissioner. Efigenia M. Vinluan. No. L. The region whose representative served last in the previous rotational cycle may be elected Executive Vice-President only after the first term of the new rotational cycle ends. Magsino. Lozada and L. a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. honesty. Atty. Pursuant thereto. Dr. Pasay City v. Respondent‗s foul and vulgar utterances. even after the severance of the relation with his client. a lawyer should not. do anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he previously represented him nor should he disclose or use any of the client's confidences acquired in the previous relation.M. Auxencio Joseph B. Andaya. They shall at all times respect the rights of others. A. Metropolitan Trial Court. For the prohibition to apply. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone. Simando. RTJ-09-2181 (2013) Article 1491. Office of the Court Administrator v. This Court concedes that there are no promulgated rules on the conduct of judicial audit. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees mandates that public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. However. Any fighting or misunderstanding among court employees becomes a disgraceful sight reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. This standard is applied with respect to a court employee's dealings not only with the public but also with his or her co-workers in the service. Security Guard II. Atty. Hermosisima. the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. Clerk of Court. public policy. good manners. SB-13-20-P (2013) A judge‘s retirement effectively barred the Court from pursuing the instant administrative proceeding that was instituted after his tenure in office. 9537 (2013) Respondent's (security guard) act of hurling invectives on the complainants (clerks of court) during office hours and within the court premises was correctly held to be a case of simple misconduct. much less the OCA.directives are not mere requests but should be complied with promptly and completely. and right conduct are expected of all judicial officers and employees. and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law. Clemente. good customs. constitute clear deviations from the established norms of conduct which ought to be followed by public officers. Abulencia and Blesse M. Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer‘s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Conduct violative of this standard quickly and surely corrodes respect for the courts. which is what can and must be done. Consequently. not just for the OCA. the directives issued to him clearly constituted insubordination. especially the poor and the underprivileged. from the presiding judge to the most junior clerk. or more precisely. and disregard of. The termination of the relation of attorney and client provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. Sheriff and Security Division. Regino R. to oppose that claim for the other client. and divested the Court. NO. the absence of such rules should not serve as license to recommend the imposition of penalties to retired judges who. Burgonio v. paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibits court officers such as clerks of court from acquiring property involved in litigation within the jurisdiction or territory of their courts. No. Clerk III. public . which exercises direct administrative supervision over trial court officers and employees through the OCA. Metropolitan Trial Court. respect for the rights of others. during their incumbency. The reason for the rule is that the client‘s confidence once reposed cannot be divested by the expiration of the professional employment. His indifference to. but also for the Court. should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. The rationale advanced for the prohibition is that public policy disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved.C. Branch 48. Sandiganbayan. The conduct and behavior of every official and employee of an agency involved in the administration of justice. Erwin Bautista. Retired Judge Guillermo R. good morals. Teresita Lee v. Indefensible disregard of the orders of the OCA for him to comment on the complaint and to explain his infractions. shows his disrespect for and contempt. A. Ria Pamela B. at the same time. Respondent‘s failure to explain his side is tantamount to his admission of the charges against him. A. the Code tends to prevent fraud. P-10-2879 (2013) Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a lawyer is guilty of representing conflicting interest: One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and. Their conduct must at all times be characterized by strict propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep the public's respect for the judiciary. albeit not work related. Pasay City. Amador L. were never given a chance to explain the circumstances behind the results of the judicial audit. A. Branch 48. In so providing.M. Professionalism. Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment. of any jurisdiction to still subject him to the rules and regulations of the judiciary and/or to penalize him for the infractions committed while he was still in the service. tends not to give occasion for fraud.M. No. patient and courteous. Monina S. has farreaching implications and grave consequences.M. Dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary. from the justices and judges to the lowliest clerks. respondent also admitted receiving money from complainant for her services. revenues. The failure of respondent to submit to the proper RTC Clerk of Court her Notarial Register/Report for the month of November 1986 and a copy of the Deed of Sale. be it in the lawyer‘s public or private activities. No. Indeed. P-08-2439 (2013) A court stenographer‘s representation that he himself took the Civil Service Examination when someone else took it for him constitutes Dishonesty. P-011448 (2013) A close-to-unbearable working condition under Judge Misajon is a mitigating circumstance to the fact that respondent as Process Server is guilty of habitual absenteeism. It is true that respondent prepared and finalized the extrajudicial settlement of estate pursuant to a private agreement between her and complainant. Sabidong v. A. she was liable for any loss. a court stenographer had no authority to prepare and finalize an extrajudicial settlement of estate. A. shortage. gives way to the compassion of the court in the imposition of proper penalties. Ismael A. No. A. among others. Being a court employee. A. Christina C. Judge Misajon can hold her colleagues in the Bench and her staff to the efficient performance of their duties without being offensive in her speech. Jerence P. the parties or the public. act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and would diminish. It was her duty to supervise and monitor her subordinate to ensure that the proper procedures were followed in the collection of the court‘s funds. Hiponia. any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer. Nicolasito S. and to receive money therefore. public safety and public interest. destruction or impairment of such funds and property. Series of 1991. which tends to show deficiency in moral character. Martinez. Solas. or even just tend to diminish. They should be temperate. Barrios. Civil Service Commission v. at all times. It was not the cash clerk. Worse." Office of the Court Administrator v. Eduardo A. Consequently. Paterno. records. SCC-08-11-P (2013) A Labor Arbiter who refused to issue a writ of execution without monetary compensation from the complainant. Atty. should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Case No.. Misajon v. 7332 (2013) A ground for revocation of a notary public's commission is failure of the notary to send the copy of the entries to the proper clerk of the RTC within the first ten days of the month next following or the failure of the notary to forward his notarial register. respondent is an employee of the court whose . Time and again. No. the highest degree of honesty and integrity. A public servant is expected to exhibit. Being the custodian of the court‘s funds. the Court reminds that "those charged with the dispensation of justice. which was notarized by her within that month. The possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the legal profession. remembering always that courtesy begets courtesy. No. This proceeds from the lawyer‘s duty to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar‘s integrity.M. P-06-2223 (2013) The preparation of an extrajudicial settlement of estate constitutes practice of law. as it in effect suppressed evidence on the veracity of the said Deed of Sale and showed the deceitful conduct of respondent to withhold the truth about its authenticity. respondent ought to have known that it was improper for her to prepare and finalize the extrajudicial settlement of estate.M. Rodolfo C. Abella v. Judge Misajon‘s act of humiliating the respondent in the presence of other court personnel. both in conduct and in language. and should be made accountable to all those whom he serves. to the proper clerk of court. There is no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. is guilty of gross immoral conduct and gross misconduct. 4191 (2013) A Clerk of Court is the court‘s accountable officer. It bears noting that per CSC Memorandum Circular No. properties. The Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct. Pena v. probity or good demeanor. Judge Ma. the faith of the people in the Judiciary.M. Jr. Lorenza M. No other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness from an employee than a position in the judiciary. Ricardo G. 15. the use of spurious Civil Service eligibility constitutes dishonesty. However. et al. All judges should always observe courtesy and civility. honesty.C. a service only a lawyer is authorized to perform. and premises. when filled. Anita C. A. Adm.order. Hadji Ali. is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment. Not being a lawyer. A. as well as her failure to improve work performance. P-12-3048 (2013) Undue delay in the disposition of cases calls for administrative measures against the respondent judge as she fails to resolve the cases submitted before her within the time mandated by the Constitution. and efficiency.M. respondent is guilty of simple misconduct.M. called upon to assist in the administration of justice. loyalty.M. No. Reyes v. Cagayan. Evelyn A. Moreover. or defraud. A judge should be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him. probity or integrity in principle. No. recognizing that the time of litigants. cheat. Rex Polinar Dagohoy v. It was a lawyer‘s bounden duty to see his cases through until proper completion. he could not abandon or neglect them in midstream. San Juan. Process Server. Incompetence and inefficiency have no place in public service. RE: Dropping from the Rolls of Joylyn R. She is expected to exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of her official duties but also in her personal and private dealings with other people to preserve the court‘s good name and standing.C. lack of fairness and straightforwardness. Montilla. Atty. Leticia A. Regional Trial Court. judges should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to administer justice promptly.M. even at the risk of jeopardizing the probability of prevailing on his client‘s application for a search warrant. Dupaya. they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. A. Judge Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres. In preparing and finalizing the extrajudicial settlement of estate and receiving compensation for the same even when she is not a lawyer. Maricor L. Thus. Dishonesty refers to the disposition to lie. protecting and upholding truth and the rule of law. Public accountability essentially includes discharging one's duties as a public officer with utmost responsibility. competence. Accordingly. 7944 (2013) Lawyers are officers of the court. A. remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied. Magbanua. MTJ-11-778 (2013) Failure to submit a written explanation for her continuous absence and failure to transcribe stenographic notes despite written and verbal warnings. P-10-2741 (2013) It is a fundamental rule of ethics that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. A. especially in the dispensation of justice. lack of integrity. Court Stenographer III. A. Nelson P.conduct must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let her be free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers from committing or consenting to any falsehood in court or from allowing the courts to be misled by any artifice. If judges do not possess those traits. No. They are expected to act with honesty in all their dealings. is not authorized to collect or receive any amount of money from any party-litigant. deceive or betray. disposition to defraud. Artemio V. Section 2 of the Code of Conduct of Court Personnel which provides that court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gifts. He should be punctual in the performance of his judicial duties. witnesses. P-13-3115 (2013) A process server. especially with the court. No. Prompt disposition of cases is attained basically through the efficiency and dedication to duty of judges. They act as vanguards of our legal system. A. integrity. Judge Antonio C. Branch 10. whose primary task is to serve court notices. lack of honesty. warrant the unsatisfactory rating of the respondent. and attorneys is of value and that if the judge is unpunctual in his habits. The act of collecting or receiving money from a litigant constitutes grave misconduct in office. deceive.M. Respondent likewise violated Canon 1. Branch 61 of Baguio City. he sets a bad example to the bar and tends to create dissatisfaction with the administration of justice. Office of the Court Administrator v. No. delay in the disposition of cases is inevitable to the prejudice of litigants. Verily. favor or benefit of any explicit or implicit understanding that such gift shall influence their official actions. Edwin Fangonil. Arienda v. Aparri. It is a grave offense penalized by dismissal from the service even for the first offense. untrustworthiness. a court stenographer. Regional Trial Court. Thus. Garado v. this kind of gross misconduct by those charged with administering and rendering justice erodes the respect for law and the courts. respondent should have informed the court of . P-11-2980 (2013) Falsification of Daily Time Record constitutes dishonesty. . or by any other change of relation between them. and to devote his full attention. Nonita Catena. but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. In the same way. A. Ferdinand Samson v. disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions brought against any Judge or Justice in relation to the performance of official functions are neither complementary to nor suppletory of appropriate judicial remedies. RE: Letter Complaint of Merlita B. a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency. OCA IPI No. nor a substitute for such remedies. Edgardo Era. for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers. While such negligence or . the Court has been mindful of the plight of our judges and understanding of circumstances that may hinder them from promptly disposing of their businesses. v. and competence to the case.M. Reyes. fairness and honesty. we shall not hesitate to shield them from baseless charges that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. No. being public servants in an office dispensing justice. All court employees of the Judiciary. although we do not shirk from the responsibility of imposing discipline on the erring Judges or Justices and employees of the Judiciary. skill. To be clear. The pursuit of excellence ought always to be his guiding principle. A. A lawyer's negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to disciplinary action. A. A. CA-13-51-J (2013) A judge who fails to promptly decide cases and resolve pending motions is guilty of gross inefficiency. the Court has allowed extensions of time to decide cases beyond the 90-day period. must always act with a high degree of professionalism and responsibility. 08-5-305-Rtc (2013) A lawyer who represented those who were victims of a pyramid scam against a corporation and then later on enters his appearance as counsel for the officers of such corporation for the criminal cases involving the same pyramid scam is guilty of misconduct. Truly. Nonnatus P. which is paramount in the administration of justice. for that is the only way to maintain the people's respect for and faith in the Judiciary. As a frontline official of the Judiciary.the patent‘s expiration so as to allow the latter to make an informed decision given all available and pertinent facts.C. she should resort to the available proper judicial remedy and exhaust it. The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was fashioned to prevent situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients. RE: Failure of Judge Antonio A. nor is it affected by the client‘s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another. The lawyer‘s highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client at all hazards and costs even to himself. but must also be in accordance with the law and court regulations. and the Court has almost invariably granted such request. instead of resorting to the unworthy disciplinary charge. A. La Union. Sonic Steel Industries. It even survives the death of the client.M. The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation. Atty. They should avoid any act or conduct that would diminish public trust and confidence in the courts. Branch 27. San Fernando.C. Knowledge and information gathered in the course of the relationship must be treated as sacred and guarded with care. Chua. Their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum. No. one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. In this light. Fabiana against Presiding Justice Andres B. Hence. Verily. clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client‘s confidence. 6942 (2013) If the complainant feels aggrieved. The nature of that relationship is. 02-1321-P (2013) The relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. Atty. a lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former client only if the former client consents to it after consultation. 6664 (2013) A court stenographer who caused another to take the Civil Service Eligibility Examination in her stead is guilty of gross dishonesty. but also to maintain professional competence. All that a judge needs to do is to request and justify an extension of time to decide the cases. He is duty-bound not only to be faithful to the law. et al. No.M. No.. therefore. Jr. They should be models of uprightness. No. Nonetheless. regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. a trial judge should at all times act with efficiency and probity. Carbonell to Decide Cases Submitted for Decision and to Resolve Pending Motions in the regional Trial Court. Concerned Citizen v. Inc. Such dedication is the least that he can do to sustain the trust and confidence that the public have reposed in him and the institution he represents. dishonesty. Lilia Tabang and Concepcion Tabang v. faithfully. or even mitigate. Branch 98.I No. an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges made against him until the contrary is proved.C. As a rule. the number of years the judge has been in the service.P. No. Buencamino. as long as he acts in good faith. 11-3589-RTJ (2013) While there is incongruity between a post office certification and the records of respondents‘ law firm as to when the subject NLRC decision was actually received by the latter. Josefina Caranza Vda. otherwise. Konrad A. there are judicial remedies available for them under the Rules of Court. for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. Rubin and Conrad C. his offense is made even graver. Rubin and Conrad C. Judge Evelyn Corpus-Cabochan. and deceit when he executed the revocations of SPAs and affidavits of recovery and in arrogating for himself the ownership of the seven (7) subject parcels when all the while he knew it belongs to his client. no matter how erroneous. These are flagrant and shameful acts and should not be countenanced. act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. without being guilty of professional misconduct. and fair dealing. dishonesty. In deciding the penalty to be imposed. Quezon City. the complainant‘s own complicity does not negate. Ong and Alvin A. Regional Trial Court. Atty. The respondent should be reminded that lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate their client‘s confidence. and to the best of their abilities. Konrad A. Gacott.carelessness is incapable of exact formulation. Quite the contrary. the Court has consistently held that the lawyer‘s mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation. integrity. among others. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable. It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full disclosure of facts that a lawyer may appear against his client. the health and age of the judge. Complainants should be reminded that unfavorable rulings are not necessarily erroneous. OCA I. Branch 98. P-09-2690 (2013) Complainants were assailing the propriety of the decision rendered by Judge Cabochan.M. Should they disagree with the ruling. Presiding Judge. The penalty to be imposed on the judge varies depending on the attending circumstances of the case. Such prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. there is no clear and convincing evidence presented by complainants that respondents maliciously made it appear that they received the decision on a date ten days later than what is reflected on the records of the post office. his representation of conflicting interests is reprehensible. No. It is established in Jurisprudence that disbarment is proper when lawyers commit gross misconduct.I No.. Ramon SG Cabanez. the Court takes into consideration. honesty.P. the repugnancy of respondent lawyer‘s offense. Jr. 6490. De Saldivar v. 11-3589-RTJ (2013) A lawyer may not. Quezon City. and deceit in usurping the property rights of other persons. he deliberately and cunningly took advantage of his knowledge and skill of the law to prejudice and torment other individuals. (2013) The deputy sheriffs‘ act of using levied properties constitute grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty. Regional Trial Court. On the other hand. No. They grossly neglected their duty to safely keep the levied property under their custody. failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate. It is clear that respondent committed gross misconduct. He is a lawyer who is held to the highest standards of morality. a judge cannot be subjected to liability for any of his official acts. sheriffs and deputy sheriffs must always strive to maintain public trust in the performance of their duties. An . 7749 (2013) While it may be true that complainant herself is engaged in illicit activities. A. Atty. which is paramount in the administration of justice. Noel R. A. Rubin v." Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Evelyn Corpus-Cabochan. The Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes the complaint by clearly preponderant evidence that warrants the imposition of the harsh penalty. A. Rubin v. the period of delay. the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay. As a matter of public policy. Being frontline officials of the justice system. The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the shoulders of the complainant.C. Presiding Judge. Sheriffs are reminded that they are repositories of public trust and are under obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly. Glenn C. and the case load of the court presided over by the judge. OCA I. Perverting what is expected of him. but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers. He could not fulfill his task solely by verbally telling the occupants to vacate the property as he encountered resistance from the informal settlers on the property who had built permanent structures thereon and refused to leave. Roxas. This failure does happen frequently when one is too preoccupied with too much work and is faced with more deadlines that can be humanly met.C. This constitutionallyenshrined principles. Cruz and Frankie O. Most men call this failure inadvertence. cannot fully be excused for his failure to make periodic reports in the proceedings taken on the writ. The period is reckoned from the date of the filing of the last pleading. A sheriff‘s failure to make a return and to submit a return within the required period constitutes inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. A perusal of the said text message reveals that respondent acted contrary to the norms of conduct required of her position. Development Bank of the Philippines v. it is conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Metropolitan Trial Court. Respondent should be reminded that a public servant must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity for no less than the Constitution mandates that a public office is a public trust and public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful. and observant in the performance of his functions for delay . Branch 63. The periodic reporting also provides the court insights on how efficient court processes are after a judgment‘s promulgation. RTJ-12-2320 (2013) The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. or bad faith. For as long as they act efficiently to the best of their human abilities and for as long as they conduct themselves well in the service of our Country and People. Makati City v. A. Famero. punctual. loyalty and efficiency.M. If the Judge cannot decide or resolve within the period. Branch 63. she can be allowed additional time to do so. are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. oft-repeated in our case law. P-09-2726 (2013) The 90-day period within which a sitting trial Judge should decide a case or resolve a pending matter is mandatory. As Branch Clerk of Court. Rasing v. Fe A. and lead modest lives.M. Judge Roberto P. A few characterize it as oversight. however. This reiteration is our way of assuring all judicial officials and personnel that the Court is not an uncaring overlord that would be unmindful of their fealty to their oaths and of their dedication to their work. Magsalin III. A judge who failed to resolve a motion within the 90-day period to resolve the same is not guilty of gross inefficiency where the surrounding circumstances would involve a heavy court docket and large volume of the judge‘s official workload. Oriental Mindoro. Buenaventura. Sheriff IV. Metropolitan Trial Court. Only a valid reason may excuse a delay. They should be taken as working standards by all in the public service. in sending a text message trying to mediate an alleged bribery.M. No. she serves as a sentinel of justice and any act of impropriety on her part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the people‘s confidence in it. Its overall purpose is to ensure speedy execution of decisions. Branch 43. The conduct of every court personnel must be beyond reproach and free from suspicion that may cause to sully the image of the Judiciary. In either case. committed misconduct. misdeed or misdemeanor not only in the performance of their official duties but also in conducting themselves outside or beyond the duties and functions of their office. it is excusable except if it emanated from indolence. They must totally avoid any impression of impropriety. No. integrity. Danilo Lubaton v. Pablo R. Damvin V. A. both official and otherwise. serve them with utmost responsibility. A. It serves to update the court on the status of the execution and the reasons for the failure to satisfy its judgment. the Court shall always be considerate and compassionate towards them. He. Regional Trial Court.attorney is further presumed as an officer of the Court to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath. as mandated by Section 14. Court personnel are enjoined to conduct themselves toward maintaining the prestige and integrity of the Judiciary for the very image of the latter is necessarily mirrored in their conduct. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. A. 7686 (2013) A sheriff‘s failure to fully implement the writ should not be taken entirely against him. neglect. Mabalot. provided she files a written request for the extension of her time to decide the case or resolve the pending matter. Makati City. P-10-2789 (2013) Respondent. Judge Mary Josephine Lazaro. Clerk of Court III. The submission of the return and of periodic reports by the sheriff is a duty that cannot be taken lightly. Jaime Joven and Reynaldo C. No. No. Attys. Col. act with patriotism and justice. a client cannot deprive the lawyer of his just fees already earned in the guise of a justifiable reason. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. a lawyer has the duty to apprise his client of the status and developments of the case and all other information relevant thereto. act with justice. 183952 (2013) Unreasonable delay in deciding cases and resolving incidents and motions. whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases. and executions issued in pursuance of such judgment. The limitation is based on Article 19 of the Civil Code. A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place.04. No. give everyone his due. Jr. Soriano. Branch 1. intervene in the case to protect his rights.. The Court has allowed reasonable extensions of time needed to decide cases. The honor bestowed on his person to carry the title of a lawyer does not end upon taking the Lawyer‘s Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys. Similarly. every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention. The Court must thwart any and every effort of clients already served by their attorneys‘ worthy services to deprive them of their hard-earned compensation. Alcid. lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. and a client who deals with him has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also a wholehearted fealty to the client‘s cause. warranting the imposition of an administrative sanction on the defaulting judge. No. the duty of the courts is not only to see to it that attorneys act in a proper and lawful manner. Atty. RTJ-13-2355 (2013) The errors committed by respondent with respect to the nature of the remedy adopted in the criminal complaint and the forum selected in the civil complaint were so basic and could have been easily averted had he been more diligent and circumspect in his role as counsel for complainant. Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on the defaulting judge. In the absence of the lawyer‘s fault. however. Teofilo D. a judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. skill and competence. Rather. A judge is mandated to diligently discharge administrative responsibilities and maintain professional competence in court management." The right is also subject to the right of the attorney to be compensated. which mandates that "every person must. he shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated in the contract. No. rendered in the case wherein his services had been retained by the client.M. No. but also to see to it that attorneys are paid their just and lawful fees.in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary. Malvar v. He is expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure. At the same time. Furthermore. A.. In return. For the payment of his compensation the attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money. But this right of the client is not unlimited because good faith is required in terminating the relationship. A. Czarina T. Baluma. but such extensions must first be requested from the Court. and observe honesty and good faith. Former Judge. Rule 18. A judge cannot by himself choose to prolong the period for deciding cases beyond that authorized by law. Inc. Office of the Court Administrator v. but if the contract between client and attorney has been reduced to writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without justifiable cause. in the discretion of the court. the Court is also aware of the heavy case load of trial courts. et al. and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. G. Kraft Foods Phils. under Rule 18.. A client pays his lawyer hard-earned money as professional fees. such honor attaches to him for the entire duration of his practice of law and carries with it the consequent responsibility of not only satisfying the basic requirements but also going the extra mile in the protection of the interests of the client and the pursuit of justice.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. and failure to decide the remaining cases before his compulsory retirement constitutes gross inefficiency. Truly. A.R. He must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions or nonfeasance would be binding upon his client.. He must be consistently mindful of his obligation to respond promptly should there be queries or requests for information from the client. Hon. regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity. 9149 (2013) A client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time with or without cause. The prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. However. It behooves lawyers . consent or waiver. Quintin P. Julian Penilla v. RE: Cases Submitted for Decision before Hon.C. Santiago E. MTJ-07-1683 (2013) It is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner.M. the attorney may. Regional Trial Court. Verily. 6732 (2013) A lawyer who commits overt acts of sexual harassment against a female client is guilty of reprehensible conduct that is unbecoming of a member of the Bar and may be condignly punished with suspension from the practice of law. However. among others. No. IN RE: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys Michael A. which requires retiring government employees to secure a prior clearance of pendency/non-pendency of administrative case/s from.C. given the purpose of the falsification. Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. and good demeanor. (RA) 10154. he chose to continue practicing law without taking the necessary steps to complete all the requirements for admission to the Bar. That said. Rule III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. in spite of this knowledge. Joseph Ador Ramos. Worse. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar. Members of the Bar are clearly duty. and that the Court may withdraw or deny the privilege to him who fails to observe and respect the Lawyer‘s Oath and the canons of ethical conduct in his professional and private capacities. the prohibition is inapplicable. no lawyer is immune from the disciplinary authority of the Court whose duty and obligation are to investigate and punish lawyer misconduct committed either in a professional or private capacity. probity. Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act.not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence. Alicia I. B. be noted that a lawyer‘s immutable duty to a former client does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer‘s employment with the client. Oscar Embido v. 180427 (2013) A lawyer who forges a court decision in consideration of a sum of money and represents it as that of a court of law is guilty of grave misconduct and deserves the supreme penalty of disbarment. the act made a mockery of the administration of justice in this country. which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of the legal profession is always a privilege that the Court extends only to the deserving. assist in the unauthorized practice of law. because everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences. which provided that a lawyer shall not. honesty.R. if the Decision is not in issue or under review and is merely incidental or part of the "history" of the case. or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community‘s sense of decency. be it in the lawyer‘s public or private activities. No. Atty. Any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer that tends to expose a deficiency in moral character. Jocelyn de Leon v. however. Crisanta GuidoEnriquez v. Tyrone Pedrena. he willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. without having signed in the Roll of Attorneys as when he thought that what he had signed at the PICC entrance before the oath-taking was already the Roll of Attorneys. When. A. or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. the CSC – should not be made to apply to employees of the . and whether the conduct renders the lawyer unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court. 2540 (2013) Justices are prohibited from sitting in any case in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review. Josephine L. While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal consequences of his acts as it negates malice or evil motive. 9860 (2013) Petitioner has been engaged in the practice of law for a period spanning more than 30 years. directly or indirectly. is sufficient to warrant the lawyer‘s suspension or disbarment. Orola. but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers. Atty. et al. which was to mislead a foreign tribunal on the personal status of a person. however. No.. G. Medado. Victorino. No. The deliberate falsification of the court decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part. It must. The test is whether the conduct shows the lawyer to be wanting in moral character. 9401 (2013) Section 7. Salvador Pe. honesty.bound to observe the highest degree of morality and integrity in order to safeguard the reputation of the Bar. only to find out later on that it was nothing but a mere attendance sheet. Atty. A. we cannot fully exculpate petitioner Medado from all liability for his years of inaction. Atty.C. a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification.M. A. v. No. The possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the Legal Profession. et al. The intent of the law is to impose upon the lawyer the duty to protect the client‘s interests only on matters that he previously handled for the former client and not for matters that arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated. probity or good demeanor.C. the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the corresponding duties. Ignacia – Mayontoc-San Climente – San Jose. Atty. Villaseca. they are generally regarded as treasurer. Mattus v. revenues. Leal. a clearance requirement which pertains to criminal cases may be imposed by the appropriate government agency. P-12-3047 (2013) By failing to afford his clients every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law. 13-09-08-SC (2013) Safe keeping of public and trust funds is essential to an orderly administration of justice. does honor to the bar. be noted that since the Constitution only accords the Judiciary administrative supervision over its personnel. He is to effect execution without delay and supervise implementation strictly in accordance with the judgment. a different treatment of the clearance requirement obtains with respect to criminal cases. shortage. Capiz. they are duty-bound to use skill and diligence in the performance of their officially designated functions. the Office of the Ombudsman. To deem it otherwise would disregard the Court‘s constitutionally-enshrined power of administrative supervision over its personnel." Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client. where the life and liberty of an accused is at stake. however.M. he also serves the ends of justice. It must. directly or indirectly. integrity. No protestation of good faith can override the mandatory nature of the circulars designed to promote full accountability of government funds. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client.M. A lawyer "is expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve his client's cause. the faith of the people in the justice system has never been tolerated or condoned by the Court. As such. accountant. but also to the court. and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. Tarlac. As such. fairness. Respondent Judge has shown lack of familiarity with our laws. Municipal Circuit Trial Court.e. Clerks of court perform a delicate function as designated custodians of the court‘s funds. These unyielding . A. President Roxas. RE: Request for Guidance/Clarification of Section 7. As such. to the bar and to the public.M. Mary Ann T. A. No. The Court has not hesitated to impose the ultimate penalty on those who have fallen short of their accountabilities. and fair dealing. Clerk of Court II. Irrefragably. In other words. records. No. A. They are duty-bound to observe candor. with the interests of their clients. not only to the client. 7922 (2013) The rules on execution are comprehensive enough for a judge not to know how to apply them or to be confused by any auxiliary incidents. Lest it be forgotten. He owes entire devotion to the interest of the client. Carbajosa v. This ought to be so. The issuance of a writ of execution for a final and executory judgment is ministerial. destruction or impairment of such funds and property. rules and regulations as to undermine the public confidence in the integrity of the courts. they are liable for any loss. No. Rule III of Republic Act No. Any conduct that would violate the norms of public accountability and diminish. warm zeal in maintenance and defense of his client‘s rights. Presiding Judge. Jesus D.C. Sta. Judge Hannibal R. A. Municipal Circuit Trial Court. A lawyer‘s diligence and vigilance is more imperative in criminal cases. legally applied. lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency. Clerks of court are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts. and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients. and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client. guard and physical plant manager thereof. a judge is not given the discretion whether or not to implement the judgment. While judges should not be disciplined for inefficiency on account merely of occasional mistakes or errors of judgments. the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. on retiring court personnel as it is a matter beyond the ambit of the Judiciary‘s power of administrative supervision. Patricio. MTJ-13-1834 (2013) It is a core ethical principle that lawyers owe fidelity to their clients‘ cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. save by the rules of law. the legal profession demands of attorneys an absolute abdication of every personal advantage conflicting in any way. it is highly imperative that they should be conversant with fundamental and basic legal principles in order to merit the confidence of the citizenry. properties and premises. Besides. retiring court personnel are already required to secure a prior clearance of the pendency/non-pendency of administrative case/s from the Court which makes the CSC clearance a superfluous and non-expeditious requirement contrary to the declared state policy of RA 10154. or even merely tend to diminish. for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client likewise serves the ends of justice. Thus. No. 10154 Requiring Retiring Government Employees to Secure a Clearance of Pendency/Non-Pendency of Cases from the Civil Service Commission. honesty. a lawyer falls short of what is expected of him as an officer of the Court. Office of the Court Administrator v. i. Albert T.. but also of morality. Verily. Nancy R.Judiciary. No. They are in the forefront of things.M. The conduct of a person serving the Judiciary must. Joefil Baguio v. Ma. act or omission on the part of all those in the administration of justice. which will violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. Sheriff III. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage. as it is an official transaction. and this includes control of the conduct of the court‘s ministerial officers. Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. Gagate. Jeniffer Tria-Samonte v. Manila. Metropolitan Trial Court. Sheriffs. By indulging in the use of illegal drugs. They cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money from the parties without observing the proper procedural steps. is . even if two-thirds of those fees would be paid to her anyway. This Court will not tolerate the practice of asking for advance payment from litigants. the use of prohibited drugs by Castor. violated the norms of conduct for public service. Court personnel must at all times act with strict propriety and proper decorum so as to earn and rebuild the public‘s trust in the judiciary as an institution. Section 11.C. Castor. He has the responsibility to see to it that his clerk of court performs his duties and observes the circulars issued by the Supreme Court and that includes the safekeeping and on-time remittance of the legal fees collected. the lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency. and. A.C. execute all processes. as officers of the court and agents of the law. clients are led to expect that lawyers would be evermindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. Maria Fe V. be above suspicion so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for the Judiciary. Maria Cristina Zabaljauregui Pitcher v. No. Branch 30. The image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct. official and otherwise. court personnel. specifically provides that payment for requests of copies of the TSN shall be made to the Clerk of Court. P-13-3153 (2013) Court personnel must at all times act with strict propriety and proper decorum so as to earn and rebuild the public‘s trust in the judiciary as an institution. uprightness and honesty. he is enjoined to employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives. Maintenance Division. much less the unauthorized acceptance of judicial fees. A. No. skill. Epifania “Fanny” Obias. he clearly disregarded his duty to promptly serve the summons and should thus be held liable for simple neglect of duty. they also diminish the people‘s faith in the entire judiciary. which may cast the slightest suspicion on his conduct. being a stenographer. which tarnished the very image and integrity of the Judiciary.M.M. Respondent. Neptali Angelo V. P-13-3155 (2013) A vital administrative function of a judge is effective management of his court. There being no sufficient justification for his delay in serving the summons on the defendant in the said case. tasked as they are to serve judicial writs. of the personnel who work thereat. The Court would never countenance any conduct. 4945 (2013) Undoubtedly. Vladimir Alarique T. As a front-line representative of the judicial system. and carry into effect the orders of the court. 9532 (2013) Sheriffs are not allowed to receive any payments from the parties in the course of the performance of their duties. Atty. A Clerk of Court. be characterized by propriety and decorum and above all else. payment cannot be made to respondent. therefore. and to devote his full attention. regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. 2013-08-SC (2013) The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. as such. In this regard. play an important role in the administration of justice. Nery. and competence to the case. As a court employee. The Court cannot overemphasize that the conduct required of court personnel must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. is not authorized to accept payment for judicial fees.standards respondent evidently failed to adhere to. sheriffs must always demonstrate integrity in their conduct for once they lose the people‘s trust. A. he committed conduct unbecoming of court personnel. Rustico B. To this end. No. Atty. A. No. Administrative Services. Electrician II. RE: Administrative Charge of Misconduct relative to the Alleged Use of Prohibited Drug ("Shabu") of Reynard B. Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity. must be made to the Clerk of Court. For his part. Clearly. Arnejo. Cabigao v. it therefore behooves respondent sheriff to act with more circumspection and to steer clear of any situation. on the other hand. A. at all times. like notice and hearing. Omelio. They are reminded to deposit immediately with authorized government depositaries the various funds they have collected because they are not authorized to keep those funds in their custody. Judge Ismael Salubre. No. Judge Reynaldo B. Ma. Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of basic rules and settled jurisprudence. Clemens. fraud. Asteria E. Regina S. MTJ-05-1618 (2013) As a matter of public policy." Section 2. Legal Researcher and Officer-In-Charge.M. hatred or some other similar motive. respondent is likewise liable for any loss. A.M. The acts of the respondent judge were far from being ill-motivated and in bad faith as to justify any administrative liability on his part. Cruzabra v. Report on The FinanciaL Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities. v. revenues. P-11-3006 (2013) A judge‘s acts of meeting with litigants outside the office premises beyond office hours constitute gross misconduct. The fact that the collected amounts were kept in the safety vault does not reduce the degree of defiance of the rules. dishonesty. so that they can fully comply with the circulars on deposits of collections. and records. Municipal Trial Court in Cities. Due process necessarily requires that a hearing be conducted before an impartial and disinterested tribunal because unquestionably. Davao del Norte. he was sensitive to the fact that the witness was already exhausted. Omelio / Atty. A. 05-10-661-RTC (2013) . Gedraga v. Judge George E. Canon 4 of the Code states that "Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities". The failure of a public officer to remit funds upon demand by an authorized officer constitutes prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such missing funds or property to personal use. Regional Trial Court Branch 32. RTJ-05-1962/A. OCA IPI No. Where the law is straightforward and the facts so evident. et al. No. whether personally received by him or by a duly appointed cashier who is under his supervision and control.M. Alfredo Balajo.M. Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary states that " Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach. if committed in good faith. Only errors that are tainted with fraud. Atty. Judge George E. Peralta v. Ma. For administrative liability to attach. RTJ-132359 (2013) It is the duty of clerks of court to perform their responsibilities faithfully. A. Atty. not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. dishonesty or corruption in ignoring. corruption or malice may be the subject of disciplinary actions. destruction. having testified for almost three hours. Clerk of Court.M. All the other elements of due process. Judge Moises Pardo and Jaime Calpatura. Zerrudo. RTJ-11-2273 (2013) The Judge was very much concerned with following the proper conduct of trial and ensuring that the OneDay Examination of Witness Rule was followed. The non-remittance of said amounts deprived the Court of the interest that may be earned if the amounts were deposited in a bank. RTJ-11-2259 / A. Iloilo City.primarily accountable for all funds that are collected for the court. shortage. Cabarroguis Quirino. Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge George E. The Office of Court Administrator v. No. Jr.M. Theresa G. A. 09-3138-P/A. Jessie Tuldague and Atty. every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. but at the same time. No. Section 1. Thus.M.M. No.M. does not warrant administrative sanction. but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer. Jerome Norman L. Omelio / Romualdo G. or impairment of said funds and property. Being the custodian of the court‘s funds. A judge may also be administratively liable if shown to have been motivated by bad faith. With regard to inhibition of judges. would be meaningless if the ultimate decision would come from a partial and biased judge. contradicting or failing to apply settled law and jurisprudence. 05-2243-P/A. A. No. Mendoza v. Clerks of Court have always been reminded of their duty to immediately deposit the various funds received by them to the authorized government depositories for they are not supposed to keep funds in their custody. not every error or mistake committed by judges in the performance of their official duties renders them administratively liable. they are not only guilty of gross neglect of duty in the performance of their duty for their failure to timely turn over the cash deposited with them but also gross dishonesty. No. Canon 2 of the Code states that "The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people‘s faith in the integrity of the judiciary‖ Section 1. OCA IPI No. it must be borne in mind that it is rooted in the Constitution which recognizes the right to due process of every person. Tagum City. the same applies only in cases within the parameters of tolerable misjudgment. Though not every judicial error bespeaks ignorance of the law and that. respondent must be shown to have been moved by bad faith. No. Tacorda for: Odel L. RTJ-11-2264 / A. as prudently required.M. al.. is not simply bad judgment or negligence. In ascertaining the intention of a person accused of dishonesty. v. It betrays the purpose of the required certification issued by this Court which seeks to protect the litigants from spurious surety companies. without the approval of this Court.. The expenses shall be disbursed to the assigned deputy sheriff to execute the writ. (2013) The Supreme Court exercises exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. Dishonesty. Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court Municipality of Balindong. His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer. and the IBP‘s recommendations imposing the penalty of suspension from the practice of law or disbarment are always subject to this Court‘s review and approval. It is not within respondents' discretion to allow the filing of the appeal bond issued by a bonding company with expired accreditation regardless of its pending application for renewal of accreditation. he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter's rights. as a consequence. Thus. which can give authority and accreditation to surety companies to be able to transact business involving judicial bonds. but also of his state of mind at the time the offense was committed. et. A. Office of the Clerk of Court Regional Trial Court. consideration must be taken not only of the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by the respondent. Hon. No. The Court can dismiss an administrative case without prejudice when it could not determine his fitness to remain a member of the Bar without delving into issues which are proper subjects of judicial action. Respondents. Menese. Eleanor P. It exercises such disciplinary functions through the IBP. Olivan v. in the event the Court denies the application for accreditation. Neither can it validate an invalid bond issued by a bonding company with expired accreditation. Spouses David and Marisa Williams v. he is expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the laws and rules of procedure. Any amount unspent shall be returned to the interested party. the only issue within the ambit of the Court‘s disciplinary authority is whether a lawyer is fit to remain a member of the Bar. are proper subjects of judicial action. but a question of intention. like the issue of ownership of real properties. the courts and society. et. No. Enriquez. Having accepted the exalted position of a judge. Disbarment proceedings are exercised under the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. the rules are explicit that the filing of a bond for the perfection of an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. MTJ-03-1505 (2013) The rule clearly requires that the sheriff executing a writ shall provide an estimate of the expenses to be incurred. Province of Lanao del Sur. through the Office of the Court Administrator. No. Deputy Sheriff IV. Napoleon M.M. or give a semblance of validity to it pending this Court's approval of the application for renewal of accreditation.C. 9698. A. A. subject to liquidation upon the return of the writ. A. Baguinda-Ali Pacalna. the time he might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act. Naga City. Rudy T. but also constitutes utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. Atty. Rolando E. No. Other issues. al. The litigants will have faith in the administration of justice only if they believe that the occupants of the bench cannot be accused of deficiency in their grasp of legal principles. for lawyers are particularly called upon to obey .M. et al.In a nutshell. Rubio. Any amount received by the sheriff in excess of the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court is an unlawful exaction and renders him liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty. by allowing the bonding company with expired accreditation to post bonds. and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that moment. In administrative cases. the interested party shall then deposit the amount with the clerk of court and ex officio sheriff. Mamasaw Sultan Ali v. It must be the emphasized that it is only the Supreme Court. Arnel Jose A. and such estimated amount must be approved by the court. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession. Cawaling. 7329 (2013) The fabrication of an order by Judge Pacalna constitutes dishonesty. like bad faith. Respondent's refusal to obey the orders of the IBP "is not only irresponsible. P-12-3063 (2013) When a lawyer takes a client's cause. put the litigants at risk. Respondents cannot extend Intra Strata's authority or accreditation.C. Upon approval. but it does not relinquish its duty to form its own judgment. the bond issued by bonding companies produces no legal effect. The whole essence of requiring the filing of bond is defeated if the bond issued turned out to be invalid due to the surety company's expired accreditation. Dishonest acts have no place in the judiciary and are even more detestable when perpetrated by a judge who is expected to be the visible representation of truth and justice. The lawyer's fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and orderly administration of justice. but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the Government. Canon 22 allows a lawyer to withdraw his services for good cause such as when the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct with the matter he is handling or when the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules. A. Besides. This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers. a lawyer is expected to be circumspect in his language. he must do so only within the bounds of law. Rizal v. No. Atty. Dublin. Respondent‘s transgressions may not be related to his official duties and functions. A.03. A lawyer is entitled to voice his criticism within the context of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech which must be exercised responsibly. [he] is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. A. Respondent should strive harder to live up to his duties of observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts. 7965 (2013) The Civil Service law and rules do not give a concrete description of what specific acts constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.C. Cabauatan v. Freddie A.C. the correct course of action is for the lawyer to properly account for his affairs as well as to ensure the smooth turn-over of the case to another lawyer. then he has the option to withdraw from the case. This is absolutely essential if our Government is to be a government of laws and not of men. Respondent failed to live up to the high ethical standards demanded by the office he occupies. thereby prejudicing the best interest of the administration of justice. but certainly reflect badly upon the entire Judiciary. as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. However. Atty. As long as the questioned conduct tarnishes the image and integrity of his public office. and of upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession in order to perform his responsibilities as a lawyer effectively. as well as to the State which has instituted the judicial system.C. Court orders are to be respected not because the judges who issue them should be respected. but the Court defined such an offense as acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client full devotion to his client's genuine interest and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights. Hon. the obligatory force of said duty should not be diluted by the temperament or occasional frustrations of the lawyer‘s client. respect for law and for legal processes. No. but not of grave misconduct. A. Warriner and Aurora R. If respondent truly believes that the exhibits to be presented in evidence by his clients were fabricated. Lawsin. Verily. Canon 16 of the Code. Bartolome C. whether grave or simple. Municipal Trial Court. 10043 (2013) Respondent lawyer admitted that he deliberately failed to timely file a formal offer of exhibits because he believes that the exhibits were fabricated and was hoping that the same would be refused admission by the RTC. Aurora H. Presiding Judge. Warriner v. Disrespect to judicial incumbents is disrespect to that branch the Government to which they belong. a lawyer‘s duty to his client is one essentially imbued with trust so much so that it is incumbent upon the former to exhaust all reasonable efforts towards its faithful compliance. 5239 (2013) As an officer of the court. Canon 16 of the Code. a lawyer must deal with his client with professional maturity and commit himself towards the objective fulfillment of his responsibilities." Respondent should be reminded that – As an officer of the court. Venida. . Rodolfo Flores. but because of the authority that vests in them. especially so when the latter remains unsatisfied by the lawyer‘s work. the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring public officer or employee. It must be done within the confines of reason and common sense.C.03.01 and 16. he cannot be administratively liable for misconduct. If the relationship is strained. No. San Mateo. Reni M. Indeed. Atty. Atty. since respondent was not acting in the performance of his official duties. Respondent is guilty of simple dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Furtehrmore. Respect must be had not because of the incumbents to the positions. the lawyer should not withhold the property of his client. Maribeth Rodriguez-Manahan. The administrative offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service need not be related to or connected with the public officer‘s official functions. Azucena SegoviaRibaya v. Except only for the retaining lien exception under Rule 16. No.court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court. Spouses George A. 8954 (2013) Failure to properly account for and duly return his client‘s money despite due demand is tantamount to a violation of Rules 16. Ibay. A. No. Elizabeth T. but also constitutes utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. from the justices and judges to the lowliest clerks. nor consent to the doing of any in Court. Rosa A. Rule 1. Such behavior should not be tolerated as it denigrates this Court‘s image and integrity. Respondent Acampado committed gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct when she failed to turn over the funds of the Judiciary that were placed in her custody within the period required by law. immoral or deceitful conduct. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer. No. Municipal Trial Court in Cities. should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Mariano Agadan. his failure to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial acts. the Court deems it wise to dismiss the present case without prejudice to the filing of another one. P-12-3100 (2013) OCA Circular No. and that the request be received by the OCA ten (10) working days before the expiration of the original travel authority. destruction or impairment of those entrusted to them.01 mandates that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. Regional Trial Court Branch 20. Section 50 of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. Canon 1. Clerk II.M. Clerks of Court are the custodians of the courts‘ funds and revenues. Municipal Trial Court. and failing to comply with orders. Felicidario. however. Augusto J. A. Cauayan Isabela. respondent is expected . Villacorta III. states that an official or an employee who is absent without approved leave shall not be entitled to receive the salary corresponding to the period of the unauthorized leave of absence. Regional Trial Court of Manila. P-12-3089 (2013) Those charged with the dispensation of justice. A. Cauayan Isabela v. properties. v. 41.M. Clerk of Court II.M. 11-9167-RTC (2013) Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Any shortages in the amounts to be remitted and the delay in the actual remittance constitute gross neglect of duty for which the clerk of court shall be held administratively liable. Baguio City. Eastern Samar.. Taft. In the same vein. Office of the Clerk of Court. Sheriff IV. or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. records. et al. shortage. is sufficient as basis for the imposition of any disciplinary action upon the erring employee. A. and his failure to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge by competent evidence are grounds for the revocation of a lawyer s commission as a notary public.Heirs of Celestino Teves represented by Paul John Teves Abad. They are liable for any loss. respondent's unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of this Court and the IBP is not only irresponsible. RE: Unauthorized Travel Abroad of Judge Cleto R.. Executive Judge Henedino P. Rule 10. cannot ascertain whether the respondent committed acts in violation of his oath as a lawyer without going through the factual matters that are subject of the aforementioned civil cases. Medical treatment of a sick husband does not excuse the actions of the respondent who repeatedly deceived this Court by misusing court funds. in this case the Court. No. Regional trial Court Branch 6. Court personnel are expected to act in a manner free from reproach. has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.0 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood. 49-2003 (Guidelines on Requests for Travel Abroad and Extensions for Travel/Stay Abroad) requires that a request must be made for an extension of the period to travel/stay abroad. and need not delve into the merits of a related case. series of 1998. No. Wellentrenched is the rule that substantial evidence. As a matter of prudence and so as not to preempt the conclusions that will be drawn by the court where the case is pending. 9385 (2013) While it is true that disbarment proceedings look into the worthiness of a respondent to remain as a member of the bar. nor shall he mislead. falsifying public documents.C. Furthermore. and premises. A. et al. the respondent s failure to make the proper entry or entries in his Notarial Register of his notarial acts. for lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court. Nos P-13-3116 & P-13-3112 (2013) In administrative proceedings. in this instance. dishonest.M. Acampado. depending on the final outcome of the civil case. Canon 10. However. the Court. and not clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt. His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer. Failure to do so would make the absences beyond the original period unauthorized. Eduarte. the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. As an officer of the court. Ms. Office of the Court Administrator v. and Atty. No. In the absence of any showing that his medical and personal problems prevented him from working after his operation. No. No.03 of Canon 18 of the Code. Erlina Espejo. Quezon City.M. Cajigal. While the Court may not ordinarily discipline a lawyer for misconduct committed in his non-professional capacity. At the very least. 4549 (2013) Failure to attend the scheduled conference hearings. regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. one that is illegitimate but in effect. Narciso G. Dagala v. A. A. corrupt purpose.01 of Canon 1.01 of Canon 10. No. Atty.C.M. Felipe. Judge Lopez had no valid excuse for not giving due attention to the cases in his sala. 10050 (2013) The charges of ignorance of law is bereft of merit since it is clear that the respondent‘s judge‘s order was issued in the proper exercise of his judicial functions. et al. exhibits inexcusable lack of care and diligence in managing his client‘s cause in violation of Canon 17 and Rule 18. A.03. and as such. 10-3492-RTJ (2013) Atty.M. Espejo obtained the loan and issued the worthless checks in her private capacity and not as an attorney of Victoria is of no moment. Quesada. Atty. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable.C. Time and again. A. Jr. especially with the courts. As held in several cases. or a deliberate intent to do an injustice on his or her part.C. skill. Victoria C. Canon 17 and Rule 18. Dulalia v. For his part. This is necessary so as to protect the sanctity of their dealings with those relying on their ostensible authority: third persons cannot always investigate the right of one assuming to hold an important office. No. Judge Afable E. Rule 10. v. This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers. Felipe C. is not subject to administrative disciplinary action. As a matter of public policy. Branch 96. and personal tragedy that he suffered. 5044 (2013) The fact that Atty. in so far as the public or third persons who are interested therein are concerned. it is settled that the acts of the de facto officer are just as valid for all purposes as those of a de jure officer. 13-05-08-SC/A. this Court reminds judges to decide cases with dispatch. Office of . Ciriaco A. They have a right to assume that officials apparently qualified and in office are legally such. for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. malice. Lynda Chaguile / RE: Alleged Nullity of Election of IBP Southern Luzon Governor Vicente M. the lawyer is required to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency. and non-observance of this rule is a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge. These principles are embodied in Rule1. especially considering that the complainant failed to establish bad faith on the part of respondent judge. Heenan v. 13-04-03-SC/A. fraud. Adquilen. No.M. RTC. Atty. Thus. clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. his health problems and personal crises would only mitigate his liability. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. gross ignorance. Amado T. No. He is likewise expected to act with honesty in all his dealings. as long as he acts in good faith. In this regard. no matter how erroneous. Chaguile acted in a capacity as a de facto officer. Joyas / RE: LetterRequest of the National Secretary of the IBP RE Proposed Oath Taking. OCA IPI No. Well entrenched is the rule that a judge may not be administratively sanctioned for mere errors of judgment in the absence of showing of any bad faith. However. and competence to the case. the Court may be justified in suspending or removing him as an attorney where his misconduct outside the lawyer‘s professional dealings is so gross in character to show him morally unfit and unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and the law confer. RE: Nomination of Atty. a lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession but also for his misconduct outside of his professional capacity. Jose C. these do not exonerate him from the consequences of his omissions that took place before he became ill and more than a decade after he had resumed reporting to work. a judge cannot be subjected to liability for any of his official acts. A. despite due notice and without any proper justification. other ailments. and to devote his full attention.to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. Canon 18 of the Code. 13-06-11-SC (2013) This Court commiserates with Judge Lopez for the heart attack. Nestor V. Macapagal. The Court has consistently held that the failure of a judge to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. No. the litigation. Tutaan.the Court Administrator v. Banez. v. there is ample showing that their conduct and decision not to help the complainant were pursuant to the diligent performance of their sworn duties as elected officials of Palompon. MTJ-11-1790. (2013) Respondent cannot be admonished for advising his client to institute an action instead of agreeing to a settlement of ten million pesos since such amount is measly compared to the thirty-five million pesos under the original agreement. Lorica v. Tuguegarao City. No. A. and where the assistance rendered is without justification or excuse. Systems Realty Development Corporation. A. respectively. Sr. Judge Raymundo Lopez and Edgar M. Any agreement by a lawyer to conduct the litigation in his own account. A. Palo. among others that a lawyer ―will conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion. Substituted by their Heirs v. MTC. In order to safeguard the administration of justice.‖ Elpidio Sy. Surigao and Atty. President. It was also shown that Pheschem violated the terms and conditions of the ECC and quarry permit so the respondents are justified in protecting and preserving the environmental and natural resources of their municipality. The doctrine of maintenance was directed against wanton and in officious intermeddling in the disputes of others in which the intermeddler has no interest whatever. Atty. et al.C. No. 9091 (2013) By attempting to mislead the court and failing to comply with the resolutions of the court showing indifference and has affected and protracted the investigation and resolution of an administrative matter. Any lawyer worth his salt would advise complainants against abuses under the circumstances. The Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses Vicente Cadavedo and Benita ArcoyCadavedo (both deceased). instances of champerty and maintenance were made subject to criminal and tortuous liability and a common law rule was developed. Jr. Atty. Pheschem Industrial Corporation v. SPC and Josephine D. add a second factor in determining champertous contracts.M. is a common law doctrine that traces its origin to the medieval period. malice or any corrupt purpose attended the denial. Regional Trial Court. that the lawyer must also. striking down champertous agreements and contracts of maintenance as being unenforceable on the grounds of public policy. along with maintenance (of which champerty is an aggravated form).M. P-06-2261 (2013) Instead of punishing the respondents. To permit these arrangements is to enable the lawyer to acquire additional stake in the outcome of the action which might lead him to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client or to accept a settlement which might take care of his interest in the verdict to the sacrifice of that of his client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to his client‘s cause.R. 173188 (2014) Sheriffs are not allowed to receive any voluntary payments from parties in the performance of their dutes. No. respondent judge cannot be admonished for refusing to order withdrawal of the joint Informations against Junio and Lorica. Lawyers have a sworn duty and responsibility to protect the interest of their client and pursue the ends of justice. and take all the risks of.. Some common law court decisions. at his own expense maintain.C. G. Branch 3. Juan B. The rule of the profession that forbids a lawyer from contracting with his client for part of the thing in litigation in exchange for conducting the case at the lawyer‘s expense is designed to prevent the lawyer from acquiring an interest between him and his client. Conchita Baltazar. is characterized by the receipt of a share of the proceeds of the litigation by the intermeddler. Lloyd P. RTJ-14-2367 (2014) Champerty. 8269 (2013) The trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the secretary of Justice since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merit of the case and the facts of the case show that the respondent judge did not act arbitrarily in denying the joint motion to withdraw informations. Champerty. Lacaya. Since there is no showing of bad faith. namely. Jose A. No. to pay the expenses thereof or to save his client therefrom and to receive as his fee a portion of the proceeds of the judgment is obnoxious to the law. Victorino T. A. Leyte. the respondents are guilty of violation of the Lawyer‘s Oath which states. with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. A. on the other hand.. Edgar Esponilla. Villardo III. Cagayan. No. Remy Angela Junio. The Court cannot countenance an administrative complaint against a lawyer only because he performed a duty imposed on him by his oath. . judge Marivic A. Cacatian-Beltran. however. former Presiding Judge and Clerk of Court.. Leyte since they truly believe that the complainants had no vested right to continue operating its quarries. et al. Atty. legal Researcher and Officer-in-Charge.M. No. She is held liable for simple neglect of duty.M. she undoubtedly compromised the Judiciary and jeopardized the integrity of the court. et al.C. Atty. Erlito DS. Even assuming that such payments were indeed given and received in good faith. Atty. not honorable.C. Buencamino. Rose Bunagan-Bansig v. As the officer of the court next in line to the Presiding Judge. Atty.. Rogelio Juan A.M. The Court will not countenance any conduct. P-12-3043 (2014) The respondent‘s contention is that the disbarment case cannot continue since he failed to answer the charges against him despite numerous notices. No..Nor can a sheriff request or ask sums of money from a party-litigant without observing the proper procedural steps. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal. The Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty considering the serious consequence of disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar. Being sui generis in nature.M. no certification should be issued.M. the respondent is still liable for failing to exercise supervision over court funds enabling Mapue to misappropriate the funds. Rhea R. the clerk of court is primarily accountable for all funds that are collected for the court. fair and honest which is resorted to by lawyer. Marcos R. 10135 (2014) A clerk of court is remiss in the performance of her duties as clerk of court since she failed to supervise Mapue and to properly manage the court funds entrusted to her thus enabling Mapue to misappropriate the funds. Migrino. No. As custodian of court funds and revenues. As clerk of Court. Branch 69. she did so under the seal of the court. The acts committed by respondent are so grave that they carry the extreme penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and perpetual disqualification from employment in the government service. This renders them liable administratively. No. Thus when the decision she certified turned out to be spurious and non-existent. Celera. P-13-3141 (2014) The investigation conducted shows that respondent is guilty of delay in scheduling the various motions in the case. A. The clerk of court should know that when she certified the finality in a special proceeding case. Sundian v. Without records to verify the truthfulness and authenticity of a document. the clerk of court is tasked to regularly check not only the status of the cases but also the functions of the other court personnel and employees under his supervision. A. No. RTC Branch 124. it is immaterial whether the respondent was able to answer the charges against him since a disbarment case is an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. No. The administrative functions of a clerk of court are as vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice as his judicial duties. Sheriff IV. Pasig City. A. Caloocan City. Bacho. act or omission on the part of those involved in the administration of justice which violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes the faith of the people in the Judiciary. Neither will the complainant‘s acquiescence or consent to such expense absolve the sheriff for his failure to secure the prior approval of the court concerning such expense. METC. the fact alone would dispel the suspicion that such payments were made for less than noble purposes. but rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Clerk of Court III. No. Office of the Court Administrator v. Any amount received by sheriffs in escess of lawful fees is an unlawful exaction. Maria Vilma Mendoza. 05-4-118-MeTC (2014) A certificate is a written assurance or final representation that some act has or has not been done or some event occurred or some legal formality has been complied with. etc. Raul K. A./ RE: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted in the Metropolitan Trial Court. et al. A. Any means. 5581 (2014) The conduct of a lawyer ought and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. Mona Lisa A. P-08-2574 (2014) .M. dela Cruz. San Buenaventura v. Respondent‘s acts of deliberately making excuses for not receiving the complaint and merely disappearing constitures willful disobedience to the order of the court. whether personally received by him or by a duly appointed cashier who is under his supervision and control. is condemnable and unethical. Atty. Timoteo A. The conduct of all court personnel is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. even pursuant to his client‘s cause. Edgardo Areola v. A. Atty. Mylene H. Respondent is remiss in the performance of his duties as clerk of court when he failed to supervise his subordinates well and to efficiently conduct the proper administration of justice thus causing delay in the hearing of various motions. A clerk of court has general administrative supervision over all the personnel of the court. it constitutes unauthorized fees. Alcantara v. P-05-2051/A. Eliseo M. A. 2003. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all the activities of a judge. Sales.03.C. the power to disbar is always exercised with great caution only for the most imperative reasons and in cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. court officials and employees should at all times strictly observe official time. immoral or deceitful conduct. Atty. Natividad P. Tabao v. Thus. Gamotin. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except. This duty calls for the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of official time for public service. and inexcusable. Jr. RTC. A. social or sundry relations could influence their objectivity. if only to recompense the government.Sans any descriptive sophistry. and ultimately. integrity. Although Alistair and Charmaine were not entirely faultless. Aida R. whose conduct failed to show due respect for the court and lend credit to the nobility of the practitioners of the legal profession in violation of Rule 7. 49-2003. Branch 7.C. No. the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the judiciary. Jr. A.M. He shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession and he shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Navarro and Hilda S. City Prosecutor Casiano A. he ought to conduct himself in a manner befitting a gentleman and a high officer of the court. to inspire public respect for the justice system. integrity and independence. dated December 1. Manila. 8644 (2014) A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. and justice solemnly dispensed. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. RTC. what Eliseo did was to engage in a brawl with no less than his own children inside the chamber of a judge. Not only must judges possess proficiency in law. No. Pursuant to this dictum. RTJ-14-2377 (2014) Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction against a misbehaving member of the Integrated Bar. A lawyer is not to be sanctioned for every perceived misconduct or wrong actuation.M. officials and employees of the Judiciary must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust. the lawyer merits exoneration. Campos. Solidum. avoiding vulgar and insulting language. Jorda. respondent should exercise judicial temperament at all times. 9872 (2014) By reason of the nature and functions of their office. Misbehavior within or around the vicinity diminishes its sanctity and dignity. Ma. Presbitero v. 5329 (2014) . No. prompted by his belief that the latter mishandled the cause of his client is obviously and clearly insensitive.C. judges should be scrupulously careful to avoid anything that may tend to awaken the suspicion that their personal. et al. RE: Habitual Tardiness of Cesar E. As punctuality is a virtue. distasteful. Judge Crisologo S. they must also act and behave in such manner that would assure litigants and their counsel of the judges‘ competence. No. It bears stressing that as a dispenser of justice. Office of the Clerk of Court. Bitas. misdeed or negligence in the performance of official functions must be avoided. City Prosecutor’s Office. RTJ-14-2376/A.. As such. No. loyalty and efficiency. It is the burden of the complainant to properly show that the assailed conduct or actuation constituted a breach of the norms of professional conduct and legal ethics. Otherwise. Cash Clerk III. Heck v. The courtroom is looked upon by people with high respect and is regarded as a sacred place where litigants are heard. Tacloban City v. P-13-3171 (2014) Respondent judge‘s use of abusive and insulting words. A. Tacloban City. Even on the face of boorish behavior from those he deals with. He is still to be presumed innocent of wrongdoing until the proof arrayed against him establishes otherwise. tending to project complainant‘s ignorance of the laws and procedure. Atty. dishonest. Bitas. Branch 7.M. Tacloban City / Prosecutor Leo C. rights and conflicts settled. No. v. a lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client‘s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. reminding all government officials and employees to be accountable at all times to the people and exercise utmost responsibility. he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client. Metropolitan Trial Court. They must give every minute of their prescribed official time in the service to the public and must work for every centavo paid to them by the government. the Court issued Memorandum Circular No. Liza M. Ivan M. The Court shall not countenance crude social behavior. Heinz R. Judge Crisologo S. Furthermore. He must maintain composure and equanimity. A. a higher level of decorum and restraint was then expected from Eliseo. when in the interest of justice. absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible. Any impression of impropriety. Campos. In pending or prospective litigations before them. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers. any gross misconduct seriously undermines the faith and confidence of the people in the Judiciary. The Court had defined gross misconduct as a ―transgression of some established and definite rule of action. It is a profession in which duty to public service. but is a continuing imposition in order for him to maintain his membership in the Philippine Bar. unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. judges are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural laws. who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves. Laoag City.A Judge who allowed his bodyguard to take possession of a firearm that is the subject of a criminal case pending before the court where he is presiding is administratively liable for gross misconduct for violating Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 2 and Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Asuncion. His being a lawyer demanded that he conduct himself as a person of the highest moral and professional integrity and probity in his dealings with others. and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Ins. Needless to say. or in essence. The Court unwaveringly demands of him to remain a competent. His being a lawyer invested him—whether he was acting as such or in a non-professional capacity—with the obligation to exhibit good faith. grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. Branch 2. No. Ronald Gauren. Even assuming that complainant had . There is no question that a lawyer could be disciplined not only for the malpractice of his profession. good moral character is not only a condition precedent relating to his admission into the practice of law. P/Sr. A. The trial judge‘s obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or procedure is an inexcusable abuse of authority. The admonition that judges must avoid not only impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety is more sternly applied to lower court judges. 10179 (2014) The practice of law is not a business. is the primary consideration. fails to perform his obligation to file the case for the titling of his client‘s lot despite the lapse of five years breached his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence and is guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Jewm Agro-Industrial Corporation. MTJ-13-1823 (2014) Failure to join an indispensable party in a case is a manifest disregard of the basic rules and procedures and constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.M. Any gross misconduct that puts his moral character in serious doubt renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law. No 10164 (2014) A lawyer who fails to file a complaint despite the lapse of four years is guilty of violating Rule 18. which provides that: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. A lawyer's issuance of a worthless check renders him in breach of his oath to obey the laws. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture. obey the laws of the land. not money. G. Stephan Brunet and Virgina Vrunet v. Atty. fairness and candor in his relationship with others. more particularly. 196894 (2014) Every lawyer is an officer of the Court. A lawyer who. He has the duty and responsibility to maintain his good moral character. Failure of complainant to remit the full payment of the filing fee and pay the 30% of the attorney‘s fee is not a valid excuse that would exonerate him from liability.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Gross misconduct involves corruption. No. judges are reminded that after having accepted their exalted position in the Judiciary. William delos Santos. A. It amounts to evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. Atty. Municipal Trial Court in Cities. or an act that is inspired by the intention to violate the law. That this act involved a private dealing with Ong did not matter. Jesus Crisologo and Nanette Crisologo v.C. he thereby becomes administratively liable for gross misconduct. or that is a persistent disregard of well-known rules. Benjamin Ong v. Such level of ignorance is not a mere error of judgement. In this regard. Rosqueta v. Teddy M. and reliable individual in whom the public may repose confidence. Needless to state. A. but also for the grave misconduct committed outside of his professional capacity. honorable. No. despite having accepted his acceptance fee. Judge Jonathan A. they owe to the public to uphold the exacting standards of conduct demanded of them. Indeed. or to act at all in contemplation of law. As stated. and promote respect for the law and legal processes. every case that is entrusted to a lawyer deserves his full attention whether he accepts this for a fee or free. They must know the laws and apply them properly in good faith as judicial competence requires no less. To accord with the canon of professional responsibility that requires him to uphold the Constitution. and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. He is guilty of misusing evidence entrusted to the court.R.C. No.M. liable for any loss. Arnulfo Agleron. or impairment of said funds and property. Clarita Perez.M. destruction. In this case.not remitted the full payment of the filing fee. Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client. she violated the trust reposed in her as disbursement officer of the Judiciary. No. It is beyond question that the act of fraudulently securing one‘s appointment constitutes dishonesty. These considerations he should have been fully aware of. A. destruction or impairment of such funds and property. he is duty bound to serve his client with competence. shortage. A. as well as to why he still had to set the same for hearing and repeatedly grant postponements therefor. records. She was not supposed to keep those funds in her possession or worse appropriate them for her personal use. either motu proprio or by motion. By failing to timely remit the cash collections constituting public funds. he is nevertheless mandated to adopt a policy against unwarranted delays. her wrongdoing cannot be excused. The respondent‘s subsequent restitution of the amounts did not alter the fact that she was remiss in the discharge of her duties. (2014) A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signs it is the same person executing it and personally appearing before him to attest the truth of its contents. Judge Ramsey Domingo Pichay. A. Agleron obviously lacked professionalism in dealing with complainant and showed incompetence when he failed to file the appropriate charges. No. A. Jr. 10185 (2004) A Clerk of Court is guilty of misconduct where she incurred delay in the remittance of the fiduciary collections in her custody and used the same for her own personal use. Licero Dizon v. As a custodian of the court‘s funds and revenues. despite the summary nature of ejectment proceedings and the ministerial nature of the subsequent issuance of a writ of execution. she was entrusted with the primary responsibility of correctly and effectively implementing regulations regarding fiduciary funds. P-12-3070 (2014) While it has been held that a presiding judge shall at all times remain in firm control of the proceedings. She was. As such.M. It is also their duty to ensure that the proper procedures are followed in the collection of cash bonds. Nenita Longos. Atty. by reason of such. guard and physical plant manager thereof. which regards all court personnel as sentinels of justice expected to refrain from any act of impropriety. Marcelino Cabucana. It is then of utmost consequence that every employee of the judiciary exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity to preserve the good name and integrity of the courts of justice. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. P-12-3074 (2014) . Clerks of Court perform a delicate function as designated custodians of the court‘s funds. Shortages in amounts to be remitted and the years of delay in actual remittance constitute gross neglect of duty for which the clerk of court shall be administratively liable. accountant. their failure to faithfully perform their duties makes them liable for any loss. A. It deprives the Court of the interest that may be earned if the amounts are promptly deposited in a bank. revenues. MTJ-13-1838. Civil Service Commission v.. Atty. they are generally regarded as treasurer. Judge Pichay did not sufficiently explain the reasons as to why he failed to resolve the pending incidents on time. failed to take heed of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.C. care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. No. Sr. Ermelinda Lad Vda. the attitude of judiciary employees is set in the right direction. 5359 (2014) A court personnel who asked another person to take the Civil Service Professional Examination in her stead is guilty of dishonesty and. With the right character. Spouses Ricardo and Evelyn Marcelo v. No. De Dominguez v. It constitutes dishonesty which carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from service even if committed for the first time.C. therefore. All public service must be founded on and sustained by character. Thus. They are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts. he should have found a way to speak to his client and inform him about the insufficiency of the filing fee so he could file the complaint. She was an accountable officer entrusted with the great responsibility of collecting money belonging to the funds of the court. properties and premises. shortage. Atty. While the Court empathizes with the respondent in her predicament concerning her brother‘s medical needs. This is to enable him to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party‘s free and voluntary act and deed. The Office of the Court Administrator v. Delay in the remittance of collection is a serious breach of duty. and to attend to his client‘s cause with diligence. so that the ends of justice may not be compromised and the Judiciary will be true to its commitment to provide litigants their constitutional right to a speedy trial and speedy disposition of their cases. To comply with his obligation. A. Alicia Risos-Vidal. can already be characterized as frequent. 7961 (2014) A lawyers act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling the client‘s case and. The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the complainant. Misamis Occidental. Any unjustified failure to decide a case within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency that deserves the imposition of the proper administrative sanctions. such as when he continued to live with the woman for whose sake he abandoned his family. A. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege. failing to render the services. Elena Carlos Nebreja v. this Court has consistently held that a clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.M. Jr. 9896 (2014) Loafing is defined under the Civil Service rules as ―frequent unauthorized absences from duty during office hours. Atty. the lawyer had fallen far short of his duties as counsel as set forth in Rule 12. A court employee is not prohibited from helping individuals in the course of performing his official duties. an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved. Atty. Narag. but which proceeds diligently on holidays and by artificial light and even into vacation periods. A.‖ The mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation. Diosdado Jimenez. a judge who submitted false certificates of service certifying he did not have any unresolved cases and matters pending in his court docket is likewise guilty of grave misconduct pursuant to Section 8. The word ―frequent‖ connotes that the employees absent themselves from duty more than once. 9116 (2014) Where a lawyer was disbarred by committing a grossly immoral act. Benjamin Reonal. Considering the serious consequence of disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar. but his actions cannot be .C. Furthermore. 3405 (2014) A judge who unjustifiably failed to decide a case within the reglementary period is guilty gross inefficiency. de Jesus v. his plea to be readmitted to the Bar cannot be granted when the same are mere words that are hollow and bereft of any substance. Atty. P-12-3055 (2014) Court employees who tamper case records done through the intercalation of the explanation in a Notice of Appeal in a pending Special Civil Action are guilty of grave misconduct. Respondent‘s two absences from his post. Atty. In belatedly filing the first motion for extension of time to file appellants brief and thereby causing the dismissal of his client‘s appeal. Thereby. Office of the Court Administrator v. 0-9-454-RTC (2014) As a rule.M. including the delivery of reserved decisions. Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. No. he must first display such interest in his office which stops not at the minimum of the day‘s labors fixed by law. Narag v. Clodualdo C. No. Dominador M. No. fairly and with reasonable promptness. John Glenn D.C. that he had already rid himself of any grossly immoral act which would make him inept for the practice of law.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that: ―A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Atty. constitutes as an inexcusable negligence and is a clear violation of Rule 18. A. The Court. Nestor Figueras and Bienvenido Victoria. The certificates of services were not only the means to ensure his paycheck but were also the instruments by which the Court could fulfil the constitutional mandate of the people‘s right to speedy disposition of cases. he defrauded the Government. Branch 20. No. Cagayan de Oro City. subsequently.C. It constitutes inefficiency and dereliction of duty. The speedy disposition of cases the courts is a primary aim of the Judiciary. which adversely affect the prompt delivery of justice. RE: Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court. a judge is obliged to perform all judicial duties. and which ceases not at the expiration of official seasons. Runes.C. Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which exhorts every member of the Bar not to unduly delay a case and to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. A. in deciding whether the respondent should indeed be readmitted to the practice of law. It is only enjoyed by those who continue to display unassailable character. efficiently.04. must be convinced that he had indeed been reformed. Julieta B. v. Ma. No. Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter‘s interest with utmost diligence. No. A. being without authority. or defraud. Anonymous Complaint against Otelia Lyn G.M. Jocelyn Divinagracia. Municipal Trial Court. 38. No. both of the RTC. disposition to fraud.left unchecked when the help extended places the integrity of the Judiciary in a bad light. Clerk of Court V and Ms. lack of integrity. A. Clerk III. The evident purpose of the instruction is precisely to free the court form suspicion of misconduct. Court employees are strictly instructed not to use their official duties to secure unwarranted benefits. Iloilo City. lack of honesty. P-12-3093 (2014) . cheat. P-09-2648 (2014) An MTC Court Interpreter who falsified her Daily Time Records so that she could attend her law classes is guilty of dishonesty. Palapag. deceive or betray. Dishonesty is defined as the ―disposition to lie. untrustworthiness. Atty. Maceda. Time and again. Br. notwithstanding the permission of the MTC Presiding Judge. No. the OCA and Courts have underscored the importance of court employees truthfully and accurately recording in their DTRs the time of their arrival in and departure from office. A. Leah Espera Miranda. lack of fairness and straightforwardness. probity or integrity in principle. deceive.M. Court Interpreter. Office of the Court Administrator v. Northern Samar. privileges or exemptions for themselves or for others. Y CIPRIANO. Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient. January 8. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. G. either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance. But since the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death consists of two indivisible penalties. This is regardless of the fact that his minority was not proved during the trial and that his birth certificate was belatedly presented for our consideration. of the victim’s mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40.. the accused is presumed to have acted with less discernment.. the lesser penalty shall be applied. as follows: In order to remove any confusion that may be engendered by the foregoing cases. JR. similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age. ANGELES CITY. G. the Court has set the guidelines in People v. we hereby set the following guidelines in appreciating age. conformably with Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code which provides that when there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed. the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished. (KARLO ANGELO DABALOS Y SAN DIEO vs. and the consideration..A.CRIMINAL LAW Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code provides that when the offender is a minor over 15 and under 18 years. BRANCH 59. As correctly ruled by the RTC. No. January 9.” R. ETC. the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused.” (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.R. The rationale of the law in extending such leniency and compassion is that because of his age. appellant was correctly meted the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. 2013) . grounded as it is on the criminal. January 7. 170634. it is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed. the object. 2. It is also settled that “upon the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction. No. JANUARY 7.R. SERASPE G. 7659 provides that the unauthorized sale of 200 grams or more of shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. since to rule accordingly will not adversely affect the rights of the state. while it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman. G. 3. No. 2013) Notably. No. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.. SIMPRESUETA M. et al. ET AL. PEDRO BUADO. the two essential elements are: “(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. FLORENCIO AGACER. 180919. it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship.R. the testimony. Pruna. the victim and his heirs. for RA 9262 to be applicable. 2013) In the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance. if clear and credible. 193960. In the absence of a certificate of live birth. 2013) To establish the age of the minor victim. NO. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 1.R. the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed on the accused but always in the proper period. 177751. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable. the seller‘s receipt of the marked money. it was his duty to explain his innocence about the regulated drug seized from his possession. January 30. No. First. Admittedly. January 09. REY MONTICALVO. G. Rayon embraced AAA. January 23. (PEOPLE vs. The foregoing elements of qualified rape under Article 266-A. as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. based on her birth certificate and on .R. While the parties may have agreed on the selling price of the shabu and delivery of payment was intended. (PEOPLE vs.63 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in his possession. as amended. HONG YEN E AND TSIEN TSIEN CHUA. carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under the provisions of law. Furthermore. Finally. are sufficiently alleged in the Information against Amistoso. in relation to Article 266-B . No. it cannot be denied that his presence at the airport at that particular instance was for the purpose of transporting or moving the dangerous drugs from one place to another. 192050. ROLANDO CABUNGAN. The attack was. (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession – the onus probandi is shifted to the accused. as he was intending to board his flight bound for Davao City with a substantial amount or 196. January 09. No. whether done before delivery of the drugs or after. 2013) It is material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs that the sale actually took place. No. touched her breasts. the appellant used his moral ascendancy over her daughter in order to perpetrate his lascivious conduct. Receipt of the marked money. paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code. January 09. 181826. G. one‘s thought processes and reflexes slow with age that Pablo did not readily understand the intentions of the appellants. or escape from the scoundrel is not tantamount to consent or approval because the law imposes no obligation to exhibit defiance or to present proof of struggle. Records would show that Pablo was fifty-seven (57) years old at the time of his death. BENJAMIN PETELUNA AND ABUNDIO BINONDO. 193507. No. paragraph (1). 2013) The failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape and even the victim‘s lack of resistance especially when intimidated by the offender into submission does not signify voluntariness or consent. (PEOPLE vs. 187048. January 23. With the burden of evidence shifted to the petitioner. Article III of R. G. While it may be argued that appellant was yet to board the aircraft or travel some distance with the illegal drugs in his possession. G. (PEOPLE vs. concealed in separate plastic bags inside his oversized Spicer rubber shoes. No. and (3) the child is below 18 years old. parted her legs. 2013) The crime committed was murder qualified by treachery. these do not prove consummated sale. January 28. What consummates the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and. No. G.R. (PEOPLE vs. No. (NELSON VALLENO vs. 30 January 2013) Sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R. 189355. 7610 has three elements: (1) the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary.R. 2013) The stepfather-stepdaughter relationship as a qualifying circumstance presupposes that the victim‘s mother and the accused are married to each other.A. 2013) Without doubt. inserted his hand inside the victim‘s underwear. and touched her vagina. 182457. petitioner failed to do. No. 2013) Appellant was apprehended inside the airport. CAMALODING LABA. 201447.R. clearly sudden and unexpected. and (3) Amistoso is AAA‘s father. to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. the twin circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur. AAA was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident. as amended. ANASTACIO AMISTOSO.R. PEOPLE. 199938. 2013) Then to raise the crime of simple rape to qualified rape under Article 266-B. G. G. 7610 have been established. in turn.R. therefore. of the Revised Penal Code. (2) AAA was 12 years old on the day of the alleged rape. Second. the Court has emphatically ruled that the failure of a rape victim to shout. viz: (1) Amistoso succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA against her will and without her consent. fight back. ANTONIO BASALLO. All the elements of violation of Section 5(b).A.R.R. G. This. is required. paragraph (1)(a). (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. (PEOPLE vs. of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer. third.G. Third. instigation is not. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. No. G. is punishable under Republic Act No. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No. LINDA ALVIZ y YATCO and ELIZABETH DE LA VEGA y BAUTISTA..R. 6 February 2013) R. 191023. G. Conviction for the qualified rape of the other daughter BBB stands. the seizure and marking. 187496.R. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Failure of the prosecution to show compliance with the procedural requirements provided in Section 21. second.R. 191726. G. NOEL BARTOLOME y BAJO. however. to the detriment of society.R. No. 177158. As long as the chain of custody remains unbroken. 6235 (The Anti-Hijacking Law) authorizes search for prohibited materials or substances. 9165 and its IRR is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant‘s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. seized.R. 198794. While entrapment is legal. 6 February 2013) The different links that the prosecution must prove in order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation. the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 30 January 2013) The chain of custody of the drugs in a buy-bust operation had been sufficiently established when there was proof of the following: first. MALIK MANALAO y ALAUYA. PATRICIO RAYON. No. 6 February 2013)SS Despite the rigid procedural rules under the law on the custody and disposition of confiscated. including to further search without warrant. Second. the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. G. SR. What is essential is to preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. No. No. No. the doctrinal fallback of every drug-related prosecution. VICTOR DE JESUS y GARCIA. it was held. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 6 February 2013) . namely: First. G.R. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. No. the seizuare and marking. REYNALDO NACUA.R. that a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. then he was correctly charged with its illegal possession. G. Since Manalao failed to adduce any evidence showing that he had legal authority to possess the seized drugs. 190343. of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer. 200165. 6 February 2013) Mere possession of a prohibited drug. No. as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. if practicable. and Fourth. (DON DJOWEL SALES y ABALAHIN vs. and thereby depriving them of ―the ability and facility to act accordingly. 194236. would be to sanction impotence and ineffectivity in law enforcement.A. the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. It is distinct from instigation. the guilt of the accused will not be affected. and/or surrendered dangerous drugs. the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. if practicable. 6 February 2013) A buy-bust operation has been recognized in this jurisdiction as a legitimate form of entrapment of the culprit. in that the accused who is otherwise not predisposed to commit the crime is enticed or lured or talked into committing the crime. To limit the action of the airport security personnel to simply refusing an accused into the aircraft and sending him home. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. G. Article II of R.A. in light of such circumstances. and fourth. No.her mother‘s testimony.R. SAIBEN LANGCUA y DAIMLA. without legal authority. 30 January 2013) The failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. 9165. 2013) The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 2013) The elements of statutory rape are that: (a) the victim is a female under 12 years or is demented. 13 February 2013) To prosecute illegal possession of dangerous drugs. ARNOLD TAPERE Y POLPOL.A valid warrantless arrest which justifies a subsequent search is one that is carried out under the parameters of Section 5(a).R. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JONATHAN "UTO" VELOSO Y RAMA. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court which requires that the apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause to arrest a person caught in flagrante delicto. No.R. et al. Considering that the essence of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a female without her consent. would constitute any of the acts punishable under the ordinance. ARTEMIO E.R. No. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Consequently. G. No. ASIA UNITED BANK/ASIA UNITED BANK VS. 2013) ―Physical impossibility‖ refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LAMSEN. ET AL. February 13. February 20. 199713. It cannot be said that the act of shouting in a thickly populated place. GILBERT. (RAMON MARTINEZ y GOCO vs. nor the employment on the female of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority is necessary to commit statutory rape. during and after the commission of the crime. 198338. February 20. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. requires simply the consummation of the selling transaction. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.. It can be presumed from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when the said acts point to a joint purpose. and community of interests.R. design. which happens at the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. ZAPUIZ.R. Therefore.R. GALVEZ AND KATHERINE L.. like shabu. No. February 20. TOMAS TEODORO Y ANGELES. and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. P/SUPT. (2) such possession is not authorized by law. 178065. Only those who formed and manage associations that receive contributions from the general public who misappropriated the contributions can commit syndicated estafa. February 20. ET AL.R.R. JAMES GALIDO Y NOBLE. threat or intimidation on the female. February 13. as well as the facility of access between the two places. nor the female‘s deprivation of reason or being otherwise unconscious. No. 188849. G. G. RAFAEL H. and (b) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim. G. Nos. concerted action. with many people conversing with each other on the street. ASIA UNTIED BANK. G. Martinez‘s warrantless arrest was based on his alleged violation of a city ordinance punishing breaches of the peace. or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. GILBERT GUY. 187979/G. by false or misleading allegations. 188030. 187919/G. the defense of alibi must fail. 2013) . No. Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene. to justify a warrantless arrest based on the same. February 20. 198694. Thus the sachet of shabu which was purportedly seized from Martinez is inadmissible in evidence for being a fruit of the poisonous tree. MARK JOSEPH R. 2013) Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct. 2013) The law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance.R. G. No. What has to be proved by the prosecution is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in having sexual intercourse with the victim. there must be a showing that (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug. 2013) It is settled that direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy as it may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused before. VS. there was no probable cause to justify Martinez‘s warrantless arrest and the warrantless search that resulted from it was also illegal. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. 175876. neither the use of force. 192231. G. it must be established that the apprehension was effected after a reasonable assessment by the police officer that a public disturbance is being committed.R. No. GUY vs. G. No. Sereno) The Supreme Court finds that the accused San Mateo is not guilty of violation of BP 22. G. accomplices. (2) the knowledge of the maker. 182152. JUDGE RAFAEL R. In this case. without any valid cause. 184658. February 25.. 2013) Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the ―marking‖ of the seized items – to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence – should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. 2013) The only elements necessary to consummate the crime of illegal sale of drugs is proof that the illicit transaction took place. On the other hand. February 27. J. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment. The prosecution must also prove actual receipt of said notice. In the present case. drawing.R. SPO2 Romeo Isidro. there is insufficient proof that San Mateo actually received the notice of dishonor. the . according to Article 18 of the RPC. amended or modified.‖ Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed. ―come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. JOSE ALEX SECRETO Y VILLANUEVA. It has been the consistent ruling of the SC that receipts for registered letters including return receipts do not themselves prove receipt. 2013) The intent to kill was shown by the continuous firing at the victim even after he was hit.R. NO. (ERLINDA C. G.P. February 27. Magsino Vs. even if the alteration. AL. drawer. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). March 6. and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value.R. PO1 Ricardo Eusebio. are the persons who. however. SAN MATEO v. amendment or modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law and regardless of what court. (Edmundo Escamilla y Jugo vs.Conspirators are persons who. ordered the bank to stop payment. FLORES vs. Miriam Ruth T. Abad) The Supreme Court lowered the penalty imposable for the violation of the accused of the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines. 181354. such agreement is usually inferred from their ―concerted actions‖ while committing it. they must be properly authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of the letters. coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.R. No. 2013. CJ. the delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the seller‘s receipt of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. In buy-bust operations. arises only after it is proved that the issuer had received a written notice of dishonor and that. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. and Jojit George Contreras. No. No. 188551. but they assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. 2013. the second element was not duly proved. ―cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. because the fact of service provided for in the law is reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the accused. PEOPLE. and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer. March 6. Section 2 of B. No. he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment. ET.‖ Because witnesses are rarely present when several accused come to an agreement to commit a crime. February 27. It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the accused. 200090. No. the following essential elements must be present: (1) the making. their testimonies on the operation deserve faith and credit. G. LAGOS. not being included in Article 17 which identifies who are principals. Although a final judgment (generally) may no longer be altered. and must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. 22 creates the presumption that the issuer of the check was aware of the insufficiency of funds when he issued a check and the bank dishonored it. rendered it. 2013) The means employed by a person claiming self-defense must be commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted. G. (SIMON A. G. within five days from receipt thereof. People of the Philippines. To be liable therefore. claimed to be a notice of dishonor.R. This presumption.R. 198115. G. . GILBERT PENILLA Y FRANCIA. there is a strong showing that a grave miscarriage of justice would result if the Court will not relax the application of the Rules. 170863. March 20. G. G. This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the cruelty of public scrutiny. and (e) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. All these elements are present in this case. the accused‘s act should instead be punished under the Revised Penal Code. 6425 therefore.R. No. March 12. J. delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief. with grave abuse of confidence. J. 2013. Physical resistance is not an essential element of rape. March 20. the . the moral character of the victim is immaterial. indicative of accused‘s being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and Roldan. The records showed that the laying of hands on Jayson has been done at the spur of the moment and in anger. the accused lacked that specific intent to debase. 2013. No. A medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim‘s testimony alone. was necessarily included in the illegal sale. except where the seller is further apprehended in possession of another quantity of the prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale and which are probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller. With the loss of his self-control. No. ZAPANTA v. Any other illegal substance found in the possession of the accused that is not part of the subject of the illegal sale should be prosecuted under a distinct and separate information charging illegal possession. The petitioner betrayed the trust and confidence reposed on him when he. 2013. 189324.R. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed. Del Castillo) The elements of qualified theft are: (a) the taking of personal property. Perez) Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of R. ARNEL NOCUM. In this case. and (f) it be done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant. (b) the said property belongs to another. liberty. As such. degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse. there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping. G.e. is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime and the medical certificate will then be rendered as merely corroborative. Bersamin) To prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide. being an element of the illegal sale. G. degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child abuse. Brion) In rape cases. (EFREN S. No. Neither does an inconclusive medical report negate the finding of rape. April 1. aside from matters of life. J. i.R. Also. (b) the merits of the case. The crime of unlawful sale of marijuana penalized under Section 4 of R. ANTHONY V. but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. honor or property which would warrant the suspension of the Rules of the most mandatory character and an examination and review by the appellate court of the lower court‘s findings of fact. repeatedly took construction materials from the project site. (d) it be done without the owner's consent. (ENGR. 179611. (c) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules. March 20. J. otherwise. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.R.A. The premise used is that the illegal possession. without the authority and consent of the owner of the construction materials. 179041. According to the Court. (GEORGE BONGALON v. No.. and the victim submits herself to her attacker because of fear. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. necessarily includes the crime of unlawful possession thereof. as project manager. if credible. 7610. (d) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory. J. No. Only when the laying of hands is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to debase.Court recognized certain exceptions to the application of this rule. 2013. ET AL. ALMUETE v. nor of force upon things. (c) the said taking be done with intent to gain. Del Castillo) The established principle is that possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof. 169533. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.R. No. (e) it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons. 2013. G. the other elements that should be considered are the following: (a) the existence of special or compelling circumstances." (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.A. item. She explained to the court‘s satisfaction that appellant. G. 2013. thus. . acquires. which has been the subject of robbery or theft. April 10. without reference or distinction as to the circumstances. 2013. Reyes) The essential elements of the crime of fencing are: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed. while holding a knife. Bersamin) In robbery with homicide. robbery and homicide. rape. ET AL. Leonardo – De Castro) AAA‘s failure to shout for help. J. with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. Once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery. CJ).fundamental right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him would be flagrantly violated. No. must be consummated. or buys and sells. When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery. buys. The homicide may take place before. All the elements of the crime charged were proved in this case. G. guardian. or in any manner deals in any article. (b) the offender is a parent. All the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. No. G. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. parricide. G. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. sells or disposes. who is not a principal or on accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft. 2013. Leonardo – De Castro) The elements of qualified rape are as follows: (a) the victim is a female over 12 years but under 18 years of age. unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same. No.R. 201443. If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of the robbery. he is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery with homicide. is committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. 2013. April 10. 175939. had threatened to kill her family if she reported the incident. 2013. which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. item. (3) the accused knew or should have known that the said article. all those who took part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the killing. ascendant. 190475. on the part of one accused. BETTY SALVADOR y TABIOS. Perez) In the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. during or after the robbery. although not all profited and gained from the robbery. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 175327.. or intimidation. intentional mutilation.R. WELVIN DIU y KOTSESA. Homicide. 187740. J.R. Likewise immaterial is the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the robbers. No. 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any good. and (4) there is. CHAD MANANSALA y LAGMAN. does not detract from the credibility of her claims. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. An 11year old child like AAA can only cower in fear and submission in the face of a real threat to her life and her family‘s posed by an armed assailant. possesses. J. or that two or more persons are killed or that aside from the homicide. it matters not that no ransom was actually paid. (JAIME ONG y ONG v. April 3. and (c) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim either through force. 2013. conceals. object or anything of value. or usurpation of authority. keeps. 201449. April 10. All those who conspire to commit robbery with homicide are guilty as principals of such crime. G. the felony would still be robbery with homicide. MANUEL TOLENTINO y CATACUTAN. (2) the accused. The constitutive elements of the crime. item. object or anything of value. J. threat. Sereno. April 3. causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. No. April 3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery. stepparent. relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. intent to gain for oneself or for another. or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery. although her siblings were sleeping beside her and her parents were on the other room. receives. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. the felony committed is robbery with homicide. Fencing is malum prohibitum. J. and P. or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. article. includes murder. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized. It is only the result obtained. and infanticide. ET AL.R. object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. it being sufficient that a demand for it was made. No. It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident.D. The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense. namely. EDMUNDO VITERO.R. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Nos. RUZOL v. No. G. For it to be present. 2013. Sereno) The accused cannot be convicted of usurpation of official functions when he issued permits to transport salvaged forest products. or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury. unexpected or imminent danger — not merely threatening and intimidating action. While it was alleged in the Information that accusedappellant is AAA‘s grandfather. Ruzol required the issuance of the subject permits under his authority as municipal mayor and independently of the official functions granted to the DENR. As Sombol failed to prove the existence of unlawful aggression. object. THE HON. as can be gleaned from the records. sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession.R.R. he is a relative of the victim in the fourth civil degree. April 17. The DENR is not the sole government agency vested with the authority to issue permits relevant to the transportation of salvaged forest products. and is thus not covered by Article 266-B. J. paragraph 5(1). April 17. Velasco. (SERGIO SOMBOL v. 2013. April 10. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. J. being the brother of AAA‘s paternal grandfather. No. (b) such possession is not authorized by law. what was proven during the trial was that he was AAA‘s granduncle.R. 186739-960. No. nisi mens sit rea. (LEOVIGILDO R. 189280. it must be shown that (a) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug. DUMALAG. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. considering that. upon a person. is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of intent to possess. Leonardo-De Castro) . pursuant to the general welfare clause. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. animus possidendi. G. or more specifically the brother of the victim‘s grandfather. In effect. thus. 194564. Without unlawful aggression. April 17. The unauthenticated photocopy of AAA‘s baptismal certificate is not sufficient to prove the age of AAA. As such granduncle. Also. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence. his plea of self-defense necessarily fails. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. The burden of evidence. jurisprudence dictates that there must be an actual physical assault. G. Leonardo – De Castro) Mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to possess. 2013. and there is then no basis for appreciating the other two requisites. Jr.R. the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller. and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. J. CJ. 191396. G." The informant's testimony is not needed if the sale of the illegal drug has been adequately proven by the prosecution. sudden. April 17. DANTE L. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. LGUs may also exercise such authority.Accused Sombol cannot avail of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. It presupposes actual. The records are likewise bereft of any showing that Ruzol made representations or false pretenses that said permits could be used in lieu of. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life. the permits to transport were meant to complement and not to replace the Wood Recovery Permit issued by the DENR. G. Aguilar miserably failed to discharge such burden. 180514. No.) For a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper. 2013. In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs. The presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for the conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative. Leonardo – De Castro) The accused-appellant is liable only for simple rape. the Wood Recovery Permit from the DENR.R. or at the least as an excuse not to obtain. ALBERTO DELIGERO y BACASMOT. and consideration. 2013. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for self-defense to be appreciated. MARILYN AGUILAR y MANZANILLO. J. Actus non facit reum. the accused has nothing to prevent or repel. R. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. When time is of essence. J. PEREZ) Famor was adjudged not guilty of the crime charged because his proximity and whispered communications to Mores moments before the grenade throwing incident occurred was deemed by the trial court as insufficient evidence to establish conspiracy between him and appellant. G. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 2013. The commission of illegal sale merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction while illegal possession is constituted by prima facie evidence of knowledge of the illegality or animus possidendi which is sufficient to convict him. presented in evidence confirmed that the specimen contained shabu. PETER LINDA Y GEROLAGA. 189846. No. Del Castillo) The identity of the sachets of shabu confiscated and the continuous chain of custody was established by the prosecution. During trial. No. No. and to its introduction at trial. the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance. TANENGGEE v. the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the . the crime of falsification has already been consummated.It has been ruled. coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. J. The following elements are necessary in order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation: First. the object of the sale. In this case. qualitative tests were conducted and the test results. 2013. 197363. It is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or a buy-bust operation. or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa because before the falsified document is actually used to defraud another. official.R. J. Leonardo – De Castro) All the essential requisites for illegal sale of shabu were present in this case: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller. the chain of custody was not broken. Clearly. Damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of the crime of falsification. 2013. (CARLOS L.R. No. and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. At the police station. Perez) It is significant to reiterate and emphasize that the elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs were convincingly established. June 26. G. RAMIL MORES. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No. June 26. G. and the consideration. official or commercial document is used to defraud another. the seizure and marking. The Letter-Request for Laboratory Examination shows that it was PO2 Bernabe who personally delivered to the crime laboratory the specimens and that it was the very chemist who examined the specimens who brought the same to the court. G. Perez) In illegal sale. of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer. it was shown that after the three sachets of shabu were confiscated from appellant and that they were marked. Subsequently. if practicable. what the prosecution needs to present is proof that a transaction or sale actually took place. 195777. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No. Prior surveillance is not required for a valid buy-bust operation. Leonardo – De Castro) The falsification of a public. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. June 26. then that is estafa. G.R. ROMAN ZAFRA Y SERRANO.32 that ―absence of external signs of physical injuries does not negate rape. the witness identified the plastic sachet marked presented as the same sachet of shabu which he bought from accused Castro. J. 2013. 200507. Only when an existing falsified public. An adequate foundation establishing a continuous chain of custody is said to have been established if the State accounts for the evidence at each stage from its acquisition to its testing. Second. June 19. coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.R. 2013. especially if the buy-bust team is accompanied by their informant. G. FERDINAND CASTRO Y LAPENA. 2013. in a long line of cases. there being no fixed or textbook method for conducting one. 191267. the object and consideration. the seized drugs were the subject of a Request for Examination and were personally delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory. JUNE 26. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. There is no iota of doubt that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved.R. 179448. J. These are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. J. June 26. MONICA MENDOZA Y TRINIDAD. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. but the fact that the malefactors acted in unison pursuant to the same objective suffices. (IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS ALBERTO AND BENJAMIN D. If the victim is 12 years or older. 192913. June 19. as what has been satisfactorily shown in this case. G. If at all.R. the accused must either have in his possession and under his direct control the said paraphernalia. 191391. No. method. June 17. and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. Perez) The DOJ erred in charging Gil for Rape in relation to Child Abuse under Section 5(b). On the contrary. J.A. upon demand. the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties must be upheld in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overturn the same. and community of interests. PERCIVAL DELA ROSA Y BAYER. THE HON. MARCELO COLLADO Y CUNANAN. Nos. No. the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. J. There is no degree of participation to speak of. If there is none. JESSEBEL CALIANGA AND GRACE EVANGELISTA. He was thus under an obligation to turnover the same upon conclusion of his term as Treasurer. June 13. No.R. 185129. non-compliance with the requirements provided for in Section 21 to prove the chain of custody is not fatal as long as there is a substantial ground for the non-compliance presented in court. No. 2013. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. failed to account for or return them. J. The offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. ATTY. June 19. 2013. Further. REYNA. the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A of the RPC. Reyes) In a buy-bust operation. June 13.R. Jurisprudence dictates that accused may be charged only for one and not both crimes. despite demand. as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court.investigating officer. since failure to do so will not necessarily disprove the sale. BALOIS v. it is an implied admission that there is facility of access for . JOEL REBOTAZO Y ALEJANDRA. concerted action. J. CALIANGA. CALIANGA. A felony under the RPC cannot be complexed with an offense penalized under special law. the marked money merely serves as corroborative evidence in proving appellant‘s guilt. ARTURO S. Proof of a previous agreement and decision to commit the crime is not essential.R. R. G. 182130 and 182132. and Fourth. G. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. he misappropriated the same to the prejudice of the association and. 201723. Perlas – Bernabe) The accused as the elected treasurer of CALAPUPATODA received and held money for administration and in trust for the association.A. The failure to present the marked money does not affect the prosecution. While in case of violation of Section 14 of Article II. Upon review. of funds or property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. SAMUEL SHERWIN LATARIO Y ENRIQU AND REYNALDO RANADA Y ALAS. RODRIGO A. Such failure to account. G. (ABELARDO JANDUSAY v. MARK CIPRIANO Y ROCERO. 2013. either one has possession and control over the paraphernalia or none. then one must be acquitted. J. Instead. 9165. GIL ANTHONY M. MYRA COLLADO Y SENICA. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No. Article III of RA 7610. Sereno) Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode. CJ. G. 2013. Any minor inconsistencies with the details can be disregarded if such inconsistencies are fully explained by the prosecution and accepted by the Courts. Reyes) The accused‘s alibi is worthless as his presence at a mere 30 meters away from the scene of the crime at the time of its commission definitely does not constitute a physical impossibility for him to be at Mara‘s room at the time of the rape. at the same time for the purpose of killing the victim is considered an act of conspiracy. 9165. 185719. the Supreme Court is convinced that the prosecution had sufficiently proved all the elements to establish chain of custody of illegal drugs. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. June 19. No. in which case. failure to mark the money or to present it in evidence is not material. or inferred from the acts of the accused when those acts point to a joint purpose and design. 2013. 2013. boxing and stabbing. Del Castillo) In the conduct of a valid buy-bust operation with regards to R. G. BENEDICT HOMAKY LUCIO. Third. however. The act of attacking the victim.R. No.R. COURT OF APPEALS. substantial compliance will do. LEONARDO – DE CASTRO) When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. No.R. G. MARIA JENNY REA Y GUEVARRA AND ESTRELLITA TENDENILLA. 200882.R. Perlas – Bernabe) An accused charged with violation of Section 11. although they did not actually take part in the killing. J. NO. even though not engaged in prostitution. 197049. Section 21 is a matter of substantive law that mandates strict compliance as it is a safety precaution against potential abuses by law enforcement agents.A. Tendenilla and Rea together with Azul. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. Under the principle that penal laws are strictly construed against the government. leave no doubt that they are coconspirators. (c) The child is below 18 years of age. No. 2013. CJ. who made representations that she could deploy them abroad. Article II of R. JUNE 5. (CHRISTIAN CABALLO v. Brion) Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. G. 191752. J.R. JUNE 13. 2013. Nothing less than evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt can erase the postulate of innocence. consistent and spontaneously given. in serious doubt. as in this case – no photograph or inventory of the confiscated items was taken or made. or from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design. (RODRIGO RONTOS Y DELA TORRE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. conspired to commit the crime of illegal recruitment. AAA‘s testimony that she was raped by her own uncle is worthy of belief as it was clear. NO. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. The solo performance by SPO1 Dela Victoria of all the acts necessary for the prosecution of the offense is unexplained and puts the proof of corpus delicti. Perez) The elements of Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse are: (a) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. No. who indulges in sexual intercourse or any lascivious conduct due to the coercion or influence of any adult is deemed to be a child exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. PERALTA) .the accused Diaz to be at the place where the crime happened when it happened. June 10. Such noncompliance brings to the fore the question of whether the illegal drug items were the same ones that were allegedly seized from petitioner. And this burden is met not by placing in distrust the innocence of the accused but by obliterating all doubts as to his culpability. which is the illegal object itself. all those who took part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. Sereno) When the victim of rape is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent. 198732. J. Rea met some of the complainants at the training center. G. Coercion and Influence by the adult of the child qualifies the act as that of the second element of the offense. NO. June 10. guardian. J. GLORIA CALUMBRES Y AUDITOR. 2013. JOSE ARMANDO CERVANTES CACHUELA AND BENJAMIN JULIAN CRUZ IBANEZ. G. ABEL DIAZ. June 10. and accompanied some of them while in Thailand. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. 2013. and. 194382. G. stringent compliance therewith is fully justified and failure to do so without justifiable grounds are not excusable. No. No. Perez) The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by itself overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. It was either Azul or Tendenilla who received the payment of placement fees. ascendant. Their actions showed unity of purpose and. 195523. (b) The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. Both the minority of the victim and her relationship to the accused were sufficiently alleged in the Information and proved by the prosecution. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same. 2013. June 10. 2013. 188024. And as previously stated. taken all together. June 5. step-parent. J.R. 9165 cannot be convicted if the identity and integrity of the drugs seized as well as the handling of the said items cannot be established. such is considered as qualified rape. or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.R. concerted action and community of interest. A minor child. It is clear that Section 21 was not observed. G. ERNESTO GANI Y TUPAS.R. 2013J. Azul referred all private complainants to Tendenilla. RICARDO PIOSANG. Any conviction contrary to the allegations made or necessarily included in the information is violative of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. This is because a mentally deficient person is incapable of giving consent to a sexual act. Full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient. J. 2013. The testimony of the victim established both elements. Therefore. even if duly proven. can only be convicted of the complex crime of murder with attempted murder and not of two separate crimes because the information only contained one criminal actuation. Leonardo. 189297. b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is automatically a rape under Article 266-A paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.R. to conclude that carnal knowledge took place. June 5. 2013. June 5. inflicts a fatal wound to the back is guilty of treachery. 2013. such as the victim‘s father (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MOISES CAOILE. J. 197039. J. 9165 mandates that an immediate conduct of physical inventory of the seized items and photograph be made by the team. June 5. G. Leonardo – De Castro) An accused who committed two separate crimes. In rape committed by a close kin. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. 189836. 2013. 8353 are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim.R.R. and (2) such act was either: a) accomplished through force and intimidation. 2013. LEONARDO – DE CASTRO) A statutory rape departs from the usual modes of committing rape. No. The position of the fatal wound is more than clear indication that the victim was stabbed in a defenseless state. J. 2013. what needs to be proven are the facts of sexual intercourse between the accused and the victim. Leonardo – De Castro) The fact that AAA did not sustain any injury in her sex organ does not ipso facto mean that she was not raped.R. thus insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim.A. nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary. the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis that is capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.R. 200329. When one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted or lacking. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICARDO PAMINTUAN Y SAHAGUN. G. June 5. ROMEO BUSTAMANTE Y ALIGANGA. AAA‘s minority may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. An accused cannot be convicted of an offense. c) when the victim is under 12 years of age. 191730.R. No. No.R. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim by the perpetrator of the crime.While the special qualifying circumstance of minority was alleged and proved. JUNE 5.A. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. What the law punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age. J. G. NO. J. No. or. depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself or repel the aggression. ARIEL CALARA Y ABALOS. Thus. June 5. that which is pleaded in the Information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MYLENE TORRES Y CRUZ. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the complaint or information. or. JUNE 5. 203041. NO. G. Perez) An accused who while in a fistfight with the victim. 2013. non-compliance is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor. and the victim‘s mental retardation. That the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim and that the act was accomplished through force and intimidation. the circumstance of relationship of "AAA" was not clearly established. Murder and Attempted Murder. Del Castillo) Although Section 21(1) of R. 192239. Nowhere in the prosecution evidence does it show the "justifiable ground" which may excuse the failure to make and inventory and to photograph the drugs confiscated. G. A complex crime is only . 335 of the RPC before it was amended by R. Perez) The elements of rape under Art. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years. the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. G. J. No. Thus. NO. GUILLERMO LOMAQUE.De Castro) Regardless of the perpetrator‘s awareness of his victim‘s mental condition. DEL CASTILLO) In cases involving dangerous drugs. and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. Non-compliance with the chain of custody can only be allowed if (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance. 202709. CANTOS v. committed with any of the attendant circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. 184908.one crime. NO. 2013.R. ABAD) A person who contracts a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage is liable for the crime of bigamy. is required to protect the procedures in keeping custody and disposition of dangerous drugs and as well as to avoid any abuse on the part of the authorities who conducted the operation. and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. It is what makes a person criminally liable for bigamy. Direct evidence of personal misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary as long as the accused cannot explain satisfactorily the shortage in his accounts. J. 2013. the crime had already been consummated. (MAJOR JOEL G. which is not parricide or infanticide. G. the chain of custody rule. 2013. one of which is treachery. Reyes) The crime committed is murder qualified by treachery. G. NO. All that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public funds. G. REGGIE BERNARDO. 2013. if practicable. 180281. the seizure and marking. G. Hence. Murder is the unlawful killing by the accused of a person.) The element of unlawful aggression is absent to warrant self-defense. June 3. J. There is no indication of any untoward action from him to warrant the treatment that he had by Vergara‘s hands. The victim‘s actuations did not constitute unlawful aggression to warrant the use of force employed by Vergara. No. the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. It is the prosecution who has the burden of establishing the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs seized from the accused. JULY 3. CAPILI v.R. there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. It should establish the following links in that chain of custody of the confiscated item: first. A person may still be charged with the crime of bigamy. third. JR. The outcome of the civil case for annulment of the second marriage for being null and void have no bearing upon the determination of petitioner‘s innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy. Although two or more crimes are actually committed. NO. because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that there is a first marriage that is subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted. VILLARAMA. JULY 3. JOEMARI JALBONIAN ALIAS "BUDO”. ACCUSED-APPELANT . JULY 1. ACCUSED. GARRY VERGARA Y ORIEL. J. PERALTA) Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. and fourth. there is only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender when it comes to complex crimes. 2013. 198789. The records reveal that the victim had been walking home albeit drunk when he passed by the accused. compliance with the requirements of Section 21. GARRY VERGARA Y ORIEL AND JOSEPH INCENCIO Y PAULINO.R. J. (JAMES WALTER P. even if there is a subsequent declaration of the nullity of the second marriage because the crime of bigamy is consummated at the time of the celebration of the subsequent marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared null and void. second. of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer. J. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage is immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity. JULY 3. G. NO. 183805.R.R. ROMEO ONIZA Y ONG AND MERCY ONIZA Y CABARLE. that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. The claim of self-defense or defense of family is untenable because there can be no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he was only holding a lemon and an egg as compared to the bolos of the attackers. 2013. The information in this case may be interpreted as charging the accused with both estafa under paragraph 1 (b) and estafa under paragraph 2(a). JOSEPH BARRA. such action by the attackers constitute conspiracy in the execution of the crime and abuse of superior strength to ensure that they kill their target.. ESPINO v. G. accused should be held liable only for the crime of attempted robbery with homicide. If the evidence fails to convince the court that the wound sustained would have caused the victim‘s death without timely medical attention. JULY 3. G. the prosecution must allege and prove the ordinary elements of (1) sexual congress. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.D. G. A father who rapes his own minor daughter do not need to use any physical force or intimidation because in rape committed by a close kin. G. G. and in order to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. 177763. It was for this reason that the victim was shot. the accused should be convicted of attempted . (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. In frustrated murder. JULY 10. GAVIOLA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. J. RONALD CREDO. the crime committed is attempted murder. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning. ALAN C. NOS. 189343/189369/189553. affording the hapless.R. such act constitutes treachery on the part of the accused. G. 2013.R. (3) by force and without consent.R. 188217. 315 of the RPC. The manner in which Gravo was stabbed by Hatsero has treachery written all over it. (BENILDA N. NO. 7160.G. J. P. (2) with a woman. Leonardo. EUSTAQUIO B.R. LEONARDO – DE CASTRO) When the information alleges the crime of estafa specified under paragraph 1(b) and yet what was proven was estafa under paragraph 2(a) of the same Art. LITO HATSERO. there must be evidence showing that the wound would have been fatal were it not for timely medical intervention. 197360. SERENO) For a conviction of qualified rape. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. done in a swift and unexpected manner. 2013.De Castro) In the present case. 1445. JULY 10. moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation. such as the victim's father. Leonardo. 192179. 2013. unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. CESA v. all the more when a single offense has multiple modes of commission. (FERNANDO M. J. JULY 3. Accused can only be found guilty of attempted robbery with homicide. the crime of robbery remained unconsummated because the victim refused to give his money to appellant and no personal property was shown to have been taken. it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed. PEREZ) In making the friendly gesture of offering a drink to a person whom the accused intended to kill. 2013. 198020. BACASMAS v. NO. the additional elements that (4) the victim is under eighteen years of age at the time of the rape. It is a basic and fundamental principle of criminal law that one act can give rise to two offenses. ET AL. CJ.R.R. 189293. NO. NO. J. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. NO. SERENO) When three men with a bolo each attack an unarmed person who was only holding a lemon and an egg. The fact of asportation must be established beyond reasonable doubt. CJ. Leonardo. the court sees no other reason than to intentionally lure the victim into a false sense of security before attacking him. J. what determines the real nature and cause of the accusation against an accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the information and not the caption of the information. JULY 3. Since this fact was not duly established. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JULY 3.De Castro) Public officers who act in conspiracy with one another and blatantly disregarding the rules and regulation prescribed by law resulting to a huge loss to the Local Government as well as resulting into unnecessary benefits to one of them all because their act was was "common practice" is definitely in violation of R. VICENTE CADELLADA. and (5) the offender is a parent of the victim. and the circulars issued by the COA. NO. 2013.De Castro) In an attempt to murder a person and the wounds inflicted are of such nature that it would not caused the victim‘s death if not for timely medical intervention. JULY 10. 2013.A. JULY 15. Therefore." Accordingly.A. the maximum of the indeterminate penalty in this case should be within the range of the medium period because neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the crime. for the same must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void. in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code. The two elements that must be proven to establish treachery are: (a) the employment of means of execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim. J. No.R. the penalty to be imposed if the property burned is an inhabited house or dwelling is from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. 201728. 2013. without regard to its periods. VICTORINO REYES. Reyes) The mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. Bersamin) There are two (2) ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) of R. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity. 2013. namely: (a) by causing undue injury to any party. NO. J. In this case. G. advantage or preference. and each portion forms one period of the penalty.murder and not frustrated murder. (People of the Philippines v. immediately becomes the maximum period. G. JULY 17. method and manner of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender. 2013. or (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefits.R.De Castro) In rape cases. (BOBBY "ABEL" AVELINO Y BULAWAN v. NO. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. in view of the attending circumstances. J. MARVIN CRUZ. he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. No. including the Government. JULY 17. Yet. 181444. 2013. however.A. The victim was then unarmed and had no opportunity to defend himself. 202867. JR. A love affair does not justify rape for a man does not have the unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires against her will.R. Not being composed of three periods. These elements are established by the testimony of Manalangsang showing the unexpected attack by the petitioner on the unsuspecting Hispano whose vehicle was suddenly blocked by three men. 1613.R. the interpretation of the Supreme Court regarding the "sweetheart defense" is that love is not a license for lust. 197250. NO. and so long as there is no such declaration. Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law requires the court. G.K. the lack of pre-operation report has no effect on the legality and validity of the buy-bust operation as it is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. the presumption is that the marriage exists. J. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R.) Non-presentation of the entire amount of the marked money is not a mortal blow to the prosecution‘s case. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G.R. Peralta) The qualifying circumstance of treachery or alevosia was properly appreciated in this case. reclusion perpetua.R. Carpio) The crime of arson is punished pursuant to Section 3(2) of P. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. VILLARAMA. 2013. The accused may be charged under either mode or under both. J. and the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the crime. 2013. J. at least one of whom was armed with a firearm. leaving reclusion temporal to be divided into two in order to fix the medium and minimum periods of the penalty. 191566. REYNALDO "ANDY" SOMOZA Y HANDAYA. could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code.D. GILARDO BACOLOD v. Leonardo. to sentence the accused "to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which. Bersamin) What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. NO. Further. The slightest penetration of the labia of the female victim's genitalia consummates the crime of rape. such penalty should be divided into three equal portions of time. G. or its amendments. J. NO. 173307. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No. G. JULY 17. July 17. 3019 in the performance of his functions. 206236. and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. REGIE LABIA. being an indivisible penalty. NO. JULY 15. and (b) the means. 2013. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Edgardo V. (GILFREDO BACOLOD A. Odtuhan. JULY 17. G. the Court is convinced that the accused . Petitioner and Ragonjan knew that the Club was a bogus project. Thus. JULY 24. NOS. 2013. Furthermore. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. PEREZ) The material facts surrounding the civil case bear no relation to the criminal investigation being conducted by the prosecutor. PEREZ) Although the Court. JULY 24. This circumstance must be alleged in the information being a qualifying circumstance which increases the penalty to death and changes the nature of the offense from simple to qualified rape. 195528. G. POSADAS AND DR. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude does not constitute unlawful aggression. J. SMC is not privy to the nature of the alleged materially altered check leading to its dishonor and the eventual garnishment of petitioners‘ savings account. No. ROGELIO RAMOS and MARISSA INTERO RAMOS. J. in numerous cases. JULY 24. J. petitioners cannot be automatically adjudged free from criminal liability for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (DR.R. NINOY ROSALES Y ESTO.R. NO. G. PEREZ) Unlike estafa under paragraph 1 (b) of Article 315 of the Code. Inconsistencies committed by the police officers amounting to procedural lapses in observing the chain of custody of evidence requirement effectively negated this presumption. when rape is committed by an assailant who has knowledge of the victim‘s mental retardation. Although appellant denied any knowledge about AAA‘s mental condition. 2013.R. AAA‘s mental condition was sufficiently established by medical findings. The matter is between petitioners and Asia Trust Bank. J. NO. Even Abacco‘s injuries which proved to be multiple and fatal reveal that it was Rogelio and Marissa who were truly the aggressors. 2013. The unlawful aggression of the victim must put the life and personal safety of the person defending himself in actual peril. JR. 199294. for if no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established. J. JULY 17. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Even if the trial court in the civil case declares Asia Trust Bank liable for the unlawful garnishment of petitioners‘ savings account. JOSE CLARA Y BUHAIN.R. The prejudicial question in the civil case involves the dishonor of another check. NO. this Court imposes on the appellant the supreme penalty of death.R. 190340. 168651 & 169000. 22. the same being properly alleged in the Information charging the appellant of the crime of rape and proven during trial. J. JULY 31. LOPEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. because the mere issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to support the checks is in itself the offense. self-defense is unavailing as there is nothing to repel. Carpio) . It is therefore logical to assume that appellant was fully aware of the workings of AAA‘s mental faculties. has been inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty of public officers the Court noted that this is not a hard-and-fast rule. G. The prosecution in this case discharged its evidentiary burden by presenting the receipts of the installment payments made by Sy on the purchase price for the Club share.caused undue injury to the Government in appointing Dr. Considering the presence of the special qualifying circumstance of the appellant's knowledge of the victim's mental retardation. (RALPH LITO W.R. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION.) Unlawful aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense. the Court is convinced that Abacco was by no means the unlawful aggressor. DAYCO v. estafa under paragraph 2( a) of that provision does not require as an element of the crime proof that the accused misappropriated or converted the swindled money or property. VILLARAMA. Posadas as TMC Project Director with evident bad faith while he is still part of the faculty of UP. ROGER R. 2013. 2013. On the other hand. All that is required is proof of pecuniary damage sustained by the complainant arising from his reliance on the fraudulent representation. G. it was he himself who volunteered the information that he had been living with AAA for four (4) months in his house. the issue in the preliminary investigation is whether petitioners issued a bad check to SMC for the payment of beer products. Also. Del Castillo) Under the aforementioned provisions. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. the penalty is increased to death. as well as the testimony of AAA‘s mother. G. The source of the funds of petitioners‘ savings account is no longer SMC‘s concern. G. Their inaccurate recall of events amounted to irregularities that affected the presumption and tilted the evidence in favor of the accused. ROLANDO P. 188767. NO. JULY 24. (SPOUSES ARGOVAN AND FLORIDA GADITANO v. 2013. Abacco‘s act of going to their house and calling out Rogelio so they may talk can hardly be considered as unlawful aggression under the law. 197537. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 198110. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. the certification from the City Social Welfare and Development Department likewise indicated that the burned houses were used as dwellings. NO. judicial or official functions. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. There can be no self-defense. NO. There was not the least provocation done by the victim that could have triggered the accused-appellant to entertain the thought that there was a need to defend himself.D. and that the fire had been intentional. The victim did not exhibit any act or gesture that could show that he was out to inflict harm or injury. namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault. there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself.Bernabe) The elements of simple arson under Section 3(2) of P. J. limb or right is either actual or imminent. VINLUAN v. but the conflagration spread to the neighboring houses. 2013. That the appellant‘s act affected many families will not convert the crime to destructive arson. petitioners were properly found to have acted with evident bad faith in approving the "ghost" purchases. 2013. Reyes) . and (b) what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. J. JULY 31. No. J. WILSON ROMAN. Without unlawful aggression. unlawful aggression as a condition sine qua non must be present. since the appellant‘s act does not appear to be heinous or represents a greater degree of perversity and viciousness when compared to those acts punished under Article 320 of the RPC. The Information alleged that the appellant set fire to his own house. These allegations were established during trial through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which the trial and appellate courts found credible and convincing. Perez) The alleged self-defense has no leg to stand on. and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful. Having affixed their signatures on the disputed documents despite the glaring defects found therein. 191219. for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. (b) the attack or assault must be actual. There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one‘s life.R. (SPO1 RAMON LIHAYLIHAY AND C/INSP. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself. Perlas. including the government. JULY 31. or. NO. It is a statutory and doctrinal requirement that. Their participation in facilitating the payment of non-existent CCIE items resulted to a loss on the part of the government.R. 1613 are: (a) there is intentional burning. at least. unarmed. G.Petitioners were property convicted of the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 which has the following essential elements: (a) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative. The established evidence only showed that the appellant intended to burn his own house. ALAMADA MACABANDO. the Court held that mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession . Brion) In a catena of cases. the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. In this case. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. and through the report of the Bureau of Fire Protection which stated that damaged houses were residential. complete or incomplete. 188708. G. 196973. evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. imminent.R. The appellant likewise testified that his burnt two-story house was used as a residence.R.the onus probandi is shifted to the accused. J. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NO. the victim was only walking in the yard. VIRGILIO V. 2013. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon. 2013. G. the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression. unless the victim commits an unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. Accordingly. advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. RUPER POSING y ALAYON. or gave any private party unwarranted benefits. and that the fire spread to other inhabited houses. Both these elements have been proven in the present case. to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. JULY 31. (b) he must have acted with manifest partiality. JULY 31. Moreover. and (c) his action caused any undue injury to any party. 195117. the victim‘s testimony is the most important factor to prove that the felony has been committed. RYAN BLANCO Y SANGKULA. J. SANCHEZ v. APOLINARIO MANALILI y JOSE. as long as such testimony is credible. 201447. AUGUST 14. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. the Court ruled that they could not be held liable for the acts of their dishonest or negligent subordinates because they failed to personally examine each detail of a transaction before affixing their signatures in good faith. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. He is being held liable for gross and inexcusable negligence in performing the duties primarily vested in him by law. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. it can thus be deduced that rape is committed the moment the offender has sexual intercourse with a person suffering from mental retardation. Velasco Jr. AUGUST 14. 2013. G. 1(b) of the RPC.R. G. G. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO) Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy. petitioner is solely charged with violating Section 3(e) of R. 3019. six people comprising heads of offices and their subordinates were charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of R. NO. 2013. (HUR TIN YANG v. as the prosecution‘s single witness of the actual occurrence. NO. CJ Sereno) When both parties enter into an agreement knowing fully well that the return of the goods subject of the trust receipt is not possible even without any fault on the part of the trustee. The failure of petitioner to validate the ownership of the land on which the canal was to be built because of his unfounded belief that it was public land constitutes gross inexcusable negligence. 193661. G. 191253. As a corollary. or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. it is not a trust receipt transaction penalized under Sec. NO. resulting in undue injury to private complainant. and the crime usually commences solely upon the word of the offended woman herself and conviction invariably turns upon her credibility.R." From these requisites.) The non. AUGUST 28. Perez) Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. 2013." Since the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. AUGUST 14. as the only obligation actually agreed upon by the parties would be the return of the proceeds of the sale transaction. the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished. 13 of PD 115 in relation to Art. lnformants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and maintain their valuable service to the police. because it is not on all fours with his case. allowing. not generally attempted except in dark or deserted and secluded places away from the prying eyes. J. 315. The good faith of heads of offices in signing a document will only be appreciated if they.The Sandiganbayan correctly convicted the accused for violating Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. This transaction becomes a mere loan.A. In acquitting the two heads of offices. 3019. have relied on their subordinates in whom the duty is primarily lodged. 2013. In Arias.R. The accused therein allegedly conspired with one another in causing. "[C]arnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape. grounded as it is on the criminal case. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.. Perez) For the charge of rape to prosper. Petitioner cannot hide behind the Arias doctrine. and/or approving the illegal and irregular disbursement and expenditure of public funds. G. a conviction for rape may be made even on the testimony of the victim herself. A mental condition of retardation deprives the complainant of that natural instinct to resist a bestial assault on her chastity and womanhood. J. sexual intercourse with one who is intellectually weak to . with trust and confidence. i. In the present case. the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman. J.A. (2) through force or intimidation. ANASTACIO AMISTOSO Y BROCA.R. [T]he death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed.presentation of the confidential informant is not fatal to the prosecution. (ANTONIO B. 2013.R. par. NO. AUGUST 28. For this reason. NO. In fact. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.e. 187340. where the borrower is obligated to pay the bank the amount spent for the purchase of the goods. As already settled in our jurisprudence.R. In that regard. the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the defraudation. 2) he must have acted with manifest partiality. No. September 4. No. gift. Hence. the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim‘s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. The elements of corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code are: 1) that the offender makes offers or promises. No. the identity of the offender. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. while others may appear to yield to the intrusion. GILBERT REYES WAGAS. the Prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was Wagas who had defrauded Ligaray by issuing the check. he cannot be convicted of estafa. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. JOJIE SUANSING. G. 2013. G. BRION. if hypothetically admitted. J. the Prosecution must show that the person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted with his money or property were it not for the issuance of the check by the offender. despite non-delivery – an act or omission evidencing bad faith and manifest partiality. advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. In every criminal prosecution. whether dated or postdated. J. September 4. regulations and policies of the Commission on Audit and those mandated under the Local Government Code of 1991 (R. No. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. resistance is not an element of rape." Only the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim and the latter‘s mental retardation need to be proved. 7160) were knowingly sidestepped and ignored by the petitioner which enabled CKL Enterprises/Dela Cruz to successfully get full payment for the school desks and armchairs. September 2. 157943. and 3) that his action caused undue injury to any party. This means that the offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party by reason of the issuance of the check. would establish the essential elements of the crimes. including the government. like the crime itself. In rape.R. must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.] without requiring proof that the accused used force and intimidation in committing the act. 2013. 2013. 187268.R. or giving any private party unwarranted benefits. not all victims react the same way. A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her. J. Some people may cry out. J.A. some may be shocked into insensibility. No. As long as the force or intimidation is present. and 2) that the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents are given to a public officer under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery. 2013. In this case. G.R. G. 189822. certain established rules. CHRISTOPHER RIVERA Y ROYO. evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. In other words. some may faint.the extent that she is incapable of giving consent to the carnal act already constitutes rape[. 3019 are: 1) that the offender has family or close personal relation with a public official. or gives gifts or presents to a public officer. 2) that he capitalizes or exploits or takes advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present. (JOVITO C. Del Castillo) AAA‘s failure to shout or resist did not automatically mean voluntary submission to the act. Bersamin) To be held liable under Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. however.A. "AAA" positively identified appellant as her rapist. As correctly observed by the Sandiganbayan. The elements of the offense under Section 4(a) of R. material . the evidence presented by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the sexual congress between appellant and "AAA" and the latter‘s mental retardation. the following elements must concur: 1) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative. Mendoza) In order to constitute estafa under this statutory provision. Moreover. judicial or official functions. September 4. 200508. whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. PLAMERAS v. Perez) The allegations in the information in the two cases. No. to say the least. calculation. 2013. then offering none at all would not mean consent to the assault as to make the victim‘s participation in the sexual act voluntary. (HERMINIO T. No. At most. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. "TAGALOG".R.e. and (d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide– are. some may faint. (c) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC. the absence of abrasions or contusions in AAA‘s body is inconsequential.K. Intimidation includes the moral kind as the fear caused by threatening the girl with a knife or pistol. application. If resistance would nevertheless be futile because of continuing intimidation.R. there lies sufficient basis to suppose that the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended Tetet‘s killing in view of the undisputed fact that he was restrained by respondents and thereby. G. Under these circumstances. 3) that the public official with whom the offender has family or close personal relation has to intervene in the business transaction. application. Finally. No. it need but be present. Tetet‘s killing can neither be considered as parricide nor infanticide as the evidence is bereft of any indication that Tetet is related to Dangupon. (b) that the accused killed him. Anent the third element. the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance because it is not an element of rape. 2013. 2013. and so long as it brings about the desired result. not all victims react the same way. The failure of a rape victim to offer tenacious resistance does not make her submission to accused‘s criminal acts voluntary. 187731. circumstances show that the victim‘s abduction was with the purpose of raping her. SANDIGANBAYAN. as well as the telephone call made by the victim to his friend Reyes before the incident) do not constitute clear and positive evidence of outward acts showing a premeditation to kill. Del Castillo) Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim. to expect the victim to resist with all her might and strength. thereby rendering resistance futile. No.A. Dangupon himself admitted that he shot and killed Tetet. 200080. alleged pretense made by the appellant and cohorts that they were going to conduct a police operation regarding illegal drugs. all considerations of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. G. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.R. September 18. .R. September 11. Nos. or contract with the government. while others may appear to yield to the intrusion. 203068. Also. Thus. in all reasonable likelihood. "It must appear not only that the accused decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution but also that this decision was the result of meditation. In this case. No. So must it likewise be for intimidation which is addressed to the mind of the victim and is therefore subjective. MARVIN CAYANAN. Per Curiam) The Court found that the circumstances obtaining in this case (i. September 11. 169823-24 & G. J. Settled is the rule that when it is not shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out. G. AGUILAR v. after Cayanan dragged her into the tricycle. 197522. 174764-65.or pecuniary advantage from any person having some business. Bersamin) Records bear out facts and circumstances which show that the elements of murder – namely: (a) that a person was killed. present in Dangupon‘s case. even the OSG admitted that the lapse of time from the moment the victim was fetched until the shooting cannot be considered sufficient for appellant to reflect upon the consequences of his act. Reyes) It must be emphasized that force as an element of rape need not be irresistible. request or contract with the government. ET. G. J. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. some may be shocked into insensibility. transaction. with respect to the fourth element.R. J. RYAN FRIAS Y GALANG A." Notably. rendered defenseless. J. What is necessary is that the force employed against her was sufficient to consummate the purpose which he has in mind. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Hence. these circumstances are indicative only of conspiracy among the accused. evident premeditation cannot be considered. DISINI v. the rape absorbed the forcible abduction. Some people may cry out. (ELISEO V. G.R. reflection or persistent attempt. THE HON. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2013. it would be extremely unreasonable.. Reyes) In rape cases. AL. 2013. he took her to several places until they reached his sister‘s house where he raped her inside the bedroom. And where such intimidation exists and the victim is cowed into submission as a result thereof. SPO1 ALFREDO ALAWIG. September 18. September 18. As to the first and second elements. FIRST DIVISION. NOS. request. September 25. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. J. J. Indeed. nothing can be more sudden and unexpected than when petitioners Edwin and Alfredo attacked the victim. a private person may be held liable together with the public officer. the following elements must be proven: "1) the accused is a public officer. 191256. and (2) such act was accomplished through force or intimidation. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 2013. He had not means and there was no time for him to defend himself.195011-19. 2013. Thus. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. September 18. 201103. The latter did not have the slightest idea that he was going to be attacked because he was urinating and his back was turned from his assailants. as long as it brings about the desired result. 2) the public officer entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government. or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. J. GARY ALINAO. September 18. 2013. rape is committed when: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman. as amended. The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carryout the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. all considerations of whether it was more or less irresistible are beside the point. Physical resistance need not be established in rape cases when intimidation is exercised upon the victim who submits against her will because of fear for her life and personal safety.R. No. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v." However. Del Castillo) Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code. JIMMY CEDENIO y PERALTA.‘‖ (SINGIAN. G.R. G. c) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. 203315. G. thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor.R. G. J. No.R.Sufficient force does not mean great or is of such character that is irresistible. There is ample evidence to prove that appellant had carnal knowledge of the then minor victim through the use of force and intimidation. G. Perez) For one to be successfully prosecuted under Section 3(g) of RA 3019. Leonardo-De Castro) Under Article 266-A (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. September 25. CARLITO ESPENILLA. clearly had a previously and carefully crafted plan to kill his victim.R. G. and. 197813. as the same may be inferred from the collective conduct of the parties before. EDWIN IBANEZ Y ALBANTE AND ALFREDO (FREDDIE) NULLA Y IBANEZ. or when the victim is under 12 years of age.R. J. 2013. Accused-appellant. J. Treachery attended the killing of the victim because he was unarmed and the attack on him was swift and sudden. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. It has been a long standing opinion of this Court that proof of the conspiracy need not rest on direct evidence. Reyes) The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. JR. in razing Antonio Ardet‘s house in order to drive him out and shooting him the moment he appears at his front door. No. No. and 3) the contract or transaction was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. 2013. September 18. AND THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT.SANDIGANBAYAN (3RD DIVISION). during or after the commission of the crime indicating a common . Reyes) For evident premeditation to be appreciated. the prosecution‘s evidence established that Cedenio was able to forcibly have carnal knowledge of AAA after he poked her with a knife and threatened to kill her. JOEY BACATAN. September 30. No. the following elements must be proved: a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime. In this case. Nos. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. in consonance with the avowed policy of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which is ‗to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which may constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto. and (b) that the same was committed by using force and intimidation. 192253. 2013. "if there is an allegation of conspiracy. Leonardo-De Castro) The elements of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim. private persons may likewise be charged with violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 if they conspired with the public officer. v. b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination. there is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning a felony and decide to commit it. depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself. RAUL UDAL Y KAGUI. 2013. EDDIE KARIM Y USO. October 2. and threatening to kill her. No. NORA EVAD Y MULOK. First. contemplates two situations. (2) during the kidnapping. whether a man or a woman. 2013. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Rape by sexual assault. Abad) The Court found the accused guilty of two (2) counts of rape –rape by sexual intercourse and rape by sexual assault. TONY ABAO Y SULA. JAMAN MACALINBOL Y KATOL. October 2. reveal the common purpose of the accused-appellants and how they were all united in its execution from beginning to end. and (3) the accused appellants were those present when the ransom money was recovered and when the rescue operation was conducted. 2013. G. threat or intimidation on the female. G. J. location. THIAN PERPENIAN Y RAFON A. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. the act of one is the act of all the conspirators.understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. when taken together. Del Castillo) In cases of frustrated homicide. Reyes) . it may be committed by a person. And the intent to kill is often inferred from. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. J. it may be committed by a man who inserts his penis into the mouth or anal orifice of another person. 196051. Once conspiracy is shown.R. and (b) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim. 198400. Second. and number of wounds he inflicted on his victim. Perez) If what is charged in the information is rape through carnal knowledge but during the trial what is proved is the crime of sexual assault. nor the female‘s deprivation of reason or being otherwise unconscious.R. nor the employment on the female of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority is necessary to commit statutory rape. two of the accused-appellants kept coming back to the victim‘s house. October 7.R. 2013. since all the conspirators are principals. No. G. J.K. No. G. 201109.R.A LARINA PERPENIAN AND JOHN DOES. without violating the accused‘s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. October 1. accusedappellants changed shifts in guarding the victim. JOVI PORNILLOS y HALLARE. Leonardo-De Castro) The loss of 45% or nearly half of the original weight of shabu brought for forensic test due to a supposed weighing error by the forensic chemist implies tampering with the evidence. who inserts any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. the Court did not accept the same as evidence against the accused. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No. 202868. No. No. To be a conspirator. In this case. October 2. "The elements of statutory rape are that: (a) the victim is a female under 12 years or is demented. it is proper to convict the accused of acts of lasciviousness or abusos dishonestos as it is necessarily included in rape. MONETTE RONAS Y AMPIL. J. JADE CUAYCONG y REMONQUILLO. J. The prosecution has to prove this clearly and convincingly to exclude every possible doubt regarding homicidal intent. The testimonies. 2013. This Court agrees with the trial and the appellate courts that the crime of rape by sexual assault was committed against Ana when a man‘s sex organ was forcibly inserted into her mouth after poking a gun at her head and punching her. HALIL GAMBAO Y ESMAIL. Leonardo-De Castro) Rape of a minor under 12 years of age is statutory rape." (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. The crime of rape by sexual intercourse was committed against Ana when a man had carnal knowledge of her after delivering fist blows on her stomach. among other things. hence. There were testimonies proving that (1) before the incident. whether a man or a woman. (FE ABELLA y PERPETUA v. It would have been different if only a small amount thereof was lost and a reasonable explanation is offered therefore.R. RODOLFO DE JESUS y MENDOZA. 172707. G. the accused cannot be found guilty thereof (rape by sexual assault although it was proven). one need not participate in every detail of the execution. on the other hand. 2013. 190622. G. THENG DILANGALEN Y NANDING. the means the offender used and the nature. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary. EDWIN DUKILMAN Y SUBOH. J.R. pointing a gun at her. he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. the main element is the accused‘s intent to take his victim‘s life. October 7. whether a man or a woman. [N]either the use of force. under any of the attendant circumstances mentioned in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. MICHAEL ESPERA y CUYACOT. Rape by sexual intercourse is a crime committed by a man against a woman. The prosecution likewise miserably failed to establish ―AAA‘s‖ relationship with the appellant.R. Being in the nature of a qualifying circumstance.pointed bolo locally known as sundang in consummating the salacious act. ―AAA‘‖ referred to appellant as her step-father. appellant used a sharp. the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression. No. as amended. and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful. such as pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was holstered. accompanied by an angry countenance. considering that the women were able to cry for help before the rapid firing that silenced them. or. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Accordingly. RAMON PLACER. or like aiming to throw a pot. self-defense is not a defense. Reyes) There can be no self-defense.The accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape for failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. Upon closer scrutiny. October 09. It has been established by the prosecution. In the case at bar. G. imminent. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon. The same is true with respect to the other qualifying circumstance of relationship. at least one (1) of the aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. MARCIANO CIAL y LORENA. J. compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that follows such operation. 2013. G. having been rudely awakened by the shooting of their companion. PAULINO LUAGUE AND WILFREDO TOLEDO. must be alleged in the Information and duly proved during the trial. To be precise. JR. 181753. nor must it be merely imaginary. 2013. 202842. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v." he must be legally married to "AAA's" mother.R. RICARDO DEARO. 2013. it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude. it was noted that the Certificate of Live Birth of the victim was never presented or offered during the trial of the case. namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault. Although the Information alleged that appellant is the common-law husband of ―AAA‘s‖ mother. at least. The fact that they shouted for help also showed their loss of hope in the face of what was coming – rapid gunfire from long firearms.R. 190862. Del Castillo) The Court found the accused guilty of murder by appreciating the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. that the victims were sleeping when they were shot. if no unlawful aggression from the victim is established. an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. and even confirmed by the defense. In any case. No. No. it was Emeterio who was asleep when he was shot. For appellant to be a step-father to "AAA. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself. it was clear that the women were in no position to defend themselves. The terms "common-law husband" and "step-father" have different legal connotations. but must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). No." As in all drugs cases. October 9. and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. 2013. The rule is imperative. sanctioned by law. CJ. October 09. unlawful aggression is a primordial element. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. and cannot be treated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance which affects only the period of the penalty. as it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very . 191362. This circumstance was alleged in the Information and duly proved during trial. Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim. If no unlawful aggression attributable to the victim is established. J. Bersamin) "A buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure. a condition sine qua non. G. J. (b) the attack or assault must be actual. FLORENTINO GALAGAR. In self-defense. because there would then be nothing to repel on the part of the accused. whether complete or incomplete. the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Sereno) For one (1) to be convicted of qualified rape.R. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. October 9. G. "use of a deadly weapon" increases the penalties by degrees. Suffice it to state that qualifying circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt just like the crime itself. G. 2013. conspiracy is evident. unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers. limb. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. (NARCISO DEGAÑOS v. and all the 31 perpetrators will be liable as principals. This is a condition sine qua non for conviction since drugs are the main subject of the illegal sale constituting the crime and their existence and identification must be proven for the crime to exist. The novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the filing of the criminal information in court by the state prosecutors because up to that time the original trust relation may be converted by the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor situation. the other proven circumstance of evident premeditation should be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Without it. 162826. Reyes) Since the crime has already been qualified to murder by the attendant circumstance of treachery. October 09. 2013. October 16. J. to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v." The flagrant lapses committed in handling the alleged confiscated drug in violation of the chain of custody requirement even effectively negate the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers‘ duties.R. 200053. the offended party may no longer divest the prosecution of its power to exact the criminal liability.same substance offered in court as exhibit. The crime being an offense against the state. GARYZALDY GUZON. Not being included in the list. "There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent danger the life. JOEY JOSE y MATUSALEM ARNOLD MACAMUS alias KYAM or DIKIAM. Bulauitan‘s overt acts indicate no less than his concurrence with Mangahas‘ design to deprive Editha of her liberty for the purpose of extorting ransom. and. 199901. 2013. is not an efficient defense in estafa. No. HADJI SOCOR CADIDIA. credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. No. hence evident premeditation is duly proved. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. In drugs cases. 2013. there can be no self-defense. No.R. G. No. that can validly be invoked. whether complete or incomplete. Perez) Novation is not a ground under the law to extinguish criminal liability. October 23. The existence of conspiracy and Bulauitan‘s participation therein were evident. J. Stated otherwise. 2013. is indicative of cool thought and reflection on their part that they clung to their determination to commit the crime. Article 89 (on total extinguishment) and Article 94 (on partial extinguishment) of the Revised Penal Code list down the various grounds for the extinguishment of criminal liability. ALDRIN M. as distinguished from the civil. October 14. Perez) Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose. "Proof of the corpus delicti in a buy-bust situation requires not only the actual existence of the transacted drugs but also the certainty that the drugs examined and presented in court were the very ones seized. and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. JOEL BULAUITAN y MACAMUS. as any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable. GALICIA. or right of the person invoking self-defense. This is crucial in drugs cases because the evidence involved – the seized chemical – is not readily identifiable by sight or touch and can easily be tampered with or substituted. it was clearly shown that the two accused who were "riding in tandem" hatched the means on how to carry out and facilitate the commission of the crime. G. the prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a . only the latter can renounce it. J. J. JOEL BULAUITAN MACAMUS and JOHN DOES. The time that had elapsed while the accused were waiting for their victim to pass by. October 9. FORTUNATO MANGAHAS alias NATO SANDIQUE. In this case. novation is limited in its effect only to the civil aspect of the liability. G. he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Reyes) Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. ALFREDO JOSE y LAGUA alias JOJO. J. 191063. GR. 191263. But after the justice authorities have taken cognizance of the crime and instituted action in court. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. for that reason. Bersamin) In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. No. thereby placing the complainant in estoppel to insist on the original trust. J. ANTERO GAMEZ y BALTAZAR. The prosecution also failed to prove that Dr. The aggression initially staged by Apolinario was not of the continuous kind as it was no longer present when the accused-appellant injured Apolinario. Leonardo-De Castro) Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 requires the prosecution to prove that the appointments of Dr. G." The Court has always interpreted "undue injury" as "actual damage. J. October 23. it must be actually proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. the majority assumed that the payment to Dr. it does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense. It must be proved as one of the elements of the crime. No. otherwise. personally or otherwise. as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. (2) such possession is not authorized by law. the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him. 2013. the defender no longer has any justification to kill or wound the original aggressor. do not render the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence or automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody of the said drugs. It must be continuous. Posadas of P30 000. Leonardo. RICARDO M." It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one‘s life. that the P247 500. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. as well as to mark the sachets at the place of arrest. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Leonardo-De Castro) If the victim of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is a minor. Sandiganbayan that the element of undue injury cannot be presumed even after the supposed wrong has been established. G. (2) such delivery is not authorized by law." What is more. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.De Castro) The Court further finds that the arresting officers had substantially complied with the rule on the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs as provided under Section 21 of Republic Act No. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. November 27. in an incestuous rape of a minor. the failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory and to photograph the sachets of shabu. however. it must be proven that (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another. ALLAN NIEGAS Y FALLORE.weapon. MICHAEL MAONGCO y YUMONDA and PHANS BANDALI y SIMPAL. October 23. The Court held in Llorente v. 2013. 2013. Here.R. Worthy of note is that the delivery may be committed even without consideration. No. 2013. October 23.00 monthly as TMC Project Director caused actual injury to the Government. Jurisprudence has decreed that. if the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom. the duration of his detention is immaterial. Posadas caused "undue injury" to the government or gave him "unwarranted benefits. 202847. 199210. 194582. 2013. the father‘s abuse of the moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter can subjugate the latter‘s will thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants. the following essential elements must be proven. R. such "actual damage" must not only be capable of proof. the duration of his detention is immaterial. November 27. Reyes) As for the illegal delivery of dangerous drugs. and (3) the accused freely and consciously possess the said drug. the accusedappellant. When unlawful aggression ceases. namely: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug.R. Likewise. J. Here. The honoraria he received cannot . and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. J. miserably failed to discharge his burden of proving that unlawful aggression justifying selfdefense was present when he killed Apolinario. No. and by any means. No. The record shows. Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. ASIR GANI y ALIH and NORMINA GANI y GALOS. A finding of "undue injury" cannot be based on flimsy and non-substantial evidence or upon speculation.00 payment to him that the COA Resident Auditor disallowed was deducted from his terminal leave benefits. G. 9165. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIDAÑA. while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused.R. No.R. 198318. actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice. conjecture. J. The assailant is no longer acting in self-defense but in retaliation against the original aggressor. In other words. In retaliation. For the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs to prosper. 196966. Leonardo-De Castro) In incestuous rape cases. Posadas "unwarranted advantage" as a result of the appointments in question. Dayco gave Dr. G. G. in dangerous drugs cases. or guesswork. and manner of testifying of witnesses. Nos. The means employed by the perpetrators show that it was employed to discount any possibility of retaliation or escape. namely: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. namely: (a) the employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. Furthermore. Thereafter. 2013. 2013. G. The perpetrators waited for the victims‘ van in ambush. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. depriving the latter of any real chance to defend themselves. facial expression. and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims. ROLANDO P. in order for a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal. November 27. J.R. JAVIER CAÑAVERAS. Likewise." Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist. or where the sudden attack is not preconceived and deliberately adopted. the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible. G. and the consideration. it is axiomatic that when it comes to evaluating the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 203433. so humiliating and painful that they might be trying to obliterate it from their memory. 190318. November 27. and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.R. November 27. 168951 & 169000. Lastly. Even the choice of weapon. CJ Sereno) The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims. thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor. J. appellant‘s allegation that AAA did not "tenaciously" resist his sexual advances cannot be given credence. a car blocked the van‘s path and the perpetrators started shooting at the van and its passengers. great respect is accorded to the findings of the trial judge who is in a better position to observe the demeanor.R. Abad) It is settled in jurisprudence that in a prosecution for rape. 201445.R. J. or when the killing is done at the spur of the moment. The first query of Claro was regarded as innocent enough and was given no attention. FAISAL LOKS y PELONYO. the two essential elements of the offense must concur. ROBERTO VELASCO. thus. G. In this case. POSADAS and DR. 2013. 2013. a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party. Reyes) The Court reiterated that rape victims are not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident. November 27. 2013. Leonardo-De Castro) The Court had occasion to rule that treachery is not present when the killing is not premeditated. The established facts easily demonstrate the existence of treachery in this case. (DR.R. No. and (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted.be considered "unwarranted" since there is no evidence that he did not discharge the additional responsibilities that such appointments entailed. It was the second query that was considered impertinent. DAYCO v. with Maglente standing at the corner with his gun drawn. 193839. ROGER R. No." G. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. and to decide who among them is telling the truth. All these elements have been established in this case. it must establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged since the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished. Reyes) In People v. November 27. convincing. and that such means or method was deliberately employed. No. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. the object. The witnesses for the prosecution clearly showed that the sale of the drugs actually happened and that the shabu subject of the sale was brought and identified in court. No. the Court emphasized that in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. G. HERMENIGILDO MAGLENTE y MEDINA alias "JUN MAGLENTE" and ROLANDO VELASQUEZ y GUEVARRA alias "RANDY. a beer bottle readily available and within grabbing range at the table as appellant followed outside. J. The victim‘s testimony will bear out that she did exert efforts to refuse appellant‘s carnal desires by slapping the accused. let alone impaired. by minor inconsistencies in her testimony. Seraspe." DAN MAGSIPOC CANCELER and PABLO INEZ alias "KA JAY. shows that the intent to harm came about spontaneously. kicking him and trying to create noise but she was physically overpowered and intimidated by the threat of mortal harm posed by appellant‘s knife as well as debilitated . but is just triggered by a sudden infuriation on the part of the accused as a result of a provocative act of the victim. and witnesses testified that appellant and his companions went after Claro immediately after it was uttered. there was no time for appellant and his companions to plan and agree to deliberately adopt a particular means to kill Claro. R. while AAA‘s mother. ZAYCO. November 25. there is nothing on record to prove the qualifying circumstance that "the victim is a child below 7 years old. ROLANDO P. SALVADOR ESCUDERO III VICENTE B. No. JOSE R. G. Brion) Well-settled is the rule that qualifying circumstances must be specifically alleged in the Information and duly proven with equal certainty as the crime itself. NATALIO HILARION y LALIAG.. No. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. People react differently when confronted with a shocking or startling situation. (ROLANDO P. ROLANDO P. hence the victim's age must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself. his substantial right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him would be nullified otherwise. 201105. J. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JR.. and VICENTE B. JR. Leonardo-De Castro) Failure of "AAA" to shout for help should not be taken against her.. November 25. baptismal certificate. fight back. No. Some may show aggressive resistance while others may opt to remain passive.R. G.R. Nos. as implied by the defense. 2013. JR.. to show that the commission of the crime was attended by the subject qualifying circumstance of minority. JR." The testimony of AAA anent her age and the absence of denial on the part of Garcia are not sufficient evidence of her age.. JONAS GUILLEN y ATIENZA. J. To reiterate. it had not been previously established that the certificate of live birth or other similar authentic document such as the baptismal certificate or school records have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable. COJUANGCO. The victim‘s minority must be proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself. That portion of the general fund was not considered appropriated since it had not been earmarked by law or ordinance for a specific expenditure. ROBERTO GARCIA y PADIERNOS G. Nevertheless. 191756. 2013. or as voluntarily engaging in an illicit relationship with the appellant. 166487-88. In this case. Pruna we concur with the CA s conclusion that he could not be properly found guilty of qualified rape. we have in the past held that failure of a rape victim to shout. Here. No. November 19. V ALDEPENAS.by illness. 2013. 166305-06. 206095. FIRST DIVISION and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Del Castillo) In the absence of proof of AAA s minority in accordance with the guidelines set in People v. Even AAA‘s own testimony on cross examination that she was six (6) years old at the time of the incident would not suffice to prove her minority since her age was not expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. ELEAZAR. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Nos. G.R. DE LA CUESTA. G. FELIX V.R. It bears stressing that the prosecution did not adduce any independent and competent documentary evidence such as AAA‘s original or duly certified birth certificate. HERMINIGILDO**C. DE LA CUESTA and THE HON. SALVADOR ESCUDERO III. HERMENEGILDO C. The failure of "AAA" to shout for help and seek assistance should not be construed as consent. November 27.R. Abad) . SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION). the crime committed by Garcia is Simple Rape by Sexual Assault. BBB. 2013. THE SANDIGANBAYAN and EDUARDO M. THE SANDIGANBAYAN. 164068-69.R. V ALDEPENAS. EDUARDO M. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him. We stress that age is an essential element of statutory rape. DE LA CUESTA v. or escape from the scoundrel is not tantamount to consent or approval because the law imposes no obligation to exhibit defiance or present proof of struggle. November 25. JR. Indeed." intended by internal arrangement for use in paving a particular road but applied instead to the payrolls of different barangay workers in the municipality. It would be recalled that appellant poked a knife at "AAA‘s" neck. 199494. J. COJUANGCO JR. Nos. ZAYCO.. In the absence of any qualifying circumstance. there is no allegation in the information that the P2 million and P6 million grants to COCOFED had been earmarked for some specific expenditures. G. school records or any authentic documents indicating her date of birth. J. 2013) The element in the crime of technical malversation that public fund be appropriated for a public use requires an earmarking of the fund or property for a specific project. For instance there is no earmarking if money was part of the municipality‘s "general fund. testified that her daughter was six (6) years old at the time of the rape. DUENAS. Such threat of immediate danger to her life cowed "AAA" to submit to the carnal desires of the appellant. WELMO LINSIE y BINEVIDEZ. this Court has consistently explained that there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons. BASILIO VILLARMEA y ECHAVEZ. November 11.R. 176269. G. November 13. We generally defer to the trial court‘s assessment of the evidence as it had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses. employing means. 2013. November 13. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Villarama. and (c) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment made. methods or forms in the execution thereof. 2013. J.R. J. where the accused had never been vested physical access to. J. and their credibility on the witness stand. 181473. affording the hapless." (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. after the prosecution has successfully established a prima facie case. murder is committed by any person who. done swiftly and unexpectedly. the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused. Jr. imposition of the penalty for qualified theft. November 13. This admission makes the sweetheart theory more difficult to defend. methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution. Leonardo-De Castro) In a charge of illegal sale of shabu. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 200029.R. (b) the identity of the object and the consideration of the sale. J. employing means.R. 2013. Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operations." People v. FELIPE. No. November 13. Mendoza) Sexual assault is committed by inserting his penis into another person‘s mouth or anal orifice. or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. 2013. or the narrower "homosexual rape.R. G. KENNETH MONCEDA y SY alias "WILLIAM SY" and YU YUK LAI alias "SZE YK LAI. it leaves the prosecution the burden to prove only force or intimidation. it may not be said that he or she exploited such access or material possession thereby committing such grave abuse of confidence in taking the property. also "gender-free rape". coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. hence. No. 192941. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. 2013. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. who has to adduce evidence that the intercourse was consensual. Del Castillo) There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person. Effectively. the first element of rape. and the presentation in court of what was sold as evidence of the corpus delicti. November 11. G. In People v. J. we stated that the essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning. however.‖ . DONEY GADUYON y TAPISPISAN. In other words. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 2013. Leonardo-De Castro) To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu. the object of the sale and the consideration.) The sweetheart theory as a defense. the following essential elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. PURIFICACION F. the coupling element of rape."G. 205180.R. the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller. 193190. In a litany of cases. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.26 What assumes primary importance is the proof clearly showing that an illegal transaction actually took place. J. their demeanor. 199067. G. It is also called "instrument or object rape". November 11. DANIEL ALCOBER. (RYAN VIRAY v. No. G.R. the stolen goods. there must be an allegation in the information and proof that there existed between the offended party and the accused such high degree of confidence or that the stolen goods have been entrusted to the custody or vigilance of the accused. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. No. not falling within the provisions of Article 246. Nicolas adds that "[w]hat is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. 2013. (NISSAN GALLERY-ORTIGAS v. J. MARILYN SANTOS and ARLENE VALERA. No. shall kill another with any of the enumerated qualifying circumstances – including treachery and conspiracy. Brion) To warrant the conviction and. No. necessarily admits carnal knowledge. Barde. NO. or material possession of. for it is not only an affirmative defense that needs convincing proof. G. Velasco) The acquittal of the accused from the criminal charge of BP 22 was based on reasonable doubt does not relieve her of the corresponding civil liability. under Section 5. 198113.A.A. 192183. "Bogarts. December 11. malice is o longer presumed and the prosecution has the burden of providing that Munoz acted with malice in fact. without any provocation or prior argument. deliberate. G. (GEORGE ANTIQUERA y CODES v. No. Consequently. Here. the subject matter of the libelous remarks was of public interest. the following elements must concur: "(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object. 2013. ANDY ZULIETA a.A. He was merely sitting on the bench in front of a sari-sari store eating bananas when appellant. But the circumstances here do not make out a case of arrest made in flagrante delicto. J. J. 9165 is a matter of substantive law. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPINES v.R.R. the victim Labando was totally unaware of the threat. 2013. J.A. the Court has no choice but to acquit the accused. No. No. despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.a. 2013. swift and sudden which foreclosed any escape.R. [V]arious drug paraphernalia that the police officers allegedly found in the house and seized are inadmissible. On the other hand. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. This is a classic example of treachery. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. the following elements must be proved: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. Since the confiscated drug paraphernalia is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged. The legal conclusion was arrived at from the fact that Co is a public figure. which is identified as a prohibited drug. Del Castillo) Non-compliance with the procedural safeguards provided in Sec. which cannot be simply brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. unarmed. unexpected. Article II of RA 9165. G. G.R. December 11. "[T]he law covers not only a situation in which a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child. resistance or defense coming from the victim. affording the hapless. DECEMBER 11. 7610 since AAA is not a child engaged in prostitution is plainly without merit. having proceeded from an invalid search and seizure. The very title of Section 5. J. the buybust team did not bother to show that they "intended to comply with the procedure but where thwarted by some justifiable reason or consideration. piercing the right ventricle of his heart thus causing his instantaneous death. in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11. 205413." Otherwise stated. 7610 shows that it applies not only to a child subjected to prostitution but also to a child subjected to other sexual abuse. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. November 11. JAY MONTEVIRGEN y OZARAGA." G. and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. BRION) In every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu. No. engages in any lascivious conduct. and the context of Munoz‘ statements were fair comments. x x x What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti" or the illicit drug in evidence. DECEMBER 2. No. 9165 and its IRR would not necessarily void the seizure and custody of the dangerous drugs for as long as there is a justifiable ground for it and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. and unexpected manner. Article III of R. and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift. (2) such possession is not authorized by law. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 21 of R.R." Accordingly. 180661. 198389. The stabbing was deliberate. the Court stressed that the step-by-step procedure outlined under R. (VIVENCIO ROALLOS y TRILLANES v. Article II of the same law. ABAD) The valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right as well to search the living room for objects relating to the crime and thus seize the paraphernalia they found there. however. suddenly stabbed him on his chest. In this case. 2013. Reyes) . J. G. December 11. 2013. ABAD) Roallos‘ assertion that he is not liable for sexual abuse under Section 5(b). FERDINAND BAUTISTA y SINAON. ROGELIO MANICAT y DE GUZMAN. 2013.k. No. an unexpected and sudden attack which renders the victim unable and unprepared to put up a defense is the essence of treachery. through coercion or intimidation. 189840. the object and the consideration. NO. J. G. No. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Article III (Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse) of R.R. Del Castillo) There is no libel in this case because the remarks are privileged. A child is deemed subjected to "other sexual abuse" when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. In failing to remit to Ingan the money paid by LACS. The Court emphasized that what is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. December 11. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Leonardo-De Castro) Pursuant to Article 266-B(1)of the Revised Penal Code.e. (3) the taking was done without the consent of the owner. to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against person. v.R. G. December 11. December 11. (4) the taking was done with intent to gain. as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. G. No. G. Reyes) The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim‘s liberty. (2) the said property belongs to another. G. as sales clerk/agent of PCS. a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. and drug-testing of the apprehended persons. if the victim is a minor. Ransom is the money.The elements of qualified theft punishable under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the RPC are as follows: (1) there was a taking of personal property. Nevertheless. 2013. LeonardoDe Castro) AAA’s narration disclosed that she was not able to successfully resist appellant because she was simply overpowered by fear and by the physical force employed against her. or vigilance. or the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom. 2013. The arrest of an accused will not be invalidated and the items seized from him rendered inadmissible on the sole ground of non-compliance with Sec. guardianship. which the prosecution has satisfactorily established. it matters not whether AAA strongly resisted appellant’s unwanted purpose for it is jurisprudentially settled that physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is brought to bear on the victim and the latter submits out of fear –the failure to shout or offer tenuous resistance does not make voluntary the victim’s submission to the criminal acts of the accused. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. The element of grave abuse of confidence is present in this case. G. ERLINDA MALI y QUIMNO. DALTON LAURIAN.R. Furthermore.R. Reyes) What determines if there was. No. 199868. the object. Article II of RA 9165. Grave abuse of confidence. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 205442. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. The prosecution satisfactorily proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and presented in court the evidence of corpus delicti. Moreover. the petitioner. No. ROSELITO TACULOD y ELLE. we have previously held that force or violence required in rape cases is relative –it does not need to be overpowering or irresistible and it is present when it allows the offender to consummate his purpose. and the consideration.R. All the elements of the crime were established in this case. or force upon things. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 198108. No. J. Verily. i. as an element of the felony of qualified theft. 2013. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. JONATHAN CON-UI and RAMIL MACA. and (6) the taking was done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC. As these circumstances raise the penalty of the crime to death. with grave abuse of confidence. 206738. price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person that will release him from captivity. December 11. as amended. between the appellant and the offended party that might create a high degree of confidence between them which the appellant abused. the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must concur. 21. photographing. Intent to gain oranimus lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. JR.R. the petitioner indubitably gravely abused the confidence reposed on her by PCS. . The courts a quo correctly rejected the accused-appellant‘s contention that the chain of custody rule was not fulfilled. y PUGSOT. indeed. J. must be the result of the relation by reason of dependence. (DELIA INES RINGOR v. coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect the same. 198904. December 11. She would not have been able to take the money paid by LACS if it were not for her position in PCS. 2013. J. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain. 2013. is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation.. No. is duty-bound to remit to Ingan the payments which she collected from the customers of PCS. the duration of his detention becomes inconsequential. J. Reyes) Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody. J. (2) knowledge of the maker. drawer or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment. the prosecution must establish the confluence of the following requisites:(a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime. ordered the bank to stop payment. otherwise. G. and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. Leonardo-De Castro) AAA‘s conduct.. Victims of a crime as heinous as rape. 22 are the following: (1) making. parties stipulated that accused-appellant is the father of AAA and that AAA is only eight years old at the time the crime was committed. December 11. J. especially from a young victim. 2013. G. .P. or dishonor of the check for the same reason had not the drawer.. mere presumptions and inferences. G. The prosecution‘s evidence herein pertained merely to the actual commission by Sabangan of the crime.R. the circumstance must not merely be premeditation. GERRY SABANGAN. No. Leonardo-De Castro) The elements of a violation of B. No. cannot be expected to act within reason or in accordance with society‘s expectations. he must have already commenced the act of inserting his sexual organ in the vagina of BBB. Moreover. (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination. the intent to lie with the woman is the fundamental difference between the two. J. like other circumstances that would qualify a killing as murder. both must be specifically alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial with equal certainty as the crime itself. It is unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an irrational experience.e. 202122. as it is present in rape or attempt of it. and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit. he wasn‘t able to even slightly penetrate BBB as he still had his pants on. for Banzuela to be convicted of the crime of attempted rape. Thus. 191722. will not suffice. i. 200515. without any valid cause. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction. et al. Without such evidence. 2014. and that there was sufficient interval of time between his determination and execution which allowed Sabangan to reflect upon the consequences of his act. December 11. No. J.R. must be established by clear and positive evidence showing the planning and the preparation stages prior to the killing. 202060. It did not submit any proof that Sabangan. December 11.e. For these circumstances to be appreciated. 2013. but due to some cause or accident. acting like nothing happened. at some prior time. before the interruption. no matter how logical and probable. excluding his own spontaneous desistance. 2013. There seems to be no dispute as to the relationship of AAA and accused-appellant and as to the minority of AAA. that Sabangan performed an act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination to kill Felonia. LINO PALDO. "Attempted rape is committed when the ‗touching‘ of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. after being sexually abused by Pareja is also not enough to discredit her. FERDINAND BANZUELA. No. as even a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape." The gauge in determining whether the crime of attempted rape had been committed is the commencement of the act of sexual intercourse.R. J. it must be "evident premeditation. i. there can only be acts of lasciviousness.. During the pre-trial conference. drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or for value. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. January 15. determined to kill Felonia. A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape. it is wrong to say that there is a standard reaction or behavior among victims of the crime of rape since each of them had to cope with different circumstances. Leonardo-De Castro) Rape and acts of lasciviousness are crimes of the same nature. However." To warrant a finding of evident premeditation. and absent in acts of lasciviousness. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. BERNABE PAREJA y CRUZ. penetration of the penis into the vagina.great caution must be exercised in their evaluation. Evident premeditation. Leonardo-De Castro) In order to be appreciated. JR. 161308. January 15. The last includes a valid warrantless arrest. (NARI K.R. ROEL VERGARA y CLAVERO. Leonardo-de Castro) Judicial notice can be taken that when the tricycle driver is seated on the motorcycle. HON. 2014. it is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit. G. (2) seizure in plain view. (3) customs searches. at the time private respondent presented the September and October 1997 checks for encashment. it is within the court‘s discretion. No. MANGROBANG. 2014.J. Leonardo-de Castro) In rape cases.R. methods. and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person. Leonardo-De Castro) The Court ruled that non-identification and non-presentation of the weapon actually used in the killing did not diminish the merit of the conviction primarily because other competent evidence and the testimonies of witnesses had directly and positively identified and incriminated accused as the assailant of victim. DONALD VASQUEZ y SANDIGAN. No. J.R.R. y ORIEL v. Bersamin) Clearly. J. 195064. January 15. and forms of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. JOEL AQUINO y CENDANA. Hence. 200304. No. When a contract is subject to a suspensive condition. 2004. GIDWANI v. the Court ruled that the accused was caught in flagrante delicto and had reiterated that warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in instances of (1) search of moving vehicles. the evidence of the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug itself. and search incidental to a lawful arrest. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. its birth takes place or its effectivity commences only if and when the event that constitutes the condition happens or is fulfilled. where the victim was only a child and was able to narrate how the accused had been raping her since 2003 and describe in great detail the last rape that occurred on September 12. January 15. No. J. the court is authorized to issue a TPO on the date of the filing of the application after ex parte determination that there is basis for the issuance thereof. G.R. G. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 2014. No. CESAR A. G. 2014. 9165 performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that any doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. Sereno) It is well-settled that in the prosecution of cases involving the illegal sale or illegal possession of dangerous drugs. J. Ex parte means that the respondent need not be notified or be present in the hearing for the issuance of the TPO. 201092. more so if she is a minor. (RICARDO MEDINA. 2014. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. says that she has been raped. while as a rule. January 15.R. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Presiding Judge. G. J. because when a woman. the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrest. to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto. 170701. 2014. Thus. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TUA v. No. there was no way for Jesus to even be forewarned of the intended stabbing of his body both from the people seated in the side car and those seated behind him. (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit.The SEC Order also created a suspensive condition. 199226. based on the petition and the affidavit attached thereto. Thus. methods. to determine that the violent acts against women and their children for the issuance of a TPO have been committed. January 15. (4) waiver or consented searches. C. for. No. PERALTA) . and such means. the trial court‘s finding of treachery should be affirmed. 203028. (RALPH P. (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search). it had no right to do so. There is treachery when the means. What is decisive in an appreciation of treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself. and the chain of custody requirement under R. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. must be independently established beyond reasonable doubt. every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established. Thus. G. January 22. as there was yet no obligation due from petitioner. 2014. J. his head is usually higher or at the level of the roof of the side car which leaves his torso exposed to the passengers who are seated in the side car. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.A. Reyes) Where the accused is charged of illegal possession of prohibited drugs and now questioning the legality of his arrest as the same was done without a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest. G. Branch 22. Regional Trial Court.R. an arrest is considered legitimate [if] effected with a valid warrant of arrest. Imus. and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. No. Cavite. January 15. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Thus. JOSELITO BERAN y ZAPANTA. The assent of the minds may be and. as amended‘. it need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. Erwin and David were just passing by the petitioners' compound on the night of November 8. 188653. or any instrument or object. "[T]he gravamen of the crime of rape by sexual assault x x x is the insertion of the penis into another person‘s mouth or anal orifice. Leonardo-De Castro) The Court ruled that the "uncertainty"(with respect to the object inserted) is so inconsequential and does not diminish the fact that an instrument or object was inserted into the victim‘s private parts. 189833. clearly show that the petitioners did not act in self-defense in killing David and wounding Erwin." In any event. 2014. 4180. 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 at the end of criminal proceedings.R. EDDIE MALOGSI (deceased) and ALFEMIO MALOGSI. G. No. J. when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered. J. in fact.R. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. the real aggressors. he must so state in the form of objection. JOEL CRISOSTOMO y MALLIAR.R. 2014. No. January 22. that [appellant is] not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. ANTONIO SULINDAO. No. G. 2014. As the prosecution fully established. No. No. coupled with the nature and number of wounds sustained by the victims. The manner by which the wooden gate post was broken coincided with Erwin's testimony that his brother David. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. J. the accused must necessarily be acquitted. Brion) It must be emphasized. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. The petitioners were. 9346 which states that ‗persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua. 2014. Perez) The justifying circumstance of self-defense cannot be appreciated for failure on the part of the accused to establish unlawful aggression. MARCELINO DADAO. . 170462. Perez) The Court ruled that any objection with regard to the evidence offered and/or chain of custody cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. This is the essence of rape by sexual assault. or whose sentence will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of this Act.R. Del Castillo) In cases of seizures of prohibited drugs. 2014. The attack actually took place outside. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. it cannot serve to qualify or aggravate the felony at issue since it is jurisprudentially settled that when the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery. G. January 29. the former is absorbed in the latter. JOSELITO MORATE Y TARNATE. January 29. "inconsistencies in a rape victim‘s testimony do not impair her credibility. however. 201156. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. January 29. "planting. G. J. G. JAVIER MORILLA Y AVELLANO. indicate that they are parts of some complete whole. taken together.R. No. was dragged into the petitioners' compound. February 5. 2014. The Court ruled on the contrary stating that in conspiracy." or contamination of evidence. 2000 when David was suddenly attacked by Joey while Erwin was attacked by Rodolfo. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. obviating switching. from the secrecy of the crime. J. as evidenced by the way the petitioners' gate was destroyed. J. G. 196435. especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape. February 5. where the police had conflicting testimonies and lack of evidence leading to a reasonable conclusion that no markings were actually made on the seized items.R. (LITO LOPEZ v. into another person‘s genital or anal orifice. shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. who was then clinging onto the gate. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Leonardo–De Castro) The accused contends that the mere act of driving the ambulance on the date he was apprehended is not sufficient to prove that he was part of a syndicated group involved in the illegal transportation of dangerous drugs. 201860.The Court ruled that even if abuse of superior strength was properly alleged and proven in court. otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law. not inside. It is vital that the seized contraband is immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. the petitioners' compound. usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which. These circumstances. (RODOLFO GUEVARRA AND JOEY GUEVARRA v. Perez) In the case at bar. 195525. Leonardo-De Castro) To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. In the case at bar.R. No. the Supreme Court ruled that a rape victim‘s pregnancy and resultant childbirth are irrelevant in determining whether or not she was raped. February 5. G. nor the high risk of being caught. J. VICENTE ROM. J. the following essential elements must be duly established: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller. G. What is important and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latter‘s will or without her consent. 89 of the Revised Penal Code. ABANDO. Del Castillo) Sec. 2014. MERVIN GAHI G. Del Castillo) The Court ruled against the petitioners and stated that the burden of demonstrating political motivation must be discharged by the defense. and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful manner. 199268. ET AL. G.(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. No. 179031. the assertion of the accused that a rapist. No. The lust of a lecherous man respects neither time nor place. under normal circumstances. OCAMPO v. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. as well as the receipt of the marked money by the seller. Furthermore. Appellant should not confuse buy-bust situation from search and seizure conducted by virtue of a court-issued warrant. What is vital is that the force or intimidation be of such degree as to cow the unprotected and vulnerable victim into submission. 2014. and consideration. will not indulge in sexual foreplay is not sufficient to cast a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction. this does not negate the truth that AAA was raped by her aunt‘s husband. GLENN SALVADOR Y BAL VERDE. 190005. February 10. as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. The proof showing political motivation is adduced during trial where the accused is assured an opportunity to present evidence supporting his defense. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. J. WILFREDO GUNDA ALIAS FRED. SATURNINO C. No. Nonetheless. Del Castillo) The force and violence required in rape cases is relative and need not be overpowering or irresistible when applied. No.failed . (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Further. what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired. No. No. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer. 2014.R. the marking of the dangerous drug may be done in the presence of the violator in the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. February 24.‖ (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. J. No. J. AURELIO JASTIVA.R. 2014. G. 202976. nor the presence of people therein. coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. 185636/G.R. has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape. It is in the latter case that physical inventory (which includes the marking) is made at the place where the search warrant is served. 176830/G.R. such as when the latter is threatened with death. ―non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds. AND DORY ANN PARCON Y DEL ROSARIO. shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provided that in a buy-bust situation. the object. Force is sufficient if it produces fear in the victim. Neither the crampness of the room. 2014. 185587/G. February 11. it should be viewed from the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime. No. Hence. SERENO) Case law shows numerous instances of rape committed under indirect and audacious circumstances. For rape to exist.R. Leonardo-De Castro) The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as civil liability ex delicto as provided under Art. 2014. 198452. No.R.R. EPHREM S. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENJAMIN SORIA Y GOMEZ. G. February 19. CJ. February 12. 190621. J.R.R. like shabu. even assuming for the sake of argument that AAA had a romantic attachment with a person other than the accused at the time of the rape incidents or thereafter. HON. it is not necessary that the force or intimidation be so great or be of such character as could not be resisted – it is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. February 19. since motive is a state of mind which only the accused knows. 2014. and may be granted by the court to a deserving defendant. NO. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. effort and expenses to jettison an appeal. Because most medical malpractice cases are highly technical. 190632. 204894. 2014. 192123. intimidation or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape. MARCH 12. ALIAS “MACHETE”. 2014. MARCH 12.R. MARCH 10. J. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. The use of unlicensed firearm. G. Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent qualified offender. the prosecution presented no witnesses with special medical qualifications in anesthesia to provide guidance to the trial court on what standard of care was applicable. Accordingly. Unfortunately. J. a circumstance alleged in the information. 2014. They must not be acting in the commission of the crime under the same purpose as the principal accused. Bersamin) Probation is not a right but a mere privilege. if not impossible. NO. 196960. G. set the duty of the physician to act in respect of the patient. It would consequently be truly difficult. MARCH 12. and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused. J. 2014. to the sexual act. NO.R. the prosecution is completely silent as to why PO3 Domingo. The law expressly requires that an accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail of probation. At that age. G. and stabbed him on the stomach until he was dead. NO. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R. In this case. It essentially rejects appeals and encourages an otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit his liability and save the state of time. (ENRIQUE ALMERO v. pounced on their one helpless victim. GUILLERMO B. The accused in this case may be held liable only for homicide. or the lack of it." the men act as accomplices only. CJ. This outlaws the element of speculation on the part of the accused — to wager on the result of his appeal — that when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal… he now applies for probation as an ―escape hatch‖ thus rendering nugatory the appellate court‘s affirmance of his conviction. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AND ROGER JALANDONI Y ARI. the grant of probation rests solely upon the discretion of the court. specific norms or standards to protect the patient against unreasonable risk. NOEL ENOJAS Y HINGIPIT.R.to do so. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. commonly referred to as standards of care. In this case. despite having immediate custody of the two plastic sachets of shabu purchased from Constantino. to determine whether the first three elements of a negligence and malpractice action were attendant. G. JR. the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. J. failed to immediately mark the seized drugs before turning over the custody of the same to another police officer. he cannot be allowed later on to claim that he was deprived of his day in court. CADANO. 207819. aggravated by the use of unlicensed firearms. relentlessly bludgeoned him on the head. witnesses with special medical qualifications must provide guidance by giving the knowledge necessary to render a fair and just verdict. J. ARNOLD GOMEZY FABREGAS. on the other hand. ABAD) Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent. an act of grace and clemency conferred by the State. Sereno Since about 15 men. MANOLITO LUCENA Y VELASQUEZ. no clear definition of the duty of a particular physician in a particular case exists. G. including accused Erwin. This lapse in procedure opened the door for confusion and doubt as to the identity of the drugs actually seized from Constantino during the buy-bust and the ones presented . (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO SANTOS Y DELANTAR.R. is a special aggravating circumstance that is not among the circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as qualifying a homicide to murder.R. considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12. 188191. FERNANDO SOLIDUM v. 2014. G. ABAD) In the medical profession. February 26. NO. Proof of force. 2014. ERWIN TAMAYO . Del Castillo) In "aid of armed men. otherwise they are to be regarded as coprincipals or co-conspirators. MARCH 10. there is no question that the accused took advantage of their superior strength. the poseur-buyer. No. It is to be exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society. (DR. PERLAS-BERNABE) The failure of the prosecution to establish the evidence‘s chain of custody is fatal to its case as the Court can no longer consider or even safely assume that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated dangerous drug were properly preserved. Contrary to the claim of accused. 2014. time and place of the incident but the location where the incident took place was just right outside the bakery where the accused claims that he was working at the date and time of the incident. 199740. While the Secretary's ruling is persuasive. NO. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. with whom he was alleged to have conspired. In addition. the court is not bound by a resolution of the DOJ regarding the presence of probable cause. HERMANOS CONSTANTINO. especially considering that three different people.A. As a consequence. and the proper reference should have been Article 266-A 1(b) referring to a case where the offended party is deprived of reason. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug. 205230.before the trial court. JR. G. J. it is not binding on courts. "JOJIT" G. but is required to evaluate the evidence before proceeding farther with the trial. and the particular facts stated in the Information were protestation sufficient to inform him of the nature of the charge against him. This omission diminished the importance of the markings as the reference point for the subsequent handling of the evidence. the prosecution was able to clearly recount how the buy-bust operation was conducted.R. 2014. in effect went into the merits of the defense. .R. 196146. emotional disorder. NO. March 12. such defense cannot lie. the erroneous reference to Article 266-A 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code referring to a case where the offended party is demented. 2014. such is a sufficient ground to establish a well-founded belief that the crime of illegal possession of drugs has been committed. the private person may be indicted alone. Reyes) It has been consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5. or physical handicap at the time of the commission of the rape is the qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death penalty. G. Hence. 199689. LEONARDO.DE CASTRO) Where the accused interposed the defense of alibi saying that it was impossible for him to be present at the date. Y BINAYUG. 3019 but the public officer. In other words. SR. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 189176. supposedly received and marked the same. Having acquired jurisdiction over the case. MARCH 12. No. Perez) When the Secretary of Justice concluded that there was planting of evidence based on the lone fact that the raiding team arrived ahead of the search team. His duty involves the finding of whether there is probable cause to charge a party of a crime. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.R.K. March 12. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO. 2014. has died prior to the filing of the Information.R. 9165. the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller. there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another. Where the court has established that the presence elements of the crime of illegal possession of drugs by evidence. No.R. Del Castillo) Where a private person has been charged of conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R. knowledge by the offender of the mental disability. G. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. in the Information will not exonerate Ventura because he failed to raise this as an objection. NO. March 24. the mere fact that the rape victim is a mental retardate does not automatically render the crime as qualified rape.A. JERRY OBOGNE G. he. and the eventual submission of the subject sachet of shabu as part of its evidence. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. the crime committed remains to be simple rape. 2014.. J. during the interval. ERNESTO VENTURA. A. J. No. Where the Information fails to mention such qualifying circumstance. March 19. J. J. Article II of R. Such is no longer the duty of the Secretary of Justice. an objective person could now justifiably suspect the shabu ultimately presented as evidence in court to be planted or contaminated. object and consideration. Perez) Under Article 266-B (10) of the Revised Penal Code.A. (BARRY LANIER AND PERLITA LANIER v. JESUS BURCE G. HENRY T. even in a case where an informant acts as a broker or agent between the poseur-buyer police officer and the accused. 168539. March 31. GO. J. MANUEL APLAT Y SUBLINO. there is no logical. No. Del Castillo) . reason to say that when the accused has only been found guilty in one of the five charges against him. as long as the poseur-buyer police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former. and among the five. it does not follow that his conviction is erroneous.In crimes involving conspiracy. the moment it is established that the malefactors conspired and confederated in the commission of the felony proved. if there is sufficient evidence. Peralta) Where the accused has been charged and tried with five charges of rape. one of the conspirators may be charged alone of the crime. J. The charges of rape are different and separate from one another. 191727. J. he was only convicted in one. G. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. March 26. 2014. as well as legal. Thus. No. Leonardo-De Castro) A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. or cannot be charged of the crime. especially when the evidence against him in that one case is so strong that it leaves no room for reasonable doubt. 2014. he should be acquitted in all the five charges. Thus. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. collective liability of the accused conspirators attaches by reason of the conspiracy.R. MANUEL APLAT Y SUBLINO AND JACKSON DANGLAY Y BOTIL. Even if one or more of the accused has died. No.R. the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods. March 25. 2014.R. 201732. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. G. The evidence adduced in one case is different from that of the others.