Republic of the Philippines Vs. Yang Chi Hao, G.R. No. 165332.October 2, 2009 FACTS: A petition for naturalization was filed by respondents and this was opposed by the OSG. The RTC ruled against the respondents but later on reversed itself in an MR and granted the petition. Instead of filing an appeal, OSG filed a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 alleging that it was grave abuse of discretion when RTC reversed itself when there was no submission of any additional evidence. OSG also contended that there was no need to appeal because ROC applies only suppletory to naturalization law. ISSUE: was resort to rule 65 proper? RULING: No. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, appeal is mandatory in naturalization laws as mandated under Sections 11 and 12 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (1939), or the Revised Naturalization Law. Also, a decision granting a petition for naturalization becomes executory only two years after its promulgation. As such, petitioner is not without a remedy to assail the grant of citizenship. In addition, it may also move to have the naturalization certificate cancelled in the proper proceedings, if it can be shown that the certificate was obtained fraudulently. It must be noted that Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy and may only be availed of if there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. G.R. No. 175319. January 15, 2010 People of the Philippines Vs. Joselito Noque y Gomez, 2nd Division FACTS: In a buy-bust operation, law enforcers was able to recover dangerous drugs from accused. He was charged with violations of Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425 that define and penalize the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs. However the allegations in the Information refer to sale and possession of shabu while the drug proven on trial was ephedrine. This prompted accused to file a dismissal of the case. ISSUE: WoN appellant’s conviction for the sale and possession of shabu, despite the fact that what was established and proven was the sale and possession of ephedrine, violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him since the charges in the Informations are for selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride. RULING: No. It must be noted that the offenses designated in the Informations are for violations of Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425, which define and penalize the crimes of illegal sale and possession of regulated drugs. The allegations in the Informations for the unauthorized sale and possession of shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride are immediately followed by the qualifying phrase which is a regulated drug. Thus, it is clear that the designations and allegations in the Informations are for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal Series of 1988. G.possession of regulated drugs. Jr.. filed a Sworn Statement before the Adjudication Office of the POEA against LNS and Sharikat Al Saedi International Manpower (Sharikat) for violation of Section 2(b). the charges of non-issuance of receipt and misrepresentation against petitioner could not possibly prosper. 2. (d). petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari but it was dismissed. . LNS claimed that it could not be held liable for non-issuance of receipt or misrepresentation. In its answer. In fine. Padua. Sharikat. the POEA found no sufficient evidence to hold it liable for the violations charged. medical expenses. However. and (e) of Rule I. As to Sharikat. Respondent Padua further alleged that it was another agency. ISSUE: Is petitioner liable for non-issuance of receipt and misrepresentation? RULING: No. Part VI of the 2002 POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Land-based Overseas Workers. LNS attached the withdrawal letter duly signed by Padua. No. On appeal to the Secretary of DOLE. Thus. As proof. The self-serving and unsubstantiated allegations of respondent cannot defeat the concrete evidence submitted by petitioner. it dismissed the appeal of petitioner and affirmed the ruling of the POEA. or that petitioner referred or endorsed respondent for employment abroad to another agency. Ephedrine has been classified as a regulated drug by the Dangerous Drugs Board in Board Resolution No. and trade test. However. must be accorded high respect. The POEA issued its order finding LNS liable for non-issuance of receipt and misrepresentation. Armando Padua. especially when affirmed by the CA. he returned to the Philippines because he was not allegedly paid his salaries and also because of violations in the terms and conditions of his employment contract. Respondent paid to LNS the processing fees. Jr. Respondent Padua alleged that he applied as auto electrician with petitioner LNS and assured of a job in Saudi Arabia. as in the instant case. 179792. By the voluntary withdrawal of respondent’s application from petitioner. Aggrieved. the latter could not have been involved in the recruitment and placement of respondent and consequently could not be held liable for any violation. 2nd Division FACTS: Respondent Armando C.R. the Court find out that the factual findings do not conform to the evidence on record or are not supported by substantial evidence. 2010 LNS International Manpower Services Vs. LNS admitted that Padua applied for employment abroad but he withdrew all the documents he submitted to LNS. factual findings of administrative and quasi-judicial agencies specializing in their respective fields. March 5. As a general rule. if not finality. which processed his papers and eventually deployed him to Saudi Arabia. for failure to adduce any shred of evidence of payment made to petitioner. Despite repeated demands. said respondents still failed and refused to settle the loan. Comandante also issued to petitioner post-dated checks to secure payment of said loan. Spouses Alfredo Diaz. No. petitioner executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim which he caused to be annotated at the back of the TCT. where the following requisites concur: . on December 21. Diaz and Imelda G. Comandante. 1998. Thus. 1999. as evidenced by a Transfer Certificate of Title. reneged on their obligation as the checks issued by Comandante were dishonored upon presentment. April 23. executed in his favor an instrument entitled Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided). As affirmative defense. ISSUE: Is a waiver of hereditary rights in favor of another executed by a future heir while the parents are still living valid? RULING: Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 1347 of the Civil Code. 1999 from the Diazes through the latter’s daughter Comandante.G. For the inheritance to be considered “future”. 2010 Atty. They claimed that the Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) upon which petitioner’s adverse claim is anchored cannot be the source of any right or interest over the property considering that it is null and void under paragraph 2 of Article 1347 of the Civil Code.00 on November 11. However. Pedro M. 165300. 2nd Division FACTS: The Diazes.118. A contract may be classified as a contract upon future inheritance.00.00 secured by a Real Estate Mortgage Contract by way of second mortgage over Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and a Promissory Note payable within six months or up to November 7. the succession must not have been opened at the time of the contract.228. however. for a valuable consideration of P600. they alleged that they acquired the subject property by purchase in good faith and for a consideration of P3. represented by their daughter Comandante obtained from him a loan of P1.000. no contract may be entered into upon a future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law.. and which property is titled and registered in the name of my parents Alfredo T. At the Pangans’ end. the Pangans asserted that the annotation of petitioner’s adverse claim on TCT No. which amount formed part of the above mentioned secured loan. et al.000.000. Ferrer Vs. The Diazes. 1999 a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money Secured by Real Estate Mortgage Contract against the Diazes and Comandante. Diaz.R. Petitioner further claimed that prior to this or on May 29. they were surprised upon being informed by petitioner that the subject land had been mortgaged to him by the Diazes. On the basis of said waiver. RT-6604 cannot impair their rights as new owners of the subject property. petitioner filed on September 29. prohibited under the second paragraph of Article 1347. 1999. hence not liable of theft. ISSUE: WoN the postdated checks issued by Puzon transferred ownership to petitioner making him liable for theft? RULING: No. it is clear that Comandante and petitioner entered into a contract involving the former’s future inheritance as embodied in the Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) executed by her in petitioner’s favor. Said checks were returned to puzon when the transaction covered by these checks were paid or settled in full. as shown by the facts. No. The Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) executed by Comandante in favor of petitioner as not valid and that same cannot be the source of any right or create any obligation between them for being violative of the second paragraph of Article 1347 of the Civil Code. 167567. SMC sent a letter demanding the return of the checks but was ignored by Puzon. (2) That the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance. Negotiable Instruments Law provides: Sec. an expectancy of a right which is purely hereditary in nature. such expectancy of a right. together with his accountant visited SMC Sales Office to allegedly settle his account and requested to see the two checks he issued. Puzon issued 2 checks for such transaction.(1) That the succession has not yet been opened. From the foregoing. hence a case for theft was filed against him. 2001 Puzon. Bartolome Puzon. On January 23. In this case. there is no question that at the time of execution of Comandante’s Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest over a Real Property (Still Undivided). and. he immediately left the office bringing the checks with him. Jr. However. SMC required him to issued postdate checks equivalent to the value of the products purchase on credit before the same were released to him. with respect to the object. when he got hold of the checks. succession to either of her parent’s properties has not yet been opened since both of them are still living. September 22. G. Antedated and postdated.R. To ensure payment and as business practice. 12. the check still belongs to Puzon. (3) That the promissor has. 2010 San Miguel Corporation Vs. First Division FACTS: Puzon purchased SMC products on credit. With respect to the other two requisites.The instrument is not . both are likewise present considering that the property subject matter of Comandante’s waiver concededly forms part of the properties that she expect to inherit from her parents upon their death and. is undoubtedly purely hereditary in nature. )Note however that delivery as the term is used in the aforementioned provision means that the party delivering did so for the purpose of giving effect thereto. . then ownership of the check was not transferred to SMC. People of the Philippines. provided this is not done for an illegal or fraudulent purpose. The evidence of SMC failed to establish that the check was given n payment of the obligation of Puzon. There was no provisional receipt of official receipt issued for the amount of the check. there being no intent to give effect to the instrument. Divinagracia as Vocational Supervisors III despite the directive of CHED and the Civil Service commission. it cannot be said that there has been delivery of the negotiable instrument. Once there is delivery. GR 175834. she gave different dates and other facts not consistent with her direct testimony with regard to rape incidents on the first and second week of March 2001. Otherwise. People v. Duran. If the subject check was given by Puzon to SMC in payment of the obligation. Aug. during the cross examination and the re-direct examination of the plaintiff. if the check was not given as payment. Catacutan questioned the judgment. The witnesses’ testimony is totally different from what she said during the cross-examination and was also different from what she said during the re-direct. Plaintiff’s argued that such matters are not material and inconsequential to their case. 2011 – First Division FACTS: AAA was allegedly raped by her step father during the 1st.invalid for the reason only that it is antedated or postdated. 31. (Underscoring supplied. Catacutan Vs. ISSUE: WoN such inconsistencies are enough to cast reasonable doubt and hence acquit the accused for the first and second week? RULING: Yes. 2011 – First Division FACTS: Petitioner Jose Catacutan was held guilty before the Sandiganbayan for the violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for his refusal to implement the promotion and appointments of Georgito Posesano and Magdalena A. Jose R. were apparent and should have been given scant consideration. This prompted the accused to file a dismissal based on such inconsistencies. However. The records show that such inconsistencies. but being mere security for debt. the person to whom the instrument is delivered gets the title to the instrument completely and irrevocably. the purpose of giving effect to the instrument is evident thus title to or ownership of the check was transferred upon delivery. However upon cross-examination on the victim. June 8. The person to whom an instrument so dated is delivered acquires the title thereto as of the date of delivery. 2nd and 3rd week of March 2001. GR 175991. The Court was not convinced. In the presentation of witness for the prosecution. witness Wilfredo testified that both men took turns in stabbing the victim while witness Jonalyn testified that both men stabbed the victim in unison. Anent the second issue. Absence of other circumstances that would show that the charge was a mere concoction and that Wilfredo was impelled by some evil motives. dismissing the adiminstrative case against him. ISSUE: Whether or not the judgment. delay in testifying is insufficient to discredit his testimony. ISSUE: WoN minor inconsistencies pertaining to trivial matters affect the credibility of witnesses as well as their positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime? RULING: No. No. Present in the case were the elements to find the petitioner guilty of violating Sec3(e) of RA 3019. The non-admittance of the dismissal of the administrative case did not violate petitioner’s right to due process where such dismissal was not relevant to the adjudication of the criminal case. a deference or reluctance in reporting a crime does not destroy the truth of the charge nor is it an indication of deceit. DIVISION FACTS: Accused Adriano and Benny killed and stabbed to death the victim. 175980. finding petitioner guilty of violating RA 3019. which was affirmed by the sandiganbayan. was well founded despite the refusal of the trial court to admit the dismissal of the administrative case as evidence. 2) that he acted in bad faith. After all. . Accused Benny also asserts that Wilfredo is not credible since he only surfaced 3 years after the incident to testify against accused. BENNY CABTALAN. the judgment in one is not dependent on the other. the inconsistency merely pertains to the manner the fatal stab wounds was inflicted on the victim. HELD: The stubborn defiance by petitioner in carrying out the memorandum issued by CHED was attended by ill motive and bad faith.that the accused was a public officer performing an official function. 2012. and 3) that injury was caused to another party because of such act. administrative proceedings require a different quantum of proof compared to criminal proceedings. to wit: 1. February 15. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ADRIANO CABRILLAS. Anent the first issue.contending that he was denied due process when he was not allowed to present the CA judgment. Such factual finding by the Trial courts. It is perfectly natural for different witness to testify on the occurrence of a crime to give varying details since it all depends on the observing position of the witness. G.R. was based on the evidence presented before it. Jurisprudence has held that due process requirement is met when there is simply an opportunity to be heard and to explain one’s side even if no hearing is conducted. 2012.R. she was ordered dismissed on the basis of lack of confidence. as well as her “good” overall performance rating negate loss of trust and confidence. . an employer has a distinct prerogative and wider latitude of discretion in dismissing managerial personnel who performs functions which by their nature require the employer’s full trust and confidence. Due to some communication mishap with her superiors in which altercation ensued. Philippine Luen Thai Holdings Corporation. When petitioner delivered dismal performance and displayed poor work attitude as attested to by his co-workers. mere existence of a basis for believing that a managerial employee has breached the trust of the employer justifies dismissal. 174893 July 11. As distinguished from rank and file personnel. such constitute sufficient reasons for an employer to terminate an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. et al.Flordeliza Maria Reyes-Rayel vs. Division FACTS: Petitioner is occupying a managerial position in the company. Anent the second issue. G. ISSUE: WoN the company validly terminated petitioner? RULING: Yes. petitioner’s contention is without merit. She also insists that she was not afforded due process since no investigation and hearing was conducted as required by company policy.. Petitioner now assails the validity of her dismissal saying that there is no substantial evidence to establish valid ground for her dismissal since various emails from her superiors illustrating her accomplishments and commendations. No. Anent the first issue. “Loss of confidence” as a ground for dismissal does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt as the law requires only that there be at least some basis to justify it.