Villarama Digest Pool

WILFREDO M. BARON, et al. v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MAGIC SALES, INC.

G.R. No. 182299, 22 Februar 2!1!, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
Unmistakably, the unauthorized taking of company documents and files, failure to pay
unremitted collections, failure to surrender keys to the filing cabinets despite earlier
instructions, concealment of shortages, and failure to record inventory transactions pursuant
to a fraudulent scheme are acts of grave misconduct, which are sufficient causes for
petitioners dismissal from employment.
Magc Saes, Inc. (MSI) s a domestc corporaton engaged n the busness of tradng
consumer goods such as soap, bscuts, candy, coffee, and |uce drnks, among other thngs,
whe |ose Y. Sy s the companys Presdent and Genera Manager. On the other hand, Baron
et al. cam to be empoyees of MSI. Sy ordered an nventory of the companys stock after
notcng a steady ncrease n the companys payabes and a decne n ts nvestments. Mr.
|ovenco A. Daroya, a Certfed Pubc Accountant and the Corporate Fnance Manager of MSI,
was tasked to conduct a thorough audt of the companys busness. Baron et al. refused to
cooperate n the audt process, and thereafter, refraned from reportng for work.
Nonetheess, the audt was competed, and an Interna Audt Report was
submtted. Accordng to the audt team, there were severa rreguartes n the operatons of
MSI. The accountng system desgned by Baron was generay weak and compance to
procedures was not strcty mpemented. The team was aso convnced that Baron abused
hs authorty and took advantage of the axty of the system he desgned. It kewse
beeved that Barons subordnates were not honest enough to report the anomaes to the
management. The audt team further concuded that there was couson between Baron
and hs subordnates and that they benefted from the rreguartes.
Consequenty, management nformed Baron et al. of the charges aganst them, to wt:
(1) serous msconduct and wfu dsobedence to the companys awfu orders; (2) fraud or
wfu breach of trust reposed by the empoyer; and (3) abandonment or absence wthout
offca eave. Athough Baron et al. were requred to expan and refute the charges, they
nether rebutted the same nor attended the nvestgaton. Hence, MSI decded to termnate
ther servces. Baron et al. forthwth fed compants wth the NLRC Arbtraton Branch
aganst MSI. However, the compants of Baron et al. were dsmssed for ack of mert. On
appea, the NLRC favored MSI. The Court of Appeas (CA) dened the petton for certiorari
and ther moton for reconsderaton.
ISS)ES*
1. Whether or not Baron et al. were vady dsmssed on the grounds of grave
msconduct and oss of confdence
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
AD"ISER* ATTY. RENE B. GOROSPE
EDITOR,IN,C-IEF* LAMBERTO L. SANTOS III; E.EC)TI"E EDITOR* HERAZEUS CHRISTINE Y. UY; MANAGING EDITOR*
KENNETH |AMES CARLO C. HIZON; ASSOC. MANAGING EDITOR* CLARABEL ANNE R. LACSINA; ARTICLES EDITOR* AL|ON D.
DE GUZMAN; ASSOC. ARTICLES EDITOR* ANTHONY ROBLES ; ')RIS/R)DENCE EDITOR * KING |AMES CARLO C. HIZON ;
ASSOC. ')RIS/R)DENCE EDITORS * KRISTINE |ANE R.LIU, |EREMAE NADONGA ; RESEARC- EDITOR * SHERY PAIGE A. LIM;
ASSOC. RESEARC- EDITOR* OGER CHRISTOPHER R. REYES; CIRC)LATION MANAGER* ROXANNE MARIE MENDOZA ; ASSOC.
CIRC)LATION MANAGER * Assocate Crcuaton Manager; B)SINESS MANAGER* SHARMAGNE |OY A. BINAY
STAFF* LOU WELLA MAE S. BERNASOR; OMAR DELOSO; |ASETH MARIE DE VERA; CARMELA YUMUL
1
2. Whether Baron et al. were dened of ther rght to due process when they were
termnated from ther empoyment
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
Grave Misconduct and Loss of Confidence
Msconduct has been defned as mproper or wrong conduct. It s the transgresson of
some estabshed and defnte rue of acton, a forbdden act, a derecton of duty, wfu n
character, and mpes wrongfu ntent and not mere error of |udgment. The msconduct to
be serous must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merey trva and
unmportant. Such msconduct, however serous, must nevertheess be n connecton wth
the empoyees work to consttute |ust cause for hs separaton.
MSI was abe to prove substantay the exstence of serous msconduct commtted by
pettoners to |ustfy ther termnaton from empoyment. It found that Baron n conspracy
wth the other pettoners, orchestrated massve rreguartes and grand scae fraud, whch
coud no onger be documented because of theft of company documents and deeton of
computer fes. Unmstakaby, the unauthorzed takng of company documents and fes,
faure to pay unremtted coectons, faure to surrender keys to the fng cabnets despte
earer nstructons, conceament of shortages, and faure to record nventory transactons
pursuant to a frauduent scheme are acts of grave msconduct, whch are suffcent causes
for pettoners dsmssa from empoyment.
They are aso grounds for oss of trust and confdence under Artce 282 of the Labor
Code, as amended. For there to be a vad dsmssa based on oss of trust and confdence,
the breach of trust must be wfu, meanng t must be done ntentonay, knowngy, and
purposey, wthout |ustfabe excuse. The basc premse for dsmssa on the ground of oss
of confdence s that the empoyees concerned hod a poston of trust and confdence. It s
the breach of ths trust that resuts n the empoyers oss of confdence n the empoyee. In
the nstant case, the Court notes that Baron et al. were hodng the foowng postons:
Wfredo Baron - operatons manager, |omar dea Rosa and |efferson dea Rosa - saes
representatves, Cyntha |unatas and Marfe Baesca - accountng cerks, and Lourdes
Rabago - warehouse checker. Ceary, pettoners were hodng postons mbued wth trust
and confdence, whch are deemed to have been reposed on them by vrtue of the nature of
ther work.
Due Process
In the dsmssa of empoyees, t has been consstenty hed that the twn requrements
of notce and hearng are essenta eements of due process. The empoyer must furnsh the
worker wth two wrtten notces before termnaton of empoyment can be egay effected:
(1) a notce apprsng the empoyee of the partcuar acts or omssons for whch hs dsmssa
s sought, and (2) a subsequent notce nformng the empoyee of the empoyers decson to
dsmss hm. Through the forma nvestgatory process, the empoyee must be accorded the
rght to present hs or her sde, whch must be consdered and weghed by the empoyer.
"ILLARAMA CASE DIGESTS
)n$0er1$2 o3 San2o To&a1 4 Fa5u%2 o3 C$0$% La6
The empoyee must be suffcenty apprsed of the nature of the charge, so as to be abe to
ntegenty defend hmsef or hersef aganst the charges.
In ths case, records show that MSI comped wth the two-notce. Evdence shows that
Baron et al. were propery notfed of the charges aganst them. They receved etters sgned
by |ose Y. Sy nstructng them to expan wthn seventy-two (72) hours from recept why they
shoud not be dsmssed for ther offenses. They were kewse warned that faure to repy
woud mean that they were wavng ther rght to present evdence n ther favor. Furthermore,
they were afforded the chance to defend themseves durng the schedued nvestgaton.
Gven the foregong, t s cear that the requred procedura due process for ther termnaton
was strcty comped wth. When partes have been gven an opportunty to be heard and to
present ther case, there s no dena of due process.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
3
SANDRA 7. ERIG)EL v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MA. T-ERESA D)M/IT,MIC-ELENA
G.R. No. 19!829, 29 Februar 2!1!, EN BANC #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
When the CO!"!C is e#ercising its $uasi%&udicial powers such as in the present case,
the Commission is constitutionally mandated to decide the case first in division, and en banc
only upon motion for reconsideration. 'he CO!"!C cannot proceed to conduct a fresh
appreciation of ballots without first ascertaining the integrity thereof.
Pettoner Sandra Ergue (Ergue) and prvate respondent Ma. Theresa Dumpt-
Mcheena (Dumpt) were mayoraty canddates n Agoo, La Unon durng the May 14, 2007
eectons. After the canvassng and countng of votes, Ergue was procamed as the duy
eected mayor of the Muncpaty of Agoo.
Dumpt fed an Eecton Protest (d Cautelam before the Regona Tra Court (RTC)
contestng the apprecaton and countng of baots n Agoo. Intay, the RTC dsmssed the
eecton protest due to Dumpts faure to specfy the number of votes credted to the partes
per procamaton as requred by Secton 11(c), Rue 2 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC. The protest
was, however, renstated foowng Dumpts fng of a moton for reconsderaton. Revson
of baots foowed shorty thereafter and was competed. The resuts of the revson showed
that Ergue had 11,678 votes aganst Dumpts 7,839 votes, or a ead of 3,839 votes.
On Dumpts moton, the RTC conducted a technca examnaton of the baots. The
RTC ssued a decson uphodng Ergues procamaton. Dumpt appeaed to the COMELEC.
The case was ntay assgned to the Speca Second Dvson. One of the Commssoners of
the Speca Dvson decded to nhbt hmsef promptng the Presdng Offcer to eevate the
appea to the COMELEC !n )anc. COMELEC !n )anc proceeded to conduct a fresh
apprecaton of the contested baots. The Commsson !n )anc promugated a resouton
nufyng 3,711 baots cast n favor of Ergue, thus, decarng Dumpt as the duy eected
mayor of Agoo, La Unon.
ISS)ES*
1. Whether the Speca Second Dvson of the COMELEC gravey abused ts authorty
when t automatcay eevated Dumpts appea to the COMELEC !n )anc after ony
one commssoner was eft to dea wth the case
2. Whether the COMELEC !n )anc can proceed to conduct a fresh apprecaton of the
contested baots wthout frst ascertanng the ntegrty
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
Automatic elevation of the appeal to the COMELEC En Banc is invalid
The COMELEC, n the exercse of ts quas-|udca functons, s bound to foow the
provson set forth n Secton 3, Artce IX-C of the 1987 Consttuton, whch reads that the
Commsson on Eectons may st en banc or n two dvsons, and sha promugate ts rues
of procedure n order to expedte dsposton of eecton cases, ncudng pre-procamaton
controverses. A such eecton cases sha be heard and decded n dvson, provded that
motons for reconsderaton of decsons sha be decded by the Commsson en banc. It
therefore foows that when the COMELEC s exercsng ts quas-|udca powers such as n
the present case, the Commsson s consttutonay mandated to decde the case frst n
dvson, and en banc ony upon moton for reconsderaton.
Indeed, t s a basc doctrne n procedura aw that the |ursdcton of a court or an
agency exercsng quas-|udca functons (such as the COMELEC) over the sub|ect-matter of
an acton s conferred ony by the Consttuton or by aw. |ursdcton cannot be fxed by the
agreement of the partes; t cannot be acqured through, or waved, enarged or dmnshed
by, any act or omsson of the partes. Nether can t be conferred by the acquescence of the
court, more partcuary so n eecton cases where the nterest nvoved transcends those of
the contendng partes.
Ths beng so, the Speca Second Dvson of the COMELEC ceary acted wth grave
abuse of dscreton when t mmedatey transferred to the Commsson en banc a case that
ought to be heard and decded by a dvson. Such acton cannot be done wthout runnng
afou of Secton 3, Artce IX-C of the 1987 Consttuton. Instead of peremptory transferrng
the case to the Commsson en banc, the Speca Second Dvson of COMELEC, shoud have
nstead assgned another Commssoner as addtona member of ts Speca Second Dvson,
not ony to f n the seat temporary vacated by Commssoner Ferrer, but more mportanty
so that the requred quorum may be attaned. Emphass must be made that t s the
COMELEC dvson that has orgna appeate |ursdcton to resove an appea to an eecton
protest decded by a tra court. Concusvey, the Commsson en banc acted wthout
|ursdcton when t heard and decded Dumpts appea.
he COMELEC cannot proceed to conduct a fresh appreciation of !allots "ithout
first ascertainin# the inte#rit$ thereof
In *osal v. Commission on !lections, the Court panstakngy expaned the mportance
of ascertanng the ntegrty of the baots before conductng a revson. Accordngy, the
purpose of an eecton protest s to ascertan whether the canddate procamed eected by
the board of canvassers s the true and awfu choce of the eectorate. Such a proceedng s
usuay nsttuted on the theory that the eecton returns, whch are deemed prma face to
be true reports of how the eectorate voted on eecton day and whch serve as the bass for
procamng the wnnng canddate, do not accuratey refect the true w of the voters due to
aeged rreguartes that attended the countng of baots. In a protest prosecuted on such a
theory, the protestant ordnary prays that the offca count as refected n the eecton
returns be set asde n favor of a revson and recount of the baots, the resuts of whch
shoud be made to preva over those refected n the returns pursuant to the doctrne that
"n an eecton contest where what s nvoved s the number of votes of each canddate, the
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
5
best and most concusve evdence are the baots themseves. It shoud never be forgotten,
though, that the superor status of the baots as evdence of how the eectorate voted
presupposes that these were the very same baots actuay cast and counted n the
eectons. Thus, t has been hed that before the baots found n a baot box can be used to
set asde the returns, the court (or the COMELEC as the case may be) must be sure that t
has before t the same baots deposted by the voters.
Thus, however exhaustve the COMELECs fndngs may appear to be, the same s st
rendered vod due to ts ack of |ursdcton and ts faure to ensure that the ntegrty of the
baots has been preserved pror to conductng a fresh apprecaton thereof. The Court
remnds the COMELEC to be more prudent and crcumspect n resovng eecton protests by
foowng the proper procedure, whether n the exercse of ts orgna or appeate
|ursdcton, n order not to frustrate the true w of the eectorate. Otherwse, the very
foundaton of our democratc processes may |ust as we be easy and expedenty
compromsed.
FAR EAST BAN: AND TR)ST COM/AN7 #NOW BAN: OF T-E /-ILI//INE ISLANDS(
AND ROLANDO BOR'A, DE/)T7 S-ERIFF v. S/S. ERNESTO AND LEONOR C.
CA7ETANO
G.R. No. 1;99!9, 28 'anuar 2!1!, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
+t is a general rule in the law of agency that, in order to bind the principal by a
mortgage on real property e#ecuted by an agent, it must upon its face purport to be made,
signed and sealed in the name of the principal, otherwise, it will bind the agent only.
Leonor C. Cayetano (Cayetano) executed a speca power of attorney n favor of her
daughter Teresta C. Tabng (Tabng) authorzng her to contract a oan from Far East Bank
(Bank) and to mortgage her two (2) ots ocated Naga Cty. The Bank oaned Tabng secured
by two (2) promssory notes and a rea estate mortgage over Cayetanos two (2) propertes.
The mortgage document was sgned by Tabng and her husband as mortgagors n ther
ndvdua capactes, wthout statng that Tabng was executng the mortgage contract for
and n behaf of Cayetano.
The Bank forecosed the mortgage for faure of Cayetano and the spouses Tabng to
pay the oan. A notce of pubc aucton sae was sent to Cayetano. The pubc aucton was
hed as schedued wheren the sub|ect propertes were sod to the Bank. Subsequenty, the
Bank consodated ts tte and obtaned new ttes n ts name after the redempton perod
apsed wthout Cayetano takng any acton. More than fve (5) years ater, Tabng, on behaf
of Cayetano, sent a etter to the Bank expressng the ntent to repurchase the propertes.
The Bank gave Cayetano the chance to buy back the propertes by |onng a bddng to be set
n some future date.
However, Cayetano fed a compant for the nufcaton of the rea estate mortgage
and extra|udca forecosure sae, as we as the canceaton of the bankss tte over the
propertes before the Regona Tra Court (RTC). After tra, the RTC rendered |udgment n
favor of Cayetano. The Court of Appeas (CA).
ISS)E*
Whether or not the prncpa s bound by the rea estate mortgage executed by the
authorzed agent n her own name wthout ndcatng the prncpa
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
The ssue s not nove. The RTC and the CA are both correct n hodng that the
decson n ,hilippine -ugar !states .evelopment Co., "td., +nc. v. ,oizat, et al., as reterated
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
7
n the case of *ural )ank of )ombon /Camarines -ur0, +nc. v. Court of (ppeals, fnds
appcaton n the nstant case. The factua crcumstances of sad cases are smar to the
case at bar, where an authorzed agent executed a rea estate mortgage on the prncpas
property n her own name wthout ndcatng that she was actng on behaf of the prncpa.
The Court rued on both cases on the ega force and effect of the rea estate mortgage
n queston, by whom and for whom t was executed, and whether or not t was vod.
Accordngy, t s a genera rue n the aw of agency that, n order to bnd the prncpa by
a mortgage on rea property executed by an agent, t must upon ts face purport to be
made, sgned and seaed n the name of the prncpa, otherwse, t w bnd the agent
ony. It s not enough merey that the agent was n fact authorzed to make the
mortgage, f he has not acted n the name of the prncpa. Nether s t ordnary
suffcent that n the mortgage the agent descrbes hmsef as actng by vrtue of a power
of attorney, f n fact the agent has acted n hs own name and has set hs own hand and
sea to the mortgage. Ths s especay true where the agent hmsef s a party to the
nstrument. However ceary the body of the mortgage may show and ntend that t sha
be the act of the prncpa, yet, uness n fact t s executed by the agent for and on
behaf of hs prncpa and as the act and deed of the prncpa, t s not vad as to the
prncpa.
Notwthstandng the nuty of the rea estate mortgage executed by Tabng and her
husband, the Court fnds that the equty prncpe of aches s appcabe n the nstant case.
Laches s neggence or omsson to assert a rght wthn a reasonabe tme, warrantng a
presumpton that the party entted to assert t ether has abandoned t or decned to assert
t. In the present case, records ceary show that Cayetano coud have fed an acton to
annu the mortgage on ther propertes, but for unexpaned reasons, they faed to do so.
They ony questoned the oan and mortgage transactons n December 1996, or after the
apse of more than fve (5) years from the date of the forecosure sae. It bears notng that
the rea estate mortgage was regstered and annotated on the ttes of Cayetano, and the
atter was even nformed of the extra|udca forecosure and the schedued aucton. Instead
of mpugnng the rea estate mortgage and opposng the schedued pubc aucton,
Cayetanos awyer wrote a etter to the Bank and merey asked that the schedued aucton
be postponed to a ater date. Even after fve (5) years, Cayetano st faed to oppose the
forecosure and the subsequent transfer of ttes to the Bank when ther agent, Tabng,
actng n behaf of Cayetano, sent a etter proposng to buy back the propertes. It was ony
when the negotatons faed that Cayetano fed the nstant case. Ceary, Cayetano sept on
hs rghts.
DENNIS A. B. F)NA v. E.EC)TI"E SECRETAR7 ED)ARDO R. ERMITA, et al.
G.R. No. 18<;<!, 11 Februar 2!1!, EN BANC #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
While all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or
employment in the government during their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the
primary functions of their positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants
may do so only when e#pressly authorized by the Constitution itself. -ection 12, (rticle 3++ is
meant to be the e#ception applicable only to the ,resident, the 3ice%,resident, embers of
the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.
On October 4, 2006, Presdent Gora Macapaga-Arroyo apponted Mara Eena H.
Bautsta (Bautsta) as Undersecretary of the Department of Transportaton and
Communcatons (DOTC). Bautsta was consequenty desgnated as Undersecretary for
Martme Transport of the department. Foowng the resgnaton of then MARINA
Admnstrator Vcente T. Suazo, |r., Bautsta was subsequenty desgnated as Offcer-n-
Charge (OIC), Offce of the Admnstrator, MARINA, n concurrent capacty as DOTC
Undersecretary. Denns A. B. Funa n hs capacty as taxpayer, concerned ctzen and
awyer, fed the nstant petton chaengng the consttutonaty of Bautstas
appontment/desgnaton, whch s proscrbed by the prohbton on the Presdent, Vce-
Presdent, the Members of the Cabnet, and ther deputes and assstants to hod any other
offce or empoyment. Durng the pendency of ths petton, Bautsta was apponted
Admnstrator of the MARINA and she assumed her dutes and responsbtes as such.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the desgnaton of respondent Bautsta as OIC of MARINA, concurrent
wth the poston of DOTC Undersecretary for Martme Transport to whch she had been
apponted, voated the consttutona proscrpton aganst dua or mutpe offces for Cabnet
Members and ther deputes and assstants
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
Bautsta beng then the apponted Undersecretary of DOTC, she was covered by the
strcter prohbton under Secton 13, Artce VII, statng that the Presdent, Vce-Presdent,
the Members of the Cabnet, and ther deputes or assstants sha not, uness otherwse
provded n ths Consttuton, hod any other offce or empoyment durng ther tenure.
Consequenty, she cannot nvoke the excepton provded n Secton 7, paragraph 2, Artce
IX-B where hodng another offce s aowed by aw or the prmary functons of the poston.
Nether was she desgnated OIC of MARINA n an ex-offco capacty, whch s the excepton
recognzed n Cv Lbertes Unon.
The prohbton aganst hodng dua or mutpe offces or empoyment under Secton
13, Artce VII of the 1987 Consttuton was hed nappcabe to posts occuped by the
Executve offcas specfed theren, wthout addtona compensaton n an ex-offco
capacty as provded by aw and as requred by the prmary functons of sad offce. The
reason s that these posts do not comprse "any other offce" wthn the contempaton of the
consttutona prohbton but are propery an mposton of addtona dutes and functons on
sad offcas. Apart from ther bare asserton that Bautsta dd not receve any compensaton
when she was OIC of MARINA, Ermta et al., faed to demonstrate ceary that her
desgnaton as such OIC was n an e#%officio capacty as requred by the prmary functons of
her offce as DOTC Undersecretary for Martme Transport.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
9
It must be stressed though that whe the desgnaton was n the nature of an actng
and temporary capacty, the words "hod the offce" were empoyed. Such hodng of offce
pertans to both appontment and desgnaton because the appontee or desgnate performs
the dutes and functons of the offce. The 1987 Consttuton n prohbtng dua or mutpe
offces, as we as ncompatbe offces, refers to the hodng of the offce, and not to the
nature of the appontment or desgnaton, words whch were not even found n Secton 13,
Artce VII nor n Secton 7, paragraph 2, Artce IX-B. To "hod" an offce means to "possess
or occupy" the same, or "to be n possesson and admnstraton," whch mpes nothng ess
than the actua dscharge of the functons and dutes of the offce.
The dsquafcaton ad down n Secton 13, Artce VII s amed at preventng the
concentraton of powers n the Executve Department offcas, specfcay the Presdent,
Vce-Presdent, Members of the Cabnet and ther deputes and assstants. Cv Lbertes
Unon traced the hstory of the tmes and the condtons under whch the Consttuton was
framed, and construed the Consttuton consstent wth the ob|ect sought to be accompshed
by adopton of such provson, and the evs sought to be avoded or remeded. The Court
recaed the practce, durng the Marcos regme, of desgnatng members of the Cabnet,
ther deputes and assstants as members of the governng bodes or boards of varous
government agences and nstrumentates, ncudng government-owned or controed
corporatons. Ths practce of hodng mutpe offces or postons n the government ed to
abuses by unscrupuous pubc offcas, who took advantage of ths scheme for purposes of
sef-enrchment. The batant betraya of pubc trust evoved nto one of the serous causes
of dscontent wth the Marcos regme. It was therefore qute nevtabe and n consonance
wth the overwhemng sentment of the peope that the 1986 Consttutona Commsson
woud draft nto the proposed Consttuton the provsons under consderaton, whch were
envsoned to remedy, f not correct, the evs that fow from the hodng of mutpe
governmenta offces and empoyment.
GOODRIC- MAN)FACT)RING COR/ORATION = MR. NILO C-)A GO7 v.
EMERLINA ATI"O et al.
G.R. No. 188!!2, 1 Februar 2!1!, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
4ot all waivers and $uitclaims are invalid as against public policy. +f the agreement
was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the
parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind.
Atvo et al. are former empoyees of pettoner Goodrch Manufacturng Corporaton
(Goodrch) assgned as machne or mantenance operators for the dfferent sectons of the
company. Sometme n 2004, on account of ngerng fnanca constrants, Goodrch gave a
ts empoyees the opton to vountary resgn from the company. Severa empoyees,
ncudng Atvo et al., decded to ava of the vountary resgnaton opton. Atvo et al. were
pad ther separaton pay and executed ther respectve wavers and qutcams.

Some of Goodrchs former empoyees, ncudng heren Atvo et al., fed compants
aganst Goodrch for ega dsmssa wth prayer for payment of ther fu monetary benefts
before the Natona Labor Reatons Commsson (NLRC). Despte severa conferences, no
amcabe settement was reached by the partes. The Labor Arbter (LA) rendered a decson
decarng that there was no ega dsmssa but hed that Godrch was st abe to the Atvo
et al. for ther unpad emergency cost of vng aowance (ECOLA), 13th month pay,
separaton pay, and servce ncentve eave (SIL) pay. Both partes appeaed to the NLRC.
The NLRC reversed and set asde the Labor Arbters decson. The Court of Appeas (CA)
rendered ts decson n favor of the Atvo et al.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the reease, waver and qutcam sgned by Atvo et al. are vad and
bndng
-ELD:
Petton GRANTED.
It s true that the aw ooks wth dsfavor on qutcams and reeases by empoyees who
have been nveged or pressured nto sgnng them by unscrupuous empoyers seekng to
evade ther ega responsbtes and frustrate |ust cams of empoyees. In certan cases,
however, the Court has gven effect to qutcams executed by empoyees f the empoyer s
abe to prove the foowng requstes, to wt: (1) the empoyee executes a deed of qutcam
vountary; (2) there s no fraud or decet on the part of any of the partes; (3) the
consderaton of the qutcam s credbe and reasonabe; and (4) the contract s not contrary
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
11
to aw, pubc order, pubc pocy, moras or good customs, or pre|udca to a thrd person
wth a rght recognzed by aw.
Not a wavers and qutcams are nvad as aganst pubc pocy. If the agreement
was vountary entered nto and represents a reasonabe settement, t s bndng on the
partes and may not ater be dsowned smpy because of a change of mnd. It s ony where
there s cear proof that the waver was wanged from an unsuspectng or gube person, or
the terms of settement are unconsconabe on ts face, that the aw w step n to annu the
questonabe transacton. But where t s shown that the person makng the waver dd so
vountary, wth fu understandng of what he was dong, and the consderaton for the
qutcam s credbe and reasonabe, the transacton must be recognzed as a vad and
bndng undertakng.
In the case at bar, both the Labor Arbter and the NLRC rued that Atvo et al.
executed the qutcams absent any coercon from Godrch foowng ther vountary
resgnaton from the company.
The contents of the qutcam documents that have been sgned by the Atvo et al. are
smpe, cear and unequvoca. The records of the case are bereft of any substanta evdence
to show that Atvo et al. dd not know that they were renqushng ther rght short of what
they had expected to receve and contrary to what they have so decared. Put dfferenty, at
the tme they were sgnng ther qutcams, Atvo et al. honesty beeved that the amounts
receved by them were far and reasonabe settements of the amounts whch they woud
have receved had they refused to vountary resgn from the sad company.
The consderatons receved by the Atvo et al. from Goodrch do not appear to be
grossy nadequate vs--vs what they shoud receve n fu. As correcty ponted out by the
NLRC, the tota awards computed by the LA w defntey even be esser after deductng the
13th month pay for the years 2002 and 2003, whch have aready been receved by the Atvo
et al. pror to the fng of ther compants, but whch the LA st ncuded n hs computaton.
The dfference between the amounts expected from those that were receved may,
therefore, be consdered as a far and reasonabe bargan on the part of both partes.
CELESTINO A. MARTINE> III v. -O)SE OF RE/RESENTATI"ES ELECTORAL TRIB)NAL
and BEN-)R L. SALIMBANGON
G.R. No. 189!?<, 11 'anuar 2!1!, EN BANC #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
)allots indicating only the similar surname of two /50 candidates for the same position
may, in appropriate cases, be counted in favor of the bona fide candidate and not
considered stray, even if the other candidate was declared a nuisance candidate by final
&udgment after the elections.
In the May 14, 2007 eectons, Ceestno Martnez (Martnez) and Benhur Sambangon
were among the canddates for Representatve n the Fourth Legsatve Dstrct of Cebu
Provnce. Edto C. Martnez fed hs certfcate of canddacy for the same poston. Martnez
fed a petton to decare Edto C. Martnez a nusance canddate. However, the Commsson
on Eectons (COMELEC) Second Dvson ssued ts Resouton decarng Edto a nusance
canddate ony amost one (1) month after the eectons. Sambangon was procamed
wnner n the congressona eectons. Martnez fed an Eecton Protest (d Cautelam and the
House of Representatves Eectora Trbuna (HRET) granted hs moton to convert the same
nto a Reguar Protest. The eecton protest s based on three hundred (300) baots more or
ess wth ony "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" wrtten on the ne for Representatve whch the
Board of Eecton Inspectors (BEI) dd not count for Martnez on the ground that there was
another congressona canddate (Edto C. Martnez) who had the same surname. Durng the
revson, baots wth ony "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" wrtten on the ne for
Representatve were not counted and temporary cassfed as stray.
The HRET sustaned the BEI n consderng the baots as stray. The HRET dsmssed
the eecton protest, affrmed the procamaton of Sambangon and decared hm to be the
duy eected Representatve of the Fourth Legsatve Dstrct of Cebu. Martnez moved for
reconsderaton of the Decson, but the HRET dened t.
ISS)E*
Whether not the baots contanng ony the smar surname of two (2) canddates be
counted n favor of the bona fide canddate by vrtue of n a fna |udgment decarng a
nusance canddate after the eectons
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
By ther very nature, proceedngs n cases of nusance canddates requre prompt
dsposton. The decaraton of a duy regstered canddate as nusance canddate resuts n
the canceaton of hs certfcate of canddacy. The aw mandates the Commsson and the
courts to gve prorty to cases of dsquafcaton to the end that a fna decson sha be
rendered not ater than seven days before the eecton n whch the dsquafcaton s
sought. In many nstances, however, proceedngs aganst nusance canddates remaned
pendng and undecded unt eecton day and even after canvassng of votes had been
competed.
Martnez now nvokes ths Court's pronouncement n )autista v. CO!"!C to the effect
that votes ndcatng ony the surname of two (2) canddates shoud not be consdered as
stray but counted n favor of the bona fde canddate after the other canddate wth a smar
surname was decared a nusance canddate.
The purpose of an eecton protest s to ascertan whether the canddate procamed by
the board of canvassers s the awfu choce of the peope. What s sought s the correcton
of the canvass of votes, whch was the bass of procamaton of the wnnng canddate.
Eecton contests, therefore, nvove the ad|udcaton not ony of prvate and pecunary
nterests of rva canddates, but aso of paramount pubc nterest consderng the need to
dspe uncertanty over the rea choce of the eectorate.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
13

In controverses pertanng to nusance canddates as n the case at bar, the aw
contempates the kehood of confuson whch the smarty of surnames of two (2)
canddates may generate. A nusance canddate s thus defned as one who, based on the
attendant crcumstances, has no bona fde ntenton to run for the offce for whch the
certfcate of canddacy has been fed, hs soe purpose beng the reducton of the votes of a
strong canddate, upon the expectaton that baots wth ony the surname of such canddate
w be consdered stray and not counted for ether of them.
As ustrated n Bautsta, the pendency of proceedngs aganst a nusance canddate
on eecton day nevtaby exposes the bona fide canddate to the confuson over the
smarty of names that affects the voter's w and frustrates the same. It may be that the
factua scenaro n Bautsta s not exacty the same as n ths case, many because the
COMELEC resouton decarng Edwn Bautsta a nusance canddate was ssued before and
not after the eectons, wth the eectorate havng been nformed thereof through newspaper
reeases and other forms of notfcaton on the day of eecton. Undenaby, however, the
adverse effect on the voter's w was smary present n ths case, f not worse, consderng
the substanta number of baots wth ony "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" wrtten on the ne
for Representatve - over fve thousand - whch have been decared as stray votes, the
nvadated baots beng more than suffcent to overcome prvate respondent's ead of ony
453 votes after the recount.

Bautsta uphed the basc rue that the prmorda ob|ectve of eecton aws s to gve
effect to, rather than frustrate, the w of the voter. The ncuson of nusance canddates
turns the eectora exercse nto an uneven payng fed where the bona fde canddate s
faced wth the prospect of havng a sgnfcant number of votes cast for hm nvadated as
stray votes by the mere presence of another canddate wth a smar surname. Any deay
on the part of the COMELEC ncreases the probabty of votes ost n ths manner. Whe
potca campagners try to mnmze stray votes by advsng the eectorate to wrte the fu
name of ther canddate on the baot, st, eecton woes brought by nusance canddates
persst.
Ensconced n our ursprudence s the we-founded rue that aws and statutes
governng eecton contests especay apprecaton of baots must be beray construed to
the end that the w of the eectorate n the choce of pubc offcas may not be defeated by
technca nfrmtes. An eecton protest s mbued wth pubc nterest so much so that the
need to dspe uncertantes whch becoud the rea choce of the peope s mperatve. The
prohbton aganst nusance canddates s amed precsey at preventng uncertanty and
confuson n ascertanng the true w of the eectorate. Thus, n certan stuatons as n the
case at bar, fna |udgments decarng a nusance canddate shoud effectvey cance the
certfcate of canddacy fed by such canddate as of eecton day. Otherwse, potenta
nusance canddates w contnue to put the eectora process nto mockery by fng
certfcates of canddacy at the ast mnute and deayng resouton of any petton to decare
them as nusance canddates unt eectons are hed and the votes counted and canvassed.
The Court hods that baots ndcatng ony the smar surname of two (2) canddates
for the same poston may, n approprate cases, be counted n favor of the bona fide
canddate and not consdered stray, even f the other canddate was decared a nusance
canddate by fna |udgment after the eectons.
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. ROLANDO TAMA7O
G.R. No. 18;!;!, 2< Februar 2!1!, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
+n a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first
be established6 /10 proof that the transaction or sale took place and /50 the presentation in
court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. +n a prosecution for illegal
possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that /10 the accused was in possession of
an item or an ob&ect identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, /50 such possession is
not authorized by law, and /20 the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in
possession of the drug.
Roando Tamayo was charged wth voatons of voaton of Sectons 5 and 11 of
Artce II of Repubc Act No. 9165. Upon arragnment, Tamayo peaded not guty to the
charges aganst hm. The prosecuton presented as wtnesses Poce Offcers Andres Neson
Sy and Cesar C. Coado of Poce Staton 4, Novaches, Ouezon Cty. The wtnesses testfed
that a confdenta nformant arrved at the staton and reported that a certan "Ronne" was
seng mar|uana. At once, a team was created to conduct a buy-bust operaton n the
reported area. Rght after the exchange, PO3 Sy ntroduced hmsef as a poce offcer and
paced Tamayo under arrest. Afterwards, Tamayo was brought to the poce staton together
wth the confscated dred mar|uana frutng tops. There were eght (8) pastc sachets
contanng mar|uana frutng tops recovered from Tamayo asde from the dred mar|uana
contents of the bag. PO3 Sy and PO2 Coado postvey dentfed Tamayo and the dred
mar|uana eaves n open court. PO3 Sy dentfed the tea bag contanng mar|uana through
hs ntas, "ANS."
The RTC convcted Tamayo. The Court of Appeas (CA) affrmed the convcton.
ISS)E*
Whether or not Tamayo s guty beyond reasonabe doubt of voatng Rep. Act No.
9165
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
It s a setted rue that n cases nvovng voatons of the Comprehensve Dangerous
Drugs Act, credence s gven to prosecuton wtnesses who are poce offcers for they are
presumed to have performed ther dutes n a reguar manner, uness there s evdence to
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
15
the contrary. In ths case, no evdence was adduced showng any rreguarty n any matera
aspect of the conduct of the buy-bust operaton. Nether was there any proof that the
prosecuton wtnesses who were members of the buy-bust operaton team, partcuary those
whose testmones were n queston, were mpeed by any -feeng or mproper motve
aganst Tamayo whch woud rase a doubt as to ther credbty.
In a prosecuton for ega sae of dangerous drugs, the foowng eements must frst
be estabshed: (1) proof that the transacton or sae took pace and (2) the presentaton n
court of the corpus dect or the ct drug as evdence. In a prosecuton for ega
possesson of a dangerous drug, t must be shown that (1) the accused was n possesson of
an tem or an ob|ect dentfed to be a prohbted or reguated drug, (2) such possesson s
not authorzed by aw, and (3) the accused was freey and conscousy aware of beng n
possesson of the drug.
Here, the prosecuton was abe to prove the exstence of a the eements of the ega
sae and ega possesson of mar|uana. Tamayo was postvey dentfed by the prosecuton
wtnesses as the person who possessed and sod the mar|uana presented n court. In hs
testmony, PO3 Sy categorcay stated that he bought the mar|uana from Tamayo. In
addton, t was duy estabshed that the sae actuay took pace and more mar|uana was
dscovered n appeants possesson pursuant to a awfu arrest. The marked money used n
the buy-bust operaton was kewse duy presented. Furthermore, the mar|uana sezed from
Tamayo was postvey and categorcay dentfed n open court.
The Court gves credence to the straghtforward testmony of prosecuton wtness PO3
Sy, whch ceary estabshed that an ega sae of mar|uana actuay took pace and that
Tamayo was the seer.
IRENE SANTE AND RE7NALDO SANTE v.
-ON. EDILBERTO T. CLARA"ALL and "ITA N. :ALAS-IAN
G.R. No. 1;?918, 22 Februar 2!1!, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he total amount of monetary claims including the claims for damages was the basis
to determine the &urisdictional amount. 'he other forms of damages being claimed, e.g.,
e#emplary damages, attorneys fees and litigation e#penses, are not merely incidental to or
conse$uences of the main action but constitute the primary relief prayed for in the
complaint.
Vta Kaashan fed before the Regona Tra Court (RTC) a compant for damages
aganst Irene Sante and Reynado Sante (Santes). In her compant, Kaashan aeged that
whe she was nsde the Poce Staton of Natvdad, Pangasnan, and n the presence of
other persons and poce offcers, Irene Sante uttered words, whch when transated n
Engsh are as foows, "How many rounds of sex dd you have ast nght wth your boss,
Bert? You fuckn btch!" Bert refers to Abert Gacusan, Kaashans frend and one (1) of her
hred persona securty guards detaned at the sad staton and who s a suspect n the kng
of the Santes cose reatve. The Santes aso aegedy went around Natvdad, Pangasnan
teng peope that Kaashan s protectng and cuddng the suspects n the aforesad kng.
Thus, Kaashan prayed that the Santes be hed abe to pay mora damages n the amount
of P300,000.00; P50,000.00 as exempary damages; P50,000.00 attorneys fees; P20,000.00
tgaton expenses; and costs of sut.
The Santes fed a Moton to Dsmss on the ground that t was the Muncpa Tra
Court n Ctes (MTCC) and not the RTC of Baguo that had |ursdcton over the case. The RTC
dened the moton to dsmss. The RTC hed that the tota cam of Kaashan amounted to
P420,000.00 whch was above the |ursdctona amount for MTCCs outsde Metro Mana.
Aggreved, Santes fed a Petton for Certorar and Prohbton before the Court of Appeas
(CA). Meanwhe, Kaashan and her husband fed an Amended Compant ncreasng the
cam for mora damages from P300,000.00 to P1,000,000.00. Santes fed a Moton to
Dsmss wth Answer (d Cautelam and Countercam, but the RTC dened ther moton.
Hence, Santes agan fed a Petton for Certiorari and Prohbton before the CA camng that
the RTC commtted grave abuse of dscreton n aowng the amendment of the compant to
ncrease the amount of mora damages from P300,000.00 to P1,000,000.00. The CA hed
that the case ceary fas under the |ursdcton of the MTCC as the aegatons show that
Kaashan was seekng to recover mora damages n the amount of P300,000.00, whch
amount was we wthn the |ursdctona amount of the MTCC.
ISS)ES*
1. Whether the RTC acqure |ursdcton over the case
2. Whether the RTC commt grave abuse of dscreton n aowng the amendment of the
compant
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
%C Ac&ured Jurisdiction Over the Case
There s no queston that at the tme of the fng of the compant, the MTCCs
|ursdctona amount has been ad|usted to P300,000.00. But where damages s the man
cause of acton, shoud the amount of mora damages prayed for n the compant be the
soe bass for determnng whch court has |ursdcton or shoud the tota amount of a the
damages camed regardess of knd and nature, such as exempary damages, nomna
damages, and attorneys fees, etc., be used?
In the nstant case, the compant fed s for the recovery of damages for the aeged
macous acts of the Santes. The compant prncpay sought an award of mora and
exempary damages, as we as attorneys fees and tgaton expenses, for the aeged
shame and n|ury suffered by Kaashan by reason of Santes utterance whe they were at a
poce staton n Pangasnan. It s setted that |ursdcton s conferred by aw based on the
facts aeged n the compant snce the atter comprses a concse statement of the utmate
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
17
facts consttutng the pantffs causes of acton. It s cear, based on the aegatons of the
compant, that Kaashans man acton s for damages. Hence, the other forms of damages
beng camed by Kaashan, e.g., exempary damages, attorneys fees and tgaton
expenses, are not merey ncdenta to or consequences of the man acton but consttute the
prmary reef prayed for n the compant.
In endoza v. -oriano, t was hed that n cases where the cam for damages s the
man cause of acton, or one of the causes of acton, the amount of such cam sha be
consdered n determnng the |ursdcton of the court. In the sad case, the respondents
cam of P929,000.06 n damages and P25,000 attorneys fees pus P500 per court
appearance was hed to represent the monetary equvaent for compensaton of the aeged
n|ury. The Court theren hed that the tota amount of monetary cams ncudng the cams
for damages was the bass to determne the |ursdctona amount.
Consderng that the tota amount of damages camed was P420,000.00, the CA was
correct n rung that the RTC had |ursdcton over the case.
%C Did Not Commit Grave A!use of Discretion in Allo"in# the Amendment of the
Complaint
The Court fnds no error, much ess grave abuse of dscreton, on the part of the CA n
affrmng the RTCs order aowng the amendment of the orgna compant from
P300,000.00 to P1,000,000.00 despte the pendency of a petton for certiorari fed before
the CA. Whe t s a basc |ursprudenta prncpe that an amendment cannot be aowed
when the court has no |ursdcton over the orgna compant and the purpose of the
amendment s to confer |ursdcton on the court, here, the RTC ceary had |ursdcton over
the orgna compant and amendment of the compant was then st a matter of rght.
S/O1 LEONITO AC)>AR v. A/RONIANO 'OROLAN and -ON. ED)ARDO A. A/RESA
G.R. No. 1;;8;8, ; A@r$% 2!1!, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
+t is apparent from the provision of *epublic (ct 4o. 789: that the remedy of appeal
from the decision of the ,"!) to the *egional (ppellate )oard was available to petitioner.
-ince appeal was available, filing a petition for certiorari was inapt. 'he e#istence and
availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action
of certiorari.
Respondent Apronano |oroan (|oroan) fed an admnstratve case aganst SPO1
Leonto Acuzar (Acuzar) before the Peopes Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) chargng the
atter of grave msconduct for aegedy havng an ct reatonshp wth respondent
|oroans mnor daughter.

|oroan aso nsttuted a crmna case aganst pettoner before the Muncpa Tra
Court (MTC) for Voaton of Repubc Act No. 7610, otherwse known as the Chd Abuse Act.
Pettoner Acuzar dened a the accusatons eveed aganst hm. In support thereof, Acuzar
attached the affdavt of companants daughter, Rgma A. |oroan, who dened havng any
reatonshp wth the pettoner or havng kssed hm despte knowng hm to be a marred
person.

After due proceedngs, the PLEB ssued a decson fndng Acuzar guty of grave
msconduct. Acuzar then fed a petton for certorar before the Regona Tra Court (RTC)
aegng that he was not gven an opportunty to be heard. He aso averred that PLEB has no
|ursdcton over the case wth the reason that Acuzar havent been frst convcted n the
crmna case.

The RTC rendered a Decson annung the decson of the PLEB. |oroan eevated the
case to the Court of Appeas (CA) whch then rendered ts Decson reversng and settng
asde the tra courts decson. The CA found mert n respondent |oroans argument that the
etton for certiorari fed by pettoner Acuzar before the RTC was not the proper remedy
because (1) appea was avaabe and (2) the ssues rased were not pure questons of aw
but both questons of aw and fact. Hence, ths petton
ISS)E:
Whether or not the CA erred n rung that pettoners resort to certiorari was not
warranted as the remedy of appea from the decson of the PLEB was avaabe to hm
-ELD:
Petton DENIED.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
19
To reterate, Acuzar opted to fe a petton for certiorari before the tra court on the
pretext that the PLEB had no |ursdcton to hear the admnstratve case unt the pettoner
s convcted before the reguar court. Accordng to pettoner, athough the case fed before
the PLEB was captoned as "Grave Msconduct," the offense charged was actuay for
"Voaton of Law," whch requres pror convcton before a hearng on the admnstratve
case can proceed. Thus, Acuzar nssts that the PLEB shoud have awated the resouton of
the crmna case before conductng a hearng on the admnstratve charge aganst hm.

The contenton however s untenabe. A carefu perusa of respondent |oroans
affdavt-compant aganst pettoner Acuzar woud show that the atter was charged wth
grave msconduct for engagng n an ct affar wth respondents mnor daughter, he beng
a marred man, and not for voaton of aw, as pettoner woud ke to convnce ths Court.
Msconduct generay means wrongfu, mproper or unawfu conduct, motvated by
premedtated, obstnate or ntentona purpose. On the other hand, "voaton of aw"
presupposes fna convcton n court of any crme or offense penazed under the Revsed
Pena Code or any speca aw or ordnance. The setted rue s that crmna and
admnstratve cases are separate and dstnct from each other. In crmna cases, proof
beyond reasonabe doubt s needed whereas n admnstratve proceedngs, ony substanta
evdence s requred. And very, admnstratve cases may proceed ndependenty of crmna
proceedngs. The PLEB, beng the admnstratve dscpnary body tasked to hear compants
aganst errng members of the PNP, has |ursdcton over the case.

It s apparent from the provson of Repubc Act No. 6975 that the remedy of appea
from the decson of the PLEB to the Regona Appeate Board was avaabe to pettoner.
Snce appea was avaabe, fng a petton for certorar was napt. The exstence and
avaabty of the rght of appea are antthetca to the avament of the speca cv acton of
certorar. Coroary, the prncpe of exhauston of admnstratve remedes requres that
before a party s aowed to seek the nterventon of the court, t s a precondton that he
shoud have avaed of the means of admnstratve processes afforded to hm. If a remedy
s avaabe wthn the admnstratve machnery of the admnstratve agency, then ths
aternatve shoud frst be utzed before resort can be made to the courts. Ths s to enabe
such body to revew and correct any mstakes wthout the nterventon of the court.

:RI>IA :ATRINA T7,DE >)>)ARREG)I v. T-E -ON. 'OSELITO C. "ILLAROSA and
FANNIE TORRES,T7
G.R. No. 18?;88, 8 A@r$% 2!1!, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.'
'he determination of whether the proceedings may be suspended on the basis of a
pre&udicial $uestion rests on whether the facts and issues raised in the pleadings in the civil
case are so related with the issues raised in the criminal case such that the resolution of the
issues in the civil case would also determine the &udgment in the criminal case.
Rosemary Torres Ty-Rasekh (Rosemary), the sster of pettoner Krza Katrna Ty-De
Zuzuarregus (De-Zuzuarregu) ate father Aexander Torres Ty, fed a petton for the
ssuance of etters of admnstraton of the estate of her mother, Bea Torres (Bea), before
the Regona Tra Court (RTC). Rosemary and De-Zuzuarregu entered nto an amcabe
settement approved by the RTC. Subsequenty, two (2) of Rosemarys aeged sbngs, Peter
Torres Ty (Peter) and Catherne Torres Ty-Chavez (Catherne), fed wth the Court of Appeas
(CA) a Petton to Annu |udgment Approvng Compromse Agreement between Rosemary and
De-Zzuarrege. Peter and Catherne camed that they are aso boogca chdren of the ate
Bea and are aso entted to partcpate n the settement of the atters estate. Later, prvate
respondent Fanne Torres-Ty (Fanne), who kewse camed to be a boogca chd of the ate
Bea and therefore aso entted to nhert from her, fed a petton-n-nterventon n the
acton. Peter, Catherne and Fanne aeged that after the death of Bea, they hed dscussons
on the settement of Beas estate. Rosemary promsed to take care of the processng of
papers to dvde the estate n accordance wth the aw. However, Rosemary wanted to get a
arger share of the estate, but they dd not agree. Peter, Catherne and Fanne were not aware
that Rosemary had fed a petton for the admnstraton and the compromse agreement.
Rosemary fasey averred that she and De-Zuzuarregu were the ony hers of Bea. On the
other hand, Rosemary and De-Zuzuarregu aeged that Peter, Catherne and Fanne were
abandoned chdren and Bea took them n out of pty. However, they were not egay
adopted, thus, they were never conferred the rghts of egtmate chdren.
Whe the acton for annument of the compromse |udgment was pendng before the
CA, Fanne fed a compant for fasfcaton and per|ury aganst Rosemary and De-Zuzuarrgu
for aegng n the peadngs fed n the RTC that they were the ony hers of Bea. Three (3)
fes of nformaton aganst De-Zuzuarregu and Rosemary were thus fed wth the
Metropotan Tra Court (MeTC). De-Zuzuarregu then fed a petton for revew wth the
Department of |ustce (DO|) and a moton to defer proceedngs before the MeTC on the ground
of the pendng appea before the DO|. Aso, De-Zuzuarregu fed a petton for suspenson of
proceedngs due to pre|udca queston. However, De-Zuzuarregus appea was dsmssed by
the DO|, whe her motons before the MeTC were dened by the sad court.

De-Zuzuarregu then fed a petton for certiorari and prohbton wth the RTC. The RTC
dened the petton on the ground that there was no pre|udca queston. To eaborate, the
RTC hed that there was no pre|udca queston as the quantum of evdence n the cv acton
for annument of |udgment dffers from the quantum of evdence requred n the crmna
acton for fasfcaton of pubc documents. Moreover, De-Zuzuarregus Moton for
Reconsderaton was aso dened by the RTC. De-Zuzuarregu appeaed before the Court of
Appeas (CA) assang the RTCs orders. The CA dsmssed the petton on the ground that
the certfcaton of non-forum shoppng was sgned ony by De-Zuzuarregus counse and not
by De-Zuzuarregu hersef. De-Zuzuarregus Moton for Reconsderaton was aso
dened. Hence, the present recourse.
ISS)ES:
1. Whether or not the CA erred n dsmssng the petton aegng that the certfcaton of
non-forum shoppng was not sgned by De-Zuzuarregu hersef
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
21
2. Whether or not a pre|udca queston exsts to aow the suspenson of proceedngs
-ELD:
Petton GRANTED.
Petition must not !e dismissed even if the certification of forum shoppin# "as not
si#ned !$ De()u*uarre#ii herself
Generay, subsequent compance wth the requrement of a certfcaton of non-forum
shoppng does not excuse a party from faure to compy n the frst nstance. A certfcaton
of the pantffs counse w not suffce for the reason that t s the pettoner, and not the
counse, who s n the best poston to know whether he actuay fed or caused the fng of a
petton. A certfcaton aganst forum shoppng sgned by counse s a defectve certfcaton
that s equvaent to non-compance wth the requrement and consttutes a vad cause for
the dsmssa of the petton.
However, there are nstances when the Court treated compance wth the rue wth
reatve beraty, especay when there are crcumstances or compeng reasons makng
the strct appcaton of the rue ceary un|ustfed. Upon recept of the Resouton of the CA
dsmssng her petton for non-compance wth the rues, De-Zuzuarregu submtted,
together wth her Moton for Reconsderaton, a Verfcaton and Certfcaton sgned by her n
compance wth the sad rue. The Court deem ths to be suffcent compance especay n
vew of the merts of the case, whch may be consdered as a speca crcumstance or a
compeng reason that woud |ustfy temperng the hard consequence of the procedura
requrement on non-forum shoppng.
here e+ists a pre,udicial &uestion- thus the proceedin#s must !e suspended
For a pre|udca queston n a cv case to suspend a crmna acton, t must appear not
ony that sad cv case nvoves facts ntmatey reated to those upon whch the crmna
prosecuton woud be based, but aso that n the resouton of the ssue or ssues rased n the
cv case, the gut or nnocence of the accused woud necessary be determned. The
ratonae behnd the prncpe of pre|udca queston s to avod two (2) confctng decsons.
A perusa of the aegatons n the petton to annu |udgment shows that the cv case,
CA-G.R. SP No. 87222, pendng before the Court of Appeas s prncpay for the
determnaton of the vadty of the compromse agreement whch dd not ncude Peter,
Catherne, and Fanne as hers of Bea. Peter, Catherne, and Fanne presented evdence to
prove that they are aso boogca chdren of Bea and Ae|andro. On the other hand,
Crmna Case Nos. 343812 to 343814 fed before the MeTC nvove the determnaton of
whether pettoner commtted fasfcaton of pubc documents n executng peadngs
contanng untruthfu statements that she and Rosemary were the ony ega hers of Bea. It
s evdent that the resut of the cv case w determne the nnocence or gut of the
pettoner n the crmna cases for fasfcaton of pubc documents. The crmna cases arose
out of the cam of Peter, Catherne, and Fanne that they are aso the ega hers of Bea. If t
s fnay ad|udged n the cv case that they are not boogca chdren of the ate Bea and
consequenty not entted to a share n her estate as hers, there s no more bass to proceed
wth the crmna cases aganst pettoner who coud not have commtted fasfcaton n her
peadngs fed before the RTC of Pasg Cty, the truth of her statements regardng the
faton of Peter, Catherne and Fanne havng been |udcay setted.
MEDISER", INC. v. CO)RT OF A//EALS and LAND-EIG-TS DE"ELO/MENT
COR/ORATION
G.R. No. 191?98, 8 A@r$% 2!1!, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.'
+t is settled that liberal construction of the rules may be invoked in situations where
there may be some e#cusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the
same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a reasonable
attempt at compliance with the rules. (fter all, rules of procedure are not to be applied in a
very rigid, technical sense; they are used only to help secure substantial &ustice.
Pettoner Medserv, Inc. (Medserv) executed a rea estate mortgage n favor of Chna
Bankng Corporaton as securty for a oan. The mortgage was consttuted on a ot wth
mprovements ocated n Mana. Medserv defauted on ts obgaton wth Chnabank and the
rea estate mortgage was forecosed. At the pubc aucton sae, prvate respondent
Landheghts Deveopment Corporaton (Landheghts) emerged as the hghest bdder for the
sub|ect property.
Landheghts fed wth the Regona Tra Court (RTC) Appcaton for Possesson of Rea
Estate Property Purchased at an Aucton Sae under Act No. 3135. The tte of the property
was consodated n favor of Landheghts and the Regster of Deeds for the Cty of Mana.
Landheghts, seekng to recover possesson of the sub|ect property, fed a verfed Compant
for E|ectment aganst Medserv before the Metropotan Tra Court of Mana (MeTC). The
MeTC of Mana then rendered a Decson n favor of Landheghts.
Medserv appeaed the decson to the RTC. The RTC reversed the Decson of the
MeTC. Landheghts fed a Moton for Reconsderaton whch was dened. Landheghts
appeaed wth the Court of Appeas (CA), whch dsmssed the petton aegng that the
wrtten authorty of Dckenson Tan (Tan) to sgn requred documents of the petton was not
attached. Landheghts fed a Moton for Reconsderaton and subsequenty submtted a
Secretarys Certfcate statng that the Board of Drectors affrms the authorty of Tan to fe
the Petton for Revew. The Court of Appeas ssued a resouton grantng Landheghts a new
perod of ten (10) days wthn whch to correct and rectfy the defcences n the petton.
Medserv fed a Moton for Reconsderaton prayng that the Resouton grantng Landhegts
a new perod be set asde and the prevous Resouton, whch dsmssed the petton, be
renstated. The CA ssued a Resouton renstatng the petton for revew. After Medserv
fed a Moton for Reconsderaton, the CA ssued a resouton renstatng the petton. Its
Moton for Reconsderaton havng been dened by the CA, Medserv fes ths petton.
ISS)E:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
23
Whether or not the CA erred n renstatng the prevousy dsmssed petton of
Landheghts
-ELD:
Petton DENIED.
The requrement that a pettoner or prncpa party shoud sgn the certfcate of non-
forum shoppng appes even to corporatons, consderng that the mandatory drectves of
the Rues of Court make no dstncton between natura and |urdca persons. A corporaton,
however, exercses ts powers through ts board of drectors and/or ts duy authorzed
offcers and agents. Physca acts, ke the sgnng of documents, can be performed ony by
natura persons duy authorzed for the purpose by corporate by-aws or by a specfc act of
the board of drectors.
Unquestonaby, there s suffcent |ursprudenta bass to hod that Landheghts has
substantay comped wth the Verfcaton and Certfcaton requrements. The Court has
hed n a catena of cases wth smar factua crcumstances that there s substanta
compance wth the Rues of Court when there s a beated submsson or fng of the
secretarys certfcate through a Moton for Reconsderaton of the Court of Appeas decson
dsmssng the petton for certiorari.

In (teneo de 4aga University v. analo, the Court acknowedged that t has reaxed,
under |ustfabe crcumstances, the rue requrng the submsson of these certfcatons and
has apped the rue of substanta compance under |ustfabe crcumstances wth respect
to the contents of the certfcaton. It aso conceded that f the Court has aowed the beated
fng of the certfcaton aganst forum shoppng for compeng reasons n prevous rungs,
wth more reason shoud t sancton the tmey submsson of such certfcaton though the
proof of the sgnatorys authorty was submtted thereafter.
The Court s aware of the necessty for a certfcaton of non-forum shoppng n fng
pettons for certiorari as ths s requred under Secton 1 Rue 65, n reaton to Secton 3
Rue 46 of the Rues of Cv Procedure, as amended. When the pettoner s a corporaton,
the certfcaton shoud obvousy be executed by a natura person to whom the power to
execute such certfcaton has been vady conferred by the corporate board of drectors
and/or duy authorzed offcers and agents. Generay, the petton s sub|ect to dsmssa f a
certfcaton was submtted unaccompaned by proof of the sgnatorys authorty.
However, the Court must make a dstncton between non-compance wth the
requrements for certfcate of non-forum shoppng and verfcaton and substanta
compance wth the requrements as provded n the Rues of Court. The Court has aowed
the beated fng of the certfcaton on the |ustfcaton that such act consttutes substanta
compance. In *oadway !#press, +nc. v. C(, the Court aowed the fng of the certfcaton
fourteen (14) days before the dsmssa of the petton. In Uy v. "and )ank of the
,hilippines, the Court renstated a petton on the ground of substanta compance even
though the verfcaton and certfcaton were submtted ony after the petton had aready
been orgnay dsmssed. Furthermore, n <avtor anagement ,hils. +nc. v. 4"*C, the Court
acknowedged substanta compance when the ackng secretarys certfcate was submtted
by the pettoners as an attachment to the moton for reconsderaton seekng reversa of the
orgna decson dsmssng the petton for ts earer faure to submt such requrement.
In the present case, Landheghts rectfed ts faure to submt proof of Mr. Dckson
Tans authorty to sgn the verfcaton/certfcaton on non-forum shoppng on ts
behaf when the requred document was subsequenty submtted to the Court of Appeas.
The admsson of these documents, and consequenty, the renstatement of the petton
tsef, s n ne wth the cases the Court has cted. In such crcumstances, the Court deems t
more n accord wth substantve |ustce that the case be decded on the merts.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
25
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. 'ON'IE ESO7 -)NGO7 et al.
G.R. No. 1888<9, ; A@r$% 2!1!, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
!#perience dictates that precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed
right before their eyes, eyewitnesses can remember with a high degree of reliability the
identity of criminals at any given time. When conditions of visibility are favorable and the
witness does not appear to be biased, his assertion as to the identity of the malefactors
should normally be accepted.
In an Informaton, appeants |on|e Esoy y Hungoy (Esoy), Roando Cano y Soedad
(Cano), and Roger Boaacao y Dadvas (Boaacao) were charged wth grabbng the
cephone and money of Lorenzo Coro (Coro) and on the occason of the sad robbery, Coro
sustaned fata stab wounds whch were the drect cause of hs death mmedatey
thereafter. Esoy et al., for ther part, dened any nvovement n the robbery-homcde
ncdent. They camed that they were at ther workpace when the ncdent happened. Lauro
Dea Cruz (Dea Cruz), supervsor of appeants, was caed to testfy to corroborate
appeants defense. Though Dea Cruz recognzed the faces of the appeants as among
those who have worked under hm, he coud not categorcay state that they were at the
workpace at the tmes and dates they specfed because he was not there a the tme and
he does not keep tme records.
The tra court rendered a Decson fndng appeants guty of the crme of robbery
wth homcde. The Court of Appeas affrmed wth modfcaton the RTC decson. Hence, ths
appea.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the gut of the appeants for the crme of robbery wth homcde has
been proven beyond reasonabe doubt
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
The denttes of Esoy et al. as the perpetrators were estabshed beyond reasonabe
doubt. As narrated by Andrea Pabaan (Pabaan), two (2) of the appeants - Esoy and Cano -
sat n front of them whe the other, Boaacao, sat besde the vctm. Consderng the mted
space nsde a passenger |eepney, the faces of appeants can be easy seen by Pabaan n
cose range. Moreover, t s of no moment that the nsde of a |eepney was ony umnated
by a sma bub. The sad knd of ght has aready been hed by the Court as enough ghtng
for dentfcaton purposes. Consderng aso the busy thoroughfare of Taft Avenue, Ermta,
ght emanatng from the headghts of passng vehces can contrbute suffcent umnaton
to enabe Pabaan to dentfy appeants. We have hed that when condtons of vsbty are
favorabe and the wtness does not appear to be based, as n the nstant case, her asserton
as to the dentty of the maefactors shoud normay be accepted.
Furthermore, the reabty of Pabaans memory shoud not be doubted by the mere
fact that dentfcaton of the appeants at the poce ne-up happened severa days after the
ncdent. It s known that the most natura reacton of a wtness to a crme s to strve to ook
at the appearance of the perpetrator and to observe the manner n whch the offense s
perpetrated. Most often the face of the assaant and body movements thereof, creates a
astng mpresson whch cannot be easy erased from a wtnesss memory. Experence
dctates that precsey because of the unusua acts of voence commtted rght before ther
eyes, eyewtnesses can remember wth a hgh degree of reabty the dentty of crmnas at
any gven tme.
As to appeants defense of ab, t cannot preva over the postve dentfcaton of
appeants as the perpetrators of the crme, especay n the face of categorca statements
comng from a credbe wtness who has no motves n testfyng. Pabaans testmony was
straghtforward and though she became emotona durng the mdde part of her testmony,
she remaned consstent a throughout even on cross-examnaton. Appeants have aso not
shown any reason for Pabaan to testfy fasey aganst them.
To estabsh ab, an accused must prove (a) that he was present at another pace at
the tme the crme was perpetrated, and (b) that t was physcay mpossbe for hm to be at
the scene of the crme. Physca mpossbty "refers to the dstance between the pace
where the accused was when the crme transpred and the pace where t was commtted, as
we as the facty of access between the two paces." Here, appeants faed to satsfy the
sad requstes, especay the second. The crme happened aong Taft Avenue, Ermta, whe
appeants camed to be n ther workpace n Bacood, Sta. Mesa, at that tme. The dstance
between Ermta and Sta. Mesa cannot be sad as too far that t was physcay mpossbe for
appeants not to be at Ermta, the scene of the crme. Even the testmony of ther mmedate
supervsor dd not hep n estabshng ther defense snce Dea Cruz coud not categorcay
state that appeants were at the workpace at the tme and date the crme was commtted.
Robbery was proven beyond reasonabe doubt. Though Pabaans testmony as to the
vctms utterance that hs ceuar phone was taken s ony hearsay, the testmony s
consdered an excepton to the hearsay rue, the vctms spontaneous utterance beng part
of res gestae.
*es gestae refers to those excamatons and statements made by ether the
partcpants, the vctm or spectator to a crme mmedatey before, durng or mmedatey
after the commsson of the crme, when the crcumstances are such that the statements
were made as a spontaneous reacton or utterance nspred by exctement of the occason
and there was no opportunty for the decarant to deberate and to fabrcate a fase
statement. In the nstant case, a the eements of res gestae are suffcenty estabshed
nsofar as the aforequoted spontaneous utterance s concerned: (1) the prncpa act (res
gestae) - the robbery and stabbng of the vctm - s a startng occurrence; (2) the
statements were made before the decarant had tme to contrve or devse, that s, wthn
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
27
mnutes after the vctm was stabbed and hs ceuar phone was snatched; and (3) the
statement concerns the occurrence n queston and ts mmedatey attendng crcumstances
- hs ceuar phone was stoen durng the startng occurrence. The testmony beng an
excepton to the hearsay rue, the tra court dd not err n admttng the same.
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. RA7MOND FABIAN and ALLAN MACALONG
G.R. No. 181!<!, 18 Mar5A 2!1!, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.'
+n the absence of proof of motive to impute falsely a crime as serious as violation of
the Comprehensive .angerous .rugs (ct, the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses, shall prevail over appellants self%serving and uncorroborated denial.
The Markna Cty Poce Statons Ant-Iega Drugs Speca Operaton Task Force
receved a ca from a certan ctzen regardng a rampant sae of ega drugs n certan
areas n Markna. Actng on the report, a team was formed to conduct surveance and buy
bust operatons on the areas. The offcers postoned themseves on the area and they
spotted Aan Macaong (Macaong) enterng a sma aey and after a few mnutes emergng,
ths tme accompaned by Raymond Faban (Faban). One of the offcers saw Faban hand
over to Macaong a sma pastc sachet contanng whte crystane substance, whch he
suspected to be shabu. The poce offcer then arrested Faban and Macaong and gestured
to the other poce offcers who asssted hm n apprehendng the suspects. The offcers then
recovered a pastc sachet contanng whte crystane substance from Macaongs hand. The
suspects were charged before the Regona Tra Court (RTC) for voaton of the
Comprehensve Dangerous Drugs Act.
Upon the merts, the RTC found the accused guty beyond reasonabe doubt of the
offenses charged. On appea, the Court of Appeas (CA) affrmed the decson of the RTC. The
CA found that the nconsstences Faban and Macaong ponted out were pany mnor and
refer ony to coatera matters, whch do not touch on the commsson of the crme tsef or
detract from the postve dentfcaton of appeants as the cuprts n the voaton of the
Comprehensve Dangerous Drugs Act. The CA aso re|ected appeants cam that a the
members of the arrestng team shoud have been presented before the court to testfy on
appeants gut. It hed that the proposed testmony of the other members of the team s
not essenta for appeants convcton as ong as the prncpa wtnesses for the State have
aready adequatey testfed on the matera and essenta matters of the charged devery
and possesson of the prohbted drug. Hence, ths appea.
ISS)E:
Whether or not Faban and Macaong are guty for devery and possesson of shabu
whch s a voaton the provsons of Repubc Act 9165 or the Comprehensve Dangerous
Drugs Act
-ELD:
Petton DENIED.
The Court sustans the fndng of the ower courts that the prosecuton suffcenty
estabshed appeants gut beyond reasonabe doubt for voatons of Sectons 5 and 11 of
Artce II of Rep. Act No. 9165. The prosecuton proved that appeant Faban egay
devered a pastc sachet contanng shabu to appeant Macaong, who knowngy possessed
the same. Moreover, the sub|ect drugs were aso proven to be postve for
methamphetamne hydrochorde.
The aeged nconsstences n the testmones of the prosecuton wtnesses refer to
trva or mnor matters, whch do not mpar the essenta ntegrty of the prosecutons
evdence as a whoe or refect on the wtnesses honesty. Moreover, the aeged
nconsstences on mnor detas pertan to perphera matters and do not refer to the actua
operaton tsef, that cruca moment when Faban was caught deverng shabu to Macaong,
who knowngy possessed t. Thus, the Court sustans the tra court n gvng credence to
the testmones of the prosecutons wtnesses especay snce the tra court was n a better
poston to evauate the wtnesses deportment durng the tra.
Furthermore, Faban and Macaong dd not substantate ther defense of dena and
frame-up. They dd not present evdence that the prosecuton wtnesses had motve to
charge them fasey. Nether dd appeants prove that the poce offcers dd not perform
ther dutes reguary. As the Court of Appeas hed, the defense of dena and frame-up, ke
ab, can easy be concocted and s a common and standard poy n most prosecutons for
voatons of Rep. Act No. 9165.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
29
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. ROM)LO GARCIA
G.R. No. 1;;;<!, 8 A@r$% 2!1!, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.'
'he Court has ruled in a number of cases that the lack of lacerated wounds does not
negate se#ual intercourse. ( freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. !ven
the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule out the possibility of
rape. *esearch in medicine even points out that negative findings are of no significance, since
the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus. +n any case, for rape to be consummated,
full penetration is not necessary.
AAA, then fve (5) years od, was payng outsde ther house n Mandauyong Cty
when Romuo Garca (Garca) caed her and brought her to hs house, whch was rght next
to AAAs house. Garca brought AAA to the second foor and removed her cothes. Garca
then nserted hs pens nto her vagna and after whch, Garca then tod her to go home. AAA
then asked her grandmother BBB to gve her a bath but when BBB was about to wash the
genta area of AAA, AAA refused. BBB notced that AAA s coverng her genta area and was
trembng. BBB became suspcous and asked AAA what happened. AAA sad that t was
perced by a stck. BBB ooked at AAA genta and saw t was swoen. BBB brought AAA to
the house of her sster-n-aw, CCC, n Makat Cty, to nform her of AAAs condton. AAA
reveaed to CCC that t was Garca who abused her.
Consequenty, BBB reported the ncdent to the PNP Mandauyong Cty Poce Staton.
AAA was then examned by a medco-ega offcer. The report was expaned by the offcer
and accordng to the offcer the phrase "to precude compete penetraton by an average-
szed adut Fpno mae organ" n the report means that the hymen was not penetrated by
an erect pens, but expaned that n rape cases, a norma fndng w not dsprove that there
was no sexua ntercourse or abuse.

The defense, on the other hand, nterposed the defense of ab. Garca and hs
common-aw-wfe testfed that Garca was fxng the water pump whoe day.
The Regona Tra Court (RTC) found Garca guty of the crme of rape and mposed
death penaty upon hm. In vew of the Death Penaty mposed by the tra court, the entre
records of the case were forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatc revew. The Court
referred the case to the Court of Appeas (CA) for approprate acton and dsposton
pursuant to the Court's pronouncement n ,eople v. ateo. The CA reduced the penaty of
death mposed by the tra court to reclusion perpetua n vew of the aboton of the Death
Penaty. Garca appeaed to the Supreme Court. Hence, ths petton
ISS)E:
Whether or not the crme of rape has been suffcenty proven
-ELD:
Petton DENIED.
Garca nssts that the prosecuton faed to prove hs gut beyond reasonabe doubt
for the crme of rape. He contends that the tra court hasty dsregarded hs defense of
dena, whch was suffcent to absove hm n ght of the evdence on record. He
emphaszes that the medco-ega offcer testfed that there were no sgns of sweng on the
vctms vagna when she was examned. Garca further cams that the vctm was coached
to make fase accusatons aganst hm, consderng that he was not n good terms wth the
vctms grandmother. The Court fnds Garcas contentons untenabe.
In the present case, AAA categorcay testfed that appeant drecty nserted hs
pens nto her vagna, causng her to fee pan. AAAs testmony specfed the acts
commtted by appeant when he voated her. Both the RTC and the CA are n agreement
that AAA was categorca, straghtforward, spontaneous, convncng, cear and candd n her
testmony and a rape vctm who testfes n a categorca, straghtforward, spontaneous and
frank manner, and remans consstent, s a credbe wtness.
In resovng rape cases, prmorda consderaton s gven to the credbty of the
vctms testmony. The setted rue s that the tra courts concusons on the credbty of
wtnesses n rape cases are generay accorded great weght and respect, and at tmes even
fnaty, uness there appear n the record certan facts or crcumstances of weght and vaue
whch the ower court overooked or msapprecated and whch, f propery consdered, woud
ater the resut of the case. Havng seen and heard the wtnesses themseves and observed
ther behavor and manner of testfyng, the tra court stood n a much better poston to
decde the queston of credbty. Here, the Court note that no such facts or crcumstances of
weght and substance have been overooked, msapprehended or msnterpreted by the tra
and appeate courts.
Garcas cam that the crmna compant was fed aganst hm because he was not n
good terms wth AAAs grandmother deserves scant consderaton. The Court fnds t
ncredbe for AAA and her grandmother to trump up charges of rape aganst appeant for
the smpe reason that they dd not have a harmonous reatonshp. We-setted s the rue
that testmones of young vctms of rape deserve fu credence and shoud not be so easy
dsmssed as a mere fabrcaton.
Moreover, t s hghy mprobabe that BBB woud aow her granddaughter to be
exposed to the rdcue of a pubc tra, f the charges were not true. We note that AAA has
been n the custody of BBB snce she was an nfant, and who treated her as f she were her
own daughter. It was thus very unkey that she woud sacrfce her own granddaughter, a
chd of tender years, and sub|ect her to the rgors and humaton of a pubc tra for rape, f
she were not motvated by an honest desre to have her daughters transgressor punshed
accordngy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
31
The Court s kewse not persuaded by appeant's contenton that AAA was never
sexuay abused because the medco-ega fndngs showed that there were no sgns of
sweng on the vctms vagna when she was examned.
The Court has rued n a number of cases that the ack of acerated wounds does not
negate sexua ntercourse. A freshy broken hymen s not an essenta eement of rape. Even
the fact that the hymen of the vctm was st ntact does not rue out the possbty of
rape. Research n medcne even ponts out that negatve fndngs are of no sgnfcance, snce
the hymen may not be torn despte repeated cotus. In any case, for rape to be consummated,
fu penetraton s not necessary. Pene nvason necessary entas contact wth the aba. It
suffces that there s proof of the entrance of the mae organ nto the aba of the pudendum of
the femae organ. Penetraton of the pens by entry nto the ps of the vagna, even wthout
rupture or aceraton of the hymen, s enough to |ustfy a convcton for rape.
/OL7TEC-NIC )NI"ERSIT7 OF T-E /-ILI//INES, NATIONAL DE"ELO/MENT
COM/AN7 v. GOLDEN -ORI>ON REALT7 COR/ORATION
G.R. No1. 18?912, 8<29!, 18 Mar5A 2!1!, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
+n entering into the contract, the lessee is in effect stating that it consents to lease
the premises and to pay the price agreed upon provided the lessor also consents that,
should it sell the leased property, then, the lessee shall be given the right to match the
offered purchase price and to buy the property at that price.
Pettoner Natona Deveopment Counc (NDC) had n ts dsposa a ten (10)-hectare
property n Mana known as the NDC. NDC entered nto a Contract of Lease wth Goden
Horzon Reaty Corporaton (GHRC) over a porton of the property for a perod of ten (10)
years, renewabe for another ten (10) years. A second Contract of Lease wth opton to
purchase on part of GHRC was executed between NDC and GHRC, aso renewabe after the
expraton of the ten (10)-year ease perod. Before the expraton of the ten (10)-year perod
under the second ease contract, GHRC wrote a etter to NDC ndcatng ts exercse of the
opton to renew the ease for another ten (10) years. As no response was receved from
NDC, GHRC sent another etter. NDC st dd not repy but contnued to accept renta
payments from GHRC and aowed the atter to reman n possesson of the
property. However, GHRC dscovered that NDC had decded to secrety dspose the property
to a thrd party. GHRC then fed n the Regona Tra Court (RTC) a compant for specfc
performance, damages wth premnary n|uncton and temporary restranng order.
In the meantme, then Presdent Corazon C. Aquno ssued Memorandum Order No. 214
orderng the transfer of the whoe NDC Compound to the Natona Government, whch n turn
woud convey the sad property n favor of the Poytechnc Unversty of the Phppnes
(PUP). The sad order of conveyance of the 10.31-hectare property woud then automatcay
resut n the canceaton of NDCs tota obgaton n favor of the Natona Government.
The RTC ssued a wrt of premnary n|uncton en|onng NDC from proceedng wth the
sae and dsposton of the eased premses. PUP fed a moton to ntervene as party
defendant, camng that as a purchaser of a property sub|ect of tgaton, t s entted to
ntervene n the proceedngs. The RTC granted the sad moton. PUP aso demanded that
GHRC vacate the premses, nsstng that the atters ease contract had aready expred. Its
demand etter beng unheeded by GHRC, PUP fed an e|ectment case before the
Metropotan Tra Court (MeTC). Due to ths deveopment, GHRC fed a compant to en|on
the defendants from prosecutng the case e|ectment. A temporary restranng order was
subsequenty ssued by the RTC en|onng PUP from prosecutng the e|ectment case.
The Supreme Court rendered a decson n G.R. Nos. 143513 (,olytechnic University of
the ,hilippines v. Court of (ppeals) and 143590 (4ational .evelopment Corporation v.
=irestone Ceramics, +nc.) whch decared that the sae to PUP by NDC of the porton eased by
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
33
Frestone pursuant to Memorandum Order No. 214 voated the rght of frst refusa granted
to Frestone under ts thrd ease contract wth NDC.
The RTC rendered ts decson uphodng the rght of frst refusa granted to GHRC
under ts ease contract wth NDC and orderng PUP to reconvey the sad porton of the
property n favor of GHRC. NDC and PUP separatey appeaed the decson to the CA,
however the CA affrmed the decson of the RTC. Both the RTC and the CA apped ths
Courts rung n ,olytechnic University of the ,hilippines v. Court of (ppeals, consderng
that GHRC s smary stuated as a essee of NDC whose rght of frst refusa under the ease
contract was voated by the sae of the property to PUP wthout NDC havng frst offered to
se the same to GHRC despte the atters request for the renewa of the ease and/or to
purchase the eased premses pror to the expraton of the second ease contract. The CA
further agreed wth the RTCs fndng that there was an mped renewa of the ease upon
the faure of NDC to act on GHRCs repeated requests for renewa of the ease contract, both
verba and wrtten, and contnung to accept monthy renta payments from GHRC whch was
aowed to contnue n possesson of the eased premses.
ISS)E:
Whether or not the rung n ,olytechnic University of the ,hilippines v. Court of
(ppeals appes n ths case nvovng another essee of NDC who camed that the opton to
purchase the porton eased to t was smary voated by the sae of the NDC Compound n
favor of PUP pursuant to Memorandum Order No. 214.
-ELD*
Petton DENIED
Pettoner NDC n ts memorandum, contended that the CA erred n appyng the rung
n ,olytechnic University of the ,hilippines v. Court of (ppeals pontng out that the case of
essee Frestone Ceramcs, Inc. s dfferent from the case at bar, because the ease contract
theren had not yet expred whe n ths case respondents ease contracts have aready
expred and never renewed. The date of the expraton of the ease contract n sad case s
December 31, 1989 whch s pror to the ssuance of Memorandum Order No. 214 on |anuary
6, 1989. In contrast, respondents ease contracts had aready expred (September 1988) at
the tme sad memorandum order was ssued.
Such contenton does not hod water. As aready mentoned, the reckonng pont of the
offer of sae to a thrd party was not the ssuance of Memorandum Order No. 214 but the
commencement of such negotatons when respondents rght of frst refusa was st
subsstng and the ease contracts st n force. Pettoner NDC dd not bother to respond to
respondents etter nformng t of respondents exercse of the opton to renew and
requestng to dscuss further the matter wth NDC, nor to the subsequent etter reteratng
the request for renewng the ease for another ten (10) years and aso the exercse of the
opton to purchase under the ease contract.

In fne, the CA was correct n decarng that there exsts no |ustfabe reason not to
appy the same ratonae n ,olytechnic University of the ,hilippines v. Court of (ppeals n
the case of respondent who was smary pre|udced by pettoner NDCs sae of the property
to PUP. To entte the respondent to exercse ts opton to purchase unt October 1988
nasmuch as the May 4, 1978 contract emboded the opton to renew the ease for another
ten (10) years, upon mutua consent and gvng respondent the opton to purchase the
eased premses, for a prce to be negotated and determned at the tme such opton was
exercsed by respondent. It s then to be noted that Memorandum Order No. 214 tsef
decared that the transfer s sub|ect to such ens/eases exstng on the sub|ect property.
RENE "ENTENILLA /)SE v. LIGA7A DELOS SANTOS,/)SE
G.R. No. 18?9;8, 18 Mar5A 2!1!, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.'
(s a licensed professional teacher, one is re$uired to strictly adhere to, observe and
practice the set of ethical and moral principles, standards and values laid down in the
aforesaid code. <is good moral character is a continuing re$uirement which he must
possess if he wants to continue practicing his noble profession.
Pettoner Rene Ventena Puse (Puse), a professona teacher, marred respondent
Lgaya Deos Santos -Puse (Deos Santos-Puse), barangay rura heath mdwfe, at the
Muncpa Tra Court of Camarnes Norte. They had 2 chdren and subsequenty had a
church weddng before Deos Santos-Puse found out that Puse was aready marred to
Crstna Pabo Puse and aready had 2 chdren wth the frst wfe.
Deos Santos-Puse fed a Compant wth the Drector of the Professona Reguaton
Commsson (PRC) seekng assstance regardng Puse whom she had fed a crmna case for
bgamy and abandonment. Puse answered the Compant and aeged that f Deos Santos-
Puses aegaton were true, she woud be equay guty of mmoraty and dshonorabe
conduct as she was fuy aware that Puse s aready marred. Deos Santos-Puse, however,
sad that she marred Puse n good fath. The Board of Professona Teachers (Board)-PRC
found pettoner admnstratvey abe of the charges and revoked hs cense as a
Professona Teacher. Furthermore, the Board rued that contrary to pettoners contentons,
t had |ursdcton over pettoner and coud vady order the revocaton of hs cense, as
pettoner was a professona teacher. Pettoner moved for reconsderaton of the Decson
but hs Moton was dened by the Board. Puse then fed a petton before the Court of
Appeas (CA) however t dsmssed the appea. Hence, ths petton.
ISS)E:
a. Whether or not the Board of Professona Teachers have |ursdcton to hear and decde
the compant fed by respondent aganst pettoner
b. Whether or not pettoner was dened admnstratve due process
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
35
c. Whether or not there s substanta evdence to sustan the compant and to hod
pettoner abe
-ELD:
Petton DENIED.
he ,urisdiction of the Board of Professional eachers over administrative cases
Pettoner argues that the proper forum to hear and decde the compant was ether
the Cv Servce Commsson (CSC) pursuant to CSC Resouton No. 991936 or the
Department of Educaton (DepEd) pursuant to Rep. Act No. 4670 The Court does not agree.
An admnstratve case aganst a pubc schoo teacher may be fed before the Board of
Professona Teachers-PRC, the DepEd or the CSC, whch have concurrent |ursdcton over
admnstratve cases such as for mmora, unprofessona or dshonorabe conduct. When the
aw bestows upon a government body the |ursdcton to hear and decde cases nvovng
specfc matters, t s to be presumed that such |ursdcton s excusve uness t be proved
that another body s kewse vested wth the same |ursdcton, n whch case, both bodes
have concurrent |ursdcton over the matter. The authorty to hear and decde
admnstratve cases by the Board of Professona Teachers-PRC, DepEd and the CSC comes
from Rep. Act No. 7836, Rep. Act No. 4670 and Presdenta Decree (P.D.) No. 807. However,
where concurrent |ursdcton exsts n severa trbunas, the body or agency that frst takes
cognzance of the compant sha exercse |ursdcton to the excuson of the others. Here, t
was the Board of Professona Teachers, before whch respondent fed the compant, that
acqured |ursdcton over the case and whch had the authorty to proceed and decde the
case to the excuson of the DepEd and the CSC.
he denial of administrative due process
Puse was kewse ampy afforded admnstratve due process, the essence of whch s
an opportunty to expan ones sde or an opportunty to seek reconsderaton of the acton
or rung companed of. The records show that pettoner fed the foowng: (1) Compance-
Answer to the Compant; (2) Re|onder; (3) Poston paper; (4) Moton for Reconsderaton of
the Resouton of the Board of Professona Teachers fndng hm guty as charged; and (5)
Moton for Reconsderaton of the decson of the Court of Appeas. He attended the
premnary conference and hearng where he was abe to adduce hs evdence. Wth the
opportuntes he had, he cannot cam he was dened due process.
.u!stantial evidence to prove petitioner/s lia!ilit$
Puse cams good fath and mantans that he marred respondent wth the erroneous
beef that hs frst wfe was aready deceased. He nssts that such act of enterng nto the
second marrage dd not quafy as an mmora act and asserts that he commtted the act
even before he became a teacher. However, tere s no suffcent reason to overturn the
fndngs of the Board as affrmed by the appeate court as t s cear from the evdence that
pettoners cam that he beeved hs frst wfe Crstna Puse to be aready dead was beed
by the atters decaraton.
Furthermore, pettoners contenton that there was no substanta evdence to show
hs gut because respondent dd not even formay offer her exhbts aso does not persuade.
As aready stated, technca rues of procedure and evdence are not strcty apped n
admnstratve proceedngs. The fact that respondent dd not formay offer her exhbts the
way she woud n the courts of |ustce does not prevent the Board of Professona Teachers or
Court of Appeas from admttng sad exhbts and consderng them n the resouton of the
case. Nether s there mert to pettoners contenton that because he contracted the
bgamous marrage before he even became a teacher, he s not requred to observe the
ethca standards set forth n the Code of Ethcs of Professona Teachers. In the practce of
hs professon, he, as a censed professona teacher, s requred to strcty adhere to,
observe and practce the set of ethca and mora prncpes, standards and vaues ad down
n the aforesad code. It s of no moment that he was not yet a teacher when he contracted
hs second marrage. Hs good mora character s a contnung requrement whch he must
possess f he wants to contnue practcng hs nobe professon. In the nstant case, he faed
to abde by the tenets of moraty as he kept hs frst marrage secret to hs second wfe.
MA7OR B)INTIN B. SAL)DAGA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ARTEMIO
BALAG
G.R. No. 189<?1, 19112!, ; A@r$% 2!1!, EN BANC #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
+n accordance with the e#press provision of the law, the ten /1>0 days within which a
division of the CO!"!C may suspend elevating the case to the Commission en banc is to be
counted from the filing of the motion for e#ecution. 'he language of the law is clear, plain
and too simple to invite a different interpretation. oreover, nowhere in CO!"!C
*esolution 4o. ?7:@ does it say that a comment is re$uired, much less, indispensable before
the division may rule on a motion for e#ecution.
Pettoner Ountn B. Saudaga (Saudaga) and respondent Artemo Baag (Baag) were
canddates for Mayor of Lavezares, Northern Samar n the 2007 eectons. After Saudaga
was procamed the duy eected mayor, Baag fed an eecton protest aganst hm before
the Regona Tra Court (RTC) on the grounds of massve terrorsm and msapprecaton of
baots. The RTC decared Baag as the wnnng mayoraty. Saudaga then appeaed the RTC
Decson to the COMELEC. In the meantme, Baag moved for executon pendng appea, but
the moton was dened.The RTC found no speca reason to warrant executon pendng
appea.
The COMELEC Second Dvson affrmed the decson of the RTC. It found that Baag won
as Mayor of Lavezares. Baag agan prompty moved for executon and fed a Moton for
Executon Pendng Moton for Reconsderaton. Saudaga then fed a Moton for
Reconsderaton of the COMELEC Resouton. COMELEC Second Dvson ssued the frst
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
37
assaed order grantng Baags Moton for Executon Pendng Moton for Reconsderaton but
such order was ony sgned by the presdng offcer. The order drected the Second Dvson
cerk of court to ssue a wrt of executon orderng Saudaga to cease and desst from
dschargng the powers and dutes of Mayor of Lavezares and to renqush sad offce n
favor of Baag.
Aggreved, Saudaga fed an Extremey Urgent Moton for Reconsderaton wth the
COMELEC en banc. He aso fed a Petton for Certiorari wth ths Court, chaengng the order
of the COMELEC (G.R. No. 189431), Second Dvson. Thus, on October 28, 2009, Baag fed
a Manfestaton and Moton to Dsmss wth the COMELEC en banc contendng that Saudaga
engaged n forum shoppng. Baag n the meantme had taken hs oath and assumed the
post of Mayor.
Whe the petton n G.R. No. 189431 was pendng, the COMELEC en banc ssued the
assaed Resouton denyng reconsderaton to both the Order and Resouton of the Second
Dvson and grantng Baags moton to dsmss. The COMELEC en banc based ts denas
soey on the fndng that Saudaga commtted forum shoppng when he fed a Moton for
Reconsderaton wth the Second Dvson and a petton for certiorari n the Supreme Court.
Hence, ths petton for Certiorari and Prohbton n G.R. No. 191120.
ISS)ES:
1. Whether or not the pubc respondent COMELEC Second Dvson commtted grave
abuse of dscreton amountng to ack of or n excess of |ursdcton n ssung the questoned
order aowng executon pendng Moton for Reconsderaton
2. Whether or not the pubc respondent COMELEC Second Dvson & !n )anc commtted
grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack of or n excess of |ursdcton n ssung the
questoned resoutons fndng Baag as the wnner and grantng Baags Moton to Dsmss
the pettons fed by Saudaga before the Supreme Court and COMELEC !n )anc
-ELD:
Pettons GRANTED.
Grant of e+ecution pendin# motion for reconsideration
On May 3, 2007, the Supreme Court promugated A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC or the Rues
of Procedure n Eecton Contests before the Courts Invovng Eectve Muncpa and
Barangay Offcas. Secton 11(a) of Rue 14 of the sad rues sets the crtera for executon
pendng appea. By anaogy, ths standard s aso appcabe n the grant of executon
pendng resouton of the Moton for Reconsderaton of a decson, resouton, order or rung
of a dvson of the COMELEC.
Saudaga assas the September 4, 2009 Order for three (3) reasons: Frst, the
Second Dvson of the COMELEC faed to certfy and eevate the records of the case upon
the apse of ten (10) days n accordance wth Comeec Resouton No. 8654. Second, the
order was sgned by the Presdng Commssoner aone. Lasty, respondents Moton for
Executon Pendng Moton for Reconsderaton does not satsfy the crtera n A.M. No. 07-4-
15-SC.
In the case at hand, respondent Baag fed a Moton for Executon of the Resouton
dated August 12, 2009 fed on the next day. Thus, the Second Dvson of COMELEC had ony
unt August 23, 2009 to resove the same. In the order, Presdng Commssoner Ferrer,
actng for the Second Dvson, |ustfes the deay n the Resouton of the Moton for
Executon by sayng that t was n the nterest of far pay that he requred pettoner to fe a
comment. The Presdng Commssoner posts that the 10-day perod s reckoned from the
day the Second Dvson receved pettoners comment on September 1, 2009. However, ths
s not the case. In accordance wth the express provson of the aw, the ten (10) days
wthn whch a dvson of the COMELEC may suspend eevatng the case to the
Commsson en banc s to be counted from the fng of the moton for executon. The
anguage of the aw s cear, pan and too smpe to nvte a dfferent
nterpretaton. Moreover, nowhere n COMELEC Resouton No. 8654 does t say that a
comment s requred, much ess, ndspensabe before the dvson may rue on a Moton for
Executon.

After the apse of the 10-day perod, the ony power (and duty) that a dvson has s to
certfy and eevate the case, together wth a the records, to the Commsson n banc, for
approprate acton. Indeed, even f sad Order was promugated wthn 10 days from the
fng of the moton for executon, t woud st be vod because Presdng Commssoner
Ferrer aone sgned t.
Non(committal of forum shoppin#
In determnng whether a party voated the rue aganst forum shoppng, the most
mportant factor to ask s whether the eements of litis pendencia are present, or whether a
fna |udgment n one case w amount to res &udicata n another.
For the prncpe of res &udicata to appy, the foowng eements must be present: (1)
the |udgment sought to bar the new acton must be fna; (2) the decson must have been
rendered by a court havng |ursdcton over the sub|ect matter and the partes; (3) the
dsposton of the case must be a |udgment on the merts; and (4) there must be as between
the frst and second actons, dentty of partes, sub|ect matter, and cause of acton. In the
present case, the second eement s wantng.
Under Secton 5(c), Rue 3 of the COMELEC Rues of Procedure, any Moton to
Reconsder a decson, resouton, order or rung of a dvson sha be resoved by the
Commsson en banc except motons on nterocutory orders of the dvson whch sha be
resoved by the dvson whch ssued the order.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
39
When the COMELEC Second Dvson ssued the order aowng executon pendng
Moton for Reconsderaton, the appea of respondents eecton protest was st pendng
resouton by the COMELEC en banc. Ceary, order of the COMELEC Second Dvson grantng
executon pendng resouton of the Moton for Reconsderaton s n the nature of an
nterocutory order - one whch does not dspose of the case competey but eaves somethng
to be decded upon. Therefore, n accordance wth the COMELEC Rues of Procedure, any
moton to reconsder such nterocutory order of the dvson sha be resoved by the dvson
whch ssued t. Snce the COMELEC en banc had no |ursdcton over pettoners Extremey
Urgent Moton for Reconsderaton, ts resouton dsmssng the pettons of Saudaga does
not amount to res &udicata n reaton to the present petton.
Moreover, the Court agrees wth Saudaga that the COMELEC en banc aso erred n
grantng the Manfestaton and Moton fed by respondent. Under Secton 1(a), Rue 13 of
the COMELEC Rues of Procedure, a Moton to Dsmss s among the peadngs whch are not
aowed n the proceedngs before the Commsson. Fnay, n hs Verfed Moton for
Reconsderaton, Saudaga rased factua ssues.
S/O)SES BASILIO and NORMA -ILAGA v. R)RAL BAN: OF IS)LAN
G.R. No. 1;9;81, ; A@r$% 2!1!, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
!stoppel in pais arises when one, by his acts, representations or admissions, or by his
own silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence,
induces another to believe certain facts to e#ist and such other rightfully relies and acts on
such belief, so that he will be pre&udiced if the former is permitted to deny the e#istence of
such facts.
Pettoners Baso and Norma B. Haga (Hagas) were the owners of a parce of and n
South Cotabato. The spouses Hagas obtaned a oan from respondent Rura Bank of Isuan
Inc., (Rura Bank) n the amount of P2, 500.00 and to secure the oan, they executed a rea
estate mortgage over ther property presentng ony a Tax Decaraton. When the Hagas
faed to pay ther obgaton, the rura bank ntated forecosure proceedngs and sub|ect
property was sod at a pubc aucton to the rura bank and the atter took possesson of the
and. More than seventeen (17) years after the forecosure sae, pettoner Baso Haga sent
a etter to the respondent rura banks awyer to redeem the property. However, when the
etter remaned unanswered, he sent another etter but t was aso remaned unheeded.
Thus, the Hagas fed an acton to redeem ther forecosed property before the
Regona Tra Court (RTC). In ther compant, the Hagas aeged that the mortgage and
subsequent forecosure of the sub|ect property had not been annotated on the tte nor
regstered wth the Regstry of Deeds. Aso, no annotaton and consodaton of ownershp
was made n favor of the respondent rura bank. Thus, the one (1)-year redempton perod
under Act No. 3135, whch commences from the date of regstraton of the sae, has not yet
started. The RTC rendered |udgment n favor of the Hagas, rung that because the
certfcate of sae was not regstered, they can st redeem the sub|ect property.
However, the Court of Appeas (CA) reversed the decson rendered by the tra
court. Accordng to the CA, the rght of the Hagas to redeem ther forecosed property can
ony be exercsed wthn two (2) years from the date of forecosure, as provded under
Repubc Act No. 720 or the Rura Banks Act, as amended by Repubc Act No. 2670. The CA
aso rued that the spouses are guty of aches. The CA dened the Hagas moton for
reconsderaton. Hence, ths appea.
ISS)E:
Whether or not the spouses Haga can st redeem the forecosed property
-ELD:
Petton DENIED.
Secton 5 of Repubc Act No. 720, as amended by Repubc Act Nos. 2670 and 5939,
specfcay provdes for the redempton perod for ands forecosed by rura banks.
In -ta. +gnacia *ural )ank, +nc. v. Court of (ppeals, the Court summarzed the rues on
redempton n the case of an extra|udca forecosure of and acqured under our free patent
or homestead statutes as foows: If the and s mortgaged to a rura bank under Repubc
Act No. 720, as amended, the mortgagor may redeem the property wthn two (2) years from
the date of forecosure or from the regstraton of the sherffs certfcate of sae at such
forecosure f the property s not covered or s covered, respectvey, by a Torrens tte. If
the mortgagor fas to exercse such rght, he or hs hers may st repurchase the property
wthn fve (5) years from the expraton of the two (2)-year redempton perod pursuant to
Secton 119 of the Pubc Land Act (C.A. No. 141). If the and s mortgaged to partes other
than rura banks, the mortgagor may redeem the property wthn one (1) year from the
regstraton of the certfcate of sae pursuant to Act No. 3135. If he fas to do so, he or hs
hers may repurchase the property wthn fve (5) years from the expraton of the
redempton perod aso pursuant to Secton 119 of the Pubc Land Act.
In the present case, the Hagas admt that when the property was mortgaged, ony the
tax decaraton was presented. Athough a free patent tte was subsequenty ssued n ther
favor, they faed to nform the credtor rura bank of such ssuance and as a resut, the
certfcate of sae was not regstered or annotated on the free patent tte. The spouses
Haga then are estopped from redeemng the property based on the free patent tte whch
was not presented durng the forecosure sae nor devered to the Regstry of Deeds for
annotaton of the certfcate of sae as requred under Secton 5 of Repubc Act No. 720, as
amended. Estoppe in pais arses when one, by hs acts, representatons or admssons, or
by hs own sence when he ought to speak out, ntentonay or through cupabe neggence,
nduces another to beeve certan facts to exst and such other rghtfuy rees and acts on
such beef, so that he w be pre|udced f the former s permtted to deny the exstence of
such facts.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
41
Moreover, the Hagas cannot faut respondent rura bank for the non-regstraton of
the certfcate of sae because they dd not nform the atter that a Torrens tte had aready
been acqured by them. By ther sence and nacton, they msed the respondent rura bank
to beeve that ther ony proof of ownershp was the tax decaraton. For the same reason,
ther asserton that they w have fve (5) years from the date of regstraton of the sae to
redeem the forecosed property under Secton 119 of the Pubc Land Act has no mert, the
reckonng perod for the redempton perod beng propery from the date of sae.
But even assumng arguendo that the Hagas can ava of the fve (5)-year redempton
perod provded under Secton 119 of the Pubc Land Act, they st faed to exercse ther
rght of redempton wthn the regementary perod provded by aw. As mentoned earer,
Secton 119 of sad Act expressy provdes that where the and nvoved s acqured as a
homestead or under a free patent, f the mortgagor fas to exercse the rght of redempton,
he or hs hers may st repurchase the property wthn fve (5) years from the expraton of
the two (2)-year redempton perod. The aucton sae havng been conducted on Apr 20,
1977, the spouses had unt Apr 20, 1984 wthn whch to redeem the mortgaged
property. Snce they ony fed the nstant sut n 1999, ther rght to redeem had aready
apsed.
OFFICE OF T-E CIT7 MA7OR OF /ARACAB)E CIT7 e2. a%. 0.
MARIO D. EBIO AND -IS C-ILDREND-EIRS e2. a%.
G.R. No. 1;8<11, 2? 'une 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
(ccretions deposited gradually upon lands contiguous to creeks, streams, rivers, and
lakes, by accessions or sediments from the waters thereof, belong to the owners of such
lands.
Ebo et. al. cam that they are the absoute owners of a parce of and ocated at 9781
Vtaez Compound n Barangay Vtaez, Paraaque Cty and covered by a Tax Decaraton n
the name of respondent Maro D. Ebo (Maro). Sad and was an accreton of Cut-cut creek.
Ebo et. al. assert that the orgna occupant and possessor of the sad parce of and was
ther great grandfather, |ose Vtaez (|ose). Further, |ose gave the and to hs son, Pedro
Vtaez (Pedro). From then on, Pedro contnuousy and excusvey occuped and possessed
the sad ot. After executng an affdavt decarng possesson and occupancy, Pedro was abe
to obtan a tax decaraton over the sad property n hs name. Snce then, Ebo et. al. been
regousy payng rea property taxes for the sad property. Meanwhe, Maro marred
Pedros daughter, Zenada. Upon Pedros advce, the coupe estabshed ther home on the
sad ot. Subsequenty, Maro secured budng permts from the Paraaque muncpa offce
for the constructon of ther house wthn the sad compound. Pedro then executed a
notarzed Transfer of Rghts cedng hs cam over the entre parce of and n favor of Maro.
Morevoer, the tax decaratons under Pedros name were canceed and new ones were
ssued n Maros name.
Consequenty, the Offce of the -angguniang )arangay of Vtaez passed a
resouton seekng assstance from the Cty Government of Paraaque for the constructon of
an access road aong Cut-cut Creek ocated n the sad barangay. The proposed road w
be traversng the ot occuped by the Ebo et. al.. When the cty government advsed a the
affected resdents to vacate the sad area, Ebo et. al. mmedatey regstered ther
opposton thereto whch resuted for the pro|ect to be temporary suspended. However, Ebo
et. al. were surprsed when severa offcas from the barangay and the cty pannng offce
proceeded to cut eght (8) coconut trees panted on the sad ot. Ebo et. al. fed etter-
compants before the Regona Drector of the Bureau of Lands, the Department of Interor
and Loca Government and the Offce of the Vce Mayor. The Cty Admnstrator No Adp
then sent a etter to Ebo et. al. orderng them to vacate the area wthn the next thrty (30)
days, or be physcay evcted from the sad property. Ebo et. al. sent a etter to the Offce of
the Cty Admnstrator assertng, n sum, ther cam over the sub|ect property and
expressng ntent for a further daogue. The request remaned unheeded.
Threatened of beng evcted, Ebo et. al. went to the RTC of Paraaque Cty (RTC) and
apped for a wrt of premnary n|uncton. The RTC then dened the petton for ack of mert.
Ebo et. al. moved for reconsderaton, but the same was dened. Aggreved, Ebo et. al.
eevated the matter to the Court of Appeas (CA). The CA ssued ts Decson n favor of Ebo
et. al. On the other hand, the Offce of the Cty Mayor of Paraaque Cty et. al. fed a moton
for reconsderaton but was dened.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the sub|ect and owned by Ebo et. al. s cassfed as part of the pubc
doman whch w make the State as an ndspensabe party to the acton
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
It s an uncontested fact that the sub|ect and was formed from the auva deposts
that have graduay setted aong the banks of Cut-cut creek. Ths beng the case, the aw
that governs ownershp over the accreted porton s Artce 84 of the Spansh Law of Waters
of 1866, whch remans n effect, n reaton to Artce 457 of the Cv Code. Artce 84 of
the Spansh Law of Waters of 1866 specfcay covers ownershp over auva deposts aong
the banks of a creek whch reads that accretons deposted graduay upon ands contguous
to creeks, streams, rvers, and akes, by accessons or sedments from the waters thereof,
beong to the owners of such ands. Interestngy, Artce 457 of the Cv Code states that to
the owners of ands ad|onng the banks of rvers beong the accretons whch they graduay
receve from the effects of the current of the waters.
It s therefore expct from the foregong provsons that auva deposts aong the
banks of a creek do not form part of the pubc doman as the auva property automatcay
beongs to the owner of the estate to whch t may have been added. The ony restrcton
provded for by aw s that the owner of the ad|onng property must regster the same under
the Torrens system; otherwse, the auva property may be sub|ect to acquston through
prescrpton by thrd persons. In contrast, propertes of pubc domnon cannot be acqured
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
43
by prescrpton. No matter how ong the possesson of the propertes has been, there can be
no prescrpton aganst the State regardng property of pubc doman. Even a cty or
muncpaty cannot acqure them by prescrpton as aganst the State. Hence, whe t s true
that a creek s a property of pubc domnon, the and whch s formed by the gradua and
mperceptbe accumuaton of sedments aong ts banks does not form part of the pubc
doman by cear provson of aw.
Moreover, an ndspensabe party s one whose nterest n the controversy s such that
a fna decree woud necessary affect hs/her rght, so that the court cannot proceed wthout
ther presence. In contrast, a necessary party s one whose presence n the proceedngs s
necessary to ad|udcate the whoe controversy but whose nterest s separabe such that a
fna decree can be made n ther absence wthout affectng them. In the nstant case, the
acton for prohbton seeks to en|on the cty government of Paraaque from proceedng wth
ts mpementaton of the road constructon pro|ect. The State s nether a necessary nor an
ndspensabe party to an acton where no postve act sha be requred from t or where no
obgaton sha be mposed upon t, such as n the case at bar. Nether woud t be an
ndspensabe party f none of ts propertes sha be dvested nor any of ts rghts nfrnged.
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES 0. S)SAN LATOSA C-ICO
G.R. No. 189128, 2? 'une 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
(ny person may be e#empted from criminal liability if, while performing a lawful act
with due care, causes an in&ury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
Susan Latosa (Susan) and her husband Ma|or Fexberto Latosa, Sr. (Fexberto Sr.)
together wth two (2) of ther chdren, Sassymae Latosa (Sassymae) and Mchae Latosa
(Mchae), were at ther house n Fort Bonfaco. Fexberto Sr. was then aseep when
Sassymae saw Susan take hs fathers gun from the cabnet and eave. She asked her
mother where she was gong and f she coud come aong, but Susan refused. Moments ater,
Susan returned and tod Sassymae to buy ce cream at the commssary. Susan gave her
money and asked her to eave. After Sassymae eft, Susan nstructed Mchae to foow hs
sster, but he refused as he was hungry. Susan nssted and further tod Mchae not to make
any nose as hs father was seepng. Nevertheess, Susan went back nsde the house and
turned up the voume of the teevson and the rado to fu. Shorty after that, she came out
agan and gave Mchae some money to buy food at the grocery.
Instead of buyng food, Mchae bought ce candy and returned to the barracks ocated
at the back of ther house. Mchae thereupon saw hs frend Mac-Mac Nsperos who tod hm
that he saw Susan runnng away from ther house. Mchae dd not pay any attenton to hs
frends comment, and smpy contnued eatng hs ce candy. Moments ater, a certan Sgt.
Ramos arrved and asked f somethng had happened n ther house. Mchae reped n the
negatve then entered ther house. At that pont, he saw hs father yng on the bed wth a
hoe n the eft porton of hs head and a gun at hs eft hand. Mchae mmedatey went
outsde and nformed Sgt. Ramos about what happened. Sgt. Ramos tod hm that Susan had
reported the shootng ncdent to the Provost Marsha offce. Then, Sassymae arrved and
saw her father wth a buet wound on hs head and a gun near hs eft hand. Fexberto
Latosa, |r., (Fexberto |r.) one (1) of the egtmate sons of Susan and the vctm, aso
testfed that ther father tod hm and hs sbngs over dnner about a threat to ther ves by
a certan Efren Sta. Inez (Sta. Inez).
The Regona Tra Court (RTC) found Susan guty beyond reasonabe doubt for kng
her husband Fexberto Sr. The RTC hed that the cam of accdenta shootng was
nconsstent wth the evdence consderng the ocaton of the gunshot wound, whch was at
the eft tempe of Fexberto, Sr., and the fact that the gun was found near Fexberto, Sr.s
eft hand despte hs beng rght-handed. The RTC found that Susan panned the kng by
askng her two (2) chdren to eave the house and, after the shootng, pacng the gun near
the vctms eft hand to suggest that the death was sucde. But Susan overooked the fact
that Fexberto, Sr. was rght-handed. On appea, the Court of Appeas (CA) uphed the
decson of the RTC. The CA hed that snce Susan admtted havng ked her husband abet
aegedy by accdent, she has the burden of provng the presence of the exemptng
crcumstance of accdent to reeve hersef of crmna responsbty. She must rey on the
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
45
strength of her own evdence and not on the weakness of the prosecuton, for even f ths be
weak, t cannot be dsbeeved after the appeant has admtted the kng.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the exemptng crcumstance of accdent was estabshed by Susan n
her crme of parrcde
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
To prove the crcumstance she must rey on the strength of her own evdence and not
on the weakness of that of the prosecuton, for even f ths be weak, t cannot be dsbeeved
after the accused has admtted the kng. There s no mert n Susans contenton that the
prosecuton faed to prove by crcumstanta evdence her motve n kng her husband.
Intent to k and not motve s the essenta eement of the offense on whch her convcton
rests. Evdence to prove ntent to k n crmes aganst persons may consst, inter alia, n the
means used by the maefactors, the nature, ocaton and number of wounds sustaned by the
vctm, the conduct of the maefactors before, at the tme, or mmedatey after the kng of
the vctm, the crcumstances under whch the crme was commtted and the motves of the
accused. If the vctm des as a resut of a deberate act of the maefactors, ntent to k s
presumed.
In the nstant case, the foowng crcumstanta evdence consdered by the RTC and
affrmed by the CA satsfactory estabshed Susans ntent to k her husband and sustaned
her convcton for the crme. Moreover, the Court fnds no cogent reason to revew much ess
depart now from the fndngs of the RTC as affrmed by the CA that Susans verson s
undeservng of credence. It s doctrnay setted that the assessments of the credbty of
wtnesses and ther testmones s a matter best undertaken by the RTC, because of ts
unque opportunty to observe the wtnesses frst hand and to note ther demeanor, conduct
and atttude under grng examnaton. These are the most sgnfcant factors n evauatng
the sncerty of wtnesses and n unearthng the truth, especay n the face of confctng
testmones. Through ts observatons durng the entre proceedngs, the tra court can be
expected to determne, wth reasonabe dscreton, whose testmony to accept and whch
wtness to beeve. Very, fndngs of the tra court on such matters w not be dsturbed on
appea uness some facts or crcumstances of weght have been overooked,
msapprehended or msnterpreted so as to materay affect the dsposton of the case. We
fnd none n ths case.
/-ILI//INE ECONOMIC >ONE A)T-ORIT7, re@re1en2ed Aere$n b DIRECTOR
GENERAL LILIA B. DE LIMA v. 'OSE/- ')DE CARANTES et. al.
G.R. No. 1812;<, 2? 'une 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'R., J.(
4o person, firm or corporation, including any agency or instrumentality of the
government shall erect, construct, alter, repair, move, convert or demolish any building or
structure or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a building permit therefor
from the )uilding Official assigned in the place where the sub&ect building is located or the
building work is to be done.
Respondents |oseph |ude Carantes (|oseph), Rose Carantes (Rose) and the hers of
Maxmno Carantes (hers of Maxmno) are n possesson of a parce of and ocated n Loakan
Road, Baguo Cty. They obtaned Certfcate of Ancestra Land Cam (CALC) over the and from
the Department of Envronment and Natura Resources (DENR). On the strength of sad CALC,
|oseph et.a. secured a budng permt and a fencng permt from the Budng Offca of Baguo
Cty, Teodoro G. Barrozo. Before ong, they fenced the premses and began constructng a
resdenta budng thereon.
Soon, |oseph et.al. receved a etter from Dgna D. Torres (Torres), the Zone
Admnstrator of the Phppne Economc Zone Authorty (PEZA), nformng them that the
house they but had overapped PEZAs terrtora boundary. Torres advsed |oseph et.al. to
demosh the same wthn sxty (60) days from notce or PEZA woud undertake ts demoton
at |oseph et.a.s expense. Wthout answerng PEZAs etter, |oseph et.a. fed a petton for
n|uncton, wth prayer for the ssuance of a temporary restranng order (TRO) and wrt of
premnary n|uncton before the Regona Tra Court of Baguo Cty (RTC). By Order, the
RTC ssued a TRO, whch en|oned PEZA to cease and desst from threatenng |oseph et.al.
wth the demoton of ther house before |oseph et.al.s prayer for a wrt of premnary
n|uncton can be heard. Further, the RTC kewse ssued an Order, whch drected the
partes to mantan the status quo pendng resouton of the case.
Subsequenty, the RTC granted |oseph et.al.s petton and ordered the ssuance of a
wrt of n|uncton aganst PEZA. The RTC rued that |oseph et.al. are entted to possess,
occupy and cutvate the sub|ect ots on the bass of ther CALC. The court a $uo expaned
that by the very defnton of an ancestra and under Repubc Act (R.A.) No. 8371 or
the Indgenous Peopes Rghts Act of 1997, sad ots have been segregated from ands of the
pubc doman. On appea, the Court of Appeas (CA) affrmed the RTC rung. In the assaed
Decson, the appeate court echoed the RTCs decaraton that the sub|ect ots have been
set asde from the ands of the pubc doman.
ISS)E*
Whether or not |oseph et.al. may bud structures wthn the Baguo Cty Economc
Zone on the bass of ther CALC, and the budng and fencng permts ssued by the Cty
Budng Offca
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
47
In the parae case of ,hilippine !conomic Aone (uthority /,!A(0 v. )orreta, Benedcto
Carantes nvoked CAR-CALC-022, the same CALC nvoked by |oseph et.al. n ths case, to put
up structures n the and sub|ect of sad case. The Court refused to reca the wrt of
demoton ssued by the tra court theren. We hed that |oseph et.al. s a mere appcant for
the ssuance of a certfcate of ownershp of an ancestra and who has yet to acqure a
vested rght as owner thereof so as to excude the and from the areas under PEZA. We
perceve no good reason to depart from ths rung as we fnd |oseph et.al. heren to be
smary stuated.
As hoders of a CALC, |oseph et.al. possess no greater rghts than those enumerated n
Par. 1, Secton 2, Artce VII of DENR Department Admnstratve Order (DAO) No. 02, Seres
of 1993 whch states that the Rghts and Responsbtes of Ancestra Land Camants are the
rght to peacefuy occupy and cutvate the and, and utze the natura resources
theren, sub|ect to exstng aws, rues and reguatons appcabe thereto; the rght of the
hers to succeed to the cams sub|ect to exstng rues and reguatons; the rght to excude
from the cam any other person who does not beong to the famy or can; and the rght to
utze trees and other forest products nsde the ancestra and sub|ect to these rues as we
as customary aws.
|oseph et.al. beng hoders of a mere CALC, ther rght to possess the sub|ect and s
mted to occupaton n reaton to cutvaton. Unke No. 1, Par. 1, Secton 1, Artce VII of
the same DENR DAO, whch expressy aows ancestra doman camants to resde peacefuy
wthn the doman, nothng n Secton 2 grants ancestra and camants a smar rght, much
ess the rght to bud permanent structures on ancestra ands - an act of ownershp that
pertans to one (1) who has a recognzed rght by vrtue of a Certfcate of Ancestra Land
Tte. On ths score aone, |oseph et. a.s acton for n|uncton must fa. Yet, even f |oseph
et. a. had estabshed ownershp of the and, they cannot smpy put up fences or bud
structures thereon wthout compyng wth appcabe aws, rues and reguatons. In
partcuar, Secton 301 of P.D. No. 1096, otherwse known as the Natona Budng Code of
the Phppnes mandates that no person, frm or corporaton, ncudng any agency or
nstrumentaty of the government sha erect, construct, ater, repar, move, convert or
demosh any budng or structure or cause the same to be done wthout frst obtanng a
budng permt therefor from the Budng Offca assgned n the pace where the sub|ect
budng s ocated or the budng work s to be done.
Suppementary to a budng permt, a fencng permt must aso be secured from the
Budng Offca concerned before fences may be nstaed n the premses. In the present
case, PEZA refuses to honor the budng and fencng permts ssued by the Cty Budng
Offca to |oseph et.al. Pettoner PEZA mantans that the functon of admnsterng and
enforcng the provsons of P.D. No. 1096 wthn the areas owned and admnstered by t,
pertans to PEZA. Hence, t s PEZA, and not the oca Budng Offca of Baguo Cty, whch
may propery ssue budng and fencng permts wthn PEZA.
BAN: OF T-E /-ILI//INE ISLAND v. S-EMBERG BIOTEC- COR/ORATION, et al.
G.R. No. 192291, 11 AuEu12 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
When issues of constitutionality are raised, the Court can e#ercise its power of &udicial
review only if the following re$uisites are present6 /10 the e#istence of an actual and
appropriate case; /50 a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional
$uestion; /20 the e#ercise of &udicial review is pleaded at the earliest possible opportunity; and
/@0 the constitutional $uestion is the lis mota of the case.
Respondent Shemberg Botech Corporaton (SBC), a domestc corporaton whch
manufactures carrageenan from seaweeds, fed a petton for the approva of ts
rehabtaton pan and appontment of a rehabtaton recever before the Regona Tra
Court (RTC). The RTC ssued a stay order and pettoner Bank of the Phppne Isands (BPI)
fed ts opposton to SBCs petton.
The RTC gave due course to SBCs petton. BPI fed a petton before the Court of
Appeas (CA), but the same was dsmssed. BPI prays that the Interm Rues of Procedure on
Corporate Rehabtaton be decared unconsttutona and that the petton for rehabtaton
be dsmssed and termnated.
ISS)ES*
1.) Whether or not the Interm Rues of Procedure on Corporate Rehabtaton s
consttutona
2.) Whether or not the petton for rehabtaton of SBC be dsmssed or termnated
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
he 0nterim %ules of Procedure on Corporate %eha!ilitation is constitutional
On the queston of the consttutonaty of the Interm Rues of Procedure on Corporate
Rehabtaton, BPI faed n ts burden of ceary and unequvocay provng ts asserton. Its
faure to so prove defeats the chaenge. The Court even noted that BPI tsef opposes ts
own stand by nvokng Secton 27, Rue 4 of the Interm Rues to support ts prayer that the
rehabtaton proceedngs be decared termnated. BPI aso mpedy nvoked the Interm
Rues before the CA n seekng a modfed rehabtaton pan consderng that SBCs petton
for approva of ts rehabtaton pan had been fed under the Interm Rues.
In addton, the chaenge on the consttutonaty of the Interm Rues s a new and
beated theory that the Court shoud not even entertan. It was not rased before the CA. We
setted s the rue that ssues not prevousy ventated cannot be rased for the frst tme on
appea. Reatedy, the consttutona queston was not rased at the earest opportunty. The
rue s that when ssues of consttutonaty are rased, the Court can exercse ts power of
|udca revew ony f the foowng requstes are present: (1) the exstence of an actua and
approprate case; (2) a persona and substanta nterest of the party rasng the consttutona
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
49
queston; (3) the exercse of |udca revew s peaded at the earest possbe opportunty; and
(4) the consttutona queston s the lis mota of the case.
he petition for reha!ilitation of .BC cannot !e dismissed or terminated
The Court cannot grant BPIs prayer that the petton for rehabtaton be ordered
dsmssed and termnated. To dsmss the petton for rehabtaton woud be to reverse
mpropery the fna course of that petton: the petton was granted by the RTC; the RTC
decson was affrmed wth fnaty; and the rehabtaton pan s now beng
mpemented. And whe the Interm Rues and the new Rues of Procedure on Corporate
Rehabtaton contan provsons on termnaton of the corporate rehabtaton proceedngs,
nether the RTC nor the CA rued on ths pont. In fact, BPI dd not ask the CA to termnate
the rehabtaton proceedngs. Asde from beng another new ssue, ts resouton nvoves
factua matters such as: (1) whether there was faure to acheve the desred targets or goas
as set forth n the rehabtaton pan; (2) whether there was faure of the debtor (SBC) to
perform ts obgatons under the pan; (3) whether the rehabtaton pan may no onger be
mpemented n accordance wth ts terms, condtons, restrctons or assumptons; or (4)
whether there was successfu mpementaton of the rehabtaton pan. The Court s not at
berty to consder these factua matters for the frst tme. The Court s not a trer of facts
and ts roe n a petton for revew on certorar under Rue 45 of the1997 Rues of Cv
Procedure s mted to revewng or reversng errors of aw. The Rue 45 petton tsef must
rase ony questons of aw.
L)CIANO BRIONES, et al. v. 'OSE MACABAGDAL, et al.
G.R. No. 18!999, ? AuEu12 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
+f a person builds upon anothers land a structure in good faith, the former may
compel the latter to make a choice between appropriating the building by paying the proper
indemnity or obliging the builder to pay the price of the land.
Respondent-spouses |ose and Fe Macabagda purchased from respondent Vergon
Reaty Investments Corporaton a and. On the other hand, pettoners Lucano Brones, et al.
are owners of the and ad|acent to the and of spouses Macabagda. Brones, et al.
constructed a house on the ot of spouses Macabada whch they thought was ther own ot.
After beng nformed of the mx up by Vergons manager, spouses Macabagda mmedatey
demanded Brones, et al. to demosh the house and vacate the property. Brones, et al.,
however, refused to heed ther demand.
Spouses Macabagda fed an acton to recover ownershp and possesson of the
dsputed and wth the Regona Tra Court (RTC). The RTC rued n favor of spouses
Macabagda. The Court of Appeas (CA) affrmed the RTC.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the house but by Brones, et al. shoud be demoshed and the atter
be ordered to vacate the dsputed and out rghty
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
The concusveness of the factua fndngs notwthstandng, the Court found that the
tra court nonetheess erred n outrghty orderng Brones, et al. to vacate the sub|ect
property or to pay spouses Macabagda the prevang prce of the and as
compensaton. Artce 527 of the Cv Code presumes good fath, and snce no proof exsts
to show that the mstake was done by Brones, et al. n bad fath, the atter shoud be
presumed to have but the house n good fath.
The buder n good fath can compe the andowner to make a choce between
appropratng the budng by payng the proper ndemnty or obgng the buder to pay the
prce of the and. The choce beongs to the owner of the and, a rue that accords wth the
prncpe of accesson, i.e., that the accessory foows the prncpa and not the other way
around. However, even as the opton es wth the andowner, the grant to hm,
nevertheess, s precusve. He must choose one. He cannot, for nstance, compe the owner
of the budng to remove the budng from the and wthout frst exercsng ether opton. It
s ony f the owner chooses to se hs and, and the buder or panter fas to purchase t
where ts vaue s not more than the vaue of the mprovements, that the owner may remove
the mprovements from the and. The owner s entted to such remoton ony when, after
havng chosen to se hs and, the other party fas to pay for the same.
Consequenty, the spouses Macabagda have the opton to approprate the house on
the sub|ect and after payment to Brones, et al. of the approprate ndemnty or to obge
Brones, et al. to pay the prce of the and, uness ts vaue s consderaby more than the
vaue of the structures, n whch case Brones, et al. sha pay reasonabe rent.
EB)ITABLE /CI BAN:, INC. v. O',MAR: TRADING, INC., et al.
G.R. No. 19898!, 11 AuEu12 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'o be entitled to an in&unctive writ, the right to be protected and the violation against
that right must be shown. ( writ of preliminary in&unction may be issued only upon clear
showing of an actual e#isting right to be protected during the pendency of the principal
action. 'he possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual e#isting right is no
ground for an in&unction
Respondent-spouses Oscar and Evangene Martnez obtaned oans from pettoner
Equtabe PCI Bank, Inc. As a securty for the sad amount, a Rea Estate Mortgage (REM) was
executed over a condomnum unt. Oscar Martnez sgned the REM both as prncpa debtor
and as Presdent of the regstered owner and thrd-party mortgagor, respondent O|-Mark
Tradng, Inc. Spouses Martnez defauted n the payment of ther outstandng oan obgaton.
In a etter, spouses Martnez offered to sette ther ndebtedness "wth the assgnment to the
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
51
Bank of a commerca ot of correspondng vaue" and aso requested for re-computaton at a
ower nterest rate and condonaton of penates. Whe the banks offcers hed a meetng
wth Oscar Martnez, the atter however faed to submt the requred documents such as
certfcates of tte and tax decaratons so that the bank can evauate hs proposa to pay the
mortgage debt va dacion en pago. Consequenty, the bank ntated the extra|udca
forecosure of the rea estate mortgage by fng an e# parte petton before Regona Tra
Court (RTC).
Spouses Martnez fed a cv case prayng for a Temporary Restranng Order (TRO),
n|uncton and annument of extra|udca forecosure sae. The RTC granted the TRO and
subsequenty, the wrt of premnary n|uncton was aso granted. Equtabe PCI Bank, Inc.
questoned the ssuance of premnary n|uncton before the Court of Appeas (CA) but the
CA sustaned the assaed order.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the spouses Martnez have shown a cear ega rght to en|on the
forecosure and pubc aucton of O|-Mark Tradng, Inc.s property whe the case for
annument of REM on sad property s beng tred
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
A wrt of premnary n|uncton may be ssued ony upon cear showng of an actua
exstng rght to be protected durng the pendency of the prncpa acton. The twn
requrements of a vad n|uncton are the exstence of a rght and ts actua or threatened
voatons. Thus, to be entted to an n|unctve wrt, the rght to be protected and the
voaton aganst that rght must be shown. A wrt of premnary n|uncton may be ssued
ony upon cear showng of an actua exstng rght to be protected durng the pendency of
the prncpa acton.
The ssuance of a premnary n|uncton rests entrey wthn the dscreton of the court
takng cognzance of the case and s generay not nterfered wth except n cases of
manfest abuse. For the ssuance of the wrt of premnary n|uncton to be proper, t must be
shown that the nvason of the rght sought to be protected s matera and substanta, that
the rght of companant s cear and unmstakabe and that there s an urgent and
paramount necessty for the wrt to prevent serous damage. In the absence of a cear ega
rght, the ssuance of a wrt of n|uncton consttutes grave abuse of dscreton.
The possbty of rreparabe damage wthout proof of actua exstng rght s no
ground for an n|uncton. Hence, t s not suffcent for the Spouses Martnez to smpy harp
on the serous damage they stand to suffer f the forecosure sae s not stayed. They must
estabsh such cear and unmstakabe rght to the n|uncton. In .uvaz Corporation v. !#port
and +ndustry )ank, the Court emphaszed that t s necessary for the pettoner to estabsh n
the man case ts rghts on an aeged dacion en pago agreement before those rghts can be
deemed actua and exstng, whch woud |ustfy the n|unctve wrt.
In the case at bar, respondents faed to show that they have a rght to be protected and
that the acts aganst whch the wrt s to be drected are voatve of the sad rght. On the face
of ther cear admsson that they were unabe to sette ther obgatons whch were secured by
the mortgage, Equtabe PCI Bank, Inc. has a cear rght to forecose the mortgage. Forecosure
s but a necessary consequence of non-payment of a mortgage ndebtedness. In a rea estate
mortgage when the prncpa obgaton s not pad when due, the mortgagee has the rght to
forecose the mortgage and to have the property sezed and sod wth the vew of appyng the
proceeds to the payment of the obgaton.
-ON. WALDO B. FLORES, $n A$1 5a@a5$2 a1 Sen$or De@u2 EFe5u2$0e Se5re2ar $n
2Ae O33$5e o3 2Ae /re1$den2, et al. v. ATT7. ANTONIO F. MONTEMA7OR
G.R. No. 1;!1<9, 28 AuEu12 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari, commenced in relation to a
case pending before a lower court or an administrative body such as the ,(BC, does not
interrupt the course of the latter where there is no writ of in&unction restraining it.
Respondent Atty. Antono Montemayor was apponted as Regona Drector II of the
Bureau of Interna Revenue (BIR). The Offce of the Presdent (OP) receved a etter from a
"concerned ctzen" reatng Montemayors ostentatous festye whch s apparenty
dsproportonate to hs ncome as a pubc offca. The etter was referred to the Presdenta
Ant-Graft Commsson (PAGC) for approprate acton. The PAGC, after nvestgaton, ssued a
forma charge for voaton of Repubc Act (RA) 3019 n re reatng Montemayors
ostentatous festye whch s apparenty dsproportonate to hs ncome as a pubc offca.
The etter was referred to the PAGC for approprate acton. The PAGC, after nvestgaton,
ssued a forma charge for voaton of Secton 7 of Repubc Act 3019 n reaton to Secton
8(A) of RA 6713 due to hs faure to decare the 2001 For Expedton and the 1997 Toyota
Land Cruser n hs 2001 and 2002 Sworn Statement of Assets and Labtes (SSAL).
Montemayor moved for the deferment of the admnstratve proceedngs before the
Court of Appeas (CA) questonng the PAGCs |ursdcton to conduct admnstratve
nvestgaton aganst hm. The CA ssued a Temporary Restranng Order (TRO) en|onng the
PAGC from proceedng wth the nvestgaton for 60 days. Shorty after the expraton of the
60 days, the PAGC ssued a resouton fndng Montemayor admnstratvey abe as charged
and recommended to the OP Montemayors dsmssa. The OP adopted n toto the fndngs
and recommendaton of the PAGC. Aggreved, Montemayor fed a petton before the CA
argung that he was dened due process when PAGC proceeded to nvestgate hs case
notwthstandng the pendency of hs petton before the CA regardng PAGCs |ursdcton.
The CA rued n favor of Montemayor, hence, the petton.
ISS)ES*
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
53
1.) Whether or not PAGC has the |ursdcton to conduct admnstratve nvestgaton
aganst Montemayor
2.) Whether or not Montemayor was dened due process when the PAGC proceeded to
nvestgate hs case notwthstandng the pendency of hs petton before the CA
regardng PAGCs |ursdcton
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
PAGC has the ,urisdiction to conduct administrative investi#ation a#ainst
Montema$or
The PAGC was created by vrtue of Executve Order (EO) No. 12, sgned on Apr 16,
2001 to speedy address the probem on corrupton and abuses commtted n the
government, partcuary by offcas apponted by the Presdent. Under Secton 4 (b) of EO
No. 12, the PAGC has the power to nvestgate and hear admnstratve compants provded
(1) that the offca to be nvestgated must be a presdenta appontee n the government or
any of ts agences or nstrumentates, and (2) that the sad offca must be occupyng the
poston of assstant regona drector, or an equvaent rank, or hgher.
Secton 4 (c) of EO No. 12, however, states that the PAGC has the power to gve due
course to anonymous compants aganst presdenta appontees f there appears on the face of
the compant or based on the supportng documents attached to the anonymous compant a
probabe cause to engender a beef that the aegatons may be true. The use of the con|unctve
word "or" n the sad provson s determnatve snce t empowers the PAGC to exercse
dscreton n gvng due course to anonymous compants. Because of the sad provson, an
anonymous compant may be gven due course even f the same s wthout supportng
documents, so ong as t appears from the face of the compant that there s probabe cause.
The cear mpcaton of the sad provson s ntended to empower the PAGC n ne wth the
Presdents ob|ectve of eradcatng corrupton among a partcuar ne of government
offcas, i.e., those drecty apponted by her. Absent the con|unctve word "or," the PAGCs
authorty to conduct nvestgatons based on anonymous compants w be very mted. It w
decmate the sad admnstratve body nto a toothess ant-corrupton agency and w nevtaby
undermne the Chef Executves dscpnary power.
Montema$or "as not denied due process
The Court found nothng rreguar wth the PAGCs decson to proceed wth ts
nvestgaton notwthstandng the pendency of Montemayors petton for certiorari before
the CA. The fng of a petton for certiorari wth the CA dd not dvest the PAGC of ts
|ursdcton vady acqured over the case before t. Eementary s the rue that the mere
pendency of a speca cv acton for certiorari, commenced n reaton to a case pendng
before a ower court or an admnstratve body such as the PAGC, does not nterrupt the
course of the atter where there s no wrt of n|uncton restranng t. For as ong as no wrt of
n|uncton or restranng order s ssued n the speca cv acton for certiorari, no
mpedment exsts, and nothng prevents the PAGC from exercsng ts |ursdcton and
proceedng wth the case pendng before ts offce. And even f such n|unctve wrt or order
s ssued, the PAGC contnues to retan |ursdcton over the prncpa acton unt the queston
on |ursdcton s fnay determned.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
55
-EIRS OF 'ANE -ONRALES, et al. v. 'ONAT-AN -ONRALES
G.R. No. 182981 , 18298;, 28 AuEu12 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
One of the re$uisite for double &eopardy to e#ist is that a &udgment be rendered by a
court of competent &urisdiction. Once &urisdiction is ac$uired by the court in which the
+nformation is filed, it is there retained. 'herefore, in an offense included in the charge
pending before the *'C, the e'C has no &urisdiction over it.
|ane Honraes was fatay shot by her husband, respondent |onathan Honraes. In a
resouton, the Assstant Cty Prosecutor recommended the fng of an nformaton for
parrcde aganst Honraes. The Regona Tra Court (RTC) ordered Honraes arrest.
However, the RTC subsequenty ssued an order deferrng the proceedngs. The new
Assstant Cty Prosecutor handng the case ssued a resouton approved by the Cty
Prosecutor wthdrawng the nformaton for parrcde and n ts stead, recommended the
fng of an nformaton for reckess mprudence resutng n parrcde. Whe the moton to
wthdraw nformaton was st pendng, an nformaton for reckess mprudence resutng n
parrcde was fed aganst Honraes before the Metropotan Tra Court (MeTC).
Pettoner Hers of |ane Honraes fed a petton for revew wth the Department of
|ustce (DO|) questonng the downgradng of the offense. The DO| dsmssed the petton.
The moton for reconsderaton was dened. Thus, the RTC ssued an order consderng the
moton to wthdraw the nformaton. The hers agan fed a petton for revew wth the DO|
but the same was dsmssed wth fnaty. When the hers appeaed before the Offce of the
Presdent (OP), the RTC hed n abeyance the resouton of the moton to wthdraw n
deference to the appea takng ts due course before the OP.
In the meantme, Honraes was found by the MeTC guty beyond reasonabe doubt of
reckess mprudence resutng to parrcde. Honraes then fed wth the RTC a moton
seekng to dsmss the crme of parrcde charges aganst hm because of hs convcton by
the MeTC. The OP dsmssed the hers appea of the DO| resouton and because of ths, the
hers rased the ssue before the Court of Appeas (CA). The RTC |udge handng the case
nhbted hersef and the case was re-raffed. Shorty thereafter, the new RTC |udge ssued an
order grantng the wthdrawa of the nformaton for parrcde and recang the warrant of
arrest. The hers rased ths matter before the CA but the CA dsmssed the hers petton,
hence the case.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the remand of the parrcde case to the tra court w voate Honraes
consttutona rght aganst doube |eopardy
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
It s beyond cav that the RTC acted wth grave abuse of dscreton n grantng the
wthdrawa of the Informaton for parrcde and recang the warrant of arrest wthout makng
an ndependent assessment of the merts of the case and the evdence on record. By reyng
soey on the manfestaton of the pubc prosecutor that t s abdng by the Resouton of the
Secretary of |ustce, the tra court abdcated ts |udca power and refused to perform a
postve duty en|oned by aw. What remans for the Courts resouton s whether the case
may be remanded to the RTC wthout voatng respondents rght aganst doube
|eopardy. On ths queston, the Court found the answer to be n the affrmatve.
Secton 7, Rue 117 of the Revsed Rues of Crmna Procedure, as amended provdes:
SEC. 7. =ormer conviction or ac$uittal; double &eopardy. - When an accused has been convcted or
acqutted, or the case aganst hm dsmssed or otherwse termnated wthout hs express consent by
a court of competent |ursdcton, upon a vad compant or nformaton or other forma charge suffcent n
form and substance to sustan a convcton and after the accused had peaded to the charge, the
convcton or acqutta of the accused or the dsmssa of the case sha be a bar to another prosecuton for
the offense charged, or for any attempt to commt the same or frustraton thereof, or for any offense whch
necessary ncudes or s necessary ncuded n the offense charged n the former compant or
nformaton.
x x x x
Thus, doube |eopardy exsts when the foowng requstes are present: (1) a frst
|eopardy attached pror to the second; (2) the frst |eopardy has been vady termnated; and
(3) a second |eopardy s for the same offense as n the frst. A frst |eopardy attaches ony (a)
after a vad ndctment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arragnment; (d) when a vad
pea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acqutted or convcted, or the
case dsmssed or otherwse termnated wthout hs express consent.
In ths case, the MeTC took cognzance of the Informaton for reckess mprudence
resutng n parrcde whe the crmna case for parrcde was st pendng before the
RTC. In .io$uino v. Cruz, Cr., the Court hed that once |ursdcton s acqured by the court n
whch the Informaton s fed, t s there retaned. Therefore, as the offense of reckess
mprudence resutng n parrcde was ncuded n the charge for ntentona parrcde
pendng before the RTC, the MeTC ceary had no |ursdcton over the crmna case fed
before t, the RTC havng retaned |ursdcton over the offense to the excuson of a other
courts. The requste that the |udgment be rendered by a court of competent |ursdcton s
therefore absent. A decson rendered wthout |ursdcton s not a decson n contempaton of
aw and can never become executory.
MAGDALENA -IDALGO, et al. v. RE/)BLIC OF T-E /-ILI//INES, FOR AND IN
BE-ALF OF T-E ARMED FORCES OF T-E /-ILI//INES COMMISSAR7 AND
E.C-ANGE SER"ICES #AF/CES(
G.R. No. 1;9;9?, 8 'u% 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he employees of (=,C!- are government employees and as such, they are governed
by the civil service laws. 'he mere failure of the (=,C!- to observe the appropriate civil
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
57
service laws in the hiring, discipline and dismissal of its employees will not deprive the Civil
-ervice Commission the &urisdiction to hear and decide cases involving the same.
The Armed Forces of the Phppnes Commssary and Exchange Servces (AFPCES) as
represented by respondent Repubc of the Phppnes s a unt/facty of the Armed Forces
of the Phppnes. It hred pettoners Magdaena Hdago, et al. as reguar empoyees of
AFPCES. Snce the start of ther empoyment, Hdago, et al. were enroed n the Soca
Securty System (SSS), wth AFPCES payng ts correspondng empoyers share n ther
monthy SSS contrbuton.
However, AFPCES advsed Hdago, et al. to undergo an ndefnte eave of absence
wthout pay, wth a condtona promse that they woud be aowed to return to work as soon
as AFPCES tax subsdy s reeased and upon resumpton of ts store operatons. AFPCES
faed to reca Hdago et al. to ther work as promsed, thus the atter fed a compant for
ega dsmssa wth damages aganst AFPCES before the Natona Labor Reatons
Commsson (NLRC).
The NLRC rendered a decson n favor of Hdago et al. The Court of Appeas (CA)
reversed the decson of NLRC. It hed that the compant for ega dsmssa shoud not be
odged wth the Labor Arbter but wth the Cv Servce Commsson (CSC). Hence, ths
petton.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the NLRC has the |ursdcton to hear and decde compants for ega
dsmssa aganst an ad|unct government agency engaged n propretary functon
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
Presdenta Decree (PD) No. 807 or the Cv Servce Decree of the Phppnes decares
that the CSC sha be the centra personne agency to set standards and to enforce the aws
governng the dscpne of cv servants. PD No. 807 categorcay descrbed the scope of the
cv servce as embracng every branch, agency, subdvson, and nstrumentaty of the
government, ncudng every government-owned or controed corporatons whether
performng governmenta or propretary functon; and construed an agency to mean any
bureau, offce, commsson, admnstraton, board, commttee, nsttute, corporaton, whether
performng governmenta or propretary functon, or any other unt of the Natona
Government, as we as provnca, cty or muncpa government, except as otherwse
provded.

Subsequenty, Executve Order (EO) No. 180 defned government empoyees as a
empoyees of a branches, subdvsons, nstrumentates, and agences of the Government,
ncudng government-owned or controed corporatons wth orgna charters. It provded
that the Cv Servce and abor aws sha be foowed n the resouton of compants,
grevances and cases nvovng government empoyees.

In ,hilippine *efining Company v. Court of (ppeals, the Court decared that AFPCES s
a government agency that s not mmune from sut snce t s engaged n propretary
actvtes. We fnd no compeng reason to devate from such pronouncement. The hstorca
background of ts creaton and estabshment ndcates that AFPCES s an agency under the
drect contro and supervson of the AFP as t was estabshed to take charge of the
operatons and management of a commssary factes n mtary estabshments a over
the country. By cear mpcaton of aw, a AFPCES personne shoud therefore be cassfed
as government empoyees and any appontment, promoton, dscpne and termnaton of ts
cvan staff shoud be governed by approprate cv servce aws and procedures.
Snce t cannot be dened that pettoners are government empoyees, the proper body
that has |ursdcton to hear the case s the CSC. Such fact cannot be negated by the faure
of AFPCES to foow approprate cv servce rues n the hrng, appontment, dscpne and
dsmssa of Hdago, et al. Nether can t be dened by the fact that AFPCES chose to enro
Hdago, et al. n the SSS nstead of the GSIS. Such consderatons cannot be used aganst
the CSC to deprve t of ts |ursdcton. It s not the absence or presence of the requred
appontment from the CSC, or the membershp of an empoyee n the SSS or n the GSIS that
determne the status of the poston of an empoyee. The Court agreed wth the opnon of
the AFP |udge Advocate Genera that t s the reguaton or the aw creatng the Servce that
determnes the poston of the empoyee.

Hdago, et al. are government personne snce they are empoyed by an agency
attached to the AFP. Consequenty, as correcty observed by the Court of Appeas, the Labor
Arbters decson on ther compant for ega dsmssa cannot be made to stand snce the
same was ssued wthout |ursdcton. Any decson ssued wthout |ursdcton s a tota
nuty, and may be struck down at any tme.
LAND BAN: OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. -EIR OF TRINIDAD S. "DA, DE ARIETA,
re@re1en2ed b 2Ae 1o%e and on% Ae$r, ALICIA ARIETA TAN
G.R. No. 1918?<, 11 AuEu12 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he amount of DofferE which the .(* gives to the landowner as compensation for his
land, as mentioned in -ection 17 /b0 and /c0 of *( 77:9, is based on the initial valuation by
the "),. -uch initial valuation by the "), also becomes the basis of the deposit of
provisional compensation pending final determination of &ust compensation, in accordance
with sub%paragraph /e0.
Prvate respondent Aca Arteta Tan s the regstered owner of a parce of agrcutura
and whch was covered by Repubc Act 6657 (RA 6657) through the Vountary Offer to Se
(VOS) scheme of the Comprehensve Agraran Reform Program (CARP). Tan offered to the
Department of Agraran Reform (DAR) the prce of P 2 Mon per hectare for sad porton of
the and covered by CARP. Pettoner Land Bank of the Phppnes (LBP), however, vaued
and offered |ust compensaton for a tota of P1, 145, 806. 06 for the 14. 999 hectares of and.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
59
In accordance wth Secton 16 of RA 6657, LBP deposted for the account of Tan the amount
offered by LBP as provsona compensaton.
Thereafter, the DAR Ad|udcaton Board (DARAB) conducted a summary admnstratve
proceedng to fx the |ust compensaton. The DARAB rendered a decson fxng the
compensaton of property at P 10, 294, 721. 00. The matter was rased before the Speca
Agraran Court, Regona Tra Court (SAC). The SAC ordered the LBP to depost for reease to
Tan the DARAB determned |ust compensaton. The Court of Appeas (CA) affrmed the SAC.
Pettoner mantans that the provsona compensaton shoud be ts nta vauaton of the
and sub|ect of VOS and not the sum awarded by the DARAB.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the correct amount of provsona compensaton whch the LBP s
requred to depost n the name of Tan, f the atter re|ects DAR/LBPs offer, pertans to the
sum awarded by the DARAB pendng fna determnaton by the courts
-ELD*
Petton s GRANTED.
Under the aw, the LBP s charged wth the nta responsbty of determnng the
vaue of ands paced under and reform and the compensaton to be pad for ther takng.
Once an expropraton proceedng or the acquston of prvate agrcutura ands s
commenced by the DAR, the ndspensabe roe of LBP begns. Executve Order No. 405,
ssued on |une 14, 1990, provdes that the DAR s requred to make use of the determnaton
of the and vauaton and compensaton by the LBP as the atter s prmary responsbe for
the determnaton of the and vauaton and compensaton. In fact, the LBP can dsagree
wth the decson of the DAR n the determnaton of |ust compensaton, and brng the matter
to the RTC desgnated as SAC for fna determnaton of |ust compensaton.
The amount of "offer" whch the DAR gves to the andowner as compensaton for hs
and, as mentoned n Secton 16 (b) and (c), s based on the nta vauaton by the LBP.
Ths then s the amount whch may be accepted or re|ected by the andowner under the
procedure estabshed n Secton 16. Perforce, such nta vauaton by the LBP aso
becomes the bass of the depost of provsona compensaton pendng fna determnaton of
|ust compensaton, n accordance wth sub-paragraph (e).
In both vountary and compusory acqustons, wheren the andowner re|ects the
offer, the DAR opens an account n the name of the andowner and conducts a summary
admnstratve proceedng. If the andowner dsagrees wth the vauaton, the matter may be
brought to the Regona Tra Court (RTC), actng as a speca agraran court. But as wth the
DAR-awarded compensaton, LBPs vauaton of ands covered by the Comprehensve
Agraran Reform Law (CARL) s consdered ony as an nta determnaton, whch s not
concusve, as t s the RTC, sttng as a Speca Agraran Court, that shoud make the fna
determnaton of |ust compensaton, takng nto consderaton the factors enumerated n
Secton 17 of RA 6657 and the appcabe DAR reguatons. It s now setted that the
vauaton of property n emnent doman s essentay a |udca functon whch s vested wth
the RTC actng as Speca Agraran Court. The same cannot be odged wth admnstratve
agences and may not be usurped by any other branch or offca of the government.
As the Court had prevousy decared, the LBP s prmary responsbe for the vauaton
and determnaton of compensaton for a prvate ands. It has the dscreton to approve or
re|ect the and vauaton and |ust compensaton for a prvate agrcutura and paced under
the CARP. In case the LBP dsagrees wth the vauaton of and and determnaton of |ust
compensaton by a party, the DAR, or even the courts, the LBP not ony has the rght, but the
duty, to chaenge the same, by appea to the CA or to the Supreme Court, f approprate.
Both LBP and Tan fed pettons before the SAC dsputng the Regona Ad|udcator (RARAD)
|udgment awardng compensaton n the amount of P10,294,721.00. In vew of the
substanta dfference n the vauatons -- the nta vauaton by the LBP beng
ony P1,145,806.06 -- the more prudent course s to awat the fna resouton of the ssue of
|ust compensaton aready fed wth sad court.
LAND BAN: OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. RAMON /. 'ACINTO
G.R. No. 18<922, ? AuEu12 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he gravamen of the offense punished by the )ouncing Check "aw /), 550 is the act
of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment
for payment. 'he agreement surrounding the issuance of the dishonored check is immaterial
for the prosecution for violation of said law.
The Frst Womens Credt Corporaton (FWCC) obtaned a oan from the pettoner Land
Bank of the Phppnes (LBP). As a securty for the oan, respondent Ramon |acnto, Presdent
of FWCC, ssued n favor of LBP nne postdated checks drawn aganst FWCCs account at the
Phppne Natona Bank (PNB). Later, a Restructurng Agreement was made between FWCC
and LBP. When FWCC defauted n the payment of the oan under the terms of ther
restructured agreement, LBP presented for payment to the drawee bank (PNB) the postdated
checks as they matured. However, a the checks were dshonored or refused payment.
|acnto faed to make good the checks despte demands.
LBP fed before the Makat Cty Prosecutors Offce (MCPO) a compant aganst |acnto
for voaton of Batas Pambansa Bang 22 (BP 22). |acnto argued that the compant was
baseess because the oan obgaton has been extngushed by payment and novaton by
vrtue of the Restructurng Agreement. The MCPO dsmssed the compant aganst |acnto.
LBP eevated the matter to the Department of |ustce for revew (DO|). Upon moton for
reconsderaton, DO| ssued a rung drectng MCPO to fe the approprate nformaton for
voaton of BP 22 aganst |acnto. The CA reversed the DO| and dsmssed the compant.
ISS)E*
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
61
Whether or not the queston of the exstence of novaton n the agreement between
LBP and |acnto determnatve of whether the atter shoud be prosecuted for the voaton of
the Bouncng Check Law
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
A pre|udca queston generay exsts n a stuaton where a cv acton and a crmna
acton are both pendng, and there exsts n the former an ssue that must be preemptvey
resoved before the atter may proceed, because howsoever the ssue rased n the cv
acton s resoved woud be determnatve &uris et de &ure of the gut or nnocence of the
accused n the crmna case
.
The eements of a pre|udca queston are provded under
Secton 7, Rue 111 of the Revsed Rues of Crmna Procedure, as amended, as foows: ()
the prevousy nsttuted cv acton nvoves an ssue smar or ntmatey reated to the
ssue rased n the subsequent crmna acton, and () the resouton of such ssue
determnes whether or not the crmna acton may proceed.
A pre|udca queston s understood n aw as that whch must precede the crmna
acton and whch requres a decson before a fna |udgment can be rendered n the crmna
acton wth whch sad queston s cosey connected. Not every defense rased n a cv
acton w rase a pre|udca queston to |ustfy suspenson of the crmna acton. The
defense must nvove an ssue smar or ntmatey reated to the same ssue rased n the
crmna case and ts resouton shoud determne whether or not the atter acton may
proceed. If the resouton of the ssue n the cv acton w not determne the crmna
responsbty of the accused n the crmna acton based on the same facts or f there s no
necessty that the cv case be determned frst before takng up the crmna case, the cv
case does not nvove a pre|udca queston. Nether s there a pre|udca queston f the cv
and the crmna acton can, accordng to aw, proceed ndependenty of each other.
In the nstant case, the Court fnds that the queston whether there was novaton of
the Credt Lne Agreement or not s not determnatve of whether |acnto shoud be
prosecuted for voaton of the Bouncng Checks Law.
There was no express stpuaton n the Restructurng Agreement that |acnto s reeased
from hs abty on the ssued checks and n fact the etter-agreements between FWCC and
Land Bank expressy provde that |acntos |SS (|ont and Severa Sgnatures) contnue to
secure the oan obgaton and the postdated checks ssued contnue to guaranty the
obgaton.
If ndeed |acntos abty on the checks had been extngushed upon the executon of
the Restructurng Agreement, then |acnto shoud have demanded the return of the checks.
However, there was no proof that he had been reeased from hs obgaton. On the contrary,
the Restructurng Agreement contans a provso whch states that "Ths Agreement sha not
novate or extngush a prevous securty, mortgage, and other coatera agreements,
promssory notes, sodary undertakng prevousy executed by and between the partes and
sha contnue n fu force and effect modfed ony by the provsons of ths Agreement."
Moreover, t s we setted that the mere act of ssung a worthess check, even f merey
as an accommodaton, s covered by B.P. 22. Thus, ths Court has hed that the agreement
surroundng the ssuance of dshonored checks s rreevant to the prosecuton for voaton of
B.P. 22. The gravamen of the offense punshed by B.P. 22 s the act of makng and ssung a
worthess check or a check that s dshonored upon ts presentment for payment. Secton 1 of
B.P. 22 enumerates the foowng eements: (1) the makng, drawng, and ssuance of any
check to appy on account or for vaue; (2) the knowedge of the maker, drawer, or ssuer that
at the tme of ssue he does not have suffcent funds n or credt wth the drawee bank for the
payment of the check n fu upon ts presentment; and (3) the subsequent dshonor of the
check by the drawee bank for nsuffcency of funds or credt or dshonor for the same reason
had not the drawer, wthout any vad cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. Thus, even f
t be subsequenty decared that novaton took pace between the FWCC and LBP, |acnto s
not exempt from prosecuton for voaton of B.P. 22 for the dshonored checks.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
63
SE"ERINO M. MANOTO: I", et al. v. -EIRS OF -OMER L. BARB)E,
re@re1en2ed b TERESITA BARB)E -ERNANDE>
G.R. No1. 192??8 , 1929!8, 2< AuEu12 2!1!, EN BANC #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
+t is the e#ecution of the contract to sell and delivery of the certificate of sale that
vests title and ownership to the purchaser of friar land. -uch certificate of sale must be
signed by the -ecretary of (griculture and 4atural *esources in compliance with (ct 4o.
115>.
Lot No. 823 s part of the Pedad Estate, Ouezon Cty, a Frar Land acqured by the
Phppne Government. The Pedad Estate has been tted n the name of the Government
and was paced under the admnstraton of the Drector of Lands. Controversy arsng from
confctng cams over the ot began to surface after a fre gutted portons of the Ouezon Cty
Ha whch destroyed records stored n the Offce of Regster of Deeds. Sometme n 1990, a
petton for admnstratve reconsttuton of Transfer Certfcate of Tte (TCT) No. 372302 n
the name of the Manotoks coverng Lot No. 823 was fed by the Manotoks wth the Land
Regstraton Authorty (LRA) whch granted the same and resuted n the ssuance of TCT No.
RT-22481. Subsequenty however, the Barques fed a petton wth the LRA for
admnstratve reconsttuton of the orgna of TCT No. 210177 n the name of Homer Barque
coverng Lot 823. Learnng of the Barques petton, the Manotoks fed ther opposton
thereto, aegng that TCT No. 210177 was spurous.
The reconsttutng offcer dened Barques petton decarng that Lot 823 s aready
regstered n the name of Manotoks. The Barques appeaed to the LRA whch reversed the
rung of the reconsttutng offcer. The ssue was rased to the Court of Appeas (CA) but the
CA affrmed the LRA. Aggreved, the Manotoks fed the present separate pettons whch
were consodated. Eventuay, an entry of |udgment was made and the Barques fed
mutpe motons for executon of |udgment whe the Manotoks fed an urgent moton to
refer moton for possesson to the Supreme Court !n )anc. Fectas and Rosendo Manahan
fed a moton to ntervene, whch was subsequenty granted by the Court. The Manotoks
were abe to produce a sae certfcate n the name of ther predecessors-n-nterest,
however, the same was not sgned by the Drector of Lands nor approved by the Secretary of
the Interor.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the absence of approva of the Secretary of the Interor/Agrcuture and
Natura Resources n Sae Certfcate No. 1054 and Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 warrants
the annument of Manotok tte
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
Secton 18 of Act No. 1120 provdes that no ease or sae made by Chef of the Bureau
of Pubc Lands under the provsons of ths Act sha be vad unt approved by the Secretary
of the Interor.
It s cear from the foregong provson that the sae of frar ands sha be vad ony f
approved by the Secretary of the Interor (ater the Secretary of Agrcuture and
Commerce). In -olid -tate ulti%,roducts Corporation v. Court of (ppeals, the Court
categorcay decared that the approva by the Secretary of Agrcuture and Commerce s
ndspensabe for the vadty of the sae of frar ands. Ths was reterated n "iao v. Court of
(ppeals, where sales certificates ssued by the Drector of Lands n 1913 were hed to be
vod n the absence of approva by the Secretary of Agrcuture and Natura Resources.
Appyng the rue ad down n -olid -tate ulti%,roducts Corporation v. Court of
(ppeals and "iao v. Court of (ppeals, the Supreme Court (SC) hed n (lonso v. Cebu
Country Club, +nc., that the absence of approva by the Secretary of Agrcuture and
Commerce n the sae certfcate and assgnment of sae certfcate made the sae null and
void ab initio. Necessary, there can be no vad ttes ssued on the bass of such sae or
assgnment. The Manotoks reance on the presumpton of reguarty n the statutory
prescrbed transmtta by the Bureau of Lands to the Regster of Deeds of ther deed of
conveyance s untenabe. In the SC Resouton denyng the moton for reconsderaton fed
by pettoners n (lonso v. Cebu Country Club, +nc., the Court underscored
the mandatory requrement n Secton 18, as foows:
"Secton 18 of Act No. 1120 or the Frar Lands Act unequvocay provdes: "No ease or sae made
by the Chef of the Bureau of Pubc Lands (now the Drector of Lands) under the provsons of ths Act sha
be vad unt approved by the Secretary of the Interor (now, the Secretary of Natura Resources). Thus,
pettoners cam of ownershp must fa n the absence of postve evdence showng the approva of the
Secretary of Interor. Approva of the Secretary of the Interor cannot smpy be presumed or nferred from
certan acts snce the aw s expct n ts mandate. Ths s the setted rue as enuncated n -olid -tate
ulti%,roducts Corporation vs. Court of (ppeals and reterated n "iao vs. Court of (ppeals. Pettoners
have not offered any cogent reason that woud |ustfy a devaton from ths rue."
Ceary, t s the executon of the contract to se and devery of the certfcate of
sae that vests tte and ownershp to the purchaser of frar and. Such certfcate of sae
must, of course, be sgned by the Secretary of Agrcuture and Natura Resources, as evdent
from Sectons 11, 12 and the second paragraph of Secton 15, n reaton to Secton 18,
of Act No. 1120:
In the ght of the foregong, the Court hed that the Manotoks coud not have acqured
ownershp of the sub|ect ot as they had no vad certfcate of sae ssued to them by the
Government n the frst pace. Sae Certfcate No. 1054 dated March 10, 1919 (Exh. 10)
purportedy on fe wth the DENR-LMB, conspcuousy acks the sgnature of the Drector of
Lands and the Secretary of Agrcuture and Natura Resources. In fact, Exh. 10 was not
ncuded among those offca documents submtted by the OSG to the CA. The Court
underscored anew that frar ands can be aenated ony upon proper compance wth the
requrements of Sectons 11, 12 and 18 of Act No. 1120. It was thus prmorda for the
Manotoks to prove ther acquston of ts tte by cear and convncng evdence. Ths they
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
65
faed to do. Accordngy, ths Court has no aternatve but to decare the Manotok tte nu
and vod ab initio, and Lot 823 of the Pedad Estate as st part of the Governments
patrmona property, as recommended by the CA.
Wth respect to the cam of the Manahans, the Court concurred wth the fndng of the
CA that no copy of the aeged Sae Certfcate No. 511can be found n the records of ether
the DENR-NCR, LMB or Natona Archves. Athough the OSG submtted a certfed copy of
Assgnment of Sae Certfcate No. 511 aegedy executed by Vaentn Manahan n favor of
Hara de Guzman, there s no competent evdence to show that the camant Vaentn
Manahan or hs successors-n-nterest actuay occuped Lot 823, decared the and for tax
purposes, or pad the taxes due thereon.
Consderng that none of the partes has estabshed a vad acquston under the
provsons of Act No. 1120, as amended, the Court adopted the recommendaton of the CA
decarng the Manotok tte as nu and vod ab initio, and Lot 823 of the Pedad Estate as st
part of the patrmona property of the Government.
NASECO G)ARDS ASSOCIATION,/EMA #NAGA,/EMA( v.
NATIONAL SER"ICE COR/ORATION #NASECO(
G.R. No. 198<<2, 28 AuEu12 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
( re%evaluation is a process by which a person or office revisits its own initial
pronouncement and makes another assessment of its findings. 'o re%evaluate is to take
another look at a previous matter in issue. ( re%evaluation does not necessitate the
introduction of new materials for review nor does it re$uire a full hearing for new
arguments.
Respondent Natona Servce Corporaton (NASECO) s a whoy-owned subsdary of
the Phppne Natona Bank (PNB) organzed under the Corporaton Code. It suppes securty
and man power servces to dfferent cents. Petoner NASECO Guards Assocaton-PEMA
(NAGA-PEMA) s the coectve barganng representatve of the reguar rank and fe securty
guards of NASECO. NASECO entered nto a memorandum of agreement wth NAGA-PEMA.
The terms of the agreement covered the monetary cams of NAGA-PEMA. A year after such,
NAGA-PEMA demanded fu negotaton for a coectve barganng agreement (CBA) wth
NASECO and submtted ts proposas thereto. NAGA-PEMA and NASECO agreed to sgn a CBA
on non-economc terms. However, NAGA-PEMA fed a notce of strke because of NASECOs
refusa to bargan for economc benefts n the CBA. Concaton hearngs faed. NAGA-PEMA
agan fed a notce of strke before the Natona Concaton and Medaton Board (NCMB)
due to a barganng deadock. The Department of Labor and Empoyment (DOLE) secretary
assumed |ursdcton.
The DOLE secretary ssued a resouton drectng NAGA-PEMA and NASECO to execute
a new CBA ncorporatng theren hs dspostons regardng monetary benefts. NASECO fed
a petton before the Court of Appeas (CA) questonng the DOLE secretarys order. The CA
party granted the petton and rued that a re-computaton and re-evauaton of the benefts
awarded was n order. In compance wth the CA drectve, the DOLE secretary conducted
carfcatory hearngs and ad|usted the monetary benefts awarded to NAGA-PEMA. NASECO
fed wth the CA a petton argung that NASECO has been deprved of due process for there
was no re-evauaton. The CA rued n favor of NASECO; thus, the petton.
ISS)ES*
1.) Whether or not the DOLE secretary voated NASECOs rght to due process when the
former merey re-computed the CBA award
2.) Whether or not PNB, beng the undsputed owner of and exercsng contro over
NASECO shoud be made abe to pay the CBA benefts awarded to NAGA-PEMA
-ELD*
Petton /ARTL7 GRANTED.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
67
he DOLE secretar$ did not violate NA.ECO/s ri#ht to due process
The consttutona guarantee of due process requres that a tgant be gven "a day n
court." It s the avaabty of the opportunty to be heard that determnes whether or not
due process was voated. A tgant may or may not ava of the opportunty to be heard but
as ong as such was made avaabe to hm/her, there s no voaton of the due process
cause.
The NASECOs rght to due process n ths case has not been dened. The order n the
frst CA decson to re-compute and re-evauate was satsfed when the DOLE Secretary
reexamned ther nta fndngs and ad|usted the awarded benefts. A re-evauaton,
contrary to what the NASECO cams, s a process by whch a person or offce (n ths case
the DOLE secretary) revsts ts own nta pronouncement and makes another assessment of
ts fndngs. In smpe terms, to re-evauate s to take another look at a prevous matter n
ssue. A re-evauaton does not necesstate the ntroducton of new materas for revew nor
does t requre a fu hearng for new arguments.
From a procedura standpont, a re-evauaton s a continuation of the orgna case
and not a new proceedng. Hence, the evdence, fnanca reports and other documents
submtted by the partes n the course of the orgna proceedng are to be vsted and
revewed agan. In ths ght, the NASECO has been gven the opportunty to be heard by the
DOLE Secretary. Aso, contrary to the cam of the NASECO that t was barred by the DOLE
Secretary to ntroduce supportng documents durng the re-computaton and re-evauaton,
the records show that an Order by then Secretary of Labor Patrca A. Sto. Tomas dated |uy
11, 2002 specfcay aowed both partes to submt ther respectve computatons as regards
the awarded benefts. It s thus naccurate for the NASECO to cam that t was dened due
process because t had a the opportunty to ntroduce any supportng document n the course
of the re-computaton and re-evauaton of the DOLE Secretary.
PNB should not !e made lia!le to pa$ the CBA !enefits a"arded to NAGA(PEMA
In Concept )uilders, +nc. v. 4"*C, the Court expaned the doctrne of percng the
corporate ve, as foows:
"It s a fundamenta prncpe of corporaton aw that a corporaton s an entty separate and dstnct
from ts stockhoders and from other corporatons to whch t may be connected. But, ths separate and
dstnct personaty of a corporaton s merey a fcton created by aw for convenence and to promote
|ustce. So, when the noton of separate |urdca personaty s used to defeat pubc convenence, |ustfy
wrong, protect fraud or defend crme, or s used as a devce to defeat the abor aws, ths separate
personaty of the corporaton may be dsregarded or the ve of corporate fcton perced. Ths s true kewse
when the corporaton s merey an ad|unct, a busness condut or an ater ego of another corporaton."
Appyng the doctrne to the case at bar, the Court found no reason to perce the
corporate ve of NASECO and go beyond ts ega personaty. Contro, by tsef, does not
mean that the controed corporaton s a mere nstrumentaty or a busness condut of the
mother company. Even contro over the fnanca and operatona concerns of a subsdary
company does not by tsef ca for dsregardng ts corporate fcton. There must be a
perpetuaton of fraud behnd the contro or at east a frauduent or ega purpose behnd the
contro n order to |ustfy percng the ve of corporate fcton. Such frauduent ntent s
ackng n ths case.
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. TDSGT. /ORFERIO R. ANG)S, 'R.
G.R. No. 1;8;;8, ? AuEu12 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
Conviction for a criminal case rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution
and not on the weakness of the defense. +n the absence of the evidence re$uired by law
reasonably linking appellant to the crime, evidence of motive is not sufficient for conviction. 'he
Constitutional mandate is to presume the innocence of accused until the contrary is proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
Appeant Porfero Angus, |r. and vctm Betty Angus were egay marred. One nght,
Angus, |r. and Betty were argung about the ct reatonshp of the former wth another
woman. The foowng day, Angus, |r. went out of hs bunker at around 6:00 ocock n the
mornng but when he returned to hs bunker, he found hs wfe dead.
Angus, |r. was charged of Parrcde. The Regona Tra Court (RTC) rendered a decson
hodng Angus, |r. guty beyond reasonabe doubt of the crme charged. The Court of
Appeas (CA) affrmed wth modfcaton the decson of the RTC.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the combnaton of the crcumstances eads to the nevtabe
concuson that Angus, |r. ked hs wfe
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
The Consttuton mandates that an accused sha be presumed nnocent unt the
contrary s proven beyond reasonabe doubt. The burden es on the prosecuton to
overcome such presumpton of nnocence by presentng the quantum of evdence
requred. In so dong, the prosecuton must rest on the strength of ts own evdence and
must not rey on the weakness of the defense.

And f the prosecuton fas to meet ts burden
of proof, the defense may ogcay not even present evdence on ts own behaf. In such
cases the presumpton prevas and the accused shoud necessary be acqutted.
Whe no genera rue can be ad down as to the quantty of crcumstanta evdence
whch w suffce n a gven case, a the crcumstances proved must be consstent wth each
other, consstent wth the hypothess that the accused s guty, and at the same tme
nconsstent wth the hypothess that he s nnocent, and wth every other ratona hypothess
except that of gut. The crcumstances proved shoud consttute an unbroken chan whch
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
69
eads to ony one (1) far and reasonabe concuson that the accused, to the excuson of a
others, s the guty person. Proof beyond reasonabe doubt does not mean the degree of
proof excudng the possbty of error and producng absoute certanty. Ony mora
certanty or "that degree of proof whch produces convcton n an unpre|udced mnd" s
requred.
The foowng are the requstes for crcumstanta evdence to be suffcent to support
convcton: (a) there s more than one (1) crcumstance, (b) the facts from whch the
nferences are derved have been proven, and (c) the combnaton of a the crcumstances
resuts n a mora certanty that the accused, to the excuson of a others, s the one (1) who
has commtted the crme. Thus, to |ustfy a convcton based on crcumstanta evdence, the
combnaton of crcumstances must be nterwoven n such a way as to eave no reasonabe
doubt as to the gut of the accused.
The Court s not satsfed that the crcumstanta evdence n ths case consttutes an
unbroken chan whch eads to the concuson that Angus, |r., to the excuson of a others, s
guty of kng hs wfe. The tra court reed on the testmones of Maaran and Carpo who
heard the Angus, |r. and hs wfe argung about the atters ct reatonshp wth another
woman, whch supposedy proves motve for hm to commt the crme. However, grantng that
Angus, |r. and Betty had an argument on the nght before her death, t woud be too much to
presume that such an argument woud drve appeant to k hs wfe. Ceary, the motve s not
convncng. If at a, the testmones of Maaran and Carpo merey show a suspcon of Angus,
|r.s responsbty for the crme. Needess to state, however, suspcon no matter how strong
cannot sway |udgment. In the absence of any other evdence reasonaby nkng appeant to
the crme, evdence of motve s not suffcent to convct hm.
An acqutta based on reasonabe doubt w prosper even though the accuseds
nnocence may be doubted, for a crmna convcton rests on the strength of the evdence of
the prosecuton and not on the weakness of the defense. And, f the ncupatory facts and
crcumstances are capabe of two (2) or more expanatons, one (1) of whch s consstent wth
the nnocence of the accused and the other consstent wth hs gut, then the evdence does
not fuf the test of mora certanty and s not suffcent to support a convcton. That whch s
favorabe to the accused shoud be consdered. After a, mas vale $ue $ueden sin castigar
diez reos presuntos, $ue se castigue uno inocente. Courts shoud be guded by the prncpe
that t woud be better to set free ten (10) men who mght be probaby guty of the crme
charged than to convct one (1) nnocent man for a crme he dd not commt.
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. R)STICO BARTOLINI AM/IS
G.R. No. 1;9<98, ? AuEu12 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he re$uirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based
on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so
that he may ade$uately prepare for his defense pursuant to the constitutional re$uirement
on due process, specially so if the case involves the imposition of the death penalty in case
the accused is convicted.
Appeant Rustco Barton s marred to CCC. They begot sx chdren, the edest beng
BBB foowed by AAA. Sometme n March 1994, Barton raped hs daughter BBB. After the
ncdent, Barton repeatedy had sexua ntercourse wth BBB. In March 1995, Barton
raped hs other daughter, AAA. Lkewse, AAA was repeatedy raped by Barton unt a
month before she gave brth to Bartons chd.
Barton was charged wth three (3) counts of rape before the Regona Tra Court
(RTC). In the frst and thrd nformaton, the ages of the vctms were specfcay aeged. The
RTC found Barton guty beyond reasonabe doubt of 3 counts of rape commtted aganst
AAA and BBB. The Court of Appeas (CA) affrmed wth modfcatons the decson of the RTC.
The records of the case were forwarded to the Court for automatc revew.
ISS)E*
Whether or not Barton can be convcted for quafed rape under the second
nformaton fed aganst hm
-ELD*
The Court dsagreed wth the tra courts rung convctng appeant Barton for
quafed rape under Crmna Case No. 99-1-2084-H. The CA was correct n sustanng
appeants argument that the speca quafyng crcumstance cannot be apprecated n
Crmna Case No. 99-1-2084-H snce the age of the vctm was not specfcay aeged n the
nformaton.
The Courts dsquston n ,eople v. 'agud, -r. succncty expans the matter. There,
the Court sad:

"To |ustfy the mposton of the death penaty n ths case, the snge speca quafyng
crcumstance of the mnorty of the vctm and her reatonshp to the offender must be specfcay aeged
n the Informaton and proven durng the tra. x x x Notaby, the amended Informaton merey stated that
appeant had carna knowedge of hs minor daughter wthout statng Arwns actua age. In a rape case
where the very fe of the accused s at stake, such an nexact aegaton of the age of the vctm s
nsuffcent to quafy the rape and rase the penaty to death. The suffcency of the Informaton s hed to a
hgher standard when the ony mposabe penaty s death. The consttutona rght of the accused to be
propery nformed of the nature and cause of the accusaton aganst hm assumes the greatest mportance
when the ony mposabe penaty n case of convcton s death."
Smar to 'agud, the quafyng crcumstance of reatonshp of BBB to Barton was
specfcay aeged and proven durng the tra. Notaby absent n the nformaton, however,
s a specfc averment of the BBBs age at the tme the offense aganst her was commtted.
Such an omsson commtted by the prosecutor s fata n the mposton of the supreme
penaty of death aganst the Barton. It must be borne n mnd that the requrement for
compete aegatons on the partcuars of the ndctment s based on the rght of the accused
to be fuy nformed of the nature of the charges aganst hm so that he may adequatey
prepare for hs defense pursuant to the consttutona requrement on due process, specay
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
71
so f the case nvoves the mposton of the death penaty n case the accused s convcted.
Thus, even f the vctm s beow eghteen (18) years of age and the offender s her parent,
but these facts are not aeged n the nformaton, or f ony one (1) s so aeged such as
what happened n the nstant case, ther proof as such by evdence offered durng tra
cannot sancton the mposton of the death penaty.
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. DIONISIO CALONGE "ERANA
G.R. No. 182;9?, 8 'u% 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
+nconsistencies in testimony, when it relates only to minor details, will not affect the
credibility of the witness. (s long as there is consistency in the principal occurrence and the
positive identification of the assailants, the same shall be given weight.
The Vaverde Poce Staton n Nueva Vscaya receved nformaton from the barangay
captan of Cabuuan that a massacre took pace n ther ocaty. Donso Caonges wfe,
Rosta, was found dead on the ground outsde ther house. Lyng near the stars was Caonge
who was aso wounded but st conscous. Insde the house, the feess bodes of the two
daughters of the Caonge were aso found. However, another daughter, Meody, was found
wounded but ave and conscous.
The survvng chd, Meody, asssted by her cousn, gave a statement to the poce
about the ncdent and dentfed her father, who had a quarre wth her mother the prevous
nght, as the one who hacked her and aso fatay stabed her mother and two ssters.
Caonge was then charged wth parrcde and frustrated parrcde n two separate
nformaton. Upon arragnment, he peaded not guty. The Regona Tra Court (RTC)
convcted Caonge wth the crmes charged. The Court of Appeas (CA) affrmed wth
modfcaton the decson of the RTC. Caonge contends that the testmony of Meody s
nconsstent and contradctory.
ISS)ES*
1.) Whether or not the RTC erred n gvng weght and credence to the testmony of the
Meody Caonge despte ts evdent contradctons and apparent unreaty
2.) Whether or not the RTC erred n fndng Donso Caonge guty beyond reasonabe
doubt of the crmes charged
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
he %C did not err in #ivin# "ei#ht and credence to the testimon$ of the Melod$
It s pan that the errors mputed to the tra court are factua and chefy assa ts
evauaton of the credbty of wtnesses. The doctrna rue s that fndngs of fact made by
the tra court, whch had the opportunty to drecty observe the wtnesses and to determne
the probatve vaue of the other testmones are entted to great weght and respect
because the tra court s n a better poston to assess the same, an opportunty not equay
open to the appeate court. The Court found no cogent reason to devate from the fndngs
and concusons of the RTC and CA n ths case.
The Court hed that the tra court dd not err n fndng Meodys testmony cear and
unequvoca, despte her answers not beng as compete as woud be desred, consderng
her age and dffcuty of transatng the questons to her n the Ifugao daect. Her account
of the ncdent was consstent wth the physca evdence, partcuary the fndngs of Dr.
Ragpa and Dr. Ronduen-Adratco on the n|ures sustaned and cause of death of the vctms
as a resut of the carnage wrought upon ther famy by Caonge.
The nconsstences mentoned by Caonge reate ony to mnor detas and not to the
fact of the fata stabbng of hs wfe and two (2) chdren n hs own hands. The Court has
consstenty rued that not a nconsstences n the wtnesses testmony affect ther
credbty. Inconsstences on mnor detas and coatera matters do not affect the
substance of ther decaraton, ther veracty, or the weght of ther testmones. Thus,
athough there may be nconsstences on the testmones of wtnesses on mnor detas, they
do not mpar credbty where there s consstency n reatng the prncpa occurrence and
postve dentfcaton of the assaants. Dscrepances referrng ony to mnor detas and
coatera matters - not to the centra fact of the crme - do not affect the veracty or detract
from the essenta credbty of a wtness as ong as t s coherent and ntrnscay beevabe
on the whoe.
he %C did not err in findin# Dionisio Calon#e #uilt$ !e$ond reasona!le dou!t of
the crime char#ed
Parrcde s commtted when: (1) a person s ked; (2) the deceased s ked by the
accused; (3) the deceased s the father, mother, or chd, whether egtmate or egtmate,
or a egtmate other ascendant or other descendant, or the egtmate spouse of
accused. The key eement n parrcde s the reatonshp of the offender wth the vctm. A
the eements of the crme were ceary and suffcenty proved by the prosecuton.
Even grantng arguendo that Meody dd not see the actua stabbng of her mother and
two (2) ssters, the attendant crcumstances pont to no one ese but the appeant as the
perpetrator. Drect evdence of the actua kng s not ndspensabe for convctng an
accused when crcumstanta evdence can suffcenty estabsh hs gut. The oft-repeated
rue has been that crcumstanta evdence s adequate for convcton f there s more than
one crcumstance, the facts from whch the nferences are derved have been proven and the
combnaton of a crcumstances s such as to produce a convcton beyond reasonabe
doubt.

Whe no genera rue can be ad down as to the quantty of crcumstanta evdence
whch w suffce n a gven case, a the crcumstances proved must be consstent wth each
other, consstent wth the hypothess that the accused s guty, and at the same tme
nconsstent wth the hypothess that he s nnocent, and wth every other ratona hypothess
except that of gut. The crcumstances proved shoud consttute an unbroken chan whch
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
73
eads to ony one far and reasonabe concuson that the accused, to the excuson of a
others, s the guty person.
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. WILSON LO/E>, et al.
G.R. No. 1;9?8<, ? AuEu12 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is
sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of circumstances duly proved must be
consistent with each other and that each and every circumstance must be consistent with
the accuseds guilt and inconsistent with the accuseds innocence.
One evenng, four armed men wearng dark cothngs and bonnets over ther faces
entered a compound n Occdenta Mndoro. The two armed men went to the Tabora
resdence and ponted ther guns at the vctm, Co. Tabora. Upon Co. Taboras pea for hep,
a gunshot was heard.
Appeants Wson Lopez, et al. are charged for the crme of murder. Upon
arragnment, Lopez, et al. peaded not guty of the crme charged. The Regona Tra Court
(RTC) found Lopez, et al. guty beyond reasonabe doubt of the crme charged. The Court of
Appeas (CA) affrmed wth modfcatons the decson of the RTC. Lopez, et al. argue that the
prosecuton faed to postvey dentfy them as the cuprts of the crme.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the gut of Lopez, et al. was proved beyond reasonabe doubt
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
Athough no one wtnessed the actua kng of Co. Tabora, the Court emphaszed that
drect evdence s not the soe means of estabshng gut beyond reasonabe
doubt. Estabshed facts that form a chan of crcumstances can ead the mnd ntutvey or
mpe a conscous process of reasonng towards a convcton. Indeed, rues on evdence and
prncpes n |ursprudence have ong recognzed that the accused may be convcted through
crcumstanta evdence.
To uphod a convcton based on crcumstanta evdence, t s essenta that the
crcumstanta evdence presented must consttute an unbroken chan, whch eads one to a
far and reasonabe concuson pontng to the accused, to the excuson of the others, as the
guty person. The test to determne whether or not the crcumstanta evdence on record s
suffcent to convct the accused s that the seres of crcumstances duy proved must be
consstent wth each other and that each and every crcumstance must be consstent wth
the accuseds gut and nconsstent wth the accuseds nnocence.

The crcumstanta
evdence must excude the possbty that some other person has commtted the offense.
Thus, whe no one drecty saw Lopez, et al. shoot the vctm, the Court s satsfed
that the crcumstanta evdence n ths case consttuted an unbroken chan that eads to the
ogca concuson that Lopez, et al. were guty of the murder of Co. Tabora. The
combnaton of the crcumstances s such as to eave no reasonabe doubt as to ther gut;
hence, convcton based on crcumstanta evdence s |ustfed.
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. ALIODING S)LTAN
G.R. No. 18;;?;, 8 'u% 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
-light infraction made by the law enforcement officers from the prescribed method of
handling the corpus delicti, when &ustified, will not e#culpate a guilty defendant so long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti is preserved.
Appeant Adong Sutan was caught seng shabu by the Laoag Cty Poce n a buy-
bust operaton. Sutan was then charged for the voaton of the Comprehensve Dangerous
Act of 2002 or Repubc Act (RA) 9165 n two nformaton for the ega sae of shabu. Upon
arragnment, Sutan peaded not guty. The Regona Tra Court (RTC) found Sutan guty
beyond reasonabe doubt of the offense charged. The Court of Appeas (CA) affrmed the
RTC.
Sutan contends that the prosecuton faed to prove the corpus delicti and that there
s no cear showng of any attempt or effort by the arrestng offcers to compy wth the
requrements of Secton 21 of RA 9165 or the method by whch aw enforcement agents/
personne are to go about n handng the corpus delicti at the tme of sezure n order to
ensure fu protecton to the accused.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the ntegrty and evdentary vaue of the confscated drugs s
preserved despte the nfracton of Secton 21 of RA 9165
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
Secton 21 of RA 9165 was orgnay envsoned by the egsature to serve as a
protecton for the accused from macous mputatons of gut by abusve poce offcers. The
ega drugs beng the corpus delicti, t s essenta for the prosecuton to prove and show to
the court beyond reasonabe doubt that the ega drugs presented to the tra court as
evdence of the crme are ndeed the ega drugs sezed from the accused.
However, Secton 21 was not meant to thwart the egtmate efforts of aw
enforcement agents. Sght nfractons or nomna devatons by the poce from the
prescrbed method of handng the corpus delicti shoud not excupate an otherwse guty
defendant. In fact, the Impementng Rues and Reguatons of RA 9165 adequatey refects
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
75
the desre of the aw to excuse from the rgd tenor of Secton 21 stuatons wheren sght
nfractons n methodoogy are present but the ntegrty and dentty of the specmen
remans ntact.
In the case at bar, the faure of the apprehendng offcer to "mmedatey after sezure
and confscaton, physcay nventory and photograph the |prohbted drugs| n the presence
of the accused" as requred by Secton 21 can be consdered as a sght nfracton that does
not automatcay render the sezed tems nadmssbe. There s a |ustfabe reason for such
faure n ths case as was expaned by SPO3 Baoong durng hs cross-examnaton
It was the dffcuty, f not the mpossbty, of strcty compyng wth Secton 21 of
Rep. Act No. 9165 durng the actua apprehenson and arrest whch |ustfes the sght
devaton by the arrestng offcers from the rue. The strong resstance of the Sutan to the
arrest and the nterference of severa persons made t mperatve upon the apprehendng
poce offcers to wthdraw from the pace mmedatey. Consequenty, the confscated tems
were marked ony upon turn over to the evdence custodan.
For the successfu prosecuton of the ega sae of shabu, the foowng eements must
be estabshed: (1) the dentty of the buyer and the seer, the ob|ect of the sae, and the
consderaton; and (2) the devery of the thng sod and ts payment. What s matera s the
proof that the transacton or sae actuay took pace, couped wth the presentaton n court
of the corpus delicti as evdence. A these requstes were met by the prosecuton n ths
case.
RE/)BLIC OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. DOMINGO ES/INOSA
G.R. No. 1;9888, 8 'u% 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
+n the application for registration of title of a land, the applicant must prove the
e#istence of a positive act from the government reclassifying the land as alienable;
otherwise, it is presumed that the land belongs to the -tate and is part of the inalienable
public domain.
Respondent Domngo Espnosa fed wth The Muncpa Tra Court (MTC) an
appcaton for regstraton of tte a ot ocated at Consoacon, Cebu. Espnosa was the soe
wtness presented to prove hs possesson and ownershp over the and. He camed to be
the owner of the dsputed property, havng acqured t from hs mother by vrtue of a deed of
absoute sae. He had the property surveyed and an advance survey and a technca
descrpton were secured. The Chef of the Map Pro|ecton Secton of the Department of
Envronment and Natura Resources (DENR) had aso verfed n a notaton on the rght sde
porton of the pan that the ot s wthn the aenabe and dsposabe area.
The MTC granted Espnosas appcaton for regstraton of hs mperfect tte. The
Court of Appeas (CA) affrmed the |udgment of the MTC. Hence, the present petton.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the appcaton for regstraton of tte of the dsputed ot be granted
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
It s doctrna that a ands not appearng to be ceary of prvate domnon
presumptvey beong to the State. Pubc ands not shown to have been recassfed or
reeased as aenabe agrcutura and or aenated to a prvate person by the State reman
part of the naenabe pubc doman. Uness pubc and s shown to have been recassfed
or aenated to a prvate person by the State, t remans part of the naenabe pubc
doman. The onus to overturn, by ncontrovertbe evdence, the presumpton that the and
sub|ect of an appcaton for regstraton s aenabe or dsposabe rests wth the appcant.
A revew of the records shows that other than the notaton on the advanced survey
pan statng n effect that the sub|ect property s aenabe and dsposabe and Espnosas
sef-servng testmony, there s an utter ack of evdence to show the actua ega
cassfcaton of the dsputed ot. Espnosa was not abe to show proof that the property was
aenabe or dsposabe. The approved survey pan merey dentfes the property
preparatory to a |udca proceedng for ad|udcaton of tte.
The Court, n the *epublic v. 'ri%,lus Corporation, rued that:
"To prove that the and sub|ect of an appcaton for regstraton s aenabe, an appcant must
estabsh the exstence of a postve act of the government such as a presdenta procamaton or an
executve order, an admnstratve acton, nvestgaton reports of Bureau of Lands nvestgators, and a
egsatve act or statute. The appcant may aso secure a certfcaton from the Government that the
ands apped for are aenabe and dsposabe. In the case at bar, whe the Advance Pan bearng the
notaton was certfed by the Lands Management Servces of the DENR, the certfcaton refers ony to the
technca correctness of the survey potted n the sad pan and has nothng to do whatsoever wth the
nature and character of the property surveyed. Respondents faed to submt a certfcaton from the
proper government agency to prove that the ands sub|ect for regstraton are ndeed aenabe and
dsposabe."
Espnosa havng faed to present the quantum of evdence to prove that the and n
dspute s aenabe and dsposabe pubc and, the CA shoud have reversed the MTC
|udgment conformaby to the Supreme Court rung n the 'ri%,lus case. The presumpton
remans that sub|ect propertes reman part of the naenabe pubc doman and, therefore,
coud not become the sub|ect of confrmaton of mperfect tte.
RE/)BLIC OF T-E /-ILI//INES v.
T-E -ONORABLE SANDIGANBA7AN #SECOND DI"ISION(, et al.
G.R. No. 1892;8, 28 AuEu12 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
(dmission of additional evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court. +n the furtherance of &ustice, the court may grant the parties the opportunity to
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
77
adduce additional evidence bearing upon the main issue in $uestion. 'he remedy of
reopening a case for presenting further proofs was meant to prevent a miscarriage of
&ustice.
The Repubc of the Phppnes, through the Presdenta Commsson on Good
Governance (PCGG), nsttuted a cv case fe n the Sandganbayan (SB) for the recovery of
-gotten weath aganst spouses Ferdnand and Imeda Marcos, and heren prvate
respondents Rcardo Svero and Pabo Caros, |r. The Repubc submtted fve (5) exhbts as
ts forma offer of evdence. Subsequenty, the SB ssued a resouton admttng ony Exhbt
"A" and denyng admsson of Exhbts "B" to "E" for beng mere photocopes and rreevant
for whch they were offered, and faure to prove the due executon and authentcty of
prvate wrtngs.
The Repubc fed a moton for reconsderaton wth suppement to forma offer of
evdence, whch was dened by the SB. The Repubc then fed a moton to reopen pantffs
presentaton of evdence whch was aso dened by the SB. Hence, the petton.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the moton to reopen presentaton of the Repubcs evdence shoud
be granted
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
The SB serousy erred n denyng the moton to reopen for presentaton of addtona
evdence on the bass of the supposed "fna and executory" rung whch dened admsson
of Exhbts "B" to "E" n the Forma Offer of Evdence fed by the Repubc. Admsson of
addtona evdence s addressed to the sound dscreton of the tra court. Indeed, n the
furtherance of |ustce, the court may grant the partes the opportunty to adduce addtona
evdence bearng upon the man ssue n queston. The remedy of reopenng a case for
presentng further proofs was meant to prevent a mscarrage of |ustce.
Whe t s true that the 1997 Rues of Cv Procedure, as amended, prescrbed an
order of tra (Secton 5, Rue 30), reaxaton of the rue s permtted n sound dscreton of
the court. Accordng to |ustce |ose Y. Fera n hs annotatons on cv procedure:
"After the partes have produced ther respectve drect proofs, they are aowed to offer rebuttng
evdence ony, but, t has been hed, the court, for good reasons n the furtherance of |ustce, may permt
them to offer evdence upon ther orgna case, and ts rung w not be dsturbed n the appeate court
where no abuse of dscreton appears. So, generay, addtona evdence s aowed when t s newy
dscovered, or where t has been omtted through nadvertence or mstake, or where the purpose of the
evdence s to correct evdence prevousy offered."
Executve Order No. 14, seres of 1986, ssued by former Presdent Corazon C. Aquno,
provded that technca rues of procedure and evdence sha not be strcty apped to cases
nvovng -gotten weath. (propos s the Supreme Court pronouncement n *epublic v.
-andiganbayan /'hird .ivision0:
"In a cases nvovng aeged -gotten weath brought by or aganst the Presdenta Commsson
on Good Government, t s the pocy of ths Court to set asde techncates and formates that serve
merey to deay or mpede ther |udcous resouton. Ths Court prefers to have such cases resoved on the
merts before the Sandganbayan. Substanta |ustce to a partes, not mere egasms or perfecton of
form, shoud now be reentessy pursued. Eeven years have passed snce the government started ts
search for and reverson of such aeged -gotten weath. The defntve resouton of such cases on the
merts s thus ong overdue. If there s adequate proof of ega acquston, accumuaton,
msappropraton, fraud or ct conduct, et t be brought out now. Let the ttes over these propertes be
fnay determned and queted down wth a reasonabe speed, free of deayng techncates and
annoyng procedura sdetracks."
T)NA7 NA /AG:A:AISA NG MANGGAGAWA SA ASIABREWER7 v.
ASIA BREWER7, INC.
G.R. No. 192!28, ? AuEu12 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
Confidential employees are e#cluded from the rank%and%file bargaining unit. 'he
reason for this is similar to the inhibition for managerial employees which relates to the
loyalty and possible conflict of interest the former may have in the course of their
employment in the company. <owever, in distinguishing a confidential employee from the
rank%and%file, the actual functions discharged by the employee must be considered and not
merely the &ob description or category made by the management.
Respondent Asa Brewery, Inc. (ABI) entered nto a Coectve Barganng Agreement
(CBA) effectve for fve years wth )isig at "akas ng mga anggagawa sa (sia%+ndependent
(BLMA-INDEPENDENT), the excusve barganng representatve of ABIs rank-and-fe
empoyees. Before the expraton of the CBA, ABI and BLMA-INDEPENDENT sgned a
renegotated CBA. The CBA defned the scope of the barganng unt and excuded some
postons from the barganng unt.
A dspute arose when ABIs management stopped deductng unon dues from eghty-
one empoyees, beevng that ther membershp n BLMA-INDEPENDENT voated the CBA.
The empoyees affected hed the poston of Ouaty Contro Staff, checkers assgned at the
Materas Department of the Admnstraton Dvson, and secretares/cerks drecty under
ther respectve dvson managers.
BLMA-INDEPENDENT camed that ABIs acton restraned the empoyees rght to sef-
organzaton. The Natona Concaton and Medaton Board (NCMB) hed that the sub|ect
empoyees quafy under the rank-and-fe category. Subsequenty, the Court of Appeas (CA)
reversed the decson of the Vountary Arbtrator. Meanwhe, a certfcaton eecton was
hed and pettoner Tunay na Pagkakasang Manggagawa sa Asa (TPMA) won. As the
ncumbent barganng representatve of ABIs rank-and-fe empoyees camng nterest n
the outcome of the case, TPMA fed a moton for reconsderaton but the same was dened
by the CA. Hence, ths petton.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
79
ISS)E*
Whether or not the eghty-one empoyees shoud be excuded from the cassfcaton of
rank-and-fe empoyees, and thus excuded from the barganng unt
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
Athough Artce 245 of the Labor Code mts the negbty to |on, form and assst
any abor organzaton to managera empoyees, |ursprudence has extended ths prohbton
to confdenta empoyees or those who by reason of ther postons or nature of work are
requred to assst or act n a fducary manner to managera empoyees and hence, are
kewse prvy to senstve and hghy confdenta records. Confdenta empoyees are thus
excuded from the rank-and-fe barganng unt. The ratonae for ther separate category
and dsquafcaton to |on any abor organzaton s smar to the nhbton for managera
empoyees because f aowed to be affated wth a Unon, the atter mght not be assured of
ther oyaty n vew of evdent confct of nterests and the Unon can aso become company-
denomnated wth the presence of managera empoyees n the Unon membershp. Havng
access to confdenta nformaton, confdenta empoyees may aso become the source of
undue advantage. Sad empoyees may act as a spy or spes of ether party to a coectve
barganng agreement.
However, perusa of the |ob descrptons of these secretares/cerks reveas that ther
assgned dutes and responsbtes nvove routne actvtes of recordng and montorng,
and other paper works for ther respectve departments whe secretara tasks such as
recevng teephone cas and fng of offce correspondence appear to have been commony
mposed as addtona dutes. ABI faed to ndcate who among these numerous
secretares/cerks have access to confdenta data reatng to management poces that
coud gve rse to potenta confct of nterest wth ther Unon membershp. Ceary, the
ratonae under the Courts prevous rungs for the excuson of e#ecutive
secretaries or division secretaries woud have tte or no sgnfcance consderng the ack of
or very mted access to confdenta nformaton of these secretares/cerks. It s not even
farfetched that the |ob category may exst ony on paper snce they are a day-pad
workers. Oute understandaby, TPMA had earer expressed the vew that the postons were
|ust beng "recassfed" as these empoyees actuay dscharged routne functons. The Court
thus hed that the secretares/cerks, numberng about forty (40), are rank-and-fe
empoyees and not confdenta empoyees.

Wth respect to the Sampng Inspectors/Inspectresses and the Gauge Machne
Techncan, there seems no dspute that they form part of the Ouaty Contro Staff who,
under the express terms of the CBA, fa under a dstnct category. But the Court dsagreed
wth ABIs contenton that the twenty (20) checkers are smary confdenta empoyees
beng "quaty contro staff" entrusted wth the handng and custody of company propertes
and senstve nformaton. Agan, the |ob descrptons of these checkers assgned n the
storeroom secton of the Materas Department, fnshng secton of the Packagng
Department, and the decoratng and gass sectons of the Producton Department pany
showed that they perform routne and mechanca tasks preparatory to the devery of the
fnshed products. Whe t may be argued that quaty contro extends to post-producton
phase -- proper packagng of the fnshed products -- no evdence was presented by the
respondent to prove that these day-pad checkers actuay form part of the companys
Ouaty Contro Staff who as such "were exposed to senstve, vta and confdenta
nformaton about |companys| products" or "have knowedge of mxtures of the products,
ther defects, and even ther formuas" whch are consdered trade secrets. Such
aegatons of respondent must be supported by evdence.
Confdenta empoyees are defned as those who (1) assst or act n a confdenta
capacty, (2) to persons who formuate, determne, and effectuate management poces n the
fed of abor reatons. The two (2) crtera are cumuatve, and both must be met f an
empoyee s to be consdered a confdenta empoyee - that s, the confdenta reatonshp
must exst between the empoyee and hs supervsor, and the supervsor must hande the
prescrbed responsbtes reatng to labor relations. The excuson from barganng unts of
empoyees who, n the norma course of ther dutes, become aware of management poces
reatng to abor reatons s a prncpa ob|ectve sought to be accompshed by the
"confdenta empoyee rue." There s no showng n ths case that the secretares/cerks and
checkers asssted or acted n a confdenta capacty to managera empoyees and obtaned
confdenta nformaton reatng to abor reatons poces. And even assumng that they had
exposure to nterna busness operatons of the company, ABI camed, ths s not per
se ground for ther excuson n the barganng unt of the day-pad rank-and-fe empoyees.
RE7 '. "ARGAS, et al. v. ATT7. MIC-AEL A. IGNES, et al.
DIONISIO CALONGE "ERANA
A.C. No. 8!99, 8 'u% 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'here is a valid ground to impose disciplinary measure against a lawyer who appears
as counsel and represented another in a proceeding without legal authority to do so.
Koronada Water Dstrct (KWD), a government-owned and controed corporaton
(GOCC), hred respondent Atty. Mchae A. Ignes as prvate ega counse for one (1) year.
The Offce of the Government Corporate Counse (OGCC) and the Commsson on Audt
(COA) gave ther consent to the empoyment of Atty. Ignes. However, controversy ater
erupted when two (2) dfferent groups, heren referred to as the Dea Pea board and
Yaphockun board, ad cam as the egtmate Board of Drectors of KWD.
The Dea Pea board adopted a resouton appontng resondents Atty. Rodufo Va|ar,
|r. and Atty. Leonard Buentpo Mann as prvate coaboratng counses for a cases of KWD
and ts Board of drector, under the drect supervson and contro of Atty. Ignes. When the
retanershp contract expred, the OGCC had approved the retanershp contract of Atty.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
81
Ben|amn Cunanan as the new ega counse of the KWD. Meanwhe, the Yaphockun board
has been decared as the new Board of Drectors of KWD. The Yaphockun board termnated
Atty. Igness servces and requested to hre another counse.
Companants Rey Vargas, et al. fed a dsbarment case aganst Atty. Ignes et a. for
aegedy actng as counses for KWD wthout ega authorty before the Integrated Bar of the
Phppnes (IBP) Commsson on Bar Dscpne (CBD). The IBP Board of Governors dsmssed
the case for ack of mert. Hence, the present petton.
ISS)E*
Whether or not Atty. Ignes et al., have vad authorty to appear as counses of KWD
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
The Court found that Attys. Nadua, Va|ar, |r. and Mann had no vad authorty to
appear as coaboratng counses of KWD n SCA Case No. 50-24 and Cv Case No.
1799. Nothng n the records shows that Atty. Nadua was engaged by KWD as coaboratng
counse. Whe the 4
th
Whereas Cause of Resouton No. 009 party states that he and Atty.
Ignes "presenty stand as KWD ega counses," there s no proof that the OGCC and COA
approved Atty. Naduas engagement as ega counse or coaboratng counse. Insofar as
Attys. Va|ar, |r. and Mann are concerned, ther appontment as coaboratng counses of
KWD under Resouton No. 009 has no approva from the OGCC and COA.
In the case of Atty. Ignes, he aso appeared as counse of KWD wthout authorty, after
hs authorty as ts counse had expred. True, the OGCC and COA approved hs retanershp
contract for one (1) year effectve Apr 17, 2006. But even f we assume as true that he was
not notfed of the pre-termnaton of hs contract, the records st dsprove hs cam that he
stopped representng KWD after (pril 19, 5>>9.

Wth the gran of evdence before the Court, the Court dd not beeve that
respondents are nnocent of the charge even f they nsst that the professona fees of Attys.
Nadua, Va|ar, |r. and Mann, as coaboratng counses, were pad not from the pubc coffers
of KWD. To be sure, the facts were cear that they appeared as counses of KWD wthout
authorty, and not merey as counses of the members of the Dea Pea board and KWD
personne n ther prvate suts.

Consequenty, for Atty. Ignes, et al.s wfu appearance as counses of KWD wthout
authorty to do so, there s a vad ground to mpose dscpnary acton aganst them. Under
Secton 27, Rue 138 of the Rues of Court, a member of the bar may be dsbarred or
suspended from hs offce as attorney by the Supreme Court for any decet, mapractce, or
other gross msconduct n such offce, grossy mmora conduct, or by reason of hs
convcton of a crme nvovng mora turptude, or for any voaton of the oath whch he s
requred to take before admsson to practce, or for a wfu dsobedence of any awfu order
of a superor court, or for corrupty or wfuy appearng as an attorney for a party to a case
wthout authorty to do so.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE"EN)E v. -ON. RA)L M. GON>ALE> and L. M.
CAM)S ENGINEERING COR/ORATION
G.R. No. 1;;2;9, 1? O52ober 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he substantial underdeclared income in the returns filed by "C!C for 1889, 188?
and 1888 in amounts e$uivalent to more than 2>F constitutes prima facie evidence of
fraudulent return under -ection 5@?/)0 of the 4+*C.
Pettoner Commssoner of Interna Revenue (CIR) ssued an order to conduct a fraud
nvestgaton to ascertan the tax abtes of respondent L. M. Camus Engneerng
Corporaton (LMCEC) for the taxabe years 1997, 1998 and 1999 due to the nformaton
provded by an nformer that t had substanta underdecared ncome for the sad perod.
When LMCEC faed to compy wth the subpoena duces tecum ssued n connecton wth the
tax fraud nvestgaton, a crmna compant was nsttuted by the Bureau of Interna Revenue
(BIR).
CIR assessed the company of tota defcency taxes amountng to P430,958,005.90
coverng the sad perod. CIR fed a compant to the Secretary of |ustce aganst LMCEC,
Lus M. Camus and Lno D. Mendoza, the atter two were sued n ther capactes as Presdent
and Comptroer, respectvey. Camus and Mendoza contended that the sut s a smpe cv
acton for coecton and not a tax evason case.
LMCEC averred that t had avaed of the Bureaus Tax Amnesty Programs (Economc
Recovery Assstance Payment |ERAP| Program and the Vountary Assessment Program
|VAP|) for 1998 and 1999; for 1997, ts tax abty was termnated and cosed. CIR camed
that the sut s of crmna nature, pontng out that LMCEC and ts offcers Camus and
Mendoza were beng charged for the crmna offenses defned and penazed under Sectons
254 (Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax) and 255 (Wfu Faure to Pay Tax) of the NIRC.

The Chef State Prosecutor found no probabe cause and dsmssed the compant. The
same was dsmssed by the Secretary of |ustce and the Court of Appeas (CA). CIR then
brought the matter before the Supreme Court through a petton for revew on certiorari.
ISS)E*
Whether or not LMCEC and ts corporate offcers may be prosecuted for voaton of
Sectons 254 (Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax) and 255 (Wfu Faure to Suppy Correct and
Accurate Informaton and Pay Tax)

-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
83
LMCEC cannot be aowed to escape crmna prosecuton under Sectons 254 and 255
of the NIRC by mere mputaton of a "fcttous" or dsquafed nformant under Secton 282
smpy because other than dscosure of the offca regstry number of the thrd party
"nformer," the Bureau nssted on mantanng the confdentaty of the dentty and
persona crcumstances of sad "nformer."

The program named as "Economc Recovery Assstance Payment (ERAP) Program"
granted mmunty from audt and nvestgaton of ncome tax, VAT and percentage tax
returns for 1998. It expressy excuded wthhodng tax returns (whether for ncome, VAT, or
percentage tax purposes). Snce such mmunty from audt and nvestgaton does not
precude the coecton of revenues generated from audt and enforcement actvtes, t
foows that the Bureau s kewse not barred from coectng any tax defcency dscovered
as a resut of tax fraud nvestgatons. Respondent Secretarys opnon that RR No. 2-99
contans the feature of a tax amnesty s thus mspaced.
Tax amnesty s a genera pardon to taxpayers who want to start a cean tax sate. It
aso gves the government a chance to coect uncoected tax from tax evaders wthout
havng to go through the tedous process of a tax case. Even assumng arguendo that the
ssuance of RR No. 2-99 s n the nature of tax amnesty, t bears notng that a tax amnesty,
much ke a tax exempton, s never favored nor presumed n aw and f granted by statute,
the terms of the amnesty ke that of a tax exempton must be construed strcty aganst the
taxpayer and beray n favor of the taxng authorty.
For the same reason, the avament by LMCEC of VAP under RR No. 8-2001 as
amended by RR No. 10-2001, through payment supposedy made n October 29, 2001 before
the sad program ended on October 31, 2001, dd not amount to settement of ts assessed
tax defcences for the perod 1997 to 1999, nor mmunty from prosecuton for fng
frauduent return and attempt to evade or defeat tax. As correcty asserted by the CIR,
from the express terms of the aforesad revenue reguatons, LMCEC s not quafed to ava
of the VAP grantng taxpayers the prvege of ast prorty n the audt and nvestgaton of a
nterna revenue taxes for the taxabe year 2000 and a pror years under certan condtons,
consderng that frst, t was ssued a PAN on February 19, 2001, and second, t was the
sub|ect of nvestgaton as a resut of verfed nformaton fed by a Tax Informer under
Secton 282 of the NIRC duy recorded n the BIR Offca Regstry as Confdenta Informaton
(CI) No. 29-2000 even pror to the ssuance of the PAN.
Secretary Gonzaes other ground for assang the course of acton taken by CIR n
proceedng wth the audt and nvestgaton of LMCEC -- the aeged voaton of the genera
rue n Secton 235 of the NIRC aowng the examnaton and nspecton of taxpayers books
of accounts and other accountng records ony once n a taxabe year -- s kewse
untenabe. As correcty ponted out by CIR, the dscovery of substanta underdecaratons of
ncome by LMCEC for taxabe years 1997, 1998 and 1999 upon verfed nformaton provded
by an "nformer" under Secton 282 of the NIRC, as we as the necessty of obtanng
nformaton from thrd partes to ascertan the correctness of the return fed or evauaton of
tax compance n coectng taxes (as a resut of the dsobedence to the summons ssued by
the Bureau aganst the prvate respondents), are crcumstances warrantng excepton from
the genera rue n Secton 235.
As aready stated, the substanta underdecared ncome n the returns fed by LMCEC
for 1997, 1998 and 1999 n amounts equvaent to more than 30% (the computaton n the
fna assessment notce showed underdecaratons of amost 200%) consttutes prma face
evdence of frauduent return under Secton 248(B) of the NIRC. Pror to the ssuance of the
premnary and fna notces of assessment, the revenue offcers conducted a premnary
nvestgaton on the nformaton and documents showng substanta understatement of
LMCECs tax abtes whch were provded by the Informer, foowng the procedure under
RMO No. 15-95. Based on the prma face fndng of the exstence of fraud, CIR ssued LA
No. 00009361 for the TFD to conduct a forma fraud nvestgaton of LMCEC. Consequenty,
respondent Secretarys rung that the fng of crmna compant for voaton of Sectons
254 and 255 of the NIRC cannot prosper because of ack of pror determnaton of the
exstence of fraud, s bereft of factua bass and contradcted by the evdence on record.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
85
FINANCIAL B)ILDING COR/ORATION v.
R)DLIN INTERNATIONAL COR/ORATION, et al.
G.R. No1. 19<189, 19<?<;, < O52ober 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he award of attorneys fees is the e#ception rather than the rule, as they are not
always awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium
should be placed on the right to litigate. (ttorneys fees as part of damages is awarded only
in the instances specified in (rticle 55>? of the Civil Code.
Rudn Internatona Corporaton (Rudn) awarded the contract to undertake the
constructon of a schoo budng n Las Pas, Metro Mana to Fnanca Budng Corporaton
(FBC), wth a bd of P6,933,268.00 as tota pro|ect cost. Rudn and FBC executed a
Constructon Agreement whch provded for competon date not ater than Apr 30, 1986.
The constructon was not fnshed and extended unt May 31, 1986, except for the
admnstraton wng whch Rudn expected to be compete by |une 10, 1986. Through a
Letter-Agreement, the competon of the Pro|ect was extended unt |une 10, 1986 and the
payment of the baance due sha be made after the partes have reconced ther accounts.
On |une 15, 1986, Rudn naugurated the sub|ect schoo budng, "Boomfed Academy," but
no reconcaton of accounts took pace. FBC demanded payment of the baance, but Rudn
dd not pay.
FBC then fed n the Regona Tra Court (RTC) a sut for a sum of money wth prayer
for premnary attachment aganst Rudn, Boomfed Educatona Foundaton, Inc.
(Boomfed) and ther offcers. The RTC dsmssed both FBCs compant and Rudns
countercam. The Court of Appeas (CA) ordered Rudn to pay FBC the remanng baance of
P1,508,464.84.
ISS)ES*
(1) Whether or not FBC s abe for the defects n the constructon of the sub|ect schoo
budng and deay n the competon of the works
(2) Whether or not Rudn s abe for the baance of the contract prce after
consderng the payments, deductves and addtves and other charges admtted
thereof
-ELD*
Petton /ARTIALL7 GRANTED.
1BC is lia!le for the defects in the construction of the su!,ect school !uildin# and
dela$ in the completion of the "or2s
The Court s unabe to agree wth the appeate courts vew that the testmones gven
n court by the commssoners had eft uncertan the determnaton of the nature of the
defects and defcences, i.e., whether these are constructon defects or merey due to
mproper mantenance.
It stands undsputed that the damage wrought by water seepage causng water stans,
eakng roofs, peeng off of pant, cracks on was and deamnaton of pywood, among
others, was so pervasve on many portons of the budng that even after the same was
naugurated n tme for the schoo openng on |une 15, 1986, most of the cassrooms and
admnstratve offces, as we as other common areas such as the obby and comfort rooms,
coud not be propery utzed as ther defectve condton posed danger to the teachers and
students. It must be noted that at the tme of ocuar nspecton n 1988, t was barey two
years from the tme the budng was actuay used and yet the overa structure of the
budng was severey mpared by the defectve waterproofng and other defcences. Pror
to the court-authorzed nspecton, those vsbe defects had been photographed whch
further confrmed the fndngs of the commssoners. The CA thus erred n gvng weght to
FBCs cam that the seepage of water nto the beams, was and foor can be attrbuted to
ack of proper mantenance, ctng the decaratons of FBCs Aexander E. Reyes and
Commssoner Payumo who aegedy found "pes of drt coected on the gutter and when
the drt was removed, the water fowed down to the spout." Gven the extent of the defects
and defcences found n the schoo budng, ths smpstc expanaton from FBC s
unacceptabe.
FBC cannot escape abty for the poor quaty of waterproofng on the ground that
Rudns representatve was present durng the meetng when the change n brand to be
used was aegedy dscussed wth hs concurrence. The requrements for a vad change or
modfcaton n the orgna pans and specfcatons were ceary set out n Secton Ffteen of
the Constructon Agreement, whch provded that the owner reserves the rght to order work
changes n the nature of addtons, deetons, or modfcatons, wthout nvadatng the
Agreement. A changes sha be authorzed by a wrtten change order sgned by the owner
and by the archtect. Work sha be changed, and the competon tme sha be modfed ony
as set out n the wrtten change order. Any ad|ustment n the Contract Prce resutng n a
credt or a charge to the owner sha be determned by wrtten agreement of the partes,
before startng the work nvoved n the change.
%udlin is not lia!le for the !alance of the contract price after considerin# the
pa$ments- deductives and additives and other char#es admitted thereof
Consderng that FBC had not competed the correctve/repar works n accordance
wth the Contract Documents and as approved or certfed n wrtng by the Archtect as to ts
competon, ts demand for the payment of the fna baance was premature. Under the
Letter-Agreement, fna payment was sub|ect to reconcaton of ther accounts regardng
the upgradng and downgradng done on the pro|ect. Obvousy, ths cannot be comped
wth uness FBC as the defautng party competes the repar/correctve works for ony then
can the actua cost of addtves and deductves be determned.
In recproca obgatons, nether party ncurs n deay f the other does not compy or s
not ready to compy n a proper manner wth what s ncumbent upon hm. When the
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
87
substandard waterproofng caused extensve damage to the schoo budng, t was
ncumbent upon FBC to nsttute at ts own expense the proper repars n accordance wth
the guaranty-warranty stated n the Constructon Agreement. Thus, Rudn cannot be sad to
have ncurred deay n the reconcaton of accounts, as a precondton for fna payment;
nstead, t s FBC who was guty of deay by ts stubborn refusa to repace or re-execute the
defectve waterproofng of the sub|ect schoo budng.

LAND BAN: OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. GLENN 7. ESCANDOR, et al.
G.R. No. 1;1988, 11 O52ober 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
-ince the sub&ect lands were placed under land reform after the effectivity of *.(. 4o.
77:9, it is said law which governs the valuation of lands for the purpose of awarding &ust
compensation. -ection 19 of *.(. 4o. 77:9 provided that in determining &ust compensation,
the cost of ac$uisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use
and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the ta# declarations, and the assessment
made by government assessors shall be considered.
Respondents Genn and Gerome Y. Escandor are the regstered owners of four parces
of agrcutura and n Davao de Sur whe respondents Emo Escandor and Voeta Yap are
the regstered owners of two parces of agrcutura and stuated n Daagbong and Buacan
n Maaag, Davao de Sur.
The Department of Agraran Reform (DAR) paced the aforesad ands under compusory
acquston of the Comprehensve Agraran Reform Program (CARP). Pettoner Land Bank of
the Phppnes (LBP) through ts Land Vauaton Offce conducted a fed nvestgaton and
came up wth ts vauaton, whch was re|ected by Yap and the Escandors. Snce the LBPs
vauaton was re|ected, the DAR nsttuted summary admnstratve proceedngs for the
determnaton of |ust compensaton whe LBP deposted n the name of Yap and the
Escandors the amount of compensaton n cash and bond. After due proceedngs, the DAR
sustaned the vauaton made by LBP.
Yap and the Escandors fed ther compants for determnaton and payment of |ust
compensaton aganst LBP and the DAR before the Regona Tra Court (RTC) actng as
Speca Agraran Court (SAC). The RTC rendered ts Decson, statng that the market vaue
approach must be used n determnng the |ust compensaton. The Court of Appeas (CA)
rued that the computaton of |ust compensaton shoud be made at the tme of the takng,
whch n ths case shoud be n 1997 when the DAR took the ands and canceed the ttes
thereto.
ISS)E*
Whether or not both the SAC and the CA erred n not strcty observng the gudenes
provded n Secton 17 of RA No. 6657 and adoptng DAR admnstratve orders mpementng
the same, specfcay AO No. 5, seres of 1998
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
Athough the DAR s vested wth prmary |ursdcton under the Comprehensve
Agraran Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 to determne n a premnary manner the reasonabe
compensaton for ands taken under the CARP, such determnaton s sub|ect to chaenge n
the courts.

The CARL vests n the RTCs, sttng as SACs, orgna and excusve |ursdcton
over a pettons for the determnaton of |ust compensaton. Ths means that the RTCs do
not exercse mere appeate |ursdcton over |ust compensaton dsputes.
Snce the sub|ect ands were paced under and reform after the effectvty of R.A. No.
6657, t s sad aw whch governs the vauaton of ands for the purpose of awardng |ust
compensaton. Secton 17 of R.A. No. 6657 provded that n determnng |ust compensaton,
the cost of acquston of the and, the current vaue of ke propertes, ts nature, actua use
and ncome, the sworn vauaton by the owner, the tax decaratons, and the assessment
made by government assessors sha be consdered. The soca and economc benefts
contrbuted by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government to the property as
we as the non-payment of taxes or oans secured from any government fnancng nsttuton
on the sad and sha be consdered as addtona factors to determne ts vauaton.
The Court hods that both the SAC and the CA erred n not strcty observng the
gudenes provded n Secton 17 of RA No. 6657 and adoptng DAR admnstratve orders
mpementng the same, specfcay AO No. 5, seres of 1998 and thus aready n force at the
tme of the fng of the compants.
The Court recenty reterated n "and )ank of the ,hilippines v. )arrido that whe the
determnaton of |ust compensaton s essentay a |udca functon vested n the RTC actng
as a Speca Agraran Court, the |udge cannot abuse hs dscreton by not takng nto fu
consderaton the factors specfcay dentfed by aw and mpementng rues. Speca
Agraran Courts are not at berty to dsregard the formua ad down n DAR A.O. No. 5,
seres of 1998, because uness an admnstratve order s decared nvad, courts have no
opton but to appy t. The courts cannot gnore, wthout voatng the agraran aw, the
formua provded by the DAR for the determnaton of |ust compensaton.
On the matter of nterest on the fna compensaton, the Court s unabe to agree wth
the CAs poston that t s automatcay awarded n agraran cases nvovng ands paced
under CARP. Escandor, et al. are not entted to nterest on the fna compensaton
consderng that pettoner prompty deposted the compensaton for ther ands after they
re|ected pettoners nta vauaton. Such depost of cash and bonds n the name of the
andowners was made n accordance wth Sectons 16 (e) and 18 of R.A. No. 6657.
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. ')ANITO CABIGB)E>
G.R. No. 188;!8, 29 Se@2e&ber 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
89
( positive .4( match may strengthen the evidence for the prosecution, but an
inconclusive .4( test result may not be sufficient to e#culpate the accused, particularly
when there is sufficient evidence proving his guilt. 4otably, neither a positive .4( match of
the semen nor the presence of spermatozoa is essential in finding that rape was committed.
'he important consideration in rape cases is not the emission of semen but the penetration
of the female genitalia by the male organ.
AAA and her three mnor chdren (BBB, CCC, and DDD) sept nsde AAAs sma sari%
sari store whch was annexed through the exteror bacony of her house. AAA was awakened
and when she ooked up, she saw a man, ater on dentfed as Romuo Grondano, whose
face was covered wth a handkerchef. Grondano mmedatey poked a gun at her.
Grondano ordered AAA and her chdren to e face down. Though strcken wth fear, BBB
notced that Grondano had a companon who stayed at the bacony keepng watch.
Grondano then ransacked the store. After Grondano eft, the other man entered. BBB
dentfed the man as appeant |uanto Cabgquez as the atter dd not concea hs face.
Armed wth Grondanos gun, Cabgquez proceeded to rape AAA n fu vew of her chdren.
After the ncdent, AAA decded to proceed to the house of her oder son, EEE, and asked for
hep. AAA faed to dscose the denttes of the two men. Meanwhe, BBB decded not to
dvuge ther denttes because of fear for ther ves.
On that day, AAA reported the ncdent to the Puerto Poce Staton. No crmna
compant, however, was fed snce AAA was st uncertan of the denttes of the two men.
AAA was then physcay examned by Dr. Crstda O. Vapae and Dr. Rman Rcardo,
resdent physcans at the Northern Mndanao Medca Center. Dr. Vapaes examnaton
reveaed that the smear recovered from AAAs vagna was postve for spermatozoa, whe
Dr. Rcardo found a two-centmeter contuson on AAAs eft hand dorsum. After some tme,
Cabgquez and Grondano were arrested for possesson of ega drugs. Wth ths, BBB fnay
mustered the courage to revea the denttes of Cabgquez and Grondano to her mother.
Upon knowng ther denttes, AAA fed charges for robbery aganst Cabgquez and
Grondano and a charge for rape aganst Cabgquez.
The tra court, on moton by the defense, ordered the Natona Bureau of Investgaton
(NBI) to conduct a deoxyrbonucec acd (DNA) anayss on the sperm taken from AAAs
vagna. NBI Forensc Chemst III Ada Vora Magspoc testfed that the sampe coected
from AAA dd not match Cabgquezs DNA profe snce the specmen submtted to them were
mere vagna dscharges from AAA.
The Regona Tra Court rendered |udgment convctng Cabgquez and Grondano of
the crmes charged. The Court of Appeas (CA) uphed the decson of the RTC. Cabgquez
proceeded wth hs appea to the Court.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the prosecuton faed to prove accused-appeant |uanto Cabgquezs
gut beyond reasonabe doubt of the crme charged
-ELD*
Petton DISMISSED.
The factua fndngs of the RTC, as affrmed by the appeate court, ndubtaby prove
that Cabgquez raped AAA even f the specmen obtaned from the vagna swabs and
submtted to the NBI faed to match hs DNA profe. Rape s commtted by a man who sha
have carna knowedge of a woman through force, threat or ntmdaton. The commsson of
rape was ceary shown by testmona and documentary evdence; the defense submts that
t s the dentty of the perpetrator whch s not duy estabshed.
For purposes of crmna nvestgaton, DNA dentfcaton s ndeed a ferte source of
both ncupatory and excupatory evdence. In ths case, however, the resut of the DNA test
s rendered nconcusve to excupate or ncupate Cabgquez snce the sampe tested by the
NBI merey contaned vagna dscharges. In the aboratory test earer conducted by Dr.
Vapae on the vagna swab obtaned from AAAs gentaa, the presence of spermatozoa
was confrmed. Ths notwthstandng, the totaty of evdence satsfactory estabshed that t
was ndeed Cabgquez who raped AAA.
AAAs daughter, BBB, who wtnessed the entre ncdent whch happened nsde ther
store on the nght n queston, postvey dentfed Cabgquez as the one who raped her
mother aganst the atters w by threatenng her and her chdren wth a handgun he was
then carryng.
Cabgquez cannot seek acqutta on the bass of the negatve resut of the DNA test on
the specmen conducted by the NBI. A postve DNA match s unnecessary when the totaty
of the evdence presented before the court ponts to no other possbe concuson, .e.,
appeant raped the prvate offended party. A postve DNA match may strengthen the
evdence for the prosecuton, but an nconcusve DNA test resut may not be suffcent to
excupate the accused, partcuary when there s suffcent evdence provng hs gut.
Notaby, nether a postve DNA match of the semen nor the presence of spermatozoa s
essenta n fndng that rape was commtted. The mportant consderaton n rape cases s
not the emsson of semen but the penetraton of the femae gentaa by the mae organ.

Moreover, t s evdent that the rape of AAA was commtted n the presence and n fu
vew of her three mnor chdren. Thrteen (13)-year od BBB, as we as her two mnor
sbngs who were present at the tme when the rape was commtted, was aready od
enough to sense the bestaty beng commtted aganst ther own mother. Such
crcumstance, as rected n the ast porton of the Informaton for Crmna Case No. 2001-815
s, by tsef, suffcent to quafy the rape under Artce 266-B of the Revsed Pena Code, as
amended. Consequenty, the CA was correct n affrmng the convcton of appeant for
quafed rape.
RE* LETTER OF T-E )/ LAW FAC)LT7 ENTITLED RESTORING INTEGRIT7* A
STATEMENT B7 T-E FAC)LT7 OF T-E )NI"ERSIT7 OF T-E /-ILI//INES COLLEGE
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
91
OF LAW ON T-E ALLEGATIONS OF /LAGIARISM AND MISRE/RESENTATION IN T-E
S)/REME CO)RT
A.M. No. 1!,1!,<,SC, 19 O52ober 2!1!, EN BANC #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
(ny publication, pending a suit, reflecting upon the court, the &ury, the parties, the
officers of the court, the counsel with reference to the suit, or tending to influence the
decision of the controversy, is contempt of court and is punishable.
Aegatons of pagarsm were hured by Atty. Harry L. Roque, |r. and Atty. Rome R.
Bagares aganst |ustce Marano C. De Casto for hs ponencia n the case of 3inuya v.
!#ecutive -ecretary, G.R. No. 162230, Apr 28, 2010. In sad case, the Court dened the
petton for certiorari fed by Fpno comfort women to espouse ther cams for reparaton
from the |apanese government for the abuses commtted aganst them. Attys. Roque and
Bagares represent the comfort women n 3inuya v. !#ecutive -ecretary, whch s the sub|ect
of a moton for reconsderaton.
Members of the facuty of the Unversty of the Phppnes Coege of Law pubshed a
statement on the aegatons of pagarsm and msrepresentaton reatve to the Courts
decson n 3inuya v. !#ecutive -ecretary. Essentay, the facuty of the UP Coege of Law,
headed by ts dean, Atty. Marvc M.V.F. Leonen, cas for the resgnaton of |ustce Marano C.
De Casto n the face of aegatons of pagarsm n hs work.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the statement on the aegatons of pagarsm and msrepresentaton
pubshed by members of the facuty of the Unversty of the Phppnes Coege of Law woud
consttute a voaton of certan Canons of the Code of Professona Responsbty
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
Notaby, whe the statement was meant to refect the educators opnon on the
aegatons of pagarsm aganst |ustce De Casto, they treated such aegaton not ony as
an estabshed fact, but a truth. In partcuar, they expressed dssatsfacton over |ustce De
Castos expanaton on how he cted the prmary sources of the quoted portons and yet
arrved at a contrary concuson to those of the authors of the artces supposedy
pagarzed.
The pubcaton of a statement by the facuty of the UP Coege of Law regardng the
aegatons of pagarsm and msrepresentaton n the Supreme Court was totay
unnecessary, uncaed for and a rash act of mspaced vgance. Of pubc knowedge s the
ongong nvestgaton precsey to determne the truth of such aegatons. More mportanty,
the moton for reconsderaton of the decson aeged to contan pagarzed materas s st
pendng before the Court.
The Court made t cear n the case of +n re Gelly that: Any pubcaton, pendng a sut,
refectng upon the court, the |ury, the partes, the offcers of the court, the counse wth
reference to the sut, or tendng to nfuence the decson of the controversy, s contempt of
court and s punshabe.
The Court must nsst on beng permtted to proceed to the dsposton of ts busness
n an ordery manner, free from outsde nterference obstructve of ts functons and tendng
to embarrass the admnstraton of |ustce.T he Court coud hardy perceve any reasonabe
purpose for the facutys ess than ob|ectve comments except to dscredt the Apr 28, 2010
Decson n the Vnuya case and undermne the Courts honesty, ntegrty and competence n
addressng the moton for ts reconsderaton. As f the case on the comfort womens cams
s not controversa enough, the UP Law facuty woud fan the fames and nvte resentment
aganst a resouton that woud not reverse the sad decson. Ths runs contrary to ther
obgaton as aw professors and offcers of the Court to be the frst to uphod the dgnty and
authorty of ths Court, to whch they owe fdety accordng to the oath they have taken as
attorneys, and not to promote dstrust n the admnstraton of |ustce. Ther actons kewse
consttute voatons of Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rues 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of
Professona Responsbty.
RE/)BLIC OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. ANGELO B. MALABANAN, et al.
G.R. No. 199!9;, 9 O52ober 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he three /20 modes of appeal from decisions of the *'C, to wit6 /10 by ordinary appeal
or appeal by writ of error under *ule @1, /50 by petition for review under *ule @5; and /20 by
petition for review on certiorari to the -upreme Court under *ule @:. 'he first mode of
appeal is taken to the C( on $uestions of fact or mi#ed $uestions of fact and law. 'he
second mode of appeal is brought to the C( on $uestions of fact, of law, or mi#ed $uestions
of fact and law. 'he third mode of appeal is elevated to the -upreme Court only on $uestions
of law.
Respondents Angeo B. Maabanan and Pabo B. Maabanan were regstered owners of
a parce of and stuated n Batangas. It was canceed and was repaced wth another tte,
from whch respondent Greenthumb Reaty and Deveopment Corporatons tte was
derved. The parce of and was ater subdvded nto smaer ots. The dervatve ttes are
now ether n the names of the Maabanans or respondent Greenthumb Reaty and
Deveopment Corporaton.
Pettoner Repubc of the Phppnes (RP) cams that n an nvestgaton conducted by
the Department of Envronment and Natura Resources (Regon IV), t was reveaed that the
and covered was wthn the uncassfed pubc forest of Batangas. Ths prompted RPs fng
of a compant for reverson and canceaton of tte aganst respondents. The Maabanans,
on the other hand, fed a Moton to Dsmss. They argued that the compant faed to state a
cause of acton; the court has no |ursdcton over the sub|ect matter; the compant voates
Secton 7, Rue 8 of the 1997 Rues of Cv Procedure. They further camed that a smar
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
93
compant for reverson to the pubc doman of the same parces of and between the same
partes has aready been dsmssed by the same court.
The Regona Tra Court (RTC) dsmssed the compant but RP fed a Notce of Appea
from the order of dsmssa. The RTC ssued an Order denyng due course and dsmssng
RPs appea. The Court of Appeas (CA) rued that the determnaton of whether or not an
appea may be dsmssed on the ground that the ssue nvoved s purey a queston of aw s
excusvey odged wthn the dscreton of the CA. Consequenty, the RTC was drected to
gve due course to RPs appea and order the transmtta of the orgna records on appea to
the CA.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the Court of Appeas commtted a reversbe error n dsmssng
pettoner RPs appea for beng the wrong mode to assa the tra courts order
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
RP argues that the ssue surroundng the vadty of the order dsmssng the compant
does not ony nvove a queston of aw but aso nvoves a queston of fact. The queston of
fact pertans to the porton of the tra courts assaed order whch stated that the
Maabanans ownershp had been uphed by the CA and the Supreme Court. RP contends
that the queston of whether such rght had n fact been uphed s factua n nature. RP adds
that the tra court has |ursdcton over the compant and shoud not have dsmssed the
compant n the frst pace.
The three (3) modes of appea from decsons of the RTC, to wt: (1) by ordnary appea
or appea by wrt of error under Rue 41, where |udgment was rendered n a cv or crmna
acton by the RTC n the exercse of orgna |ursdcton; (2) by petton for revew under Rue
42, where |udgment was rendered by the RTC n the exercse of appeate |ursdcton; and
(3) by petton for revew on certorar to the Supreme Court under Rue 45. The frst mode of
appea s taken to the CA on questons of fact or mxed questons of fact and aw. The second
mode of appea s brought to the CA on questons of fact, of aw, or mxed questons of fact
and aw. The thrd mode of appea s eevated to the Supreme Court ony on questons of
aw.
A queston of aw arses when there s doubt as to what the aw s on a certan state of
facts, whe there s a queston of fact when the doubt arses as to the truth or fasty of the
aeged facts. For a queston to be one of aw, the same must not nvove an examnaton of
the probatve vaue of the evdence presented by the tgants or any of them. The resouton
of the ssue must rest soey on what the aw provdes on the gven set of crcumstances.
Once t s cear that the ssue nvtes a revew of the evdence presented, the queston posed
s one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a queston s one of aw or of fact s not the
appeaton gven to such queston by the party rasng the same; rather, t s whether the
appeate court can determne the ssue rased wthout revewng or evauatng the evdence,
n whch case, t s a queston of aw; otherwse t s a queston of fact.
Here, RPs appea does not ony nvove a queston of aw. Asde from the tra courts
rung that t has no |ursdcton over the compant, RP kewse questoned the other bass
for the tra courts rung, whch refers to prevousy decded cases aegedy uphodng wth
fnaty the ownershp of the Maabanans over the dsputed property. As correcty argued by
RP, the queston of whether the ownershp of the Maabanans has n fact been sustaned wth
fnaty s factua n nature as t requres the presentaton of evdence.
CORA>ON D. SARMIENTA, et al. v. MANALITE -OMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
G.R. No. 18298?, 11 O52ober 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
( complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the
following6 /10 initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by
tolerance of the plaintiff; /50 eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by
plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latters right of possession; /20 thereafter, the
defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the
en&oyment thereof; and /@0 within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the
property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for e&ectment.

Respondent Manate Homeowners Assocaton, Inc. aeged that t s the regstered
owner of a certan parce of and stuated n Antpoo Cty and that pettoner Amara W.
Cgesao Assocaton (AMARA) and ts members (Corazon Sarmenta, et al.) entered the
premses and constructed ther temporary houses and an offce budng. MAHA demanded
that AMARA and ts members vacate the and. AMARA then proposed that they become
members of MAHA so they can acqure portons of the property by sae, but they were not
abe to compy wth the requrements.
Upon MAHAs fng of a compant for "Forcbe Entry/Unawfu Detaner," AMARA
averred that they are the owners of the sub|ect ot, havng been n actua physca
possesson thereof for more than thrty (30) years before MAHA ntruded nto the and. MAHA
camed that as the years went by, they estabshed the AMARA and bought the sub|ect
property from |uan Taano.

The Muncpa Tra Court n Ctes (MTCC) dsmssed the case but the Regona Tra
Court (RTC) reversed the decson and ordered AMARA and ts members to vacate the
sub|ect premses. The Court of Appeas (CA), affrmed the decson of the RTC. The CA hed
that whe the compant n the begnnng aeged facts whch make out a case for forcbe
entry, the rest of the averments theren show that the cause of acton was actuay for
unawfu detaner. After AMARAs moton for reconsderaton from the sad decson was
dened, they then fed a petton for revew on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISS)E*
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
95
1) Whether or not the aegatons n the compant are suffcent to make up a case of
forcbe entry or unawfu detaner
2) Whether or not the CA was correct n affrmng the RTCs decson fndng a case of
unawfu detaner
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
he alle#ations in the complaint are sufficient to ma2e up a case of forci!le entr$
or unla"ful detainer
In e|ectment cases, the compant shoud embody such statement of facts as to brng
the party ceary wthn the cass of cases under Secton 1, Rue 70 of the 1997 Rues of Cv
Procedure, as amended. Secton 1 provded that a person deprved of the possesson of any
and or budng by force, ntmdaton, threat, strategy, or steath, or a essor, vendor,
vendee, or other person aganst whom the possesson of any and or budng s unawfuy
wthhed after the expraton or termnaton of the rght to hod possesson, by vrtue of any
contract, express or mped, or the ega representatves or assgns of any such essor,
vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any tme wthn one (1) year after such unawfu
deprvaton or wthhodng of possesson, brng an acton n the proper Muncpa Tra Court
aganst the person or persons unawfuy wthhodng or deprvng of possesson, or any
person or persons camng under them, for the resttuton of such possesson, together wth
damages and costs.
There are two entrey dstnct and dfferent causes of acton under the aforequoted
rue, to wt: (1) a case for forcbe entry, whch s an acton to recover possesson of a
property from the defendant whose occupaton thereof s ega from the begnnng as he
acqured possesson by force, ntmdaton, threat, strategy or steath; and (2) a case for
unawfu detaner, whch s an acton for recovery of possesson from the defendant whose
possesson of the property was nceptvey awfu by vrtue of a contract (express or mped)
wth the pantff, but became ega when he contnued hs possesson despte the
termnaton of hs rght thereunder.

In forcbe entry, the pantff must aege n the compant, and prove, that he was n
pror physca possesson of the property n dspute unt he was deprved thereof by the
defendant by any of the means provded n Secton 1, Rue 70 of the Rues ether by force,
ntmdaton, threat, strategy or steath. In unawfu detaner, there must be an aegaton n
the compant of how the possesson of defendant started or contnued, that s, by vrtue of
ease or any contract, and that defendant hods possesson of the and or budng "after the
expraton or termnaton of the rght to hod possesson by vrtue of any contract, express or
mped."
he CA "as correct in affirmin# the %C/s decision findin# a case of unla"ful
detainer
A compant suffcenty aeges a cause of acton for unawfu detaner f t rectes the
foowng: (1) ntay, possesson of property by the defendant was by contract wth or by
toerance of the pantff; (2) eventuay, such possesson became ega upon notce by
pantff to defendant of the termnaton of the atters rght of possesson; (3) thereafter, the
defendant remaned n possesson of the property and deprved the pantff of the
en|oyment thereof; and (4) wthn one year from the ast demand on defendant to vacate the
property, the pantff nsttuted the compant for e|ectment.

Lkewse, the evdence proves that after MAHA acqured the property, MAHA toerated
AMARAs stay and gave them the opton to acqure portons of the property by becomng
members of MAHA. AMARAs contnued stay on the premses was sub|ect to the condton
that they sha compy wth the requrements of the Communty Mortgage Program (CMP).
Thus, when they faed to fuf ther obgatons, MAHA had the rght to demand for them to
vacate the property as ther rght of possesson had aready expred or had been termnated.
The moment MAHA requred the members of AMARA to eave, the atter became deforcants
egay occupyng the and. We setted s the rue that a person who occupes the and of
another at the atters toerance or permsson, wthout any contract between them, s
necessary bound by an mped promse that he w vacate upon demand, fang whch, a
summary acton for e|ectment s the proper remedy aganst hm. Thus, the RTC and the CA
correcty rued n favor of MAHA.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
97
)NITED AIRLINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE"EN)E
G.R. No. 1;8;88, 29 Se@2e&ber 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
Under -ection 95 of the 4+*C, the C'( can make a valid finding that United (irlines
made erroneous deductions on its gross cargo revenue; that because of the erroneous
deductions, it reported a lower cargo revenue and paid a lower income ta# thereon; and that
its underpayment of the income ta# on cargo revenue is even higher than the income ta# it
paid on passenger revenue sub&ect of the claim for refund, such that the refund cannot be
granted.
Pettoner Unted Arnes, Inc. (Unted Arnes), a foregn corporaton engaged n the
nternatona arne busness, used to operate passenger and cargo fghts orgnatng n the
Phppnes. Upon cessaton of ts passenger fghts, Unted Arnes apponted Aerote Ltd.
Corp. (Aerote), an ndependent genera saes agent actng as such for severa nternatona
arne companes. Unted Arnes contnued operatng cargo fghts from the Phppnes.
Unted Arnes fed wth respondent Commssoner of Interna Revenue (CIR) a cam
for ncome tax refund, pursuant to Secton 28(A)(3)(a) of the Natona Interna Revenue Code
of 1997 (NIRC) n reaton to Artce 4(7) of the Conventon between the Government of the
Repubc of the Phppnes and the Government of the Unted States of Amerca wth respect
to Income Taxes (RP-US Tax Treaty). Unted Arnes sought to refund the tota amount of
P15,916,680.69 pertanng to ncome taxes pad on gross passenger and cargo revenues for
the taxabe years 1999 to 2001, whch ncuded the amount of P5,028,813.23 aegedy
representng ncome taxes pad n 1999 on passenger revenue from tckets sod n the
Phppnes, the upfts of whch dd not orgnate n the Phppnes. Ctng the change n
defnton of Gross Phppne Bngs (GPB) n the NIRC, Unted Arnes argued that snce t no
onger operated passenger fghts orgnatng from the Phppnes begnnng February 21,
1998, ts passenger revenue for 1999, 2000 and 2001 cannot be consdered as ncome from
sources wthn the Phppnes, and hence shoud not be sub|ect to Phppne ncome tax
under Artce 9 of the RP-US Tax Treaty.
When no resouton had been made by the CIR, Unted Arnes fed a petton for
revew wth the Court of Tax Appeas (CTA). In ts Decson, the CTAs Frst Dvson rued
that no excess or erroneousy pad tax may be refunded to the Unted Arnes because the
ncome tax on GPB under Secton 28(A)(3)(a) of the NIRC appes as we to gross revenue
from carrage of cargoes orgnatng from the Phppnes. After the moton for
reconsderaton fed by Unted Arnes was dened, t eevated the case to the CTA !n )anc
whch affrmed the decson of the Frst Dvson.
ISS)E*
Whether or not pettoner Unted Arnes s entted to a refund of the amount of
P5,028,813.23 t pad as ncome tax on ts passenger revenues n 1999
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
As correcty ponted out by Unted Arnes, nasmuch as t ceased operatng passenger
fghts to or from the Phppnes n 1998, t s not taxabe under Secton 28(A)(3)(a) of the
NIRC for gross passenger revenues. Ths much was aso found by the CTA.
If an nternatona ar carrer mantans fghts to and from the Phppnes, t sha be
taxed at the rate of 2% of ts GPB, whe nternatona ar carrers that do not have fghts to
and from the Phppnes but nonetheess earn ncome from other actvtes n the country w
be taxed at the rate of 32% of such ncome.
Here, the sub|ect of cam for tax refund s the tax pad on passenger revenue for
taxabe year 1999 at the tme when pettoner was st operatng cargo fghts orgnatng
from the Phppnes athough t had ceased passenger fght operatons. The CTA found that
pettoner had underpad ts GPB tax for 1999 because pettoner had made deductons from
ts gross cargo revenues n the ncome tax return t fed for the taxabe year 1999, the
amount of underpayment even greater than the refund sought for erroneousy pad GPB tax
on passenger revenues for the same taxabe perod. Hence, the CTA rued Unted Arnes s
not entted to a tax refund.
Under Secton 72 of the NIRC, the CTA can make a vad fndng that pettoner made
erroneous deductons on ts gross cargo revenue; that because of the erroneous deductons,
pettoner reported a ower cargo revenue and pad a ower ncome tax thereon; and that
pettoner's underpayment of the ncome tax on cargo revenue s even hgher than the
ncome tax t pad on passenger revenue sub|ect of the cam for refund, such that the refund
cannot be granted.
Secton 72 of the NIRC stated that when an assessment s made n case of any st,
statement or return, whch n the opnon of the Commssoner was fase or frauduent or
contaned any understatement or undervauaton, no tax coected under such assessment
sha be recovered by any sut, uness t s proved that the sad st, statement or return was
not fase nor frauduent and dd not contan any understatement or undervauaton; but ths
provson sha not appy to statements or returns made or to be made n good fath
regardng annua deprecaton of o or gas wes and mnes.
The grant of a refund s founded on the assumpton that the tax return s vad, that s,
the facts stated theren are true and correct. The defcency assessment, athough not yet
fna, created a doubt as to and consttutes a chaenge aganst the truth and accuracy of the
facts stated n sad return whch, by tsef and wthout unquestonabe evdence, cannot be
the bass for the grant of the refund.
Here, Unted Arnes smar tax refund cam assumes that the tax return that t fed
was correct. Gven, however, the fndng of the CTA that pettoner, athough not abe under
Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) of the 1997 NIRC, s abe under Sec. 28(A)(1), the correctness of the return
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
99
fed by pettoner s now put n doubt. As such, the Court cannot grant the prayer for a
refund. In the case at bar, the CTA expaned that t merey determned whether Unted
Arnes s entted to a refund based on the facts. On the assumpton that Unted Arnes
fed a correct return, t had the rght to fe a cam for refund of GPB tax on passenger
revenues t pad n 1999 when t was not operatng passenger fghts to and from the
Phppnes. However, upon examnaton by the CTA, the Unted Arnes return was found
erroneous as t understated ts gross cargo revenue for the same taxabe year due to
deductons of two (2) tems consstng of commsson and other ncentves of ts agent.
Havng underpad the GPB tax due on ts cargo revenues for 1999, Unted Arnes s not
entted to a refund of ts GPB tax on ts passenger revenue, the amount of the former beng
even much hgher (P31.43 mon) than the tax refund sought (P5.2 mon). The CTA
therefore correcty dened the cam for tax refund after determnng the proper assessment
and the tax due.
The Court emphaszes that tax refunds, ke tax exemptons, are construed strcty
aganst the taxpayer and beray n favor of the taxng authorty. In any event, Unted
Arnes has not dscharged ts burden of proof n estabshng the factua bass for ts cam
for a refund and the Court fnds no reason to dsturb the rung of the CTA. It has been a
ong-standng pocy and practce of the Court to respect the concusons of quas-|udca
agences such as the CTA, a hghy specazed body specfcay created for the purpose of
revewng tax cases.
WESTMONT IN"ESTMENT COR/ORATION v. FARMI. FERTILI>ER COR/ORATION, et
al.
G.R. No. 1988;9, < O52ober 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
*ule 1 of the +nterim *ules of ,rocedure for +ntra%Corporate Controversies specifically
prohibits the filing of motions for reconsideration. -ection ? provided that the filing of a
otion for new trial, or for reconsideration of &udgment or order, or for re%opening of trial is
prohibited.
When Westmont Bank had to undergo rehabtaton and fnanca assstance under a
pan approved by the Bangko Sentra ng Ppnas (BSP) and Phppne Depost Insurance
Corporaton (PDIC), Unted Overseas Bank Lmted (UOBL) expressed nterest n acqurng the
controng nterest of Westmont or up to 67% of ts votng stock. At the tme, the controng
sharehoders of Westmont were: the Esprtu Group, (composed of pettoner Westmont
Investment Corporaton or WINCORP); the Cua Group; the Farmx Group; the Tankansee
Group; and the Tan Caktong Group.
Under the Transfer Agreement, the former controng sharehoders sha se to UOBL
ther nterest n the amount of P1.4 bon. After the duton of the nterest of the former
controng sharehoders, the pad-up capta of the bank was ncreased by P3.5 bon and
new shares were ssued by the bank, now named Unted Overseas Bank of the Phppnes
(UOBP). Later on, the BSP drected the bank to renstate the P1.4 bon recevabes n ts
books and to recover the P1.4 bon assets transferred to the former controng
sharehoders. As a resut, UOBL dd not pay the former controng stockhoders the
consderaton due them, whch caused the Esprtu Group to revoke ts trust agreement wth
the Tan Caktong Group. The Tan Caktong Groups fed a petton to compe the ssuance of
shares of stock and/or return of management and contro.
The Esprtu and Tan Caktong Groups and the UOB Group executed a compromse
agreement and fed a |ont Moton to Dsmss wth Pre|udce but the Regona Tra Court
(RTC) dened the moton. The Esprtu Group fed a Notce of Appea. The Court of Appeas
dsmssed WINCORPs petton on the ground of forum shoppng.
ISS)E*
Whether or not WINCORP voated the procedura rue aganst forum shoppng by
smutaneousy fng an appea and a petton for certiorari assang the same Decson
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
101
The petton before the CA was fed out of tme. A perusa of the aegatons n the
sub|ect petton reveas that though t sought the nufcaton of the February 2, 2004
Decson of the RTC, what t questoned was the RTCs resove to render a |udgment before
tra pursuant to Secton 4, Rue 4 of the Interm Rues of Procedure for Intra-Corporate
Controverses. Sad secton provded that, f, after submsson of the pre-tra brefs, the
court determnes that, upon consderaton of the peadngs, the affdavts and other evdence
submtted by the partes, a |udgment may be rendered, the court may order the partes to
fe smutaneousy ther respectve memoranda wthn a non-extendbe perod of twenty
(20) days from recept of the order. Thereafter, the court sha render |udgment, ether fu or
otherwse, not ater than nnety (90) days from the expraton of the perod to fe the
memoranda.
Rue 1 of the Interm Rues of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controverses specfcay
prohbts the fng of motons for reconsderaton. Secton 8 provded that the foowng
peadngs are prohbted: Moton to dsmss; Moton for a b of partcuars; Moton for new
tra, or for reconsderaton of |udgment or order, or for re-openng of tra; Moton for
extenson of tme to fe peadngs, affdavts or any other paper, except those fed due to
ceary compeng reasons. Such moton must be verfed and under oath; and Moton for
postponement and other motons of smar ntent, except those fed due to ceary
compeng reasons. Such moton must be verfed and under oath.
Wth the above proscrpton, the RTC n the frst pace shoud not have ssued the
December 3, 2003 Order denyng the UOB Groups moton for reconsderaton, whch
WINCORP adopted. The remedy of an aggreved party ke WINCORP s to fe a petton for
certiorari wthn sxty (60) days from recept of the assaed order and not to fe a moton for
reconsderaton, the atter beng a prohbted peadng. Here, WINCORP shoud have fed the
petton for certiorari before the CA on or before |anuary 12, 2004. It was, however, fed
ony on February 13, 2004. Wth that, the CA shoud have dsmssed the petton outrght for
beng fed ate.
Even f the sxty (60)-day perod w be reckoned from WINCORPs recept of the
December 3, 2003 Order, the petton for certiorari was st fed out of tme snce t shoud
have been fed on or before February 2, 2004.
The Court can ony concude that WINCORP fed the petton for certiorari supposedy
assang the February 2, 2004 Decson as a subterfuge to make t appear that t was fed on
tme when n truth t was assang an earer order, the perod for whch to assa the same
has ong eapsed.
Indeed, even f the Court w consder the petton to have been fed on tme by
reckonng the sxty (60)-day perod from WINCORPs recept of the February 2, 2004
Decson, the same s st dsmssbe for voatng the rue aganst forum shoppng. The
petton for certiorari and the appea smutaneousy fed by WINCORP before the CA have
the same prayer - the settng asde of the February 2, 2004 RTC Decson. Though WINCORP
argues that the petton for certiorari assas the proprety and manner by whch t was
rendered whe the appea goes nto the merts of the decson tsef, st, both remedes
have one utmate goa. To gve due course to both pettons w defntey pose an ev that
the prohbton on forum shoppng was seekng to prevent - the possbty of two (2)
dfferent trbunas renderng confctng decsons.
In the nstant case, the certiorari case and appea deat wth the same matter, the
February 2, 2004 RTC Decson.
AIR FRANCE v. BONIFACIO -. GILLEGO
G.R. No. 198299, 18 De5e&ber 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J(
+n awarding moral damages for breach of contract of carriage, the breach must be
wanton and deliberately in&urious or the one responsible acted fraudulently or with malice or
bad faith.
Congressman Bonfaco H. Gego,

booked hs fght to Ar France to partcpate as one
of the keynote speakers at the 89th Inter-Paramentary Conference Symposum to be hed n
Budapest, Hungary and Tokyo, |apan. When aready n Pars, France, Gego found out that
there s an earer fght avaabe and arranged wth Ar France a new fght where he was
gven correspondng tcket and boardng pass and aso a new baggage cam stub for hs
checked-n uggage. However, upon arrvng n Budapest, Gego was unabe to ocate hs
uggage at the camng secton. Gego nformed Ar France regardng the ncdent and was
advsed to wat. But sad uggage was never devered by Ar Frances representatves
despte Gegos foow-up nqures.
Gego fed a cv case camng for mora damages as a resut of Ar Frances
neggence and breach of obgaton to transport and dever hs uggage. The Regona Tra
Court granted Gegos petton and granted hm P1,000,000.00 for damages, whch was
ater affrmed by the Court of Appeas (CA).
On the other hand, Ar France contends that the oss of Gegos uggage s due to or
occasoned by force ma&eure or fortutous event or other causes beyond the carrers contro,
and as a speca and affrmatve defense, ts abty for ost checked-n baggage s governed
by the Warsaw Conventon for the Unfcaton of Certan Rues Reatng to Internatona
Carrage. Under the sad treaty, Ar Frances abty for ost or deayed regstered baggage
of Gego s mted to 250 francs per kogram or US$20.00, whch consttutes qudated
damages and hence Gego s not entted to any further damage.
ISS)E*
Whether or not mora damages shoud be awarded to Gego
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
103
The aw governng common carrers consequenty mposes an exactng standard.
Artce 1735 of the Cv Code provdes that n case of ost or damaged goods, common
carrers are presumed to have been at faut or to have acted neggenty, uness they prove
that they observed extraordnary dgence as requred by Artce 1733. Thus, n an acton
based on a breach of contract of carrage, the aggreved party does not have to prove that
the common carrer was at faut or was neggent. A that he has to prove s the exstence of
the contract and the fact of ts non-performance by the carrer.
The purpose of awardng mora damages s to enabe the n|ured party to obtan
means, dverson or amusement that w serve to aevate the mora sufferng he has
undergone by reason of defendant's cupabe acton. On the other hand, the am of awardng
exempary damages s to deter serous wrongdongs. Artce 2216 of the Cv Code provdes
that assessment of damages s eft to the dscreton of the court accordng to the
crcumstances of each case. Ths dscreton s mted by the prncpe that the amount
awarded shoud not be papaby excessve as to ndcate that t was the resut of pre|udce or
corrupton on the part of the tra court. Smpy put, the amount of damages must be far,
reasonabe and proportonate to the n|ury suffered.
Where as n ths case the ar carrer faed to act tmey on the passengers
predcament caused by ts empoyees mstake and more than ordnary nadvertence or
nattenton, and the passenger faed to show any act of arrogance, dscourtesy or rudeness
commtted by the ar carrers empoyees. Hereby, the award of mora damages s granted
n reduced amount of P200,000.00.
NOEL B. BACCA7 v. MARIBEL C. BACCA7 and RE/)BLIC OF T-E /-ILI//INES
G.R. No. 1;?1?8, 1 De5e&ber 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
(n unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage under (rticle 27 of the
=amily Code. ,sychological incapacity must be more than &ust a mere Ddifficulty, DrefusalE,
or DneglectE in the performance of marital obligations but a downright incapacity or inability
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.
Pettoner Noe B. Baccay and Respondent Marbe C. Baccay, after years of contnuous
pursut, became sweethearts. However, Noe decded to break up wth Marbe as he was
aready nvoved wth another woman. Marbe offered to accept Noes reatonshp wth the
other woman so ong as they woud not sever ther tes. To gve Marbe some tme to get
over ther reatonshp, they st contnued to see each other. However, they had severa
romantc moments together unt Marbe nformed Noe that she was pregnant wth hs chd.
Upon hs mothers advce, Noe agreed to marry Marbe.
After the marrage ceremony, Noe and Marbe agreed to ve wth Noes famy.
Durng a that tme, Marbe dd not go out of her way to endear hersef to them. Aso, she
refused to have any sexua contact wth Noe. Surprsngy, despte Marbes cam of beng
pregnant, Noe never observed any symptoms of pregnancy n her. One day, Marbe dd not
go home, and when she came back she announced that she had a mscarrage. When Noe
confronted Marbe about t, the dscusson escaated nto an ntense quarre whch ed
Marbe to eave the house.
Noe fed a petton for decaraton of nuty of marrage wth the Regona Tra Court
(RTC) of Mana. The RTC rendered a decson n favor of Noe. On appea, the Court of
Appeas (CA) reversed the decson of the RTC.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the marrage between Noe and Marbe s nu and vod under Artce
36 of the Famy Code
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
Artce 36 of the Famy Code provdes that a marrage contracted by any party who, at
the tme of the ceebraton, was psychoogcay ncapactated to compy wth the essenta
marta obgatons of marrage, sha kewse be vod even f such ncapacty becomes
manfest ony after ts soemnzaton.
The Court hed n -antos v. Court of (ppeals that the phrase "psychoogca ncapacty"
s not meant to comprehend a possbe cases of psychoses. It refers to no ess than a menta
(not physca) ncapacty that causes a party to be truy noncogntve of basc marta
covenants that concomtanty must be assumed and dscharged by the partes to the marrage
whch, as expressed by Artce 68 of the Famy Code, ncude ther mutua obgatons to ve
together, observe ove, respect and fdety and render hep and support. The ntendment of
the aw has been to confne t to the most serous cases of personaty dsorders ceary
demonstratve of utter nsenstvty or nabty to gve meanng and sgnfcance to the
marrage.
In *epublic of the ,hils. v. Court of (ppeals, the Court ad down the gudenes n
resovng pettons for decaraton of nuty of marrage, based on Artce 36 of the Famy
Code, to wt: (1) TAe burden o3 @roo3 2o 1Ao6 2Ae nu%%$2 o3 2Ae &arr$aEe be%onE1 2o 2Ae
@%a$n2$33. An doub2 1Aou%d be re1o%0ed $n 3a0or o3 2Ae eF$12en5e and 5on2$nua2$on o3 2Ae
&arr$aEe and aEa$n12 $21 d$11o%u2$on and nu%%$2. (3) The ncapacty must be @ro0en 2o be eF$12$nE
a2 G2Ae 2$&e o3 2Ae 5e%ebra2$onH o3 2Ae &arr$aEe. (4) Such $n5a@a5$2 &u12 a%1o be 1Ao6n 2o be
&ed$5a%% or 5%$n$5a%% @er&anen2 or $n5urab%e. Furthermore, 1u5A $n5a@a5$2 &u12 be re%e0an2 2o
2Ae a11u&@2$on o3 &arr$aEe ob%$Ea2$on1, no2 ne5e11ar$% 2o 2Ao1e no2 re%a2ed 2o &arr$aEe, %$Ie
2Ae eFer5$1e o3 a @ro3e11$on or e&@%o&en2 $n a Job. (5) Such ness must be Era0e enough to brng
about the dsabty of the party to assume the essenta obgatons of marrage. Thus, "md
characteroogca pecuartes, mood changes, occasona emotona outbursts" cannot be accepted as
root causes. The ness must be shown as downrght ncapacty or nabty, not a refusa, negect or
dffcuty, much ess w.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
105
In ths case, the totaty of evdence presented by Noe was not suffcent to sustan a
fndng that Marbe was psychoogcay ncapactated. Noes evdence merey estabshed that
Marbe refused to have sexua ntercourse wth hm after ther marrage, and that Marbe eft
hm after ther quarre when he confronted her about her aeged mscarrage. Noe faed to
prove the root cause of the aeged psychoogca ncapacty and estabsh the requrements of
gravty, |urdca antecedence, and ncurabty. As correcty observed by the CA, the report of
the psychoogst, who concuded that Marbe was sufferng from Narcssstc Personaty
Dsorder, dd not estabsh how the personaty dsorder ncapactated Marbe from vady
assumng the essenta obgatons of the marrage. Indeed, the same psychoogst even testfed
that Marbe was capabe of enterng nto a marrage except that t woud be dffcut for her to
sustan one. Mere dffcuty, t must be stressed, s not the ncapacty contempated by aw.
The Court emphaszes that the burden fas upon Noe, not |ust to prove that Marbe
suffers from psychoogca dsorder, but that such psychoogca dsorder renders her "truy
ncogntve of basc marta covenants that concomtanty must be assumed and dscharged
by the partes to the marrage". Psychoogca ncapacty must be more than |ust "dffcuty,"
"refusa," or "negect" n the performance of marta obgatons. An unsatsfactory marrage
s not a nu and vod marrage. As the Court stated n arcos v. arcos6 Artce 36 of the
Famy Code, the Court stresses, s not to be confused wth a dvorce aw that cuts the
marta bond at the tme the causes therefore manfest themseves. It refers to a serous
psychoogca ness affctng a party even before the ceebraton of the marrage. It s a
maady so grave and so permanent as to deprve one of awareness of the dutes and
responsbtes of the matrmona bond one s about to assume.
EM/LO7EES )NION OF BA7ER /-ILS., FFW and ')ANITO S. FAC)NDO, in his
capacit$ as President v. BA7ER /-ILI//INES, INC., DIETER '. LONIS-EN
#/re1$den2(,AS)NCION AMISTOSO #-RD ManaEer(, A"ELINA REMIGIO AND
ANASTACIA "ILLAREAL
G.R. No. 1929<?, 9 De5e&ber 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J(
+t is a#iomatic in labor relations that a C)( entered into by a legitimate labor
organization that has been duly certified as the e#clusive bargaining representative and the
employer becomes the law between them.
Empoyees Unon of Bayer Phppnes (EUBP) s the excusve barganng agent of a
rank-and-fe empoyees of Bayer Phppnes (Bayer), and s an affate of the Federaton of
Free Workers (FFW). EUBP, headed by ts presdent |uanto S. Facundo, negotated wth
Bayer for the sgnng of a coectve barganng agreement (CBA). Durng the negotatons,
EUBP re|ected Bayers wage-ncrease proposa resutng n a barganng deadock.
Subsequenty, EUBP staged a strke, promptng the Secretary of the Department of Labor
and Empoyment (DOLE) to assume |ursdcton over the dspute.
Pendng the resouton of the dspute, Avena Remgo and other unon members,
wthout any authorty from ther unon eaders, accepted Bayers wage-ncrease proposa.
EUBPs grevance commttee questoned Remgos acton and reprmanded Remgo and her
aes. Bayer proceeded to negotate wth Remego despte the exstence of ts vad CBA wth
EUBP, foowed by ts abandonment and termnaton of the entre CBA. A tug-of-war then
ensued between the two rva groups, wth both seekng recognton from Bayer and
demandng remttance of the unon dues coected from ts rank-and-fe members.
Both the Labor Arbter and the Natona Labor Reatons Commsson (NLRC) dsmssed
EUBPs moton for a restranng order and/or n|uncton statng that the sub|ect matter
nvoved an ntra-unon dspute, over whch the sad Commsson has no |ursdcton. On
appea, the Court of Appeas (CA) sustaned both the Labor Arbter and the NLRCs rungs.
ISS)ES*
. Whether the act of the management of Bayer n deang and negotatng wth
Remgos spnter group despte ts vady exstng CBA wth EUBP can be consdered
unfar abor practce
. Whether or not mora damages shoud be awarded to EUBP
-ELD*
Ba$er e+ercised unfair la!or practice
As hed n Artce 253 of the Labor Code, where there s a coectve barganng
agreement, the duty to bargan coectvey sha aso mean that nether party sha
termnate or modfy such agreement durng ts fetme. Thus, t must be remembered that a
CBA s entered nto n order to foster stabty and mutua cooperaton between abor and
capta. An empoyer shoud not be aowed to rescnd unateray ts CBA wth the duy
certfed barganng agent t had prevousy contracted wth, and decde to bargan anew wth
a dfferent group f there s no egtmate reason for dong so and wthout frst foowng the
proper procedure. If such behavor woud be toerated, barganng and negotatons between
the empoyer and the unon w never be truthfu and meanngfu, and no CBA forged after
arduous negotatons w ever be honored or be reed upon.
E3BP is not entitled to moral dama#es
On the matter of damages prayed for by the pettoners, we have hed that as a
genera rue, a corporaton cannot suffer nor be entted to mora damages. A corporaton,
and by anaogy a abor organzaton, beng an artfca person and havng exstence ony n
ega contempaton, has no feengs, no emotons, no senses; therefore, t cannot experence
physca sufferng and menta angush. Menta sufferng can be experenced ony by one
havng a nervous system and t fows from rea s, sorrows, and grefs of fe - a of whch
cannot be suffered by an artfca, |urdca person. A fortiori, the prayer for exempary
damages must aso be dened. Nevertheess, t s n order to award nomna damages n the
as hed n .e "a -alle University v. .e "a -alle University !mployees (ssociation /."-U!(%
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
107
4(='!U0 and Artce 2221, and attorneys fees equvaent to 10% of the monetary award.
The remttance to pettoners of the coected unon dues prevousy turned over to Remgo
and Varea s kewse n order.
-EIRS OF T-E LATE NESTOR TRIA v. ATT7. E/IFANIA G. OBIAS
G.R. No. 1;888;, 2< No0e&ber 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
,robable cause is defined as the e#istence of such facts and circumstances as would
e#cite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the
prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.
Nestor Tra was shot by a gunman whe watng to board hs fght to Mana. He was
brought to the hospta but ded the foowng day from the one gunshot wound on hs nape.
On the bass of statements gven by twenty-sx ndvduas, autopsy and bastc examnaton
reports, the Natona Bureau of Investgaton (NBI) recommended to the Provnca Prosecutor
the ndctment of Roberto G. Acan, |uanto M. Ona, and Respondent Atty. Epfana G. Obas
for the murder of Tra. Durng the premnary nvestgaton conducted by the Provnca
Prosecutor, Atty. Obas dened that she was n anyway nvoved wth the kng of Tra and that
the totaty of evdence has not estabshed prima facie the exstence of conspracy as to
mpcate hm n the death of Tra.
The Provnca Prosecutor ssued a Resouton drectng the fng of an nformaton for
murder aganst Acan and Ona but dsmssng the case for nsuffcency of evdence as
aganst Atty. Obas. On Pettoners hers of the ate Nestor Tras appea, then |ustce
Secretary Serafn Cuevas of the Department of |ustce (DO|) modfed the Resouton of the
Provnca Prosecutor and drected the Provnca Prosecutor to ncude Atty. Obas n the
nformaton for murder fed aganst Acan and Ona. The DO| was thus convnced that the
sequence of events and Atty. Obass conduct before, durng, and after the kng of Tra
undenaby ponts to her compcty wth Acan and Ona.
In hs Order, Presdenta Assstant Manue Domngo of the Offce of the Presdent (OP)
reversed the DO|s Resouton. It was hed that mere cose reatonshp wthout any
corroboratve evdence showng ntent to perpetrate the crme s not enough probabe cause.
The OP thus concuded there was no nterockng crcumstanta evdence of Atty. Obass
acts before, durng, and after the kng of Engr. Tra that woud estabsh conspracy among
Acan, Ona, and Atty. Obas to commt the crme. Accordngy, the case aganst Atty. Obas
was dsmssed for nsuffcency of evdence. The Court of Appeas (CA) affrmed the OPs
Decson.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the CA gravey abused ts dscreton n affrmng the OPs Decson
whch hed that no probabe cause exsts to charge Atty. Obas for conspracy n the murder
of Tras
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
Probabe cause s defned as the exstence of such facts and crcumstances as woud
excte the beef n a reasonabe mnd, actng on the facts wthn the knowedge of the
prosecutor, that the person charged was guty of the crme for whch he was prosecuted. It s
a reasonabe ground of presumpton that a matter s, or may be, we-founded, such a state of
facts n the mnd of the prosecutor as woud ead a person of ordnary cauton and prudence to
beeve, or entertan an honest or strong suspcon, that a thng s so. The term does not mean
"actua and postve cause" nor does t mport absoute certanty. It s merey based on
opnon and reasonabe beef. A fndng of probabe cause merey bnds over the suspect to
stand tra; t s not a pronouncement of gut.
On the other hand, conspracy exsts when two or more persons come to an agreement
concernng the commsson of a feony and decde to commt t. Drect proof of prevous
agreement to commt a crme s not necessary. Conspracy may be shown through
crcumstanta evdence, deduced from the mode and manner n whch the offense was
perpetrated, or nferred from the acts of the accused themseves when such ead to a |ont
purpose and desgn, concerted acton, and communty of nterest.
The Court reverses the OPs rung that the totaty of evdence faed to estabsh a
prima facie case aganst Atty. Obas as a consprator n the kng of Tra. After a carefu
evauaton of the entre evdence on record, the Court fnds no such grave abuse when the
|ustce Secretary Cuevas found probabe cause to charge Atty. Obas wth murder n
conspracy wth Acan and Ona. The foowng facts and crcumstances estabshed durng
premnary nvestgaton were suffcent bass to ncte reasonabe beef n Atty. Obass
gut: (a) Mo2$0e - Atty. Obas had credbe reason to have Tra ked because of the
mpendng crmna prosecuton for estafa from her doube sae of hs ot pror to hs death,
|udgng from the strong nterest of Tras famy to run after sad property and/or proceeds of
the second sae to a thrd party; (b) A55e11 - Atty. Obas was cose to Tras famy and
famar wth hs work schedue, day routne and other transactons whch coud factate n
the commsson of the crme eventuay carred out by a hred gunmen, one o3 6Ao&
#A5%an( A22. Ob$a1 and Aer 3a2Aer 5a2eEor$5a%% ad&$22ed be$nE $n Aer 5o&@an
6A$%e 1Ae 0$1$2ed Tr$a Aour1 be3ore Tr$a 6a1 3a2a%% 1Ao2 a2 2Ae a$r@or2; and (c)
Su1@$5$ou1 BeAa0$or - Atty. Obas whe decarng such cose persona reatonshp wth
Tra and hs famy, faed to gve any satsfactory expanaton why she reacted ndfferenty
to the voent kng of her frend. Indeed, a reatve or a frend woud not |ust stand by and
wak away from the pace as f nothng happened, as what she dd, nor refuse to vounteer
nformaton that woud hep the authortes nvestgatng the crme, consderng that she s a
vta eyewtness. Not even a ca for hep to the peope to brng her frend qucky to the
hospta. She woud not even dare go near Tras body to check f the atter was st ave.
A the foregong crcumstances, n the Courts mnd, and from the pont of vew of an
ordnary person, ead to a reasonabe nference of Atty. Obass probabe partcpaton n the
we-panned assassnaton of Tra. The Court therefore hods that the OP n reversng the
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
109
DO|s rung, and the CA n affrmng the same, both commtted grave abuse of dscreton.
Ceary, the OP and the CA arbtrary dsregarded facts on record whch estabshed probabe
cause aganst Atty. Obas.
OFFICE OF T-E CO)RT ADMINISTRATOR v. GREGORIO B. SADDI, C%erI o3 Cour2,
Mun$5$@a% Tr$a% Cour2, Sa1&uan, /a&@anEa
A.M. No. /,1!,2818, 18 No0e&ber 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
.elayed remittance of cash collections and failure to render monthly reports of
collections and deposits of court funds constitute gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and
gross neglect of duty. =ailure of Clerks of Courts to turn over and deposit full amount of all
collections received by them in their respective courts and failure to submit monthly reports
of such collections and deposits constitute gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and gross
neglect of duty.
Ths admnstratve matter stemmed from a fnanca audt conducted by the Court
Management Offce on the cash and accounts of the Offcers-n-charge/Cerks of Court of the
Muncpa Tra Court (MTC), Sasmuan, Pampanga. The audt team reported to Pettoner
Offce of the Court Admnstrator (OCA) that shortages were dscovered for the perods of
accountabty of Respondent Cerk of Court Gregoro B. Sadd. In partcuar, the audt team
computed a shortage because Sadd faed to depost coectons n the foowng court funds:
|udcary Deveopment Fund (|DF), Speca Aowance for the |udcary Fund, Sherffs Trust
Fund, Fducary Fund, and Medaton Fund. Sadd was requred to expan n wrtng why no
admnstratve charge shoud be fed aganst hm for the deay n remttng the coectons,
but he dd not compy. The audt team further reported that Sadd dd not prepare and
submt monthy fnanca reports of hs coectons to the Court. Thus, the audt team
recommended that Sadd be hed abe for gross negect of dutes, dshonesty as an
accountabe offcer n charge of coectng money beongng to the court.
ISS)E*
Whether or not Sadd s guty and shoud be dsmssed from servce for gross
dshonesty, grave msconduct, and gross negect of duty
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
Cerks of court, as the chef admnstratve offcers of ther respectve courts, must act
wth competence, honesty and probty n accordance wth ther duty of safeguardng the
ntegrty of the court and ts proceedngs. They are |udca offcers entrusted to perform
decate functons wth regard to the coecton of ega fees, and as such, are expected to
mpement reguatons correcty and effectvey. As custodans of court funds, they are
constanty remnded to depost mmedatey the funds whch they receve n ther offca
capacty to the authorzed government depostores for they are not supposed to keep such
funds n ther custody.
In partcuar, Supreme Court (SC) Admnstratve Crcuar No. 3-2000 provdes for the
duty of the cerk of court to receve |DF coectons n ther respectve courts, ssue the
proper recept therefore and mantan a separate cash book. The cerk of court sha depost
such coectons every day and render the proper Monthy Report of Coectons and Deposts
for sad Fund wthn 10 days after the end of every month.
Meanwhe, SC Crcuar No. 50-95 provdes that a coectons from babonds, renta
deposts and other fducary coectons sha be deposted wth the LBP by the cerk of court
concerned wthn 24 hours from recept. Compmentary to these, OCA Crcuar No. 113-2004
requres cerks of court to submt monthy reports for three funds, namey, |DF, Speca
Aowance for the |udcary Fund and Fducary Fund.
The Court en|ons cerks of court to strcty observe the rues and reguatons reatve
to the management of court funds receved by them. Sadds faure to turn over up to ths
tme the fu amount of hs coectons and to adequatey expan and present evdence
thereon consttute gross dshonesty, grave msconduct, and even maversaton of pubc
funds. On the other hand, the deayed remttance of hs cash coectons and faure to
submt monthy reports of court funds he receved consttute gross negect of duty. The
faure to submt monthy reports of the court funds he receved further consttutes voatons
of SC Crcuar No. 50-95 and OCA Crcuar No. 113-2004.
By these deporabe acts of gross dshonesty, grave msconduct and gross negect of
duty, Sadd has, no doubt, undermned the peopes fath n the courts and, utmatey, n the
admnstraton of |ustce. Dshonesty aone, beng n the nature of a grave offense, carres
the extreme penaty of dsmssa from the servce wth forfeture of retrement benefts,
except accrued eave credts, and perpetua dsquafcaton for reempoyment n the
government servce. Dshonesty has no pace n the |udcary. Gross negect of duty and
grave msconduct, kewse, carry the same penaty.
SOLIDBAN: COR/ORATION v. ERNESTO ). GAMIER, et al. D SOLIDBAN:
COR/ORATION, et al. v. SOLIDBAN: )NION, et al.
G.R. No1. 189<9!,91, 18 No0e&ber 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
( strike that is undertaken despite the assumption by the -ecretary of "abor of
&urisdiction over a labor dispute is illegal. 4o strike or lockout shall be declared after
assumption of &urisdiction by the ,resident or the -ecretary or after certification or
submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of
cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.
Pettoner Sodbank Corporaton (Sodbank) and Respondent Sodbank Empoyees
Unon (Unon) were set to renegotate ther Coectve Barganng Agreement (CBA) but
seeng that an agreement was unkey, some Unon members staged a seres of mass
actons. In vew of the mpendng actua strke, then Secretary of Labor and Empoyment
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
111
Benvendo Laguesma assumed |ursdcton over the abor dspute and ordered Sodbank
and the Unon to cease and desst from commttng any and a acts that mght exacerbate
the stuaton.
Secretary Laguesma dsmssed the unfar abor practce charge aganst Sodbank
whch ed an overwhemng ma|orty of dssatsfed Unon members to |on the "mass eave"
and "protest acton" at the Department of Labor and Empoyment (DOLE) offce whch
parayzed Sodbanks busness operatons. Then Presdent of Sodbank, Deogracas N.
Vstan, ssued a memorandum cang the empoyees absence from work and demonstraton
as an ega act. Other Respondents-Empoyees Ernesto U. Gamer, Eena R. Condevamar,
|ance L. Arroa, and Ophea C. De Guzman and the Unon members were termnated for
ther partcpaton n the three-day work boycott and protest acton.
Gamer, et al. fed separate compants for ega dsmssa. Labor Arbter Cazares,
|r. dsmssed the compants of Gamer, et al. and hed that ther partcpaton n the ega
strke voated Secretary Laguesmas return to work order. The Natona Labor Reatons
Commsson (NLRC) reversed the decson of Labor Arbter Cazares, |r. On appea, the Court
of Appeas (CA) affrmed the Decson of the NLRC.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the protest ray and concerted work abandonment or boycott staged
by the Unon members voated the Order of Secretary Laguesma
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
Artce 212 of the Labor Code, as amended, defnes strke as an temporary stoppage
of work by the concerted acton of empoyees as a resut of an ndustra or abor dspute.
The term "strke" sha comprse not ony 5on5er2ed 6orI 12o@@aEe1, but aso sowdowns,
&a11 %ea0e1, stdowns, attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage pant equpment and
factes and smar actvtes. Thus, the fact that the conventona term "strke" was not
used by the strkng empoyees to descrbe ther common course of acton s
nconsequenta, snce the substance of the stuaton, and not ts appearance, w be
deemed to be controng.
The rght to strke, whe consttutonay recognzed, s not wthout ega constrctons.
Artce 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, provdes that no strke or ockout sha be
decared a32er a11u&@2$on o3 Jur$1d$52$on b 2Ae /re1$den2 or 2Ae Se5re2ar or after
certfcaton or submsson of the dspute to compusory or vountary arbtraton or dur$nE
2Ae @enden5 o3 5a1e1 $n0o%0$nE 2Ae 1a&e Eround1 3or 2Ae 12r$Ie or ockout. The
Court has consstenty rued that once the Secretary of Labor assumes |ursdcton over a
abor dspute, such |ursdcton shoud not be nterfered wth by the appcaton of the
coercve processes of a strke or ockout. A strke that s undertaken despte the ssuance by
the Secretary of Labor of an assumpton order and/or certfcaton s a prohbted actvty and
thus ega.
Artce 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, aso consders t a prohbted actvty to
decare a strke "durng the pendency of cases nvovng the same grounds for the same
strke." There s no dspute that when the Unon members conducted ther mass actons, the
proceedngs before Secretary Laguesma were st pendng as both partes fed motons for
reconsderaton of the March 24, 2000 Order. Ceary, the Unon members knowngy voated
the aforesad provson by hodng a strke n the guse of mass demonstraton smutaneous
wth concerted work abandonment/boycott.
TRADERS RO7AL BAN: v. NORBERTO CASTACARES and MILAGROS CASTACARES
G.R. No. 1;2!2!, 9 De5e&ber 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J(
3oluntary or conventional compensation such as *!, is not limited to obligations
which are not yet due.
Norberto and Magros Castaares (Spouses Castaares) executed two rea estate
mortgages (REMs) wth Traders Roya Bank (Bank) n support of varous oans and credt
accommodatons. Moreover, Spouses Castaares were granted addtona funds on varous
dates under promssory notes executed n favor of the Bank. Wthout notfyng the Spouses
Castaares, the Bank remtted addtona amount to Spouses Castaares oan account thru
teegraphc transfer from AMROBANK, Amsterdam.
When Spouses Castaares faed to pay ther outstandng oans, the Bank proceeded
wth the extra|udca forecosure of the rea estate mortgages and acqured a the
mortgaged propertes of Spouses as the one bdder durng the aucton sae. Despte the se,
the Bank st found the Spouses Castaares ndebted. However, Spouses Castaares
contends that the REM consttutes a separate oan and was consttuted ony n securty of a
promssory notes, thus enttng Spouses Castaares refunds from the savngs account and
teegraphc transfer.
The Regona Tra Court (RTC) rued n favor of the Bank whch was overturned by the
Court of Appeas (CA).
ISS)E*
Whether or not the REMs were vad to cover future ndebtedness
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
The stpuaton between the Bank and Spouses Castaares ndcates that the REMs are
ssued to secure the payment of the oan and ncudes nterest and expenses or any other
obgaton owng to the mortgagee or the Bank. The stpuaton s aso known as "dragnet
cause" or "banket mortgage cause" n Amercan |ursprudence that woud subsume a
debts of past and future orgns. A "dragnet cause" operates as a convenence and
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
113
accommodaton to the borrowers as t makes avaabe addtona funds wthout ther havng
to execute addtona securty documents, thereby savng tme, trave, oan cosng costs,
costs of extra ega servces, recordng fees, et cetera. Whe a rea estate mortgage may
exceptonay secure future oans or advancements, these future debts must be suffcenty
descrbed n the mortgage contract. An obgaton s not secured by a mortgage uness t
comes fary wthn the terms of the mortgage contract.
In ths case, Spouses Castaares admtted they receved a the amounts under the
promssory notes presented by the Bank. The consderaton n the executon of the REMs
consst of those credt accommodatons to fund ther export transactons. Spouses
Castaares as an afterthought rased ssue on the nature of the amounts of prncpa oan
ndcated n the REMs ong after these obgatons have matured and the mortgage
forecosed due to ther faure to fuy sette ther outstandng accounts wth pettoner.
Havng expressy agreed to the terms of the REMs whch are phrased to secure a such oans
and advancements to be obtaned from the Bank, Spouses Castaares may not be aowed to
compan ater that the amounts they receved were unreated to the REMs.
CARLOS ". "ALEN>)ELA v. CALTE. /-ILI//INES, INC.,
G.R. No. 199998,99, 18 De5e&ber 2!1!, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J(
=raud or willful breach of trust is a &ust cause for termination of employment.
Caros V. Vaenzuea was empoyed by Catex Phppnes, Inc., snce 1965 and had
been desgnated to varous |obs n Mana before he was transferred to Cebu Cty as a
warehouseman. The dscovery of severa rreguartes n Vaenzueas merchandze resuted
to a preventve suspenson that thereafter eads to Vaenzueas dsmssa under the
foowng grounds: (1) Gross and Habtua negect of dutes and responsbtes as warehouse
cerk, (2) Not performng month-end nventory dutes, (3) Not nvestgatng the shortages of
stocks under hs custody and (4) Commsson of Fraud.
Vaenzuea fed a compant for ega dsmssa wth the Natona Labor Reatons
Commsson (NLRC) and camed saary dfferentas pursuant to the exstng Coectve
Barganng Agreement (CBA). The Labor Arbter dsmssed the compant but was reversed on
appea to the NLRC and decared Vaenzuea to be egay dsmssed. However, the Court of
Appeas (CA) renstated the Labor Arbters decson.
ISS)E*
Whether or not Vaenzuea was egay dsmssed
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
Under Artce 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, gross and habtua negect by the
empoyee of hs dutes s a suffcent and ega ground to termnate empoyment.
|ursprudence provdes that serous msconduct and habtua negect of dutes are among the
|ust causes for termnatng an empoyee. Gross neggence connotes want of care n the
performance of ones dutes. Habtua negect mpes repeated faure to perform ones
dutes for a perod of tme, dependng upon the crcumstances.
Further, Artce 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, aso provdes fraud or wfu
breach by empoyee of the trust reposed n hm by hs empoyer as a |ust cause for
termnaton. It s aways a serous ssue for the empoyer when an empoyee performs acts
whch dmnsh or break the trust and confdence reposed n hm. The Labor Code, as
amended, athough sympathetc to the workng cass, s aware of ths scenaro and n pursut
of farness, ncuded fraud or wfu breach of trust as a |ust cause for termnaton of
empoyment.
FERNANDO GON>ALE> 0. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al.
G.R. No. 192889, 8 Mar5A 2!11, EN BANC #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
,ursuant to -ection 7 of *.(. 4o. 77@7, a final &udgment before the election is re$uired for
the votes of a dis$ualified candidate to be considered Dstray.E
Fernando V. Gonzaez won n the 3rd Congressona dstrct of the Provnce of Abay n
the May 10, 2010 eectons over Reno G. Lm. Stephen Bchara fed a Petton for
Dsquafcaton and Canceaton of Certfcate of Canddacy (COC) questonng Gonzaezs
ctzenshp under Commonweath Act (C.A.) No. 625. Gonzaez, however, dened ctzenshp
ssues and ponted out that Bchara had fed the wrong petton under Secton 68 of the
Omnbus Eecton Code (OEC) to queston hs egbty as a canddate. He argued that the
petton whch shoud have been correcty fed under Secton 78 of the Omnbus Eecton
Code (OEC) was fed out of tme.
The Commsson on Eectons (COMELEC) nevertheess, uphed the petton and rued
that the same was fed on tme. Gonzaes was then procamed and took hs oath as the duty
eected Representatve. Yet, the COMELEC hed that the procamaton of Gonzaez by the
PBOC was premature and ega and therefore, Lm, who got the next hghest number of
votes, was procamed by a Speca Board of Canvassers and subsequenty took hs oath of
offce.
ISS)ES*
1. Whether or not the Petton for Dsquafcaton and Canceaton of Certfcate of
Canddacy was tmey fed;
2. Whether or not Gonzaez was vady procamed as the duy eected Representatve
of the 3rd Dstrct of Abay n the May 10, 2010 eectons; and
3. Whether or not the COMELEC had ost |ursdcton over the ssue of Gonzaezs
ctzenshp
-ELD:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
115
Petton GRANTED.
Petition "as timel$ filed
As hed n -alcedo ++ v. Comelec, the two remedes avaabe for questonng the
quafcatons of a canddate can be rased before eecton under Secton 78; and after
eecton, wthn ten days after the procamaton of the resuts of the eecton pursuant to
Secton 253 of the OEC.
In the case at bar, the petton sought to cance the COC fed by Gonzaez and
dsquafy hm as a canddate on the ground of fase representaton as to hs ctzenshp fas
under Secton 78. Beng such the case, the petton shoud have been fed wthn twenty-fve
days from the fng of the COC. Gonzaez fed hs COC on December 1, 2009. Ceary, the
petton for dsquafcaton and canceaton of COC fed by Lm on March 30, 2010 was fed
out of tme. The COMELEC therefore erred n gvng due course to the petton.
Gon*ale* "as validl$ proclaimed

There was no ega bar to the procamaton of Gonzaez as the wnnng canddate on
May 12, 2010 snce the May 8, 2010 Resouton at that tme had not yet become fna; n fact
Gonzaez receved a copy ony on May 11, 2010. The fve-day perod for fng a moton for
reconsderaton under Rue 19, Secton 2 of the COMELEC Rues of Procedure shoud be
counted from the recept of the decson, resouton, order, or rung of the COMELEC
Dvson. Wth hs fng of a moton for reconsderaton wthn the three-day perod provded
n Secton 7 of COMELEC Resouton No 8696, the executon of the sad resouton was
effectvey suspended.

Moreover, there s nothng n the May 8, 2010 Resouton of the Second Dvson
orderng the suspenson of the procamaton of Gonzaez. From the anguage of Secton 6 of
R.A. No. 6646, the Commsson can order the suspenson of the procamaton of the wnnng
canddate ony upon moton durng the pendency of the dsquafcaton case. The Court has
rued that the suspenson of procamaton of a wnnng canddate s not a matter whch the
COMELEC can dspose of motu proprio. Secton 6 of R.A. No. 6646 requres that the
suspenson must be "upon moton by the companant or any ntervenor."
In the absence of any fna |udgment of dsquafcaton aganst Gonzaez, the votes
cast n hs favor cannot be consdered stray.
COMELEC had lost ,urisdiction
After procamaton, takng of oath and assumpton of offce by Gonzaez, |ursdcton
over the matter of hs quafcatons, as we as questons regardng the conduct of eecton
and contested returns were transferred to the House of Representatve Eectora Trbuna
(HRET) as the consttutona body created to pass upon the same. As hed n "imkaichong v.
CO!"!C, any aegatons as to the nvadty of the procamaton w not prevent the HRET
from assumng |ursdcton over a matters essenta to a members quafcaton to st n the
House of Representatves.
Henceforth, the Petton for Dsquafcaton and Canceaton of Certfcate of
Canddacy of Gonzaez s dsmssed, wthout pre|udce to the fng of a proper petton before
the HRET on the ctzenshp quafcaton Gonzaez.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
117
BETT7 LACBA7AN v. BA7ANI S. SAMO7, 'R.
G.R. No. 198<2;, 21 Mar5A 2!11, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
(n action for partition does not preclude a settlement on the issue of ownership, but is
nonetheless premised in the e#istence of co ownership.
Bayan S. Samoy, |r., despte beng marred, managed to cohabt and have a chd wth
Betty Lacbayan. Durng ther cohabtaton, Samoy and Lacbayan estabshed a man power
servces and acqured fve parces of and. When they separated, they decded to termnate
the busness and execute a Partton Agreement. However, Lacbayan wanted addtona
demands and fed for |udca partton n the Regona Tra Court (RTC) n Ouezon Cty.
Samoy, however dened Lacbayans cam of cohabtaton and sad that the propertes were
acqured out of hs own persona funds wthout any contrbuton from Lacbayan. To add, t
was aeged that the sad propertes were regstered n Samoy and Lacbayans name to
excude and to prevent the possbe dsspaton of the sad propertes from Lacbayans
property regme wth hs wfe.
ISS)ES*
1. Whether or not an acton for partton precudes a settement on the ssue of
ownershp; and
2. Whether or not the Torrens tte over the dsputed propertes can be coateray
attacked.
-ELD:
Petton DENIED.
An action for partition does not preclude a settlement on the issue of o"nership
As hed n unicipality of )iHan v. Barcia, the determnaton as to the exstence of co
ownershp s necessary n the resouton of an acton for partton. Thus, the frst phase of a
partton and/or accountng sut s taken up wth the determnaton of whether or not a co-
ownershp n fact exsts, and a partton s proper.
Whe t s true that the compant nvoved here s one for partton, the same s
premsed on the exstence or non-exstence of co-ownershp between the partes. Lacbayan
nssts she s a co-owner pro indiviso of the fve rea estate propertes based on the transfer
certfcates of tte (TCTs) coverng the sub|ect propertes. Samoy mantans otherwse.
Indubtaby, therefore, unt and uness ths ssue of co-ownershp s defntey and fnay
resoved, t woud be premature to effect a partton of the dsputed propertes. More
mportanty, the compant w not even e f Lacbayan, does not even have any rghtfu
nterest over the sub|ect propertes.
A orrens certificate of title cannot !e collaterall$ attac2ed
A Torrens certfcate of tte cannot be coateray attacked, but that rue s not
matera to the case at bar. What cannot be coateray attacked s the certfcate of tte and
not the tte tsef. The certfcate referred to s that document ssued by the Regster of
Deeds known as the TCT. In contrast, the tte referred to by aw means ownershp whch s,
more often than not, represented by that document.
Lacbayan confuses tte wth the certfcate of tte. Tte as a concept of ownershp
shoud not be confused wth the certfcate of tte as evdence of such ownershp athough
both are nterchangeaby used. Ownershp s dfferent from a certfcate of tte, the atter
ony servng as the best proof of ownershp over a pece of and. The certfcate cannot
aways be consdered as concusve evdence of ownershp. Needess to say, regstraton
does not vest ownershp over a property, but may be the best evdence thereof.
LAND BAN: OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. DE/ARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and
METRACO TELE-7GIENIC SER"ICES COR/ORATION
G.R. No. 1;18<!, < Mar5A 2!11, EN BANC #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he taking of private lands under the (grarian *eform ,rogram partakes of the nature of an
e#propriation proceeding.
Metraco Tee-Hygenc Servces Corporaton (METRACO) vountary offered to se
agrcutura ands under the provsons of Repubc Act (R.A.) No. 6657 or the Comprehensve
Agraran Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. The sad and s fuy rrgated by the Natona Irrgaton
Admnstraton (NIA) and panted wth rce. Land Bank of the Phppnes (LBP) re|ected
METRACOs prce assessment and thus METRACO went to the Department of Agraran
Reform (DAR) for determnaton of |ust compensaton.
The DAR dened LBPs bass of vauaton and rued that the gudenes ssued under
DAR Admnstratve Order (AO) No. 5, seres of 1998 and fndngs of the ocuar nspecton
shoud be foowed. Moreover, the Speca Agraran Court (SAC) recomputed the
compensaton fxed by LBP based on the seng prce of palay per kogram, certfed by the
Natona Food Authorty (NFA) and addng to the computaton a porton consstng of a
dranage cana and a road, as these are ndspensabe part of the entre andhodng whch
the farmer w necessary use.
ISS)E*
Whether or not a LBPs vauaton of the and s consdered as |ust compensaton
pursuant to DAR pocy reguatons
-ELD*
Petton /ARTIALL7 GRANTED.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
119
The LBPs vauaton of ands covered by CARL s consdered ony as an nta
determnaton, whch s not concusve, as t s the RTC, sttng as SAC, that shoud make the
fna determnaton of |ust compensaton. As decared n "and )ank of the ,hilippines v.
Celada, DAR was tasked to ssue the rues and reguatons to carry out the "detas" of
Secton 17 of R.A. No. 6657. It can be safey presumed that the fuctuatons n the seng
prce of palay were aready taken nto consderaton snce ony the average of these
avaabe prces wthn the 12 months pror to the recept of the cam foder (CF), w be
used n computng the Captazed Net Income (CNI). Hence, the SAC and CA ceary erred n
competey dsregardng the data provded by the MARO smpy because t contaned a
notaton that the fgures ndcated for two months (October and November 2000) were not
norma due to typhoons.
On the excuson of the NIA rrgaton cana and road, that sad portons do not form
part of the compensabe area. It s true that Item II F of DAR AO No. 5 provdes that those
mprovements ntroduced by the government, farmer-benefcares and other thrd partes,
sha not be pad. However, as correcty rued by the CA, what s beng compensated s not
the cost or vaue of the mprovements ntroduced by the government but the vaue of the
whoe and taken under R.A. 6657. Ths does not mean that those portons are beng
separatey vaued as camed by LBP.
Thus, LBPs vauaton was suffcenty substantated and n accordance wth Secton 17
of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR AO No. 5, seres of 1998, except that the portons of the
andhodngs occuped by the NIA water system and road shoud aso be ncuded n the tota
compensabe area.
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. BAIDA SALA: 4 BANG:)LAS
G.R. No. 1812<9, 1< Mar5A 2!11, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J(
What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized drugs as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence
of herein appellant.
The Regona Tra Court (RTC) found Bada Saak y Bangkuas guty of ega sae of
reguated drugs n voaton of Repubc Act (R.A.) No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. On appea, the Court of Appeas (CA) affrmed the
decson. Hence, Saak fed ths petton, assertng that the prosecuton faed to estabsh
the ntegrty of the shabu confscated from her and presented n court. She ponts out that
the Natona Bureau of Investgaton - Speca Task Force (NBI-STF) team dd not compy wth
the requrement that a physca nventory and photograph of the confscated drugs be taken.
Nether dd the prosecuton present the buy-bust money. These shortcomngs, accordng to
her, create reasonabe doubt.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the shortcomngs n handng of evdence w not be suffcent to
compy wth the quantum of evdence requred by aw for convcton
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
As hed n ,eople v. Bonzaga, a voaton of the reguaton s a matter strcty between
the Dangerous Drugs Board and the arrestng offcers and s totay rreevant to the
prosecuton of the crmna case snce the commsson of the crme of ega sae of a
prohbted drug s consdered consummated once the sae or transacton s estabshed.
Moreover, non-compance wth the sad reguaton s not fata to the prosecuton as t does
not render appeants arrest ega or the sezed tems nadmssbe n evdence.
A thorough revew of the records of ths case shows that despte the NBI-STFs non-
compance wth sad reguaton, the ntegrty and evdentary vaue of the confscated drugs
was nonetheess preserved. It s aso worthy to note that Saak never aeged that the drugs
presented durng the tra have been tampered wth. Nether dd Saak chaenge the
admssbty of the sezed tems when these were formay offered as evdence. It was ony
durng appea that Saak rased the ssue of non-compance wth the sad reguaton. Setted
s the rue that ob|ectons to the admssbty of evdence cannot be rased for the frst tme
on appea.
RE/)BLIC OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. TEODORO /. RI>AL"O, 'R.
G.R. No. 1;2!11, ; Mar5A 2!11, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he period of ac$uisitive period begins when such alienable and disposable lands are
e#pressly declared by the -tate to be no longer intended for public service or for the
development of the national wealth
Teodoro P. Rzavo, |r. apped for the regstraton of a and n Bauang, La Unon. In
support, Rzavo presented, among others, Tax Decaraton, and Proof of Payment of rea
property taxes snce 1952 as proof. Accordng to the Offce of the Soctor Genera (OSG),
however, nether Rzavo nor hs predecessors-n-nterest had been n open, contnuous,
excusve and notorous possesson and occupaton of the sub|ect property snce |une 12,
1945 or earer and that the tax decaratons and tax payment recepts dd not consttute
competent and suffcent evdence of ownershp. The OSG aso asserted that the sub|ect
property was a porton of pubc doman beongng to the Repubc of the Phppnes and
hence not sub|ect to prvate acquston. Meanwhe, Rzavo presented hs mother Bbana P.
Rzavo to testfy as the absoute owner of the sub|ect property and was n possesson
thereof, wthout anyone questonng her status as owner. A report from Communty
Envronment and Natura Resources Offce (CENRO) aso certfed that the sub|ect of and
was wthn the aenabe and dsposabe zone and that Rzavo was n actua occupaton and
possesson of and.
ISS)E*
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
121
Whether or not Rzavo was n open, contnuous, adverse, and pubc possesson of the
and n queston n the manner and ength of tme requred by aw as to be entted of |udca
confrmaton of mperfect tte
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
Exstng aw and |ursprudence provdes that an appcant for |udca confrmaton of
mperfect tte must prove compance wth Secton 14 of P.D. No. 1529 or the Property
Regstraton Decree. Under Secton 14 (1), appcants for regstraton of tte must suffcenty
estabsh frst, that the sub|ect and forms part of the dsposabe and aenabe ands of the
pubc doman; second, that the appcant and hs predecessors-n-nterest have been n
open, contnuous, excusve and notorous possesson and occupaton of the same; and thrd,
that t s under a bona fde cam of ownershp snce |une 12, 1945, or earer.
The frst and second requrements were satsfed through the certfcaton ssued by
CENRO, and the MTC and CA fndngs. However, the thrd requrement, that Rzavo be n
open, contnuous, excusve and notorous possesson and occupaton of the sub|ect property
snce |une 12, 1945 or earer, has not been satsfed. Rzavo ony managed to present ora
and documentary evdence of hs and hs mothers ownershp and possesson of the and
snce 1958.
Rzavo woud have been egbe for appcaton for regstraton because hs cam of
ownershp and possesson over the sub|ect property even exceeds thrty (30) years.
However, as rued n <eirs of ario alabanan v. *epublic, the thrty (30)-year perod of
prescrpton for purposes of acqurng ownershp and regstraton of pubc and under
Secton 14 (2) of P.D. No. 1529 ony begns from the moment the State expressy decares
that the pubc domnon property s no onger ntended for pubc servce or the
deveopment of the natona weath or that the property has been converted nto
patrmona. In ths case, there s no evdence ndcatng any express decaraton by the state
that the sub|ect and s no onger ntended for pubc servce or the deveopment of the
natona weath. Thus, there appears no bass for the appcaton of the thrty (30)-year
prescrptve perod and Rzavos appcaton for regstraton s dened.
FILI/INA SAMSON v. ')LIETA RESTRI"ERA
G.R. No. 1;8<8<, 28 Mar5A 2!11, T-IRD DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
-ection @/b0 of *.(. 4o. 79126 ,ublic officials shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions
of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage
Fpna Samson, a department head of the Popuaton Commsson n Cavte, agreed to
hep |uta Restrvera to ocate a ot. For such purpose, Restrvera handed Samson P50,
000.00 to cover nta expenses, however Samson faed to accompsh the task for the and
s a government property. When Samson faed to return the P50, 000, Retrevera fed an
admnstratve compant for grave msconduct or conduct unbecomng a pubc offcer
aganst Samson.
The Ombudsman found Samson guty of voatng Secton 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 on
professonasm and suspended her from offce for sx months wthout pay. Upon moton for
reconsderaton, the Ombudsman reduced the penaty to three months suspenson wthout
pay. The Court of Appeas (CA) on appea affrmed the Ombudsmans Order.
ISS)E*
Whether or not Samson s guty of grave msconduct, whch s a ground for
dscpnary acton under R.A. No. 6713
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
The msconduct s grave f t nvoves any of the addtona eements of corrupton,
wfu ntent to voate the aw or to dsregard estabshed rues, whch must be proved by
substanta evdence. Otherwse, the msconduct s ony smpe. In ths case, Restrvera
faed to prove Samsons voaton of an estabshed and defnte rue of acton or unawfu
behavor or gross neggence, and any of the aggravatng eements of corrupton, wfu
ntent to voate a aw or to dsregard estabshed rues. In fact, Restrvera coud merey pont
to Samsons aeged faure to observe the mandate that pubc offce s a pubc trust when
Samson aegedy medded n an affar that beongs to another agency and receved an
amount for undevered work.
In the context of Secton 4 (A) (b) of R.A. No. 6713, a pubc offca or empoyee shoud
avod any appearance of mproprety affectng the ntegrty of government servces. On the
other hand, Samsons beated attempt to return the amount was ntended to avod possbe
sanctons and mpeed soey by the fng of the estafa case aganst her.
CANDELARIO L. "ER>OSA, 'R v. G)ILLERMO N. CARAG)E, et al.
G.R. No. 18;8?8, 8 Mar5A 2!11, EN BANC #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
123
!#penditures of government funds in violation of law shall be a personal liability of the
official or employee found to be directly responsible.
Candearo L. Verzosa , Executve Drector of Cooperatve Deveopment Authorty
(CDA) purchased overprced or excessve computers from Tetra Corporaton (Tetra) despte
other quafed companes whose bd are advantageous to the government consderng the
owest prce, durabty and voume dscount offered. Thus, to support the sad purchase, the
conduct of bddng was manpuated partcuary the ntroducton of addtona features n the
CDA gradng system after the bds have been opened.
Thus, the Resdent Audtor ssued a dsaowance whch was ater affrmed by
Commsson on Audt (COA). Verzosa contends that he shoud not be made personay abe
for the dsaowed expense, for he was ony actng n hs offca capacty and as a genera
rue, a corporaton, by ega fcton, has a personaty separate and dstnct from ts offcers.
ISS)E*
Whether or not Verzosa s personay and sodary abe n the excessve purchased of
computers by the CDA
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
Verzosa s personay and sodary abe for the dsaowed amount. The doctrne of
separate personaty of a corporaton fnds no appcaton because CDA s not a prvate entty
but a government agency created by vrtue of Repubc Act No. 6939. Moreover, COA
satsfactory estabshed that Verzosa acted n bad fath when he prevaed upon the
Deveopment Academy of the Phppnes-Technca Evauaton Team (DAP-TEC) to modfy
the nta resut of the technca evauaton of the computers by mposng an rreevant
gradng system to favor one of the bdder. It was further reterated n Secton 103 of
Presdenta Decree No. 1445 (Government Audtng Code of the Phppnes) that the
expendtures of government funds n voaton of aw sha be a persona abty of the
offca or empoyee found to be drecty responsbe.
Aso, the contnued servceabty of the purchased computers s not a factor n the
determnaton of whether the prce pad by the government was unreasonabe or excessve.
The damage or n|ury caused to the government refers prmary to the amount exceedng
the aowabe varance n the prce pad for the tem purchased under a transacton whch s
not the most advantageous to the government. In ths case, CDA coud have purchased the
same quaty computers wth smar technca specfcatons at much ower cost and the
resut of technca evauaton was manpuated to favor one bdder, for whch the COA found
the pettoner to be drecty responsbe.
R)/ERTO A. AMBIL, 'R. v. SANDIGANBA7AN AND T-E /EO/LE OF T-E
/-ILI//INESDALE.ANDRINO R. A/ELADO, SR. v. /EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES
GR No. 1;8<8; and GR No. 1;8<82, 9 'u% 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he -andiganbayan shall have the e#clusive &urisdiction over cases filed against a
public officer whose position is under salary grade I59 if he acted as a co%principal of a
public officer whose position falls under the &urisdiction of the -andiganbayan.
Governor Ruperto A. Amb, |r. and Provnca |a Warden Aexandrno R. Apeado, Sr.
were charged wth voaton of Secton 3(e) of Repubc Act (RA) No. 3019, otherwse known
as the Ant-Graft and Corrupt Practces Act. The case arose from the aeged transfer of
Mayor Francsco Adam, an accused for murder, from the provnca |a to the resdence of
Amb. As a defense, Amb asserted that the transfer was for the safety of Adam.
Accordngy, the Sandganbayan found Amb and Apeado guty for consprng to accord
Adam unwarranted benefts n the form of more comfortabe quarters wth access to
teevson and other prveges that other detanees do not en|oy.
ISS)ES*
1. Whether or not Amb and Apeado are guty for voaton of Secton 3(e) of RA No. 3019
before the Sandganbayan
2. Whether or not the provnca governor has authorty to take custody of a detenton
prsoner
3. Whether or not pettoners were entted to |ustfyng crcumstances of fufment of duty
under Artce 11(5) of the Revsed Pena Code (RPC)
-ELD*
Pettons DENIED.
Am!il and Apelado violated .ection 56e' of %A No. 5789.
In order to hod a person abe under ths provson, these eements must concur: (1)
the accused must be a pubc offcer dschargng admnstratve, |udca or offca functons;
(2) he must have acted wth manfest partaty, evdent bad fath or gross nexcusabe
neggence, and; (3) hs acton caused any undue n|ury to any party, ncudng the
government, or gave any prvate party unwarranted beneft, advantage n the dscharge of
hs functons.
As to the frst eement, there s no queston that Amb and Apeado are pubc offcers
dschargng offca functons and that |ursdcton over them ay wth the Sandganbayan.
The Sandganbayan as provded by R.A. 3019 has excusve |ursdcton over those whose
saary grade s grade 27 or hgher. Athough Apeados poston, beng a Provnca |a
Warden, s cassfed ony under saary grade 22, t s ony when none of the accused are
occupyng postons correspondng to saary grade 27 or hgher sha excusve |ursdcton
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
125
be vested n the ower courts. Here, Apeado was charged as co-prncpa wth Amb, over
whose poston the Sandganbayan has |ursdcton. Accordngy, he was correcty tred
|onty wth sad pubc offcer n the proper court whch had excusve orgna |ursdcton
over them - the Sandganbayan.
Furthermore, the Court found that Amb and Apeado dspayed manfest partaty and
evdent bad fath n transferrng the detenton of Mayor Adam to Amb's house. Hence, he
was not authorzed to transfer detenton of prsoners by vrtue of hs power as "Provnca
|aer." It s the provnca government and not the governor aone whch has the authorty to
exercse contro and supervson over provnca |as. Nether of these powers authorzes the
dong of act beyond the parameters set by aw. Aso, the power to order the reease of
transfer of a person under detenton by ega process s vested n the court, nether n the
provnca government nor the governor.
Moreover, when Amb and Apeado transferred Adam from the provnca |a and
detaned hm at Ambs resdence, they accorded such prvege to Adam, not n hs offca
capacty as a mayor, but as a detanee charged wth murder. Thus, for purposes of appyng
the provsons of Secton 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, Adam was a prvate party.
he provincial #overnor has no authorit$ to ta2e custod$ of a detention prisoner.
Indubtaby, the power to order the reease or transfer of a person under detenton by
ega process s vested n the court, not n the provnca government, much ess the
governor. Amb nssted on hs supposed authorty as provnca |aer, however, ths
usurpaton of authorty, and hs open and wfu defance to offca advce, n order to
accommodate a former potca party mate, betray hs unmstakabe bas and the evdent
bad fath that attended hs actons. Wthout the court order, Amb and Apeado transferred
Adam and detaned hm n a pace other that the provnca |a. The house of Amb |r. was a
more comfortabe quarters, had provded a better nourshment and was free to move about
the house. Amb and Apeado have extended these benefts to Adam on the mere
representaton of hs awyers that the mayor's fe was on danger.
Apelado "as not entitled to the ,ustif$in# circumstance of fulfillment of dut$
under Article 886:' of %PC.
Apeado nvoked the |ustfyng crcumstance of obedence to an order ssued for some
awfu purpose under Artce 11 of the RPC. Whe the order for Adam's transfer emanated
from Amb, who was then governor, nether the order not the means empoyed by Apeado
to carry t out was awfu, snce t was conducted unarmed wth a court order. Conspracy
was aso suffcenty demonstrated by Apeados wfu cooperaton n executng pettoner
Amb's order to move Adam despte the absence of court order. Furthermore, Apeado,
beng a aw graduate cannot hde behnd the coak of gnorance of aw.
RAMON ARANDA v. RE/)BLIC OF T-E /-ILI//INES
GR No. 1;2??1, 2< AuEu12 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
Under the *egalian doctrine, all lands of public domain belong to the -tate unless it is
shown by convincing evidence that the sub&ect land can be reclassified or alienated to a
private person by the -tate.
A petton for orgna regstraton was fed before the Regona Tra Court (RTC) for a
parce of and ocated n Mavar, San Andres by ICTSI Warehouse Inc. (ICTSI WI) but the
company sought eave of court to amend the appcaton snce the sae between the vendor
and appcant-corporaton cannot push through, and consequenty the tax decaraton s st
n the name of the vendor Ramon Aranda.
Thereafter, Aranda fed wth the RTC the Amended Appcaton for Regstraton of Tte
and aeged that he s n contnuous possesson of the sub|ect property n the concept of
owner, pubcy and openy for more than 30 years. In support of Arandas appcaton, Lus
Oan testfed that hs father Luco, who orgnay owned the and, sod sad property to
Arandas father. Aso, Arandas sster Merta Enrquez testfed that her father donated the
and to hs brother as evdenced by "Pagpapatunay ng Pagkakaoob ng Lupa." Both,
however, were not abe to show documentary evdence. Nonetheess, the RTC granted the
appcaton and ordered the ssuance of a decree of regstraton n favor of Aranda. The Court
of Appeas (CA) however, on appea by the Repubc of the Phppnes, reversed the sad
order.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the sub|ect property can be cassfed as aenabe and dsposabe and
of the pubc doman
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
PD No. 1529 provdes for orgna regstraton of and n ordnary regstraton
proceedngs, hence t has provded the compance of these requstes: (1) property s
aenabe and dsposabe and of the pubc doman; (2) appcants themseves or through
ther predecessors-n-nterest were n open, contnuous, excusve and notorous possesson
and occupaton; (3) such possesson was a bona fde cam of ownershp snce |une 12, 1945
or earer.
On the other hand, the Regaan doctrne emboded n Secton 2 Art XII of the
Consttuton, a ands of pubc doman beong to the State, therefore ands not appearng to
be n prvate ownershp beongs to the State, uness t was shown to be recassfed or
aenated to a prvate person by the State. To overcome these presumptons,
ncontrovertbe evdence must be estabshed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
127
In ths case, the Assstant Regona Executve Drector for Operatons-Manand
Provnces of DENR, n compance of the tra court drectve, ssued a certfcaton that the
property "fas wthn the aenabe and dsposabe and." However, ths certfcaton ssued n
2000 has not estabshed the status of the and apped, due to the dscrepances n the
dates of appcaton. Ths evdence of the Aranda faed to show that he possessed the
property n manner and for duraton requred by aw. Aso, pettoner presented tax
decaratons and deeds of confrmaton, however, the hstory of the and showed that t was
ony decared for taxaton purposes n 1981. In addton, pettoner aso faed to prove the
aeged possesson of hs predecessors-n-nterest. Lus Oan, who camed the sae of the
and to pettoner's father faed to decare the property for tax purposes before t was sod to
Anatao. Moreover, the act of cutvaton, done by Luco, Lus's father, does not amount to
ownershp. The Court hed that n order to seek regstraton of tte to a pece of and on the
bass of possesson must prove hs cam and convncng evdence.
DE"ELO/MENT BAN: OF T-E /-ILI//INES 0. -ON. SIL"ERIO B. CASTILLO and
CRISTINA TRINIDAD >ARATE ROMERO
GR No. 19?82;, 1; AuEu12 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
( complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to
state a cause of action if it lacks any of these three essential elements6 /10 a right in favor of
the plaintiff by whatever means and whatever law it arises; /50 the correlative obligation of
the defendant to respect such right; and /20 the act or omission of the defendant violates the
right of the plaintiff.

Corazon Zarate Romero and hs brother Gonzao Zarate secured a oan from the
Deveopment Bank of the Phppnes (DBP) by executng a rea estate mortgage over ther
ot wth a four-storey hote erected thereon. Upon the owners faure to pay the
amortzatons, DBP forecosed the rea estate mortgage. No redempton was made wthn
one year. When Corazon passed away, her soe her Crstna Trndad Zarate Romero
asserted ownershp over the sub|ect property, camng that her unce and DBP conspred n
commttng frauduent acts, thereby deprvng her mother of the rght of redempton.
Romero fed before the Regona Tra Court (RTC) a compant for reconveyance,
quetng of tte and damages wth prayer for a temporary restranng order (TRO) and wrt of
premnary n|uncton. The RTC granted the TRO. DBP then moved to ft the TRO, but t was
dened. Thereafter, DBP fed a moton for reconsderaton and sought the dsmssa of
Romeros compant for havng no cause of acton. However, the RTC dened the moton and
ordered DBP to fe an answer. DBP moved agan for the reconsderaton of ts moton to
dsmss, but even before the RTC coud resove sad moton, DBP fed ts Answer. The RTC
dened DBPs moton for reconsderaton as t became moot and academc when the DBP
fed ts Answer. Upon appea to the Court of Appeas (CA), the petton was dsmssed on
procedura grounds.
ISS)ES*
1. Whether or not the CA gravey erred n affrmng the order of RTC n affrmng the
ssuance of the TRO and wrt of n|uncton
2. Whether or not the CA gravey erred n affrmng the order of RTC n denyng the
moton to dsmss
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
he CA did not err in affirmin# the order of %C in affirmin# the issuance of the
%O and "rit of in,unction.
As correcty rued by the CA, the petton for certiorari assang the orders pertanng
to the grant of the TRO and the wrt of n|uncton were fed out of tme. Notce of the
ssuance of the TRO was receved by DBP on the same day t was granted, November 24,
1998; thus, the petton for certiorari shoud have been fed not ater than |anuary 23,
1999. The dena of the moton for reconsderaton of the order grantng the wrt of
n|uncton, on the other hand, was receved by DBP on March 18, 1999 and thus, t had ony
unt May 17, 1999 to fe the petton for certorar. DBP, however, fed ts petton ony
on |une 23, 1999.
he CA did not err in affirmin# the order of %C in den$in# the motion to dismiss.
As to DBPs moton to dsmss the compant, the Court agrees wth the RTC and CA
that the same shoud be dened, but not for the reason cted by sad courts that t has been
rendered moot and academc by DBPs fng of ts answer but because the same acks
mert. Contrary to DBPs submsson, a perusa of the aegatons of the compant ceary
reveas respondents cause of acton aganst DBP.
A cause of acton s the act or omsson by whch a party voates a rght of another. A
compant states a cause of acton when t contans three essenta eements: (1) a rght n
favor of the pantff by whatever means and whatever aw t arses; (2) the correatve
obgaton of the defendant to respect such rght; and (3) the act or omsson of the
defendant voates the rght of the pantff. If any of these eements s absent, the compant
becomes vunerabe to a moton to dsmss on the ground of faure to state a cause of
acton.
Evdenty, a the above eements of a cause of acton are aeged n the compant: (1)
the ega rght of the respondent over the sub|ect property forecosed premsed on the fact
that she s the soe her of one of the owners who s entted to the rght of redempton; (2)
the correatve obgaton of defendant DBP, as the forecosng entty, to respect such rght of
redempton; and (3) the act or omsson of the defendant n voaton of the ega rght, .e.,
the act of DBP and ts co-defendant Zarate to cause the ostensbe forecosure of the sub|ect
property and the subsequent executon of a deed of condtona sae between the defendants
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
129
even pror to the apse of redempton perod to deprve respondents mother of her rght
over the property.

DCD CONSTR)CTION, INC. v. RE/)BLIC OF T-E /-ILI//INES
G.R. No. 1;99;8, ?1 AuEu12 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
+n order to prove that the land sub&ect of an application for registration is alienable, an
applicant must establish the e#istence of a positive act of the government such as an
e#ecutive order, investigation reports of )ureau of "ands investigators, a legislative act, or
an administrative action.
DCD Constructon, Inc. (DCD Constructon), through ts Presdent and CEO Dano D.
Dra, |r., fed a verfed appcaton for regstraton of a parce of and wth the Regona Tra
Court (RTC). DCD Constructon aeged that t acqured the property by purchase and has
been n contnuous, open, adverse, pubc, unnterrupted, excusve and notorous possesson
and occupaton of the property for more than thrty (30) years. Based on DCD Constructons
documentary and testmona evdence, t appears that the sub|ect ot s dentca to the Lot
formery owned by Vvenco and Pauna Batucan. Spouses Batucans daughter Andrea
Enrquez testfed that her parents orgnay owned the sub|ect and whch was bought by
her father after the Second Word War. Upon the death of her parents, she and her sbngs
nherted the and. Later on, they executed a Deed of Extra|udca Settement wth Absoute
Sae whereby seng the property to Dano C. Dra, Sr., Dra, |r.s father. Thereafter, Dra,
|r.s mother, brothers and ssters executed a Deed of Absoute Sae n favor of DCD
Constructon. Based on the foregong, the RTC fnds that DCD Constructon has a regstrabe
tte on the sub|ect and.
On appea by Repubc of the Phppnes, the Court of Appeas (CA) reversed the RTC
decson.
ISS)ES*
1. Whether or not the sub|ect property can be cassfed as aenabe and dsposabe
2. Whether or not the requrement of open, contnuous, excusve and notorous
possesson and occupaton of the sub|ect and for the perod requred by aw has been
comped wth
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
he su!,ect propert$ cannot !e classified as aliena!le and disposa!le
Under Secton 2, Artce XII of the Consttuton, whch embodes the *egalian doctrine,
a ands of the pubc doman beong to the State - the source of any asserted rght to
ownershp of and. A ands not appearng to be ceary of prvate domnon presumptvey
beong to the State. Accordngy, pubc ands not shown to have been recassfed or
reeased as aenabe and dsposabe agrcutura and or aenated to a prvate person by the
State reman part of the naenabe pubc doman. Incontrovertbe evdence must be
presented to estabsh that the and sub|ect of the appcaton s aenabe or dsposabe.

In *epublic v. Court of (ppeals, ths Court noted that to prove that the and sub|ect of
an appcaton for regstraton s aenabe, an appcant must estabsh the exstence of a
postve act of the government such as a presdenta procamaton or an executve order;
and admnstratve acton; nvestgaton reports of Bureau of Lands nvestgators; and a
egsatve act or a statute. A certfcaton ssued by a Communty Envronment and Natura
Resources Offcer n the Department of Envronment and Natura Resources (DENR) statng
that the ots nvoved were found to be wthn the aenabe and dsposabe area was deemed
suffcent to show the rea character of the and.
As to notatons appearng n the subdvson pan of the ot statng that t s wthn the
aenabe and dsposabe area, the consstent hodng s that these do not consttute proof
requred by the aw. In enguito v. *epublic, the Court decared pettoners cte a surveyor-
geodetc engneers notaton ndcatng that the survey was nsde aenabe and dsposabe
and. Such notaton does not consttute a postve government act vady changng the
cassfcaton of the and n queston. Very, a mere surveyor has no authorty to recassfy
ands of the pubc doman. By reyng soey on the sad surveyors asserton, pettoners
have not suffcenty proven that the and n queston has been decared aenabe.

The above rung equay appes n ths case where the notaton on the survey pan s
supposedy made by the Chef of Map Pro|ecton Unt of the DENR-LMS. Such certfcaton
comng from an offcer of the DENR-LMS s st nsuffcent to estabsh the cassfcaton of
the property surveyed. It s not shown that the notaton was the resut of an nvestgaton
specfcay conducted by the DENR-LMS to verfy the status of the sub|ect and. The
certfyng offcer, Cyntha L. Ibaez, dd not testfy on her fndngs regardng the cassfcaton
of the ot as refected n her notaton on the survey pan. As to the testmona evdence
presented by the pettoner, the CA noted that Engr. Norvc Abea who prepared the survey
pan had no authorty to recassfy ands of the pubc doman, whe Rafaea A. Beeza who s
the Chef of the Surveys Assstance Secton, admtted on cross-examnaton that she had no
part n the approva of the subdvson pan, and hence ncompetent to testfy as to the
correctness of Ibaezs notaton. More mportant, pettoner faed to estabsh the authorty
of Cyntha L. Ibaez to ssue certfcatons on and cassfcaton status for purpose of and
regstraton proceedngs.
here is li2e"ise no compliance "ith the re&uirement of open- continuous-
e+clusive and notorious possession and occupation of the su!,ect land for the
period re&uired !$ la".
The phrase "adverse, contnuous, open, pubc, peacefu and n concept of owner," are
mere concusons of aw requrng evdentary support and substantaton. The burden of
proof s on the appcant to prove by cear, postve and convncng evdence that the aeged
possesson was of the nature and duraton requred by aw. The bare statement of
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
131
pettoners wtness, Andrea Batucan Enrquez, that her famy had been n possesson of the
sub|ect and from the tme her father bought t after the Second Word War does not
suffce. Moreover, the Court hed that the bare cam of the appcant that the and apped
for had been n the possesson of her predecessor-n-nterest for 30 years does not consttute
the "we-ngh nconvertbe" and "concusve" evdence requred n and regstraton.
In the case of *epublic v. (lconaba, the Court rued that the aw speaks of possesson
and occupaton. Snce these words are separated by the con|uncton and, the cear ntenton
of the aw s not to make one synonymous wth the other. Possesson s broader than
occupaton because t ncudes constructve possesson. When, therefore, the aw adds the
word occupaton, t seeks to demt the a-encompassng effect of constructve
possesson. Taken together wth the words open, contnuous, excusve and notorous, the
word occupaton serves to hghght the fact that for an appcant to quafy, hs possesson
must not be a mere fcton. Actua possesson of a and conssts n the manfestaton of acts
of domnon over t of such a nature as a party woud naturay exercse over hs own
property.

D. M. WENCESLAO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. v. CIT7 OF /ARACAB)E et al.
G.R. No. 1;!;28, ?1 AuEu12 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege and may only be e#ercised in
accordance with the provisions of law; hence, payment of docket and other fees within the
reglementary period is mandatory for the perfection of the appeal.
D.M. Wencesao and Assocates, Inc. (Wencesao), owner of a vast and n Barangay
Tambo, Paraaque, fed wth the Regona Tra Court (RTC) a Compant for coecton of
excess rea property taxes and damages aganst the Cty of Paranaque et al. Wencesao
camed that the Cty of Paraaque s abe to return the excess reaty taxes under the
prncpe of solutio indebiti snce the Cty Assessor used the market vaue appcabe to
propertes ocated n Barangay Bacaran nstead of the dscounted market vaue appcabe n
Barangay Tembo as provded by the new ordnance n Paraaque. Cty of Paraaque et al.
then fed a moton to dsmss whch the RTC granted.

Upon appea to the Court of Appeas (CA), the CA dmssed the petton for faure of
Wencesao to pay the requred docket fees. Wencesao fed a moton for
reconsderaton aegng that t never ntended to abandon ts appea. It expaned that
because of extremey heavy workoad, Wencesaos counse overooked that the requred
appea fee was not pad at the tme of the fng of the notce of appea. The CA hed that t
coud no onger reconsder the petton consderng that the appeaed dsmssa order of the
tra court has become fna and executory.
ISS)E*
Whether or not an appea sha not be dsmssed for ate payment of docket fees
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
The rue that appeate court docket and other awfu fees must be pad wthn the
perod for takng an appea s stated n Secton 4, Rue 41 of the 1997 Rues of Cv
Procedure, as amended. It bears stressng that payment of docket and other fees wthn the
perod provded by aw s mandatory for the perfecton of the appea. Otherwse, the rght to
appea s ost. Ths s so because a court acqures |ursdcton over the sub|ect matter of the
acton ony upon the payment of the correct amount of docket fees regardess of the actua date
of fng of the case n court. The payment of appeate docket fees s not a mere techncaty
of aw or procedure. It s an essenta requrement, wthout whch the decson or fna order
appeaed from becomes fna and executory as f no appea was fed. Evdenty, where the
appeate docket fee s not pad n fu wthn the regementary perod, the decson of the
tra court becomes fna and no onger susceptbe to an appea. For once a decson
becomes fna, the appeate court s wthout |ursdcton to entertan the appea.
The rght to appea s not a natura rght. It s aso not part of due process. It s merey a
statutory prvege and may be exercsed ony n the manner and n accordance wth the
provsons of aw. Thus, one who seeks to ava of the rght to appea must compy wth the
requrements of the Rues. Faure to do so often eads to the oss of the rght to appea.
-EIRS OF MARGARITO /ABA)S et al. v. -EIRS OF AMANDA 7)TIAMCO et al.
GR No. 19<?89, 2; 'u% 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'o protect the integrity of the 'orrens system of land registration, the basis for
relocation plans in overlapping titles disputes must be submitted to the "and anagement
)ureau for verification and approval, most especially when the court%appointed
commissioner is a private surveyor and not a government surveyor from the "and
*egistration (uthority or the .epartment of !nvironment and 4atural *esources.
The hers of Yutamco fed a compant for Canceaton of Orgna Certfcate of Tte
(OCT) P-8649 and Recovery of Possesson and Damages aganst the hers of Pabaus before
the Regona Tra Court (RTC). The hers of Yutamco assaed the vadty of the tte n the
name of Margarto Pabaus as t ncuded a and aready covered by Decree No. N-130700 and
OCT No. O-104 under the name of Amanda Yutamco. Durng the pre-tra conference, the
RTC ssued an Order to conduct a reocaton survey to determne f the and covered by sad
ttes overapped. Based on the survey conducted by three commssoners, Engr. Romuo
Estaca, a prvate surveyor and the court-apponted commssoner, Antono Lbaros, |r., the
representatve of respondents, and Engr. Regno Lomarda, |r., pettoners representatve,
the RTC rued n favor of the hers of Yutamco. Upon appea, the Court of Appeas (CA)
affrmed the Decson of the RTC.
ISS)ES*
1. Whether or not the fndngs of Engr. Estaca, a prvate surveyor, sha be gven credence
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
133
2. Whether or not the ands covered by the ttes had overapped
-ELD*
he findin# of En#r. Estaca as a private surve$or shall not !e #iven credence.
In the case of overappng ttes, t necesstates the assstance of experts n the fed of
geodetc engneerng. The very reason was to make an evauaton and anayss of the ttes
n confct, gven ther background, expertse and experence, these commssoners are n
better poston to determne whch tte s vad. However, n overappng ttes dsputes, t
has been a practce for court to appont a surveyor from the government and agences
(Land Regstraton Authorty or DENR) to act as commssoner. In ths case, however, the tra
court apponted a prvate surveyor n the person of Engr. Estaca who conducted the
reocaton survey, conformed by the other two commssoners. In the sad pan, the area n
confct was on the northern porton, wheren pettoners' OCT No. P8649 overapped wth
respondents' OCT No. O-104.
On the other hand, the Manua for Land Surveys n the Phppnes (MLSP) ad down a
specfc rues regardng te nes, pont of reference and overappng of ad|onng tte ands.
In ths case however, the records of the survey faed to dscose that the bass for reocatng
the mssng corner was submtted to the Bureau of Lands (Land Management Bureau) for
verfcaton as requred n the MLSP. Ths was cruca consderng that the commssoner
apponted by the court was a prvate surveyor.
he claim of overlappin# of lands has not !een clearl$ esta!lished.
The cam of overappng has not been ceary estabshed, therefore, the Court found t
premature to decare the free patent ssued to Margarto Pabaus nu and vod. Instead, the
Court deemed t more approprate to remand the case to the tra court for the conduct of a
verfcaton/reocaton survey under the drecton and supervson of the LMB - DENR.
LAND BAN: OF T-E /-ILI///INES v. SE"ERINO LISTANA
GR No. 1981!8, 2; 'u% 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he -pecial (grarian Courts shall have original and e#clusive &urisdiction over all
petitions for the determination of &ust compensation to landowners but such petition shall be
made within fifteen days from notice under the .(*() *ules of ,rocedure.
Severno Lstana vountary offered for sae a parce of hs and to the government
under the Comprehensve Agraran Reform Program (CARP) pursuant to Repubc Act (R.A.)
No. 6657. The Land Bank of the Phppnes (LBP) vaued the sub|ect property for acquston
at P5,871,689.03, but Lstana re|ected the sad amount. Hence, the Department of Agraran
Reform (DAR) conducted a summary proceedng for determnaton of |ust compensaton. The
Provnca Agraran Reform Ad|udcator (PARAD) rendered a decson fxng the amount of |ust
compensaton at P10,956,963.25.
Amost a year ater, the LBP fed before the Regona Tra Court (RTC) a petton for
|udca determnaton of |ust compensaton. LBP argued that the PARAD's vauaton was
unacceptabe and the nta vauaton of P5,871,689.03 was n accordance wth Secton 17 of
R.A. No. 6657 and DAR Admnstratve Order No. 11. Lstana fed a moton to dsmss
camng that the acceptance of the DAR's vauaton resuted n a bndng contract and
consttuted res &udicata, snce the compromse agreement has attaned fnaty. RTC
dsmssed the petton for havng been fed amost one year from recept of the copy of the
PARADs decson. Upon reachng the Court of Appeas (CA), the CA dsmssed LBPs appea.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the Speca Agraran Court (SAC) may take cognzance of the petton
for determnaton of |ust compensaton f fed beyond the prescrbed 15-day perod or more
that 100 days after the PARAD rendered ts vauaton n a summary admnstratve
proceedng
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
In *epublic v. Court of (ppeals, the Court hed that under the aw, the LBP s charged
wth the nta responsbty of determnng the vaue of ands paced under and reform and
compensaton to be pad for ther takng. Through the notce sent to the andowner pursuant
to R.A. No. 6657, DAR makes the offer and when re|ected, a summary admnstratve
proceedng s hed, and after whch the PARAD/RARAD or DARAB ad|udcator fxes the prce
to be pad for the and. If t s not agreed upon by the andowner, he may brng the matter to
the RTC as SAC, whch sha be done wthn ffteen days from notce under the DARAB Rues
of Procedure.
The above rung was reterated n ,hilippine 3eterans )ank v. Court of (ppeals. In
that case, pettoner andowner who was dssatsfed wth the vauaton made by LBP and
DARAB, fed a petton for determnaton of |ust compensaton n the RTC (SAC). However,
the RTC dsmssed the petton on the ground that t was fed beyond the 15-day
regementary perod for fng appeas from the orders of the DARAB.
In ths case, the acton before the SAC was fed 117 days after notce of the PARAD's
dena of ts moton for reconsderaton of the decson fxng |ust compensaton; hence the
decson had attaned fnaty. It s a fundamenta ega prncpe that a decson that has
acqured fnaty becomes mmutabe and unaterabe and may no onger be modfed n any
respect. The ony exceptons to ths rue are the so caed nunc pro tunc entres whch
caused no pre|udce to any party, vod |udgment and whenever crcumstances transpre after
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
135
fnaty of decson, renderng ts executon un|ust and nequtabe. Indeed, tgaton must
end and termnate sometme and somewhere, even at the rsk of occasona errors.
MA:ING ENTER/RISE, INC. et al. v. 'OSE MARFORI and EMERENCIANA MARFORI
G.R. No. 1822?9, 1; AuEu12 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(

=or an application for the appointment of a receiver to be valid, the property or fund
sub&ect of the action must be in danger of being lost, removed, or materially in&ured,
necessitating its protection or preservation.
|ose F. Marfor acqured the Marsman Budng from the Deveopment Bank of the
Phppnes. As the and on whch the budng stood was owned by the Phppne Ports
Authorty (PPA), Marfor entered nto a contract of ease wth the PPA sub|ect to the condton
that upon the expraton of ease, the budng and a other mprovements found on the
eased premses sha become PPAs soe property. Thereafter, Marfor executed a dacion en
pago and assgnment of rghts transferrng the ownershp of the Marsman Budng to Makng
Enterprses, Inc. (Makng), on the condton that Makng woud assume a of Marfors
obgatons.
Marfors wfe Emerencana ater on fed wth the Regona Tra Court (RTC) a
compant aganst Makng et al. for Recovery of Ownershp, Annument of Contract wth
Damages, Recevershp, Accountng and Premnary In|uncton wth Prayer for Restranng
Order. Emerancana camed that the Marsman budng s part of ther con|uga property and
she dd not consent to ts transfer to Makng. The RTC dened the prayer for the ssuance of a
wrt of premnary n|uncton and the appcaton for recevershp. Upon appea, the Court of
Appeas (CA) dsmssed the petton.
Meanwhe, Marfor was charged of estafa and voaton of )atas ,ambansa
)lg. 22 wth the Prosecutor's Offce of Caoocan Cty for ssung dshonored checks to Crstna
Lee. Aggreved, Marfor fed wth the RTC a petton for certiorari and n|uncton wth prayer
for temporary restranng order aganst Makng et al. As a defense, Makng fed a moton to
dsmss argung that a crmna prosecuton may not be restraned by n|uncton. The RTC
granted Makngs moton and dsmssed Marfor's petton. Thereafter, Marfor and hs wfe
fed before the CA a Consodated Petton for the appontment of a recever to preserve the
rentas coected from the Marsman Budng and the ssuance of an n|uncton to en|on the
mpementaton of the warrants of arrest ssued aganst hm. The CA granted ther petton.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the appontment of a recever for the Marsman Budng s nvad
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
An appcaton for the appontment of a recever under Secton 1(a), Rue 59 of
the 1997 Rues of Cv Procedure, as amended, requres that the property or fund sub|ect of
the acton s n danger of beng ost, removed, or materay n|ured, necesstatng ts
protecton or preservaton. Here, Spouses Marfor submtted that they have satsfactory
estabshed ther ega rght over the Marsman Budng. They aeged that the budng and
the ncome and rentas thereof are n danger of beng ost, removed or materay n|ured by
the apathy, negect and frauduent desgn of pettoners thereby renderng the appontment
of a recever both urgent and mperatve. However, they faed to show how the budng as
we as the ncome thereof woud dsappear or be wasted f not entrusted to a recever. They
were not abe to prove that the property has been materay n|ured, necesstatng ts
protecton and preservaton. Because recevershp s a harsh remedy that can be granted
ony n extreme stuatons, Spouses Marfor must prove a cear rght to ts ssuance. Ths
they faed to do.
The Court furthermore observes that n grantng the appontment of a recever, the CA
merey concuded that Spouses Marfor have suffcenty proven that they have an nterest n
the Marsman Budng. It further hed that uness a recever s apponted, there s a danger of
oss or matera n|ury, consderng that Makng et al. presenty possess absoute contro of
the budng and the rentas accrung thereof. However, there was no |ustfcaton on how
the CA arrved at ts concuson.
It must be stressed that the ssue of the vadty of the dacion en pago and assgnment
of rghts executed by Marfor n favor of Makng st has to be resoved n another case. Unt
the contract s rescnded or nufed, the same remans to be vad and bndng. Thus, the
Court agrees wth the RTC when t hed that courts of equty w not ordnary appont a
recever where the rghts of the partes depend on the determnaton of adverse cams of
ega tte to rea property and one party s n possesson.
/ETRA C. MARTINE> v. FILOMENA L. "ILLAN)E"ADOFFICE OF T-E OMB)DSMAN v.
FILOMENA L. "ILLAN)E"A
G.R. No. 199199 and G.R. No. 199198, 9 'u% 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a,
'r., J.(
'here is no inconsistency or repugnancy between the pertinent provisions of *.(. 4o.
782? and *.(. 4o. 7912 as regards to prohibitions on government officials and employees.
Fomena L. Vanueva, an offca of the Cooperatve Deveopment Authorty (CDA),
obtaned two oans from Cavera Agr-Based Mut-Purpose Cooperatve, Inc. (CABMPCI)
through Petra C. Martnez n her capacty as Genera Manager. After a year, Vanueva wth
hs spouse Armando came to Martnez and requested her to transfer Vanuevas two oans
under Armandos name so that Vanueva w not be among the st of borrowers. Thereafter,
an Offca Recept extngushng the obgaton of Vanueva was ssued by Martnez.
Upon Armandos faure to pay hs oan, CABMPCI fed an acton for coecton of sum
of money aganst Armando before the Regona Tra Court (RTC). The RTC rued n favor of
CABMPCI. Armando ater on fed a petton for prohbton before the Court of Appeas (CA),
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
137
seekng the nufcaton of the RTC decson on the ground that sad oan has aready been
pad as shown by the Offca Recept ssued by CABMPCI to Vanueva. The CA nufed the
RTC decson.
Accordngy, Martnez fed a compant before the Offce of the Deputy
Ombudsman chargng Vanueva wth voaton of Artce 215 of the Revsed Pena Code and
Secton 7(d) n reaton to Secton 11 of R.A. No. 6713. Vanueva was then found abe for
grave msconduct. Vanueva moved for reconsderaton but t was dsmssed. Aggreved,
Vanueva fed a petton for revew argung that the subsequent enactment of R.A. No. 6938
or the Cooperatve Code of the Phppnes aows quafed offcas and empoyees to
become members of cooperatves and naturay, to ava of the attendant prveges and
benefts of membershp ke obtanng oans. The CA granted Vanuevas petton.
ISS)ES*
1. Whether or not the subsequent enactment of R.A. 6938 dd not repea the provsons
of R.A. 6713
2. Whether or not Vanueva s abe for grave msconduct
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
%A ;<85 is not repealed !$ %A ;95=
The Court notes that nothng n R.A. No. 6938 shows that t repeaed the provsons of
R.A. No. 6713 as regards the prohbtons on CDA offcas and empoyees. R.A. No. 6938
does not contan any provson categorcay and expressy repeang the provsons of R.A.
No. 6713 pertanng to prohbtons on government offcas and empoyees, even at east for
those beongng to the CDA. Laws are presumed to be passed wth deberaton and fu
knowedge of a aws exstng on the sub|ect. Hence, a aw cannot be deemed repeaed
uness t s ceary manfest that the egsature ntended t. The faure to add a specfc
repeang cause ndcates that the ntent was not to repea any exstng aw, uness an
rreconcabe nconsstency and repugnancy exst n the terms of the new and od aws.
Aso, the provsons of R.A. No. 6938 fa to revea any nconsstency or repugnancy
wth the provsons of R.A. No. 6713. Thus, nether can there be any mped repea. The ban
on CDA offcas hodng a poston n a cooperatve provded n R.A. No. 6938 shoud
therefore be taken for what t s, that s, t s a prohbton n addton to those provded n
R.A. No. 6713 and specfcay appcabe to CDA offcas and empoyees. True, R.A. No.
6938 aows CDA offcas and empoyees to become members of cooperatves and en|oy the
prveges and benefts attendant to membershp. However, R.A. No. 6938 shoud not be
taken as creatng n favor of CDA offcas and empoyees an exempton from the coverage of
Secton 7(d), R.A. No. 6713 consderng that the benefts and prveges attendant to
membershp n a cooperatve are not confned soey to avang of oans and not a
cooperatves are estabshed for the soe purpose of provdng credt factes to ther
members. Thus, the mtaton on the benefts whch respondent may en|oy n connecton
wth her aeged membershp n CABMPCI does not ead to absurd resuts and does not
render naught membershp n the cooperatve or render R.A. No. 6938 neffectua, contrary
to respondents assertons. The Court fnd that such mtaton s but a necessary
consequence of the prvege of hodng a pubc offce and s akn to the other mtatons
that, athough nterferng wth a pubc servants prvate rghts, are nonetheess deemed
vad n ght of the pubc trust nature of pubc empoyment.
>illanueva is lia!le for #rave misconduct.
The ratocnaton of the CA that respondent shoud not have been hed abe for grave
msconduct because of the supposed faure of Martnez to show undue nfuence s
mstaken. The prohbton n Secton 7(d) s malum prohibitum. It s the commsson of that
act as defned by the aw, and not the character or effect thereof, that determnes whether
or not the provson has been voated. Therefore, t s mmatera whether respondent has
fuy pad her oans snce the aw prohbts the mere act of soctng a oan under the
crcumstances provded n Secton 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713. Nether s undue nfuence on
respondents part requred to be proven as hed by the CA. Whether respondent used her
poston or authorty as a CDA offca s of no consequence n the determnaton of her
admnstratve abty. And consderng that respondent admtted havng taken two oans
from CABMPCI, whch s a cooperatve whose operatons are drecty reguated by
respondents offce, respondent was correcty meted the penaty of suspenson by the
Deputy Ombudsman for voaton of Secton 7(d). The CA commtted reversbe error when t
granted respondents petton for revew whch shoud have been dsmssed for ack of mert.
NATIONAL /OWER COR/ORATION, re@re1en2ed b $21 /RESIDENT C7RIL DEL
CALLAR v. ')DGE SANTOS B. ADIONG, REGIONAL TRIAL CO)RT, BR. 8, MARAWI
CIT7
A.M. No. RT',!;,2!9!, 2; ')L7 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
When the law or procedure is so elementary, such as the provisions of the *ules of
Court as to failing to conduct pre%trial, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it
constitutes gross ignorance of the law and warrants a corresponding penalty.
Natona Power Corporaton (NPC) fed an admnstratve compant aganst |udge
Santos B. Adong for gross gnorance of aw, manfest partaty and conduct unbecomng a
member of the |udcary. In a prevous case decded by |udge Adong, NPC asserted that no
pre-tra was conducted yet |udge Adong passed upon the merts of the case. Furthermore,
NPC camed that |udge Adong had acted n voaton of eementary rues, whch rendered
hm an ntoerabe and nexcusabe gross gnorance of aw.
As a defense, |udge Adong asserted that he had set the case for hearng as we as to
present evdence. Aso, he camed that the ack of pre-tra was never rased by NPC when t
fed ts answer up unt t started presentng the evdence. Records showed that pantffs
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
139
fed ther pre-tra bref whe NPC dd not. Hence ths act of NPC deemed to have waved the
hodng of pre-tra conference.
ISS)E*
Whether or not |udge Adong s guty of gross gnorance of the aw due to hs faure to
conduct a pre-tra conference
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
|udge Adong faed to conduct a pre-tra conference, whch was contrary to
eementary rues of procedure, whch he shoud have known a too we consderng hs ong
years of servce. The mandatory character of pre-tra s emboded under Admnstratve
Crcuar No. 3-99 and Secton 2 Rue 18 of Rues of Court. To further mpement the pre-tra
gudenes, ths drectve was reterated n Admnstratve Matter No. 03-1-09-SC entted
"Gudenes to be Observed by Tra Court |udges and Cerks of Court n the Conduct of Pre-
Tra and Use of Deposton-Dscovery Measures" whch recognzed the mportance of pre-
tra and the deposton-dscovery measures as vta components of case management n tra
courts. It must be noted that when the aw or procedure s eementary, such as the
provsons of the ROC, not to know t or to act as f one does not know t consttutes gross
gnorance of the aw and such warrants a correspondng penaty.
ROMAN CAT-OLIC ARC-BIS-O/ OF SAN FERNANDO, /AM/ANGA v.
ED)ARDO SORIANO, 'R., et al.
G.R. No. 18?829 and G.R. No. 19!9!9, 1; AuEu12 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a,
'r., J.(
( civil action for Juieting of 'itle and .eclaration of 4ullity of 'itle is a clear and direct
attack which aims to nullify the title, thereby challenging the &udgment pursuant to which
the title was decreed.
The Roman Cathoc Archbshop (RCA) of Pampanga, the owner of a vast tract of and
ocated near the Cathoc Church, fed an e|ectment case docketed as G.R. No. 153829
aganst Eduardo Sorano, |r. et al. before the Muncpa Crcut Tra Court (MCTC). Sorano et
al. aeged that the RCA has no cause of acton aganst them because the RCAs tte s
spurous as the sub|ect and beonged to the State and that they have acqured the same by
acqustve prescrpton for contnuous possesson of the and for more than 30 years. The
MCTC rendered a decson n favor of the RCA. Sorano et al. then appeaed to the Regona
Tra Court (RTC), but t was dsmssed. Upon reachng the Court of Appeas (CA), the CA
dened ther petton.
Whe the e|ectment case was pendng at the MCTC, some of the defendants theren
fed a cv acton docketed as G.R. No. 160909 aganst the RCA for Ouetng of Tte and
Decaraton of Nuty of Tte before the RTC. They aeged that the tte n the name of RCA
s spurous and fake. Before fng ts Answer, the RCA moved to dsmss the case on grounds
of noncompance wth a condton precedent, aches, and for beng a coatera attack on ts
tte. The RTC dened the moton. Upon appea to the Court of Appeas (CA), the CA dened
the moton for ack of mert.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the CA erred n uphodng the decson of the RTC n denyng the
moton to dsmss fed by the RCA on grounds of noncompance wth a condton precedent,
aches, and for beng a coatera attack on ts tte
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
A certiorari wrt s a remedy desgned to correct errors of |ursdcton and not errors of
|udgment. The approprate course of acton of the movant n such event s to fe an answer
and nterpose as affrmatve defenses the ob|ectons rased n the moton to dsmss. The
ony excepton to ths rue s when the tra court gravey abused ts dscreton n denyng the
moton. Ths excepton s, nevertheess, apped sparngy, and ony n nstances when there
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
141
s a cear showng that the tra court exercsed ts |udca power n an arbtrary or despotc
manner by reason of passon or persona hostty.
In the case at bar, the Court dd not fnd grave abuse of dscreton on the part of the
RTC. The requrement stated n Artce 477 of the Cv Code s not a condton precedent
before one can fe an acton for quetng of tte. Rather, t s a requste for an acton to
quet tte to prosper and the exstence or nonexstence of the requste shoud be
determned ony after tra on the merts.
The Court aso agrees wth the RTC n rung that the RCA cannot rase n a moton to
dsmss the ground that the compant s aready barred by aches for t st remans to be
estabshed durng tra how ong the pantffs have sept on ther rghts, f such be the case.
The RCA kewse asserted that the case for Ouetng of Tte s a coatera attack on ts
tte whch s prohbted by aw. However, the compant aganst the RCA does not amount to
a coatera attack because the acton for the decaraton of nuty of the tte s a cear and
drect attack. An acton s deemed an attack on a tte when ts ob|ectve s to nufy the tte,
thereby chaengng the |udgment pursuant to whch the tte was decreed. The attack s
drect when the ob|ectve s to annu or set asde such |udgment, or en|on ts
enforcement. On the other hand, the attack s ndrect or coatera when, n an acton to
obtan a dfferent reef, an attack on the |udgment s nevertheess made as an ncdent
thereof.
S/O)SES FRANCISCO D. 7A/ and W-ELMA S. 7A/ v. S/O)SES >OSIMO D7 et al.D
D)MAG)ETE R)RAL BAN:, INC. #DRBI( v. S/O)SES >OSIMO D7 et al.
GR No. 1;1898 and GR No. 1;1991, 2; 'u% 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., '.(
4othing in the law prohibits the piecemeal redemption of properties sold at one
foreclosure proceeding as the doctrine of indivisibility of mortgage no longer applies once
the mortgage is e#tinguished by a complete foreclosure.
Tomas Trambuo and Savacon Trambuo (Spouses Trambuo) secured a oan from
Dumaguete Rura Bank, Inc. (DRBI) by executng a Rea Estate Mortgage over ther parces of
and desgnated as Lots 1,4,5,6 and 8. Subsequenty, Spouses Trambuo obtaned another
oan from DRBI over ther propertes desgnated as Lots 3 and 846. Spouses Trambuo ater
on sod a mortgaged ots to Zosmo Dy, Sr. and Natvdad Chu (Spouses Dy) and Marceno
Maxno and Remedos Lasoa (Spouses Maxno) wthout the consent of DRBI. When Spouses
Trambuo faed to pay ther oan, the DRBI extra|udcay forecosed the frst oan mortgage
and thereafter acqured the ots as the hghest bdder at a pubc aucton. DRBI then sod ots
1, 3 and 6 to Francsco Yap and Whema Yap (Spouses Yap).
Before the expraton of the redempton perod, Spouses Dy and Spouses Maxno
attempted to redeem the ots by tenderng the amount of P40,000.00; however, Spouses Yap
and DRBI refused to accept ther payment contendng that t must be pad n fu amount.
When Spouses Dy and Spouses Maxno secured a Certfcaton from the Provnca Sherff,
Spouses Yap st refused to take devery of the redempton prce, argung that a mortgage s
ndvsbe.
Thereafter, Spouses Dy and Spouses Maxno fed a cv case wth the Regona Tra
Court (RTC) for the decaraton of nuty (wth regard to Lot 3) of the Deed of Sae wth
Agreement to Mortgage aganst Spouses Yap and DRBI. Spouses Yap, on the other hand,
fed a cv case for annument of certfcate of redempton aganst Spouses Dy et al. The
RTC tred the two cases |onty and uphed the vadty of the Deed of Sae wth Agreement to
Mortgage between Spouses Yap and DRBI. Upon appea, the Court of Appeas (CA) reversed
the RTC decson.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the pecemea redempton of mortgaged propertes s nvad as they
were a sod together for a snge prce at a forecosure sae
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
As hed n the case of ,hilippine 4ational )ank v. .e los *eyes, the doctrne of
ndvsbty of mortgage does not appy once the mortgage s extngushed by a compete
forecosure thereof as n the nstant case. Nothng n the aw prohbts the pecemea
redempton of propertes sod at one forecosure proceedng. In fact, n severa eary cases
decded by ths Court, the rght of the mortgagor or redemptoner to redeem one or some of
the forecosed propertes was recognzed.

In the 1962 case of Castillo v. 4agtalon, ten parces of and were sod at pubc aucton.
Nagtaon, who owned three of the ten parces of and sod, wanted to redeem her propertes.
Though the amount she tendered was found as nsuffcent to effectvey reease her
propertes, the Court hed that the tender of payment was made tmey and n good fath
and thus, n the nterest of |ustce, Nagtaon was gven the opportunty to compete the
redempton purchase of three of the ten parces of and forecosed.
Aso, n the ater case of .ulay v. Carriaga, wheren Duay redeemed eght of the
seventeen parces of and sod at pubc aucton, the tra court decared the pecemea
redempton of Duay as vod. Sad order, however, was annued and set asde by the Court
on certiorari and the Court uphed the redempton of the eght parces of and sod at pubc
aucton.

Ceary, the Dys and Maxnos can effect the redempton of even ony two of the fve
propertes forecosed. And snce they can effect a parta redempton, they are not requred
to pay the fu amount consderng that t s the purchase prce for a the fve propertes
forecosed.
T-)NDER SEC)RIT7 AND IN"ESTIGATION AGENC7 v. NATIONAL FOOD A)T-ORIT7
#REGION I( and NFA REGIONAL BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE #REGION I(
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
143
G.R. No. 182!<2, 2; 'u% 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r. J.(
(n in&unction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future
rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain
an act which does not give rise to a cause of action.
Thunder Securty and Investgaton Agency (Thunder) entered nto a contract for
securty servces wth Natona Food Authorty (NFA). Subsequenty, Repubc Act (R.A.) No.
9184 took effect, expressy repeang Executve Order (E.O.) No. 40, Seres of 2001 whch
governed the bddng procedure of servce contracts n the Government. When Thunders
contract wth the NFA was about to expre, the NFA caused the pubcaton of an Invtaton to
Appy for Egbty and to Bd. However, due to the faure to submt the requred
documents, Thunders appcaton to bd was re|ected.
Unfazed, Thunder fed before the Regona Tra Court (RTC) a Petton for Prohbton
and Premnary In|uncton to en|on NFA from awardng the contract to another securty
agency. The RTC granted the wrt of premnary n|uncton n favor of Thunder and drected
NFA to desst from termnatng Thunder's servces unt further orders from the RTC. The RTC
hed that the composton and the orders of the NFA-RBAC were vod because the IRR of R.A.
No. 9184 has not yet been promugated. Upon appea by NFA, the Court of Appeas (CA)
reversed the RTC decson.
ISS)E*
Whether or not a wrt of premnary n|uncton was correcty granted by the RTC
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
In the case of ,hilippine ,orts (uthority v. Cipres -tevedoring K (rrastre, +nc., the
Court rued that a premnary n|uncton s an order granted at any stage of an acton pror to
|udgment of fna order, requrng a party, court, agency, or person to refran from a
partcuar act or acts. It s a preservatve remedy to ensure the protecton of a partys
substantve rghts or nterests pendng the fna |udgment n the prncpa acton. A pea for
an n|unctve wrt es upon the exstence of a camed emergency or extraordnary stuaton
whch shoud be avoded for otherwse, the outcome of a tgaton woud be useess as far as
the party appyng for the wrt s concerned. For the wrt to be ssued, two requstes must be
present, namey, the exstence of the rght to be protected, and that the facts aganst whch
the n|uncton s to be drected are voatve of sad rght. It s necessary that one must show
an unquestonabe rght over the premses.
In ths case, t s apparent that when the RTC ssued ts Order, Thunder has no more
ega rghts under the servce contract whch aready expred. Therefore, t has not met the
frst vta requste that t must have matera and substanta rghts that have to be
protected by the courts. It bears stressng that an n|uncton s not a remedy to protect or
enforce contngent, abstract, or future rghts; t w not ssue to protect a rght not in
esse and whch may never arse, or to restran an act whch does not gve rse to a cause of
acton. There must exst an actua rght. Very, Thunder cannot ay cam to an actua, cear
and postve rght based on an expred servce contract.
Moreover, we-entrenched n ths |ursdcton that no court can compe a party to
agree to a contract through the nstrumentaty of a wrt of premnary n|uncton. A contract
can be renewed, revved or extended ony by mutua consent of the partes. By ssung the
assaed orders, the RTC n effect extended the fe of the partes expred contract n cear
contraventon of the Courts earer pronouncements.
ALERT SEC)RIT7 AND IN"ESTIGATION AGENC7, INC., et al. v.
SAIDALI /ASAWILAN, et al.
G.R. No. 182?9;, 1< Se@2e&ber 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, J.(
=or abandonment of work to fall under (rticle 5?5 /b0 of the "abor Code, as amended,
as gross and habitual neglect of duties there must be the concurrence of two elements.
=irst, there should be a failure of the employee to report for work without a valid or
&ustifiable reason, and second, there should be a showing that the employee intended to
sever the employer%employee relationship, the second element being the more
determinative factor as manifested by overt acts.
Respondents Sada Pasawan, et al. were a empoyed by pettoner Aert Securty
and Investgaton Agency, INC. (Aert Securty). They were reguar empoyees assgned to the
Department of Scence and Technoogy (DOST) pursuant to a securty servce contract
between DOST and Aert Securty. Pasawan, et al. fed a compant for money cams
aganst Aert Securty, and ts presdent and genera manager because they were underpad.
As a resut of ther compant, they were reeved from ther posts n the DOST and were not
gven new assgnments. Thus, they fed a compant for ega dsmssa aganst Aert
Securty.
The Labor Arbter (LA) found that Pasawan, et al. were egay dsmssed.
Subsequenty, the Natona Labor Commsson (NLRC) reversed the decson of the LA.
However, the Court of Appeas (CA) renstated the decson of the LA.
Aert Securty, et a. contends that there was no termnaton, nstead, Pasawan, et al.
abandoned ther empoyment by refusng to report for duty at the Lght Ra Transt Authorty
(LRTA) Compound, n whch, Pasawan, et al. were aegedy transferred for work.
ISS)E*
Whether or not Pasawan, et al. were egay dsmssed
-ELD*
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
145
Petton DENIED.
As a rue, empoyment cannot be termnated by an empoyer wthout any |ust or
authorzed cause. No ess than the 1987 Consttuton n Secton 3, Artce 13 guarantees
securty of tenure for workers and because of ths, an empoyee may ony be termnated for
|ust or authorzed causes that must compy wth the due process requrements mandated by
aw. Hence, empoyers are barred from arbtrary removng ther workers whenever and
however they want. The aw sets the vad grounds for termnaton as we as the proper
procedure to take when termnatng the servces of an empoyee.
Athough the Court recognzes the rght of empoyers to shape ther own work force,
ths management prerogatve must not curta the basc rght of empoyees to securty of
tenure. There must be a vad and awfu reason for termnatng the empoyment of a
worker. Otherwse, t s ega and woud be deat wth by the courts accordngy.
In the case at bar, Pasawan, et al. were reeved from ther posts because they fed
wth the Labor Arbter a compant aganst ther empoyer for money cams due to
underpayment of wages. Ths reason s unacceptabe and ega. Nowhere n the aw
provdng for the |ust and authorzed causes of termnaton of empoyment s there any drect
or ndrect reference to fng a egtmate compant for money cams aganst the empoyer
as a vad ground for termnaton.
The Labor Code, as amended, enumerates severa |ust and authorzed causes for a
vad termnaton of empoyment. An empoyee assertng hs rght and askng for mnmum
wage s not among those causes. Dsmssng an empoyee on ths ground amounts to
retaaton by management for an empoyees egtmate grevance wthout due process.
Such stroke of retrbuton has no pace n Phppne Labor Laws.
Assumng ths s true; the Court st cannot hod that the respondents abandoned ther
posts. For abandonment of work to fa under Artce 282 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended,
as gross and habtua negect of dutes there must be the concurrence of two eements.
Frst, there shoud be a faure of the empoyee to report for work wthout a vad or
|ustfabe reason, and second, there shoud be a showng that the empoyee ntended to
sever the empoyer-empoyee reatonshp, the second eement beng the more
determnatve factor as manfested by overt acts.
The empoyer cannot smpy concude that an empoyee s ipso facto notfed of a
transfer when there s no evdence to ndcate that the empoyee had knowedge of the
transfer order. Hence, the faure of an empoyee to report for work at the new ocaton
cannot be taken aganst hm as an eement of abandonment.
In addton to these tests for a vad transfer, there shoud be proper and effectve
notce to the empoyee concerned. It s the empoyers burden to show that the empoyee
was duy notfed of the transfer. Very, an empoyer cannot reasonaby expect an
empoyee to report for work n a new ocaton wthout frst nformng sad empoyee of the
transfer. Aert Securtys nsstence on the suffcency of mere ssuance of the transfer order
s ndcatve of bad fath on ther part.
BRICCIO GRIC:7H A. /OLLO, v.
C-AIR/ERSON :ARINA CONSTANTINO,DA"ID, E AL.
G.R. No. 181881, 18 O52ober 2!11, EN BANC, #"$%%ara&a, J.(
( search by a government employer of an employees office is &ustified at inception
when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the
employee is guilty of work%related misconduct.
Respondent Charperson Karna Constantno-Davd receved an anonymous etter from
a concerned government empoyee regardng a government empoyee awyerng for an
accused government empoyee wth a pendng case before the Cv Servce Commsson.
Wth ths, Charperson Davd formed a group of four IT personne and ssued a memo
drectng them to conduct an nvestgaton and specfcay "to back up a the fes n the
computers found n the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Lega dvsons." The backng-up
of all fes n the hard dsk of computers at the PALD and Lega Servces Dvson (LSD) was
wtnessed by severa empoyees, together wth Drectors Casto and Unte who cosey
montored sad actvty.
Drector Unte sent a text message to pettoner Brcco Poo nformng hm that ther
offce was beng searched. Poo reped that he was eavng the matter entrey up to
Drector Unte. Severa dskettes contanng the back-up fes sourced from the hard dsk of
PALD and LSD computers were turned over to Charperson Davd. The contents of the
dskettes were examned by the CSCs Offce for Lega Affars (OLA). It was found that most
of the fes n the 17 dskettes contanng fes coped from the computer assgned to and
beng used by the pettoner, numberng about 40 to 42 documents, were draft peadngs or
etters n connecton wth admnstratve cases n the CSC and other trbunas. On the bass
of ths fndng, Charperson Davd ssued the Show-Cause Order dated |anuary 11, 2007,
requrng the pettoner, who had gone on extended eave, to submt hs expanaton or
counter-affdavt wthn fve days from notce.
Poo dened beng the person beng referred to n the anonymous etter and that such
etter s not actonabe as t faed to compy wth the requrements of a forma compant. He
argued that the search and copyng of hs persona fes n from hs computer voated hs
consttutona rght aganst sef-ncrmnaton, hs rght to prvacy and protecton aganst
unreasonabe searches and sezures. Poo rased the pont that though government
property, the temporary use and ownershp of the computer ssued under a Memorandum of
Recept (MR) s ceded to the empoyee who may exercse a attrbutes of ownershp,
ncudng ts use for persona purposes. Poo aso argued that n ght of these, the evdence
obtaned shoud not be admssbe as t came from the frut of a posonous tree.
The CSC reed on US |ursprudence, partcuary the cases of OConnor v. Ortega and
United -tates v. ark ". -imons as the bass for ts decson. The CSC found Poo guty of
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
147
Dshonesty, Grave Msconduct, Conduct Pre|udca to the Best Interest of the Servce and
Voaton of Repubc Act 6713 and dsmssed hm from servce, Poo fed a moton for
reconsderaton wth the Court of Appeas but was dened.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the search conducted on Poos persona computer and the copyng of
nformaton wthout hs knowedge and consent voates hs consttutona rght to prvacy
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
In ancusi v. .e=orte whch addressed the reasonabe expectatons
of private empoyees n the workpace, the US Supreme Court hed that a unon empoyee
had Fourth Amendment rghts wth regard to an offce at unon headquarters that he shared
wth other unon offcas, even as the atter or ther guests coud enter the offce. The Court
thus "recognzed that empoyees may have a reasonabe expectaton of prvacy aganst
ntrusons by poce."
That the Fourth Amendment equay appes to a government workpace was
addressed n the 1987 case of OConnor v. Ortega where a physcan, Dr. Magno Ortega, who
was empoyed by a state hospta, camed a voaton of hs Fourth Amendment rghts when
hospta offcas nvestgatng charges of msmanagement of the psychatrc resdency
program, sexua harassment of femae hospta empoyees and other rreguartes nvovng
hs prvate patents under the state medca ad program, searched hs offce and sezed
persona tems from hs desk and fng cabnets. In that case, the Court categorcay
decared that "||ndvduas do not ose Fourth Amendment rghts merey because they work
for the government nstead of a prvate empoyer." A puraty of four |ustces concurred that
the correct anayss has two steps: frst, because "some government offces may be so open
to feow empoyees or the pubc that no expectaton of prvacy s reasonabe", a court must
consder "|t|he operatona reates of the workpace" n order to determne whether an
empoyees Fourth Amendment rghts are mpcated; and next, where an empoyee has a
egtmate prvacy expectaton, an empoyers ntruson on that expectaton "for
nonnvestgatory, work-reated purposes, as we as for nvestgatons of work-reated
msconduct, shoud be |udged by the standard of reasonabeness under a the
crcumstances."

On the matter of government empoyees reasonabe expectatons of prvacy n ther
workpace, OConnor teaches that pubc empoyees expectatons of prvacy n ther offces,
desks, and fe cabnets, ke smar expectatons of empoyees n the prvate sector, may be
reduced by vrtue of actua offce practces and procedures, or by egtmate reguaton. x x x
The empoyees expectaton of prvacy must be assessed n the context of the empoyment
reaton. An offce s sedom a prvate encave free from entry by supervsors, other
empoyees, and busness and persona nvtees. Instead, n many cases offces are
contnuay entered by feow empoyees and other vstors durng the workday for
conferences, consutatons, and other work-reated vsts. Smpy put, t s the nature of
government offces that others - such as feow empoyees, supervsors, consensua vstors,
and the genera pubc - may have frequent access to an ndvduas offce. The Court
agrees wth |USTICE SCALIA that "|c|onsttutona protecton aganst unreasonabe searches
by the government does not dsappear merey because the government has the rght to
make reasonabe ntrusons n ts capacty as empoyer," x x x but 1o&e Eo0ern&en2
o33$5e1 &a be 1o o@en 2o 3e%%o6 e&@%oee1 or 2Ae @ub%$5 2Aa2 no eF@e52a2$on o3
@r$0a5 $1 rea1onab%e. G$0en 2Ae Erea2 0ar$e2 o3 6orI en0$ron&en21 $n 2Ae @ub%$5
1e52or, 2Ae Kue12$on o3 6Ae2Aer an e&@%oee Aa1 a rea1onab%e eF@e52a2$on o3
@r$0a5 &u12 be addre11ed on a 5a1e,b,5a1e ba1$1.

On the bass of the estabshed rue n prevous cases, the US Supreme Court decared
that Dr. Ortegas Fourth Amendment rghts are mpcated ony f the conduct of the hospta
offcas nfrnged "an expectaton of prvacy that socety s prepared to consder as
reasonabe." Gven the undsputed evdence that respondent Dr. Ortega dd not share hs
desk or fe cabnets wth any other empoyees, kept persona correspondence and other
prvate tems n hs own offce whe those work-reated fes (on physcans n resdency
tranng) were stored outsde hs offce, and there beng no evdence that the hospta had
estabshed any reasonabe reguaton or pocy dscouragng empoyees from storng
persona papers and effects n ther desks or fe cabnets (athough the absence of such a
pocy does not create any expectaton of prvacy where t woud not otherwse exst), the
Court concuded that Dr. Ortega has a reasonabe expectaton of prvacy at east n hs desk
and fe cabnets.
In OConnor the Court recognzed that "speca needs" authorze warrantess searches
nvovng pubc empoyees for work-reated reasons. The Court thus ad down a baancng
test under whch government nterests are weghed aganst the empoyees reasonabe
expectaton of prvacy. Ths reasonabeness test mpcates nether probabe cause nor the
warrant requrement, whch are reated to aw enforcement.

In ths nqury, the reevant surroundng crcumstances to consder ncude "(1) the
empoyees reatonshp to the tem sezed; (2) whether the tem was n the mmedate
contro of the empoyee when t was sezed; and (3) whether the empoyee took actons to
mantan hs prvacy n the tem." These factors are reevant to both the sub|ectve and
ob|ectve prongs of the reasonabeness nqury, and we consder the two questons
together. Thus, where the empoyee used a password on hs computer, dd not share hs
offce wth co-workers and kept the same ocked, he had a egtmate expectaton of prvacy
and any search of that space and tems ocated theren must compy wth the Fourth
Amendment.
The Court answers the frst n the negatve. Poo faed to prove that he had an actua
(sub|ectve) expectaton of prvacy ether n hs offce or government-ssued computer whch
contaned hs persona fes. Poo dd not aege that he had a separate encosed offce
whch he dd not share wth anyone, or that hs offce was aways ocked and not open to
other empoyees or vstors. Nether dd Poo aege that he used passwords or adopted any
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
149
means to prevent other empoyees from accessng hs computer fes. On the contrary, he
submts that beng n the pubc assstance offce of the CSC-ROIV, he normay woud have
vstors n hs offce ke frends, assocates and even unknown peope, whom he even
aowed to use hs computer whch to hm seemed a trva request. He descrbed hs offce
as "fu of peope, hs frends, unknown peope" and that n the past 22 years he had been
dschargng hs functons at the PALD, he s "personay assstng ncomng cents, recevng
documents, draftng cases on appeas, n charge of accompshment report, amamayan
una Program, Pubc Sector Unonsm, Correcton of name, accredtaton of servce, and
hardy had anytme for hmsef aone, that n fact he stays n the offce as a payng
customer." Under ths scenaro, t can hardy be deduced that Poo had such expectaton of
prvacy that socety woud recognze as reasonabe.

Moreover, even assumng arguendo, n the absence of aegaton or proof of the
aforementoned factua crcumstances, that Poo had at east a sub|ectve expectaton of
prvacy n hs computer as he cams, such s negated by the presence of pocy reguatng
the use of offce computers, as n -imons.
One of the factors stated n OConnor whch are reevant n determnng whether an
empoyees expectaton of prvacy n the workpace s reasonabe s the exstence of a
workpace prvacy pocy. In one case, the US Court of Appeas Eghth Crcut hed that a
state unversty empoyee has not shown that he had a reasonabe expectaton of prvacy n
hs computer fes where the unverstys computer pocy, the computer user s nformed not
to expect prvacy f the unversty has a egtmate reason to conduct a search. The user s
specfcay tod that computer fes, ncudng e-ma, can be searched when the unversty s
respondng to a dscovery request n the course of tgaton. Pettoner empoyee thus
cannot cam a voaton of Fourth Amendment rghts when unversty offcas conducted a
warrantess search of hs computer for work-reated materas.
A search by a government empoyer of an empoyees offce s |ustfed at
ncepton when there are reasonabe grounds for suspectng that t w turn up evdence that
the empoyee s guty of work-reated msconduct. Thus, n the 2004 case decded by the
US Court of Appeas Eghth Crcut, t was hed that where a government agencys computer
use pocy prohbted eectronc messages wth pornographc content and n
addton expressy provded that empoyees do not have any personal privacy rights
regarding their use of the agency information systems and technology, the government
empoyee had no egtmate expectaton of prvacy as to the use and contents of hs offce
computer, and therefore evdence found durng warrantess search of the computer was
admssbe n prosecuton for chd pornography. In that case, the defendant empoyees
computer hard drve was frst remotey examned by a computer nformaton techncan after
hs supervsor receved compants that he was naccessbe and had coped and dstrbuted
non-work-reated e-ma messages throughout the offce. When the supervsor confrmed
that defendant had used hs computer to access the prohbted webstes, n contraventon of
the express pocy of the agency, hs computer tower and foppy dsks were taken and
examned. A forma admnstratve nvestgaton ensued and ater search warrants were
secured by the poce department. The nta remote search of the hard drve of pettoners
computer, as we as the subsequent warrantess searches was hed as vad under
the OConnor rung that a pubc empoyer can nvestgate work-reated msconduct so ong
as any search s |ustfed at ncepton and s reasonaby reated n scope to the
crcumstances that |ustfed t n the frst pace.
The Court s not unaware of ts decson n (nonymous "etter%Complaint against (tty.
iguel orales, Clerk of Court, etropolitan 'rial Court of anila nvovng a branch cerk
(Atty. Moraes) who was nvestgated on the bass of an anonymous etter aegng that he
was consumng hs workng hours fng and attendng to persona cases, usng offce
suppes, equpment and uttes. The OCA conducted a spot nvestgaton aded by NBI
agents. The team was abe to access Atty. Moraes persona computer and prnt two
documents stored n ts hard drve, whch turned out to be two peadngs, one fed n the CA
and another n the RTC of Mana, both n the name of another awyer. Atty. Moraes
computer was sezed and taken n custody of the OCA but was ater ordered reeased on hs
moton, but wth order to the MISO to frst retreve the fes stored theren. The OCA
dsagreed wth the report of the Investgatng |udge that there was no evdence to support
the charge aganst Atty. Moraes as no one from the OCC personne who were ntervewed
woud gve a categorca and postve statement affrmng the charges aganst Atty. Moraes,
aong wth other court personne aso charged n the same case. The OCA recommended
that Atty. Moraes shoud be found guty of gross msconduct. The Court !n )anc hed that
whe Atty. Moraes may have faen short of the exactng standards requred of every court
empoyee, the Court cannot use the evdence obtaned from hs personal computer aganst
hm for t voated hs consttutona rght aganst unreasonabe searches and sezures. The
Court found no evdence to support the cam of OCA that they were abe to obtan the
sub|ect peadngs wth the consent of Atty. Moraes, as n fact the atter mmedatey fed an
admnstratve case aganst the persons who conducted the spot nvestgaton, questonng
the vadty of the nvestgaton and specfcay nvokng hs consttutona rght aganst
unreasonabe search and sezure. And as there s no other evdence, apart from the
peadngs, retreved from the unduy confscated persona computer of Atty. Moraes, to hod
hm admnstratvey abe, the Court had no choce but to dsmss the charges aganst hm
for nsuffcency of evdence.
The above case s to be dstngushed from the case at bar because, unke the former
whch nvoved a personal computer of a court empoyee, the computer from whch the
persona fes of heren pettoner were retreved s a government-ssued computer, hence
government property the use of whch the CSC has absoute rght to reguate and
montor. Such reatonshp of the pettoner wth the tem sezed (offce computer) and other
reevant factors and crcumstances under Amercan Fourth Amendment |ursprudence,
notaby the exstence of CSC MO 10, S. 2007 on Computer Use Pocy, faed to estabsh that
pettoner had a reasonabe expectaton of prvacy n the offce computer assgned to hm.
>ACARIA CANDAO, et al. v. RE/)BLIC OF T-E /-ILI//INES, et al.
G.R. No1. 189989,;1!, 19 O52ober 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, J.(
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
151
+n the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that
the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his
possession when demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily e#plain his
failure to do so.
The Commsson on Audt (COA) conducted an Expanded Speca Audt on the fnanca
transactons and operatons of the Offce of the Regona Governor, Autonomous Regon for
Musm Mndanao (ORG-ARMM). In ts report, the COA found that ega wthdrawas were
made from the depostory accounts of the agency through the ssuance of checks payabe to
the order of pettoner Israe Haron, the Dsbursng Offcer II, wthout the requred
dsbursement vouchers. In a etter, the charman of the COA demanded from Haron to
produce and resttute to the ARMM-Regona hs Tresurer mmedatey the fu amount of the
checks wthdrawn wthout the proper supportng documents and submt hs expanaton.
Thereafter, the Offce of the Speca Prosecutor, Offce of the Ombudsman-Mndanao fed n
the Sandganbayan crmna cases for maversaton of pubc funds aganst Candao, et al.
Candao, et al. peaded not guty to the charges aganst them.
The Sandganbayan found Candao, et al. guty beyond reasonabe doubt of
maversaton of pubc funds.
ISS)ES*
1.) Whether or not Candao, et al. are crmnay abe for maversaton of pubc funds
2.) Whether or not the "Equpose Rue" shoud be apped n order to acqut Candao, et al.
-ELD*
Petton s DENIED.
Candao- et al. are criminall$ lia!le for malversation of pu!lic funds
Artce 217 of the Revsed Pena Code, as amended, provdes that any pubc offcer
who, by reason of the dutes of hs offce, s accountabe for pubc funds or property, sha
approprate the same, or sha take or msapproprate or sha consent, or through
abandonment or neggence, sha permt any other person to take such pubc funds or
property, whoy or partay, or sha otherwse be guty of the msappropraton or
maversaton of such funds or property. Furthermore, the faure of a pubc offcer to have
duy forthcomng any pubc fund or property wth whch he s chargeabe, upon demand by
any duy authorzed offcer, sha be prima facie evdence that he has put such mssng funds
or property to persona uses.
The foowng eements are essenta for convcton n maversaton cases: 1.) That the
offender s a pubc offcer; 2.) That he had custody or contro of funds or property by reason
of the dutes of hs offce; 3.) That those funds or property were pubc funds or property for
whch he was accountabe; and 4.) That he approprated, took, msapproprated or consented
or, through abandonment or neggence, permtted another person to take them.
A the foregong eements were satsfactory estabshed by the prosecuton n ths
case. Candao, et al. have not rebutted the ega presumpton that wth the Dsbursng
Offcers (Haron) faure to account for the egay wthdrawn amounts covered by the
sub|ect checks when demanded by the COA, they msapproprated and used the sad funds
for ther persona beneft.
he ?E&uipoise %ule@ should not !e applied in order to ac&uit Candao- et al.
In fne, the Sandganbayan commtted no reversbe error n hodng that the
testmona and documentary evdence presented by the Candao, et al. faed to overcome
the prima facie evdence of msappropraton arsng from Harons faure to gve a
satsfactory expanaton for the ega wthdrawas from the ARMM funds under hs custody
and contro. Candao, et al. kewse dd not accompsh the proper qudaton of the entre
amount wthdrawn, durng the expanded audt or any tme thereafter. There s therefore no
mert n Candao, et al.s argument that the Sandganbayan erred n not appyng the
equpose rue.
Under the equpose rue, where the evdence on an ssue of fact s n equpose or
there s doubt on whch sde the evdence preponderates, the party havng the burden of
proof oses. The equpose rue fnds appcaton f the ncupatory facts and crcumstances
are capabe of two or more expanatons, one of whch s consstent wth the nnocence of
the accused and the other consstent wth hs gut, for then the evdence does not fuf the
test of mora certanty, and does not suffce to produce a convcton. Such s not the stuaton
n ths case because the prosecuton was abe to prove by adequate evdence that
Dsbursng Offcer Haron faed to account for funds under hs custody and contro upon
demand, specfcay for the P21,045,570.64 egay wthdrawn from the sad funds. In the
crme of maversaton, a that s necessary for convcton s suffcent proof that the
accountabe offcer had receved pubc funds, that he dd not have them n hs possesson
when demand therefor was made, and that he coud not satsfactory expan hs faure to
do so. Drect evdence of persona msappropraton by the accused s hardy necessary n
maversaton cases.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
153
ESTRELLA TIONGCO 7ARED #De5ea1ed( 1ub12$2u2ed b CARMEN M. TIONGCO a.I.a.
CARMEN MATILDE B. TIONGCO v.
'OSE B. TIONGCO and ANTONIO G. DORONILA, 'R.
G.R. No. 191?9!, 19 O52ober 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION, #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
(n action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten
/1>0 years. )ut it does not run against the plaintiff in actual possession of the property.
!very person dealing with a property registered under the 'orrens title does not need to
in$uire further. )ut the e#ception is when the party has actual knowledge of facts and
circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such in$uiry or when
the purchaser has some knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of
sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to in$uire into the status of the title of
the property in litigation
Pettoner Carmen Tongco but her house on Lot 1404 sometme n 1965. She earned
her keep by coectng rentas from the tenants of Lots 3244 and 3246. In 1968, Carmen, as
one of the hers of |ose B. Tongco, fed an adverse cam affectng a the rghts, nterest,
and partcpaton of her deceased father on the dsputed ots, but the adverse cam was
annotated ony on OCT Nos. 484 and 1482 coverng Lots 3244 adn 1404.
Respondent |ose Tongco, Carmens nephew, prohbted Carmen from coectng
rentas from the tenants of Lots 3244 and 3246. |ose obtaned a favourabe |udgment for a
sut for recovery of possesson wth premnary n|uncton aganst severa tenants of the
property. The RTC aso rued n |oess favor when he fed a case for unawfu detaner wth
damages aganst Carmen because she was stayng on Lot 1404. The CA reversed the rung
of the RTC n favor or Carmen and |ose never took possesson of the propertes.
When Carmen nqured at the Offce of the Regster of Deeds, she dscovered that |ose
ha aready executed an Affdavt of Ad|udcaton decarng he was the ony survvng her of
the regstered owners of the propertes and ad|udcated to hmsef the ots. The OCTs of the
ots were canceed and new TCTs were regstered n |oses name. Aso, Carmen found out
that |ose had sod the ots to Catano Torre and Antono G. Dorona. Torre sod Lots 3244
and 3246 to Dorona. After a few days ater, Dorona sod back the ots to |ose.
Carmen fed a compant argung that |ose made untruthfu statements n the Affdavt
of Ad|udcaton and that t was nu and vod. Aso, Carmen contended that the documents
and the sae was executed n through fraud, bad fath, ega manpuaton and
msrepresentaton. On the other hand, |ose cams that Carmens father |ose, was not an her
of Mara Lus de Tongco. |ose aso camed that he s the ony egtmate son as hs other
sbngs were egtmate. |ose dened that the saes were frauduent. |ose expaned that he
camed Lot 3244 was resod to hm by Ioo Cty.
The RTC rued n favor of |ose on the bass that the acton has been barred by
prescrpton. The CA sustaned the RTCs rung
ISS)E*
Whether or not Carmen Tongco has the rght to the propertes
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
The Court agrees wth the CAs dsquston that an acton for reconveyance can ndeed
be barred by prescrpton. In a ong ne of cases decded by ths Court, t rued that an acton
for reconveyance based on mped or constructve trust must perforce prescrbe n ten (10)
years from the ssuance of the Torrens tte over the property.
However, there s an excepton to ths rue. In the case of <eirs of ,omposa -aludares
v. Court of (ppeals, the Court reteratng the rung n illena v. Court of
(ppeals, hed that there s but one nstance when prescrpton cannot be nvoked n an
acton for reconveyance, that s, when the pantff s n possesson of the and to be
reconveyed. In <eirs of ,omposa -aludares, ths Court expaned that the Court n a seres of
cases, has permtted the fng of an acton for reconveyance despte the apse of more than
ten (10) years from the ssuance of tte to the and and decared that sad acton, when
based on fraud, s mprescrptbe as ong as the and has not passed to an nnocent buyer
for vaue. But n a those cases, the common factua backdrop was that the regstered
owners were never n possesson of the dsputed property. The excepton was based on the
theory that regstraton proceedngs coud not be used as a shed for fraud or for enrchng a
person at the expense of another.
In (lfredo v. )orras, the Court rued that prescrpton does not run aganst the pantff
n actua possesson of the dsputed and because such pantff has a rght to wat unt hs
possesson s dsturbed or hs tte s questoned before ntatng an acton to vndcate hs
rght. Hs undsturbed possesson gves hm the contnung rght to seek the ad of a court of
equty to determne the nature of the adverse cam of a thrd party and ts effect on hs tte.
The Court hed that where the pantff n an acton for reconveyance remans n possesson
of the sub|ect and, the acton for reconveyance becomes n effect an acton to quet tte to
property, whch s not sub|ect to prescrpton.
The Court reterated such rue n the case of 3da. de Cabrera v. Court of
(ppeals, wheren the Court rued that the mprescrptbty of an acton for reconveyance
based on mped or constructve trust appes ony when the pantff or the person enforcng
the trust s not n possesson of the property. In effect, the acton for reconveyance s an
acton to quet the property tte, whch does not prescrbe.
In the case of -andoval v. Court of (ppeals, the Court defned an nnocent purchaser
for vaue as one who buys property of another, wthout notce that some other person has a
rght to, or nterest n, such property and pays a fu and far prce for the same, at the tme
of such purchase, or before he has notce of the cam or nterest of some other persons n
the property. He s one who buys the property wth the beef that the person from whom he
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
155
receves the thng was the owner and coud convey tte to the property. A purchaser can
not cose hs eyes to facts whch shoud put a reasonabe man on hs guard and st cam
that he acted n good fath.
And whe t s setted that every person deang wth a property regstered under
the Torrens tte need not nqure further but ony has to rey on the tte, ths rue has an
excepton. The excepton s when the party has actua knowedge of facts and crcumstances
that woud mpe a reasonaby cautous man to make such nqury or when the purchaser has
some knowedge of a defect or the ack of tte n hs vendor or of suffcent facts to nduce a
reasonaby prudent man to nqure nto the status of the tte of the property n
tgaton. The presence of anythng whch exctes or arouses suspcon shoud then prompt
the vendee to ook beyond the certfcate and nvestgate the tte of the vendor appearng
on the face of sad certfcate. One who fas wthn the excepton can nether be
denomnated an nnocent purchaser for vaue nor a purchaser n good fath and hence does
not mert the protecton of the aw.
In ths case, when the sub|ect propertes were sod to Torre and subsequenty to
Dorona, |ose was not n possesson of the sad propertes. Such fact shoud have put the
vendees on guard and shoud have nqured on the nterest of the |ose regardng the sub|ect
propertes. But regardess of such defect on transfer to thrd persons, the propertes agan
reverted back to |ose. |ose cannot cam ack of knowedge of the defects surroundng the
canceaton of the OCTs over the propertes and beneft from hs frauduent actons. The
subsequent sae of the propertes to Torre and Dorona w not cure the nuty of the
certfcates of tte obtaned by |ose on the bass of the fase and frauduent Affdavt of
Ad|udcaton.
CIT7 GO"ERNMENT OF T)G)EGARAO v.
RANDOL/- S. TING
G.R. No1. 192<?8, 192<?9, 1< Se@2e&ber 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION, #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
( private complainant in a criminal case before the -andiganbayan is allowed to
appeal only the civil aspect of the criminal case after its dismissal by the said court.
Pettoner Robert P. Guzman aeged an anomaous purchase of three (3) parces of
and as t was done despte the ack of a pro|ect study on the sutabty of the propertes for
ther ntended purpose, an Envronment Compance Certfcate from the Department of
Envronment and Natura Resources and nta cearance from the Department of Heath as
requred by the Santaton Code. Guzman aso argued that the transacton was grossy
dsadvantageous on the part of the Cty Government of Tuguegarao as the area s food
prone and that the purchase was made despte the prces beng way above ther far market
vaue.
Respondent Randoph S. Tng expaned that the transacton was duy sanctoned by
the -angguninang ,anglungsod of Tuguegarao Cty, that the terms were above-board and
that t dd not voate R.A. No. 3019. Tng aso expaned that ots were ntay sod for P
700.00 per square meter and after a commttee studed the ots, t recommended that the
cty government negotate t for the prce of P351.64 per square meter. The prce found by
the Cty Apprasa Commttee runs counter to that of the Cuervo Report whch pegged the
prce at P160 per square meter. The prce arrved at by the Cty Apprasa Commttee was
based on deeds of sae and sworn statements of ot owners. As for the ranfa, Tng
expaned that foodng occurs ony when there s an unusuay arge amount of ranfa
The Ombudsman had aready approved the recommendaton of Graft Investgaton &
Prosecuton Offcer I Abert S. Amo|uea to ndct Tng for voaton of Secton 3(g) of R.A.No.
3019. It aso noted that Tng faed to attach copes of the deeds of sae and sworn
statements used as the bass for the prces. Pror to Tngs arragnment, he fed a Moton for
Renvestgaton aegng that the Ombudsman commtted a serous rreguarty when t faed
to consder that n the acquston of the sub|ect propertes for the pubc cemetery
expanson pro|ect, the Cty Apprasa Commttee thoroughy studed the purchase and
adopted the average amount of P351.54 per square meter. Aso, Tng argued that the Cty
Apprasa Commttee shoud have been subpoenaed to produce the deeds of sae and sworn
statements. Tng noted that the Ombudsman based ts fndngs many on the Cuervo Report
whch contaned errors and naccuraces. Tng emphaszed that Guzman s engaged n the
cemetery busness beng the Presdent of Tuguegarao Memora, Inc. ocated near the
sub|ect propertes as we as the od and "overoaded" pubc cemetery. He contended that
the expanson and deveopment of the pubc cemetery woud mean competton for Guzman
and that the bura ots were sod at a hgher prce.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
157
Tngs Moton for Renvestgaton was treated as a Moton for Reconsderaton wth the
Speca Prosecutors comment. The Ombudsman concuded that the exstence of the
eement of a contract that s grossy dsadvantageous to the government has become
doubtfu snce the buyng prce fas wthn the prevang far market vaue of other
propertes wthn the area. It aso noted that there was no evdence of a better offer receved
by Tuguegarao Cty. Aso, the DENR certfed the sutabty of the ots for use as a pubc
cemetery.
Guzman countered sayng that there s no pont of comparson between the seng
prces of a fuy deveoped memora park and an underdeveoped food prone and. Guzman
aso argued that the DENR certfcate found the area to be food prone and requred
backfng. Guzman contended that the prces dd not refect the cost of backfng and that
there was non-compance wth the pubc hearng requrement for affect resdents. The
Sandganbayan dsmssed the case aganst Tng. Tng assaed Guzmans ega standng to
represent Tuguegarao Cty as he s not the proper party and that he does not have the locus
standi to brng a dervatve sut representng Tuguegarao Cty as a pubc corporaton.
ISS)E*
Whether or not Guzman has the ega personaty to chaenge before the Supreme
Court the dsmssa by the Sandganbayan of the crmna cases aganst Tng
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
It s setted that the Offce of the Ombudsman has the soe power to nvestgate and
prosecute on ts own or on compant by any person, any act or omsson of any pubc offcer
or empoyee, offce or agency, when such act or omsson appears to be ega, un|ust,
mproper or neffcent. The power to wthdraw the Informaton aready fed s a mere
ad|unct or consequence of the Ombudsmans overa power to prosecute.
However, whe t s the Ombudsman who has the fu dscreton to determne whether
or not a crmna case shoud be fed n the Sandganbayan, once the case has been fed
wth sad court, t s the Sandganbayan, and no onger the Ombudsman, whch has fu
contro of the case so much so that the Informaton may not be dsmssed wthout the
approva of sad court. Further, t does not matter whether such fng of a moton to dsmss
by the prosecuton s done before or after the arragnment of the accused or that the moton
was fed after a renvestgaton.

In ths case, the Sandganbayan, ordered the Speca Prosecutor to conduct a
renvestgaton and subsequenty granted hs moton to wthdraw the nformatons, after
fndng no probabe cause aganst the atter on renvestgaton. The Sandganbayan thus
gave ts approva to the wthdrawa of the nformatons and ordered the dsmssa of the
cases. Snce no appea was taken by the Speca Prosecutor from the order of dsmssa
wthn the regementary perod, the same had become fna and executory pursuant to
Secton 7, paragraph 2 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249.
The Court hods that Guzman s not the proper party to fe the present acton. Secton
4 (c) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, ceary provdes that "In a cases eevated to the
Sandganbayan and from the Sandganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Offce of the
Ombudsman, through ts speca prosecutor, sha represent the Peope of the Phppnes,
except n cases fed pursuant to Executve Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, ssued n 1986."
A prvate companant n a crmna case before the Sandganbayan s aowed to
appea ony the cv aspect of the crmna case after ts dsmssa by sad court. Whe
Guzman was ncuded n the capton of the cases as prvate companant durng the
premnary nvestgaton and re-nvestgaton proceedngs n the Offce of the Ombudsman,
he s not the offended party or prvate companant n the man case. As evdent from a
readng of the nformatons, t s the Cty of Tuguegarao whch suffered damage as a
consequence of the sub|ect purchase of ands by the respondent and hence s the prvate
companant n the man case.
ENGR. 'OSE E. CA7ANAN v.
NORT- STAR INTERNATIONAL TRA"EL INC.
G.R. No. 1;298<, 8 O52ober 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION, #"$%%ara&a, J.(
Upon the issuance of a check it is presumed that it was issued for a valuable
consideration. +f a person alleges that there was no consideration for the issuance of a
check, it devolves upon him to present convincing evidence to overthrow the presumption
and prove that the checks were in fact issued without valuable consideration.
Respondent North Star Internatona Trave Incorporated (North Star) s a trave
agency corporaton whe pettoner Engr. |ose E. Cayanan s the owner/genera manager of
|EAC Internatona Management and Contractor Servces, a recrutment agency. Vrgna
Baagtas, Genera Manager of North Star, sent US$ 60,000 to Vew Seas Ventures, Ltd. n
Ngera from her persona bank account n Ctbank Makat. Ths was done n accommodaton
and upon Engr. Cayanans nstructon beng North Stars cent. Baagtas agan sent
US$40,000 to Vew Sea Ventures through teegraphc transfer, wth US$15,000 from Engr.
Cayanan. North Star extended credt to Engr. Cayanan for the arpane tckets of hs cents
wth tota amount of P510,035.47.
Engr. Cayanan ssued checks n the amount of P1,500,000 and P35,000. But when t
was presented for payment, the checks were dshonoured for nsuffcency of funds whe the
other three checks were dshonored because of a stop payment order from Engr. Cayanan.
North Star, through ts counse, wrote Engr. Cayanan nformng hm that the checks he
ssued had been dshonored. North Star demanded payment, but Engr. Cayanan faed to
sette hs obgatons.
The Metropotan Tra Court found Engr. Cayanan guty of voatng Batas Pambansa
22. However, the Regona Tra Court reversed the rung acquttng Engr. Cayanan of
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
159
crmna charges and seeng no bass for cv abty. Upon eevaton the Court of Appeas,
the rung that Engr. Cayanan s cvy abe to North Star.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the Court of Appeas erred n hodng Engr. Cayanan cvy abe to
North Star for the vaue of the checks
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
The Court has hed that upon ssuance of a check, n the absence of evdence to the
contrary, t s presumed that the same was ssued for vauabe consderaton whch may
consst ether n some rght, nterest, proft or beneft accrung to the party who makes the
contract, or some forbearance, detrment, oss or some responsbty, to act, or abor, or
servce gven, suffered or undertaken by the other sde. Under the Negotabe Instruments
Law, t s presumed that every party to an nstrument acqures the same for a consderaton
or for vaue. As Engr. Cayanan aeged that there was no consderaton for the ssuance of
the sub|ect checks, t devoved upon hm to present convncng evdence to overthrow the
presumpton and prove that the checks were n fact ssued wthout vauabe consderaton.
Sady, however, Engr. Cayanan has not presented any credbe evdence to rebut the
presumpton, as we as North Stars asserton, that the checks were ssued as payment for
the US$85,000 he owed.
Notaby, Engr. Cayanan anchors hs defense of ack of consderaton on the fact that
he dd not personay receve the US$85,000 from Baagtas. However, the Court notes that
n hs peadngs, Engr. Cayanan never dened havng nstructed Baagtas to remt the
US$85,000 to Vew Sea Ventures. Evdenty, Baagtas sent the money upon the agreement
that Engr. Cayanan w gve to North Star the peso equvaent of the amount remtted pus
nterest. As testfed to by Baagtas, Check 4o. 5@7?55 dated May 15, 1994 n the amount
of P695,000.00 s equvaent to US$25,000; Check 4o. 5@7?52 dated May 15, 1994 n the
amount of P278,000 s equvaent to US$10,000; Check 4o. 5@7?5@n the amount of P22,703
represents the one month nterest for P695,000 and P278,000 at the rate of twenty-eght
(28%) percent per annum; Check 4o. 7?9?>2dated Apr 14, 1994 n the amount
of P1,500,000 s equvaent to US$50,000 and Check 4o. 7?9?>@ dated 14 Apr 1994 n the
amount of P35,000 represents the one month nterest for P1,500,000 at the rate of twenty-
eght (28%) percent per annum. Engr. Cayanan has not substantay refuted these
averments.
Concomtanty, Engr. Cayanans asserton that the doars sent to Ngera was for the
account of Baagtas and as her own nvestment wth Vew Sea Ventures deserves no
credence. Baagtas has not been shown to have any busness transactons wth Vew Sea
Ventures and from a ndcatons, she ony remtted the money upon the request and n
accordance wth pettoners nstructons. The evdence shows that t was Engr. Cayanan
who had a contract wth Vew Sea Ventures as he was sendng contract workers to Ngera;
Baagtass partcpaton was merey to send the money through teegraphc transfer n
exchange for the checks ssued by Engr. Cayanan to North Star. Indeed, the transacton
between Engr. Cayanan and North Star s actuay n the nature of a oan and the checks
were ssued as payment of the prncpa and the nterest.
Engr. Cayanan cams that North Star dd not gve any vauabe consderaton for the
checks snce the US$85,000 was taken from the persona doar account of Baagtas and not
the corporate funds of North Star. The contenton, however, deserves scant
consderaton. The sub|ect checks, bearng Engr. Cayanans sgnature, speak for
themseves. The fact that Engr. Cayanan hmsef specfcay named North Star as the payee
of the checks s an admsson of hs abty to North Star and not to Baagtas, who as
manager merey factated the transfer of funds. Indeed, t s hghy nconcevabe that an
experenced busnessman ke Engr. Cayanan woud ssue varous checks n szeabe
amounts to a payee f these are wthout consderaton. Moreover, the Court notes
that Baagtas averred n her Affdavt that North Star caused the payment of the US$60,000
and US$25,000 to Vew Sea Ventures to accommodate Engr. Cayanan, whch statement he
faed to refute. In addton, Engr. Cayanan dd not queston the Statement of Account No.
8639 dated August 31, 1994 ssued by North Star whch contaned temzed amounts
ncudng the US$60,000 and US$25,000 sent through teegraphc transfer to Vew Sea
Ventures per hs nstructon. Thus, the nevtabe concuson s that when Engr. Cayanan
ssued the sub|ect checks to North Star as payee, he dd so to sette hs obgaton wth North
Star for the US$85,000. And snce the ony payment Engr. Cayanan made to North Star was
n the amount of P220,000.00, whch was apped to nterest due, hs abty s not
extngushed. Havng faed to fuy sette hs obgaton under the checks, the appeate
court was correct n hodng Engr. Cayanan abe to pay the vaue of the fve checks he
ssued n favor of North Star.
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES v.
CONRADO LAOG 7 RAMIN
G.R. No. 1;8?21, 8 O52ober 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
+n the special comple# crime of rape with homicide, it is immaterial that the one killed
is someone other than the woman victim of rape. (nd in this crime, the term homicideE is to
be understood in its generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical in&uries
committed by reason or on occasion of the rape. <ence, any aggravating circumstances
would not $ualify it as murder.
Accordng to the testmony of AAA, respondent Conrado Ramn wayad her and her
frend |ennfer as they were wakng aong rce paddes. AAA sad that Ramn struck her head
wth a ead ppe that she began to fee dzzy and fe down. |ennfer, seeng what happened,
cred out for hep but Ramn struck her wth a ead ppe and stabbed her repeatedy wth an
ce pck. Afterwards, Ramn covered |ennfers body wth grass. Ramn then ht AAAs head
wth a ead ppe a few more tmes and stabbed her face wth an ce pck. Ramn proceeded
to rape AAA and after he was done, covered her body wth grass. It was at ths pont that
AAA passed out.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
161
When she reganed conscousness, she crawed her way to her grandfathers farm.
BBB, her grandfather saw a woman wavng and then fa down but dd not mnd t at frst.
When the woman was nearer to hm, he recognzed her as AAA hs granddaughter wth a
swoen face, dsheveed har and wet cothes. AAA uttered "-i 'ata ConiE referrng to hs
son-n-aw. BBB mmedatey brought AAA to Carpa Hospta.
CCC, AAA and |ennfers neghbour, vsted AAA n the hospta and asked where
|ennfer was. AAA tod her to ook for |ennfer at Buenavsta. Wth the hep of baranggay
offcas, CCC found |ennfers body aready n a state of decomposton.
Ramn, on the other hand, argued that he was wth hs chdren and nephew cookng
dnner. He was arrested at around seven o cock because hs wfe reported hm to the poce
when he struck a man wth a ead ppe. Ramn camed that he was ncarcerated when he
earned that he was charged wth rape and murder. Aso, n Ramns defense, hs nephew
testfed that he had seen |ennfer and AAA at Ramns house but they eft and that AAA and
Ramn had an ct affar.
Ramn was charged separatey of the crmes of murder and rape. The Regona Tra
Court found hm guty beyond reasonabe doubt of both crmes. When Ramn tred to
eevate the case before the Supreme Court, he was referred to the Court of Appeas for
approprate acton and dsposton. The CA affrmed the RTCs rung wth modfcaton.

ISS)E*
1) Whether or not the Supreme Court may pass upon the credbty of the wtnesses
2) Whether or not Ramn s guty of rape wth homcde
3) Whether or not abuse of superor strength attended the crme
-ELD*
Petton DISMISSED.
8' 0n particular- the Court defers to the trial court/s firsthand o!servations on
AAA/s deportment "hile testif$in# and its verita!le assessment of her
credi!ilit$.
Ramn prncpay attacks the credbty of prosecuton wtness AAA. |ursprudence has
decreed that the ssue of credbty of wtnesses s "a queston best addressed to the
provnce of the tra court because of ts unque poston of havng observed that eusve and
ncommuncabe evdence of the wtnesses deportment on the stand whe testfyng whch
opportunty s dened to the appeate courts" and "absent any substanta reason whch
woud |ustfy the reversa of the tra courts assessments and concusons, the revewng
court s generay bound by the formers fndngs, partcuary when no sgnfcant facts and
crcumstances are shown to have been overooked or dsregarded whch when consdered
woud have affected the outcome of the case. Ths rue s even more strngenty apped f
the appeate court concurred wth the tra court.
In vew of the credbe testmony of AAA, Ramns defenses of dena and ab deserve
no consderaton. The Court stresses that these weak defenses cannot stand aganst the
postve dentfcaton and categorca testmony of a rape vctm.
It must be underscored that the foremost consderaton n the prosecuton of rape s
the vctms testmony and not the fndngs of the medco-ega offcer. In fact, a medca
examnaton of the vctm s not ndspensabe n a prosecuton for rape; the vctms
testmony aone, f credbe, s suffcent to convct. Thus the Court has rued that a medca
examnaton of the vctm, as we as the medca certfcate, s merey corroboratve n
character and s not an ndspensabe eement for convcton n rape. What s mportant s
that the testmony of prvate companant about the ncdent s cear, unequvoca and
credbe, as what the Court fnds n ths case.
A' he facts esta!lished sho"ed that the constitutive elements of rape "ith
homicide "ere consummated- and it is immaterial that the person 2illed in
this case is someone other than the "oman victim of the rape.
A speca compex crme, or more propery, a composte crme, has ts own defnton and
speca penaty n the Revsed Pena Code, as amended. |ustce Regaado, n hs Separate Opnon
n the case of ,eople v. )arros, expaned that composte crmes are "nether of the same ega
bass as nor sub|ect to the rues on compex crmes n Artce 48 |of the Revsed Pena Code|,
snce they do not consst of a snge act gvng rse to two or more grave or ess grave feones
|compound crmes| nor do they nvove an offense beng a necessary means to commt
another |compex crme proper|. However, |ust ke the reguar compex crmes and the
present case of aggravated ega possesson of frearms, ony a snge penaty s mposed for
each of such composte crmes athough composed of two or more offenses."
Consderng that the prosecuton n ths case was abe to prove both the rape of AAA
and the kng of |ennfer both perpetrated by appeant, he s abe for rape wth homcde
under the above provson. There s no doubt that Ramn ked |ennfer to prevent her from
adng AAA or cang for hep once she s abe to run away, and aso to sence her
competey so she may not wtness the rape of AAA, the orgna ntent of appeant. Ramns
carna desre havng been satated, he purposey covered AAAs body wth grass, as he dd
earer wth |ennfers body, so that t may not be easy notced or seen by passersby. Ramn
ndeed thought that the savage bows he had nfcted on AAA were enough to cause her
death as wth |ennfer. But AAA survved and Ramns barbarc deeds were soon enough
dscovered.
The facts estabshed showed that the consttutve eements of rape wth homcde
were consummated, and t s mmatera that the person ked n ths case s someone other
than the woman vctm of the rape. An anaogy may be drawn from our rungs n cases of
robbery wth homcde, where the component acts of homcde, physca n|ures and other
offenses have been commtted by reason or on the occason of robbery.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
163
In the speca compex crme of rape wth homcde, the term "homcde" s to be
understood n ts generc sense, and ncudes murder and sght physca n|ures commtted
by reason or on occason of the rape. Hence, even f any or a of the crcumstances
(treachery, abuse of superor strength and evdent premedtaton) aeged n the nformaton
have been duy estabshed by the prosecuton, the same woud not quafy the kng to
murder and the crme commtted by Ramn s st rape wth homcde. As n the case of
robbery wth homcde, the aggravatng crcumstance of treachery s to be consdered as a
generc aggravatng crcumstance ony.
5' A!use of superior stren#th in this case therefore is merel$ a #eneric
a##ravatin# circumstance to !e considered in the imposition of the penalt$.
The aggravatng crcumstance of abuse of superor strength s consdered whenever
there s notorous nequaty of forces between the vctm and the aggressor that s pany
and obvousy advantageous to the aggressor and purposey seected or taken advantage of
to factate the commsson of the crme. It s taken nto account whenever the aggressor
purposey used excessve force that s out of proporton to the means of defense avaabe to
the person attacked.
In ths case, as personay wtnessed by AAA, Ramn struck |ennfer n the head wth a
ead ppe then stabbed her repeatedy unt she was dead. Ceary, the manner by whch
Ramn had brutay san |ennfer wth a etha weapon, by frst httng her n the head wth a
ead ppe to render her defenseess and vunerabe before stabbng her repeatedy,
unmstakaby showed that Ramn ntentonay used excessve force out of proporton to the
means of defense avaabe to hs unarmed vctm
Abuse of superor strength n ths case therefore s merey a generc aggravatng
crcumstance to be consdered n the mposton of the penaty. The penaty provded n
Artce 266-B of the Revsed Pena Code, as amended, s death. However, n vew of the
passage on |une 24, 2006 of R.A. No. 9346, entted "An Act Prohbtng the Imposton of the
Death Penaty n the Phppnes" the Court s mandated to mpose on the appeant the
penaty of reclusion perpetua wthout egbty for paroe.
S/O)SES E)LOGIA MANILA AND RAMON MANILA v.
S/O)SES EDERLINDA GALLARDO,MAN>O AND DANIEL MAN>O
G.R. No. 19?9!2, ; Se@2e&ber 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION, #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he ground for annulment of the decision is absence of, or no, &urisdiction. 'he court
should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with
&urisdiction over the sub&ect matter. While the court in an e&ectment case may delve on the
issue of ownership or possession de &ure solely for the purpose of resolving the issue of
possession de facto, it has no &urisdiction to settle with finality the issue of ownership and
any pronouncement made by it on the $uestion of ownership is provisional in nature
Respondent Spouses Edernda Gaardo-Manzo and Dane Manzo eased two parces
of and aong Rea St., Manuyo, Las Pas, Metro Mana to Euoga Mana for a perod of ten
years aong wth the agreement that the essee sha the opton to buy the property wthn 2
years. Despte the expraton of the contract of ease and a forma demand to vacate, essee
contnued to stay at the sad property camng that no renta fee was due because she had
aready communcated to the owner her desre to exercse the opton to buy the property.
The partes took the case to the Metropotan Tra Court where t rued n favour of
Spouses Manzo. But as t was eevated to the Regona Tra Court, t reversed the rung of
the MeTC fndng that Spouses Mana had exercsed ther opton to pay but Spouses Manzo
refused to honor t. It noted that Spouses Manzo even nformed Spouses Mana about
forecosure proceedngs on ther property, whereupon Spouses Mana tred to ntervene by
tenderng renta payments but Spouses Manzo advsed them to wthhod such payments unt
ther appea n the case they fed aganst the Rura Bank of Bombon (Camarnes Sur), Inc. s
resoved. It further noted that Spouses Manzos ntenton to se the ot to Spouses Mana s
confrmed by the fact that the former aowed the atter to construct a budng of strong
materas on the premses. The RTC dened Spouses Manzos moton for reconsderaton.
Spouses Manzo fed a petton for annument of the RTC decson before the CA.
Spouses Manzo assaed the RTC for orderng them to se ther property to Spouses Mana
argung that RTCs appeate |ursdcton n e|ectment cases s mted to the determnaton of
who s entted to the physca possesson of rea property and the ony |udgment t can
render n favor of the defendant s to recover hs costs, whch |udgment s concusve ony on
the ssue of possesson and does not affect the ownershp of the and. Spouses Manzo
contended that the sae of rea property by one party to another may be ordered by the RTC
ony n a case for specfc performance fang under ts orgna excusve |ursdcton, not n
the exercse of ts appeate |ursdcton n an e|ectment case. Spouses Manzo aso aeged
that the petton for annument s the ony remedy avaabe to them because the ordnary
remedes of new tra, appea, petton for reef or other approprate remedes are no onger
avaabe through no faut on ther part. The CA granted Spouses Manzos petton whe
denyng Spouses Manas moton for reconsderaton.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the Court of Appeas erred n annung the RTC decson on the ground
of ack of |ursdcton
-ELD*
Petton DISMISSED.
A petton for annument of |udgments or fna orders of a Regona Tra Court n cv
actons can ony be avaed of where "the ordnary remedes of new tra, appea, petton for
reef or other approprate remedes are no onger avaabe through no faut of the
pettoner." It s a remedy granted ony under exceptona crcumstances and such acton s
never resorted to as a substtute for a partys own negect n not prompty avang of the
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
165
ordnary or other approprate remedes. The ony grounds provded n Sec. 2, Rue 47 are
extrnsc fraud and ack of |ursdcton.
Lack of |ursdcton as a ground for annument of |udgment refers to ether ack of
|ursdcton over the person of the defendng party or over the sub|ect matter of the cam. In
a petton for annument of |udgment based on ack of |ursdcton, pettoner must show not
merey an abuse of |ursdctona dscreton but an absoute %a5I of |ursdcton. Lack of
|ursdcton means absence of or no |ursdcton, that s, the court shoud not have taken
cognzance of the petton because the aw does not vest t wth |ursdcton over the sub|ect
matter. |ursdcton over the nature of the acton or sub|ect matter s conferred by aw.
There s no dspute that the RTC s vested wth appeate |ursdcton over e|ectment
cases decded by the MeTC, MTC or MCTC. We note that pettoners attack on the vadty of
the RTC decson pertans to a reef erroneousy granted on appea, and beyond the scope of
|udgment provded n Secton 6 (now Secton 17) of Rue 70. Whe the court n an e|ectment
case may deve on the ssue of ownershp or possesson de &ure soey for the purpose of
resovng the ssue of possesson de facto, t has no |ursdcton to sette wth fnaty the
ssue of ownershp and any pronouncement made by t on the queston of ownershp s
provsona n nature. A |udgment n a forcbe entry or detaner case dsposes of no other
ssue than possesson and estabshes ony who has the rght of possesson, but by no means
consttutes a bar to an acton for determnaton of who has the rght or tte of ownershp. We
have hed that athough t was proper for the RTC, on appea n the e|ectment sut, to deve
on the ssue of ownershp and receve evdence on possesson de &ure, t cannot ad|udcate
wth sembance of fnaty the ownershp of the property to ether party by orderng the
canceaton of the TCT.
In ths case, the RTC acted n excess of ts |ursdcton n decdng the appea of
respondents when, nstead of smpy dsmssng the compant and awardng any
countercam for costs due to the defendants (pettoners), t ordered the respondents-
essors to execute a deed of absoute sae n favor of the pettoners-essees, on the bass of
ts own nterpretaton of the Contract of Lease whch granted pettoners the opton to buy
the eased premses wthn a certan perod (two years from date of executon) and for a
fxed prce (P150,000.00). Ths cannot be done n an e|ectment case where the ony ssue
for resouton s who between the partes s entted to the physca possesson of the
property.
Such erroneous grant of reef to the Spouses Manzo on appea, however, s but an
exercse of |ursdcton by the RTC. |ursdcton s not the same as the exercse of
|ursdcton. As dstngushed from the exercse of |ursdcton, |ursdcton s the authorty to
decde a cause, and not the decson rendered theren. The ground for annument of the
decson s absence of, or no, |ursdcton; that s, the court shoud not have taken cognzance
of the petton because the aw does not vest t wth |ursdcton over the sub|ect matter.
TOMAS /. TAN, 'R. v. ATT7. -AIDE ". G)MBA
A.C. No. 9!!!, 8 O52ober 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, J.(
( lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or
private capacity. 'he test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court.
Respondent Atty. Hade V. Gumba borrowed from Tomas P. Tan, |r., a sef-made
busnessman, a sum of money. Gumba assured hm that she woud pay the prncpa pus
nterest after one year. She kewse offered by way of securty a parce of and and assured
Tan that she was authorzed to se or encumber the entre property by presentng a Speca
Power of Attorney (SPA) to that effect. Thus Tan agreed to end money to Gumba wth the
beef that f Gumba faed to pay the fu amount of oan wth nterest on due date, the deed
of sae may be regstered. However, Gumba defauted on her oan obgaton and faed to
pay despte repeated demands. Thus, Tan went to the Regster of Deeds to regster the sae,
but he found out that he was deceved because the SPA dd not gve Gumba the power to
se the property but ony empowered Gumba to mortgage the property soey to banks.
Tan fed a compant aganst Gumba for fraud and decet or for conduct unbecomng
of a awyer. The Integrated Bar of the Phppnes (IBP) found Gumba guty of voatng the
Code of Professona Responsbty and was sentenced to suspenson from the practce of
aw for one year.
ISS)E*
Whether or not Gumba s admnstratvey abe for grave msconduct
-ELD*
Decson of the IBP s AFFIRMED wth MODIFICATION.
We entrenched n ths |ursdcton s the rue that a awyer may be dscpned for
msconduct commtted ether n hs professona or prvate capacty. The test s whether hs
conduct shows hm to be wantng n mora character, honesty, probty, and good demeanor,
or whether t renders hm unworthy to contnue as an offcer of the court. Very, Canon 7 of
the Code of Professona Responsbty mandates a awyers to uphod at a tmes the
dgnty and ntegrty of the ega professon. Lawyers are smary requred, under Rue 1.01,
Canon 1 of the same Code, not to engage n any unawfu, dshonest and mmora or
decetfu conduct.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
167
Here, Gumbas actons ceary show that she deceved Tan nto endng money to her
through the use of documents and fase representatons and takng advantage of her
educaton and Tans gnorance n ega matters. As manfested by Tan, he woud have never
granted the oan to Gumba were t not for Gumbas msrepresentaton that she was
authorzed to se the property and f Gumba had not ed hm to beeve that he coud
regster the "open" deed of sae f she fas to pay the oan. By her msdeed, Gumba has
eroded not ony Tans percepton of the ega professon but the pubcs percepton as we.
Her actons consttute gross msconduct for whch she may be dscpned, foowng Secton
27, Rue 138 of the Revsed Rues of Court.
'-ORI>ALD7 )7 v. CENTRO CERAMICA COR/ORATION, et al.
G.R. No. 1;<9?1, 19 O52ober 2!11, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, J.(
*esignation is the voluntary act of employees who are compelled by personal reasons
to disassociate themselves from their employment. +t must be done with the intention of
relin$uishing an office, accompanied by the act of abandonment. 'he immediate filing of an
employee for a complaint for illegal dismissal is incompatible with the allegation that the
same voluntarily resigned from work.
Pettoner |horzady Uy was hred by respondent Centro Ceramca Corporaton (Centro
Ceramca) as fu-tme saes executve. Uys predcament began when respondent Magros
Garca was rehred by Centro Ceramca as ts vce-presdent. Ceratn ncdents nvovng
ongtme cents ed to a straned workng reatonshp between Uy and Garca. Subsequenty,
Uy was nformed by hs superor that Uy was was to assume a new poston n the marketng
department, to whch he reped that he w thnk t over. That same day, Uy was summoned
by respondents Ramonta Sy, the Presdent, and Garca for a cosed-door meetng durng
whch Sy nformed Uy of the termnaton of hs servces due to "nsubordnaton." In another
meetng, Uy asked Sy for hs termnaton paper, but the atter dd not gve any. Uy turned
over the company fes to Centro Ceramca. Thereafter, Uy dd not report to work anymore.
But one day, an empoyee of Centro Ceramca presented to Uy a memorandum statng that
he faed to meet the quota for saes executve. Another memorandum was receved by Uy
from Centro Ceramca statng that Uy faed to report for work wthout eave n voaton of
the company rues. Thereafter, Uy wrote a etter n response to the memoranda. Uy aso fed
a compant for ega dsmssa.
The Labor Arbter (LA) dsmssed Uys compant. However, the Natona Labor
Reatons Commsson (NLRC) reversed and set asde the decson of the LA. Subsequenty,
the Court of Appeas (CA) n turn reversed the NLRC and dsmssed the compant. Centro
Ceramca, et al. contends that Uy vountary resgned from hs work.
ISS)E*
Whether or not Uy was egay dsmssed
-ELD*
Petton s GRANTED.
Contrary to Centro Ceramca, et al.s theory that Uys act of turnng over the company
fes and sampes s proof of hs vountary nforma resgnaton rather than of the summary
dsmssa effected by management, no other pausbe expanaton can be made of such
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
169
mmedate turn over except that Uy drecty confrmed from the company presdent hersef
that he was aready beng dsmssed. The subsequent memos sent to Uys resdence after
he dd not anymore report for work ony renforce the concuson that the beated wrtten
notce of the charge aganst hm - hs aeged faure to meet the prescrbed saes quota -
was an afterthought on the part of Centro Ceramca, et al. who may have reazed that they
faed to observe due process n termnatng hm. That Centro Ceramca, et al. woud st
requre a wrtten expanaton for Uys poor saes performance after the atter aready
comped wth Sys drectve to turn over a hs accountabtes s smpy nconsstent wth
ther cam that Uy offered to resgn and vountary renqushed possesson of company fes
and sampes when tod of hs mpendng transfer. In other words, Uy was not gven any
opportunty to defend hmsef from whatever charges hured by management aganst hm,
such as poor saes performance as reayed to hm by hs supervsor, when Sy
unceremonousy termnated hm whch must have shocked hm consderng that hs
supervsor earer advsed that he woud |ust be transferred to another department. Under
ths scenaro, Uys decson not to report for work anymore was perfecty understandabe, as
the sensbe reacton of an empoyee fred by no ess than the company presdent. It was
ndeed a cassc case of dsmssa wthout |ust cause and due process, whch s proscrbed
under our abor aws.
Resgnaton s defned as "the vountary act of empoyees who are compeed by
persona reasons to dsassocate themseves from ther empoyment. It must be done wth
the ntenton of renqushng an offce, accompaned by the act of abandonment." In ths
case, the evdence on record suggests that Uy dd not resgn; he was oray dsmssed by Sy.
It s ths ack of cear, vad and ega cause, not to menton due process,that made hs
dsmssa ega, warrantng renstatement and the award of backwages. Moreover, the fng
of a compant for ega dsmssa |ust three weeks ater s dffcut to reconce wth
vountary resgnaton. Had Uy ntended to vountary renqush hs empoyment after beng
unceremonousy dsmssed by no ess than the company presdent, he woud not have
sought redress from the NLRC and vgorousy pursued ths case aganst the Centro
Ceramca, et al.
When there s no showng of a cear, vad and ega cause for the termnaton of
empoyment, the aw consders t a case of ega dsmssa. Furthermore, Artce 4 of the
Labor Code expresses the basc prncpe that a doubts n the nterpretaton and
mpementaton of the Labor Code shoud be nterpreted n favor of the workngman. Ths
prncpe has been extended by |ursprudence to cover doubts n the evdence presented by
the empoyer and the empoyee. Thus the Court have hed that f the evdence presented by
the empoyer and the empoyee are n equpose, the scaes of |ustce must be tted n favor
of the atter. Accordngy, the NLRCs fndng of ega dsmssa must be uphed.
Resgnaton s defned as "the vountary act of empoyees who are compeed by persona
reasons to dsassocate themseves from ther empoyment. It must be done wth the
ntenton of renqushng an offce, accompaned by the act of abandonment."
/ACITA CAALIM,"ER>ONILLA v. ATT7. "ICTORIA G. /ASC)A
A.C. No. 9988, 11 O52ober 2!11, EN BANC #"$%%ara&a, J.(
While a notary publics duty is principally to ascertain the identity of the affiant and
the voluntariness of the declaration, it is nevertheless incumbent upon him to guard against
any illegal or immoral arrangement or at least refrain from being a party to its
consummation. 'he 5>>@ *ules on 4otarial ,ractice proscribes notaries public from
performing any notarial act for transactions that are unlawful or immoral. =urthermore, the
*ules re$uire that each instrument or document, e#ecuted, sworn to, or acknowledged
before the notary public shall be given a number corresponding to the one in his register.
-aid rule is not concerned with the validity or efficacy of the document or instrument
recorded but merely to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the entries in the notarial
register.
Respondent Atty. Vctora G. Pascua prepared and notarzed two deeds of Extra-
|udca Settement of the Estate of Deceased Lope Caam wth Sae. The frst deed was for
consderaton of two hundred ffty thousand pesos and appears to have been executed and
sgned by Lopes survvng spouse and her chdren n favor of spouses Madk and Shrey
Mpanga. The second deed was for a consderaton of one mon pesos and appears to have
been executed by and for the beneft of the same partes as the frst deed. The two deeds
have dentca regstraton numbers, page numbers and book numbers n the notara
porton.
Pascua averred that the true consderaton for the transacton s one mon as
aegedy agreed upon by the partes when they appeared before hm for the preparaton of
the frst document as we as the notarzaton thereof. But he acceded to the partes pea
that he prepare and notarze the second deed wth a ower consderaton n order to reduce
the correspondng tax abty. Companant Pacta Caam-Verzona fed a compant for
dsbarment for aegedy fasfyng a pubc document and evadng the payment of correct
taxes through the use of fasfed documents. Verzona aeged that the deeds are spurous
because the a the hers sgnature were fasfed.
The Integrated Bar of the Phppnes (IBP) found Pascua admnstratvey abe on the
account of hs ndspensabe partcpaton n an act desgned to defraud the government.
ISS)E*
Whether or not Pascua s admnstratvey abe for msconduct as a member of the
bar and as a notary pubc
-ELD*
Decson of the IBP s AFFIRMED.
Wth hs admsson that he drafted and notarzed another nstrument that dd not state
the true consderaton of the sae so as to reduce the capta gans and other taxes due on
the transacton, Pascua cannot escape abty for makng an untruthfu statement n a pubc
document for an unawfu purpose. As the second deed ndcated an amount much ower
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
171
than the actua prce pad for the property sod, Pascua abetted n deprvng the Government
of the rght to coect the correct taxes due. Hs act ceary voated Rue 1.02, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professona Responsbty whch provdes that a awyer sha uphod the aws of
the and and promote respect for aw and ega processes.
Not ony dd Pascua assst the contractng partes n an actvty amed at defance of
the aw, he kewse dspayed ack of respect for and made a mockery of the soemnty of
the oath n an Acknowedgment. By notarzng such ega and frauduent document, he s
enttng t fu fath and credt upon ts face, whch t obvousy does not deserve consderng
ts nature and purpose.
Moreover, whe Pascua's duty as a notary pubc s prncpay to ascertan the dentty
of the affant and the vountarness of the decaraton, t s nevertheess ncumbent upon hm
to guard aganst any ega or mmora arrangement or at east refran from beng a party to
ts consummaton. Rue IV, Secton 4 of the 2004 Rues on Notara Practce n fact proscrbes
notares pubc from performng any notara act for transactons that are unawfu or
mmora.
In ths case, Pascua proceeded to notarze the second deed despte knowedge of ts
ega purpose. Hs purported desre to accommodate the request of hs cent w not
absove Pacua who, as a member of the ega professon, shoud have stood hs ground and
not yeded to the mportunngs of hs cents. Pascua shoud have been more prudent and
remaned steadfast n hs soemn oath not to commt fasehood nor consent to the dong of
any. As a awyer, Pascua s expected at a tmes to uphod the ntegrty and dgnty of the
ega professon and refran from any act or omsson whch mght essen the trust and
confdence reposed by the pubc n the ntegrty of the ega professon.
Pascua aso faed to compy wth Secton 2, Rue VI of the 2004 Rues on Notara
Practce when he gave the second document the same document number, page number and
book number as the frst. Even assumng that the second deed was reay ntended to refect
the true agreement of the partes and hence supersedng the frst deed they had executed,
Pascua remans abe under the afore-cted Secton 2(e) whch requres that each nstrument
or document, executed, sworn to, or acknowedged before the notary pubc sha be gven a
number correspondng to the one n hs regster. Sad rue s not concerned wth the vadty
or effcacy of the document or nstrument recorded but merey to ensure the accuracy and
ntegrty of the entres n the notara regster.
GEMMA /.CABALIT, et al. v. COMMISSION ON A)DIT,REGION "II
G.R. No. 18!2?9, 1; 'anuar, 2!12, EN BANC #"$%%ara&a, J.(
-tatutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions
pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.
In 2001, the Phppne Star News reported that empoyees of the LTO n |agna, Boho
are shortchangng the government by tamperng wth ther ncome reports. Thus, the
Commsson on Audt (COA) hed a fact-fndng nvestgaton where a tota of 106 recepts
were found to be tampered. Accordngy, the dfference between the amounts pad by the
vehce owners and the amounts appearng on the fes were then pocketed by the
perpetrators whe ony ower amounts were reported n the Report of Coectons. A tota of
P169, 642.50 was the unreported ncome. Thus, after a |ont evauaton report, a forma
charge for dshonesty was fed aganst LTO empoyees Leonardo G. Oavar, Gemma P.
Cabat, Fadefo S. Apt and Samue T. Aabat.
In 2004, the Offce of the Ombudsman-Vsayas rendered |udgment fndng Cabat, et
al. abe for dshonesty.
ISS)E*
Whether or not there was a voaton of the rght to due process when the hearng
offcer at the Offce of the Ombudsman-Vsayas adopted the procedure under A.O. No. 17
notwthstandng the fact that the sad amendatory order took effect after the hearngs had
started.
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
he Petitioners "ere not denied due process
Pettoners were not dened due process of aw when the nvestgatng awyer
proceeded to resove the case based on the affdavts and other evdence on record. Secton
5(b) (1), Rue 3, of the Rues of Procedure of the Offce of the Ombudsman, as amended by
A.O. No. 17, pany provdes that the hearng offcer may ssue an order drectng the partes
to fe, wthn ten days from recept of the order, ther respectve verfed poston papers on
the bass of whch, aong wth the attachments thereto, the hearng offcer may consder the
case submtted for decson. It s ony when the hearng offcer determnes that based on the
evdence, there s a need to conduct carfcatory hearngs or forma nvestgatons under
Secton 5(b)(2) and Secton 5(b)(3) that such further proceedngs w be conducted. But the
determnaton of the necessty for further proceedngs rests on the sound dscreton of the
hearng offcer. As the pettoners have uttery faed to show any cogent reason why the
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
173
hearng offcer's determnaton shoud be overturned, the determnaton w not be dsturbed
by ths Court. The Court kewse fnds no mert n ther contenton that the new procedures
under A.O. No. 17, whch took effect whe the case was aready undergong tra before the
hearng offcer, shoud not have been apped.
The rue n ths |ursdcton s that one does not have a vested rght n procedura rues.
In 'an, Cr. v. Court of (ppeals,

the Court hed that statutes reguatng the procedure of the
courts w be construed as appcabe to actons pendng and undetermned at the tme of
ther passage. Procedura aws are retroactve n that sense and to that extent. The fact that
procedura statutes may somehow affect the tgants' rghts may not precude ther
retroactve appcaton to pendng actons. The retroactve appcaton of procedura aws s
not voatve of any rght of a person who may fee that he s adversey affected. Nor s the
retroactve appcaton of procedura statutes consttutonay ob|ectonabe. The reason s
that as a genera rue no vested rght may attach to, nor arse from, procedura aws. I2 Aa1
been Ae%d 2Aa2 La @er1on Aa1 no 0e12ed r$EA2 $n an @ar2$5u%ar re&ed, and a
%$2$Ean2 5anno2 $n1$12 on 2Ae a@@%$5a2$on 2o 2Ae 2r$a% o3 A$1 5a1e, 6Ae2Aer 5$0$% or
5r$&$na%, o3 an o2Aer 2Aan 2Ae eF$12$nE ru%e1 o3 @ro5edure.
Whe the rue admts of certan exceptons, such as when the statute tsef expressy
or by necessary mpcaton provdes that pendng actons are excepted from ts operaton, or
where to appy t woud mpar vested rghts, pettoners faed to show that appcaton of
A.O. No. 17 to ther case woud cause n|ustce to them. Indeed, n ths case, the Offce of the
Ombudsman afforded pettoners every opportunty to defend themseves by aowng them
to submt counter-affdavts, poston papers, memoranda and other evdence n ther
defense. Snce pettoners have been afforded the rght to be heard and to defend
themseves, they cannot rghtfuy compan that they were dened due process of aw. We
to remember, due process, as a consttutona precept, does not aways and n a stuatons
requre a tra-type proceedng. It s satsfed when a person s notfed of the charge aganst
hm and gven an opportunty to expan or defend hmsef. In admnstratve proceedngs,
the fng of charges and gvng reasonabe opportunty for the person so charged to answer
the accusatons aganst hm consttute the mnmum requrements of due process. More
often, ths opportunty s conferred through wrtten peadngs that the partes submt to
present ther charges and defenses.

But as ong as a party s gven the opportunty to defend
hs or her nterests n due course, sad party s not dened due process.
>ACARIA A. CANDAO, et al. v. /EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES and SANDIGANBA7AN
G.R. No1. 189989,;1!, 1 Februar 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
When the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the court shall
apply the rules contained in the articles of the *evised ,enal Code preceding (rticle 7:,
dividing into three e$ual portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming
one period of each of the three portions.
In the Courts Decson dated October 19, 2011 Candao et al., was found guty beyond
reasonabe doubt of the crme of Maversaton of Pubc Funds under Artce 217, paragraph 4
of the Revsed Pena Code, as amended. They were sentenced to suffer an ndetermnate
prson term of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maxmum, as mnmum, to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medum, as maxmum. From
ths Decson, Candao et al. now moves for reconsderaton. The Court fnds no compeng
reason to warrant reversa of the sad decson. However, |ustce Lucas P. Bersamn moved to
correct the maxmum of the ndetermnate sentence, whch our decson erroneousy fxed at
17 years and 4 months of recuson tempora medum.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the maxmum penaty mposed by the Court was proper consderng
that the penaty prescrbed by aw for maversaton, when the amount exceeds P22,000, s
not composed of three perods
-ELD*
Moton for Reconsderaton DENIED.
xxx the suggeston of our esteemed coeague, |ustce Lucas P. Bersamn to correct the
maxmum of the ndetermnate sentence, whch our decson erroneousy fxed at 17 years
and 4 months of recuson tempora medum, s we-taken. |ustce Bersamn expaned the
matter as foows:
The penaty of mprsonment prescrbed for maversaton when the amount nvoved
exceeds P22,000.00 s recuson tempora n ts maxmum perod to recuson perpetua.
Such penaty s not composed of three perods. Pursuant to Artce 65 of the Revsed Pena
Code, when the penaty prescrbed by aw s not composed of three perods, the court sha
appy the rues contaned n the artces of the Revsed Pena Code precedng Artce 65,
dvdng nto three equa portons of tme ncuded n the penaty prescrbed, and formng one
perod of each of the three portons. Accordngy, recuson perpetua beng ndvsbe, s at
once the maxmum perod, whe recuson tempora n ts maxmum perod s dvded nto
two to determne the medum and mnmum perods of the penaty.
Conformaby wth Artce 65, therefore, the perods of recuson tempora n ts
maxmum perod to recuson perpetua are the foowng:
Mnmum perod - 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 18 years, 8 months;
Medum perod - 18 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 20 years;
Maxmum perod - Recuson perpetua
Wth the Court havng found no modfyng crcumstances -- whether aggravatng or
modfyng - to be present, the maxmum of the ndetermnate sentence shoud be taken
from the medum perod of the penaty, .e., from 18 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 20 years.
C-INA BAN:ING COR/ORATION v. BBRO FIS-ING ENTER/RISES, INC.
G.R. No. 18<889, 22 Februar 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
175
In 1994, Trans-Fpnas Reaty Corporaton (TFRC) obtaned a oan from pettoner
Chna Bankng Corporaton n the amount of Seven Mon Pesos (P7,000,000.) On May
10, 1996 the Board of Drectors of respondent OBRO Fshng Enterprses, Inc. ssued a
resouton authorzng the mortgage of ts propertes to secure "the obgatons ncurred
or whch may |t|hereafter be ncurred by |TFRC| wth |pettoner| rrespectve of the
amount ncudng any renewas, extensons and/or ro-overs thereof." On |une 3, 1996,
respondent, through ts representatves, Armando Cesar A. Reyes and Concepcon R.
Ountana, presdent and treasurer, respectvey, executed a rea estate mortgage over
nne parces of and, as coatera for TFRCs addtona oan n the amount of P34,
500,000. TFRC, however, faed to sette ts account despte recevng severa demand
etters from pettoner.
Pettoner then fed a petton for extra|udca forecosure of the rea propertes
that respondent and TFRC had mortgaged. Durng the pubc aucton, pettoner emerged
as the hghest bdder and was ssued a Certfcate of Sae.
Respondent fed a Compant wth the Regona Tra Court (RTC) to annu the rea
estate mortgage, forecosure proceedngs and aucton sae statng that the pettoner
unawfuy treated the TFRC and respondents separate oan accounts as a snge,
nseparabe account. In ts Answer, pettoner dened the two separate oan accounts and
mantaned that the rea estate mortgage over respondents propertes was executed to
actuay serve as an addtona securty to accommodate TFRCs request for an ncrease
n ts oan ne. There beng ony one oan, pettoner asserted that the fng of a petton
for extra|udca forecosure was proper.
The RTC dsmssed the respondents Compant and found that athough there were
two mortgage contracts, the forecosure of respondents propertes coud not be set
asde because to aow respondent to avod abty based on the rea estate mortgage
over t propertes woud amount to un|ust enrchment. Aggreved wth the RTCs
Decson, respondent appeaed to the Court of Appeas (CA) whch then decared that the
forecosure proceedngs wth respect to respondents propertes nu and vod as t was
found that there are actuay two separate oans by two dfferent corporatons. Moreover,
CA dened the Moton for Reconsderaton fed by the pettoner. Hence, the present
Petton for Revew on Certiorari under Rue 45 of the 1997 Rues of Cv Procedure, as
amended.
ISS)ES*
1. Whether or not the CA gravey erred when t faed to apprecate the fact that there
was actuay ony one oan obgaton of TFRC
2. Whether or not the CA commtted grave error n ts rung when t faed to
apprecate the correctness of the forecosure of the two mortgages where both mortgagors
were specfcay named and mpeaded as respondents n the petton for extra-|udca
forecosure
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
"o different companies- t"o separate mort#a#es !ut onl$ one o!li#ation
Records have shown that the respondents Board of Drectors authorzed the mortgage
of ts propertes to serve as an addtona securty to accommodate TFRCs request for the
ncrease of ts credt ne, as evdenced n the Speca Meetng of respondents Board of
Drectors on 10 May 1996. Aso, the pettoners Executve Commttee hed a meetng on 24
May 1996 wheren they approved the oan request of the TFRC wth the propertes of
respondent used as coatera. Excerpts of the meetng w further sustan the contenton of
the pettoner that there s ndeed ony one obgaton. Furthermore, records have aso shown
that the respondent does not have a separate credt ne so that when t mortgaged ts
propertes as securty for the oan ncrease of TFRC, t has bounded tsef as a thrd-party
mortgagor.
In vew of the facts mentoned, t s shown that athough the oan s ceary for the soe
beneft of TFRC, t sha not however, nvadate the roe of the respondent as a mortgagor n
the transacton as t has ong been hed that thrd persons, who are not partes to the
prncpa obgaton, may secure oans by pedgng or mortgagng ther own property. Aso,
respondent cannot assert that ts propertes shoud not be nvoved n the forecosure, beng
ony a thrd-party mortgagor n the transacton, as there has been a vad consent ntay
gven.
The Court fnds that n the case at bar, athough there are two dfferent corporatons,
hodng two dstnct roes n the transacton and executed two separate mortgages, there
was st n fact ony one oan account, that of TFRC, as respondent faed to prove that a
separate oan account wth the pettoner.
>alidit$ of the foreclosure of t"o mort#a#es in one loan account
When Reyes, as Presdent and Genera Manager of TFRC and respondent, wrote to
pettoner for a request of extenson n the redempton perod, t s deemed to be an act of
recognton of the rghts of the pettoner as mortgagee over the propertes that have aready
been forecosed and sod to the hghest bdder. The recognton of these rghts sha aready
estopped respondent when t questoned the vadty of forecosure sae.
Furthermore, the Court fnds that the CA msapprecated the facts and crcumstances
on record that showed the respondent s a thrd-party mortgagor, who vountary consented
to have ts propertes as addtona securty for the obtanng of oans by TFRC. Therefore,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
177
there beng ony one oan account n the extra|udca forecosure proceedngs, the Court
uphods the vadty of the forecosure sae, whch ncudes the propertes of respondent as a
thrd-party mortgagor.
TOMAS :. C-)A v. WESTMONT BAN:, et al.
G.R. No. 18298!, 2; Februar 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION #"ILLARAMA, 'R., '.(
Chua aeged that on October 21, 1996, he pre-sgned a Deed of Rea Estate Mortgage
n favor of Westmont Bank and submtted to t hs owners dupcate copes of Transfer
Certfcate of Tte (TCT) Nos. 87878 and 87876 n antcpaton of a grant of a oan to T.C.
Buders Suppers, Inc. When the oan dd not materaze because Chua and Westmont
Bank coud not agree on the nterest rate to be apped, Chua assumed that Westmont Bank
woud |ust cance the pre-sgned bank Deed of Rea Estate Mortgage and return the
dupcate orgnas of the ttes. But the bank dd nether. Instead, t forecosed the
mortgaged propertes and bought the propertes n the ensung pubc aucton hed on
September 10, 1998, for whch t was ssued a Certfcate of Sae. Thus, Chua prayed that
the Rea Estate Mortgage and the Certfcate of Sae ssued by Notary Pubc Manue S.
Fonacer be decared nu and vod.
In ts Answer, Westmont Bank averred that Chua apped for a etter of credt to mport
one set of pywood-makng machnery. The bank extended the credt accommodaton to
Chua, and accordngy the machnery was shpped and reeased to hm under a Trust Recept
Agreement ssued n favor of the bank. Later, when Chua had dffcuty payng for the
machnery, he requested for an extenson of tme to sette hs obgatons and
smutaneousy mortgaged TCT Nos. 87878 and 87876 n favor of Westmont Bank. Upon
executon of the Deed of Rea Estate Mortgage and the devery of the sub|ect TCTs to
Westmont Bank, Westmont Bank agreed to extend the term of the Trust Recept obgaton
unt November 3, 1997. But despte the extended term, Chua st faed to sette hs
obgaton. Hence, the mortgaged propertes were extra|udcay forecosed and sod at
pubc aucton to Westmont Bank as the hghest bdder.
On |anuary 4, 2006, the RTC of Paraaque Cty promugated ts decson, dsmssng
Chuas compant. TAe RTC ru%ed 2Aa2 2Ae Deed o3 Rea% E12a2e Mor2EaEe $1 0a%$d and
1u@@or2ed b 1ub12an2$a% 5on1$dera2$on. It found that the bank requred the executon
of the Deed of Rea Estate Mortgage nvovng the sub|ect propertes to secure the unpad
oan obgaton of T.C. Buders Suppers, Inc., a company owned by Chua. The tra court
aso found that the obgaton was ncurred when T.C. Buders purchased from Cotabato
Tmberand Company pywood-makng machnery vaued at P4,500,000. It was Westmont
Bank that pad for the purchase prce to Cotabato Tmberand Company, and the bank was
abe to prove that the machnery was devered to T.C. Buders as evdenced by a recept
sgned by Chua hmsef.
On |anuary 24, 2008, the Court of Appeas (CA) rendered a decson dsmssng the
appeaed case. The CA hed that except for Chuas sef-servng testmony, there s nothng
on record to sustan hs cam that he sgned a bank Deed of Rea Estate Mortgage. In fact,
the CA found that the deed n queston s compete n form and substance when the partes
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
179
sgned t. The CA dd not beeve that Chua, who s apparenty of age and n exceent
menta facutes, woud depost the ttes of hs propertes wth Westmont Bank wthout beng
sure of what knd of transacton he was enterng nto. The appeate court was kewse not
convnced by Chuas cam that the Deed of Rea Estate Mortgage was ntended to secure hs
persona oan of P6,000,000 as he hmsef aready admtted n hs Petton for Canceaton of
Mortgage before the tra court that he sgned the deed to secure a oan to be granted to T.C.
Buders Suppers, Inc. Fnay, the CA rued that the fact that the deed was sgned on the
day he few to Maaysa does not render the deed spurous as t was possbe that he sgned
the petton before he few to Maaysa n the afternoon. Chua fed a moton for
Reconsderaton of the CAs decson but hs moton was dened
ISS)E*
Whether or not the Court of Appeas erred n affrmng the fndngs of the Regona
Tra Court that the Rea Estate Mortgage executed by the Chua and Westmont Bank s vad
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
The ssues on whether or not the honorabe Court of Appeas commtted an error of
aw when t hed that the court a quo was correct n admttng Westmonts documentary
exhbts n evdence and on whether or not the honorabe Court of Appeas commtted an
error of aw when t concuded, based merey on specuaton and con|ecture, that Chua coud
have possby sgned the Deed of Rea Estate Mortgage before he eft for Maaysa on 10 |uy
1998 are factua n nature and cas for a revew of the evdence aready consdered n the
proceedngs beow. The evauaton and cabraton of the evdence necessary nvoves
consderaton of factua ssues-an exercse that s not approprate for a petton for revew
on certiorari under Rue 45.
As a genera rue, ony errors of aw are revewabe by the Supreme Court (SC) on
pettons for revew on certorar.

The rue fnds more strngent appcaton where the CA
uphods the fndngs of fact of the tra court. In such nstance, as n ths case, ths Court s
generay bound to adopt the facts as determned by the ower courts. When supported by
substanta evdence, the fndngs of fact of the CA are concusve and bndng on the partes
and are not revewabe by ths Court.
Another sgnfcant pont by Chua was that he camed that n Bardner v. Court of
(ppeals, the SC hed that as a genera rue, facts aeged n a partys peadng are deemed
admssons of that party and are bndng upon t, but ths s not an absoute and nfexbe
rue. An answer s a mere statement of fact, whch the party fng expects to prove, but t s
not evdence. Thus, Chua asserts that appyng the foregong by anaogy, hs statements n
the petton for canceaton of mortgage had been repudated by hs subsequent testmony
n open court. Ths s untenabe. In the Bardner case, the wtness had repudated n open
court the defenses he had rased n hs Answer and that the court found hs testmony to be
deservng of weght and credence. In sad case, both the tra court and the appeate court
beeved n the wtness credbty. Here, the reverse hods true as both the tra court and
CA found Chuas testmony that he apped for a persona oan to be confctng and
ncredbe. Therefore, we fnd that Chuas reance on the rung n Bardner s mspaced.
Moreover, n cv cases, the party havng the burden of proof must estabsh hs case
by a preponderance of evdence. Preponderance of evdence s the weght, credt, and vaue
of the aggregate evdence on ether sde and s usuay consdered to be synonymous wth
the term "greater weght of the evdence" or "greater weght of the credbe
evdence." Preponderance of evdence s a phrase, whch, n the ast anayss, means
probabty of the truth. It s evdence, whch s more convncng to the court as worther of
beef than that, whch s offered n opposton thereto.
In the present case, Chua faed to overcome the burden of provng hs cam by
preponderance of evdence that the questoned Deed s nu and vod. As we mentoned
earer, the CA dd not fnd any error on the part of the tra courts apprecaton of evdence,
whch found the Deed of Rea Estate Mortgage to be vad and supported by substanta
consderaton. The tra court aso found that snce Chua faed to pay hs obgaton despte
request for severa extensons of tme to pay hs oan, the forecosure sae of the propertes
was therefore vad.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
181
/-ILI//INE COCON)T /ROD)CERS FEDERATION, INC., et al. v.
RE/)BLIC OF T-E /-ILI//INES
G.R. No1. 1;;88;,88M 1;819?, 2< 'anuar 2!12, EN BANC #"e%a15o, 'r. J.(
'he coconut levy was imposed in the e#ercise of the -tates inherent power of
ta#ation. 'he Court has ruled time and again that ta#es are imposed only for a public
purpose. When a law imposes ta#es or levies from the public, with the intent to give undue
benefit or advantage to private persons, or the promotion of private enterprises, that law
cannot be said to satisfy the re$uirement of public purpose.
Former Presdent Ferdnand Marcos ssued severa presdenta decrees to mprove the
coconut ndustry. The varous PDs specfcay emphaszed that the fund eved sha not form
part of the genera funds of the natona government but such sha be owned by the coconut
farmers n ther own prvate capactes. Hence, through the years, a part of the coconut evy
funds went drecty or ndrecty to varous pro|ects and/or was converted nto dfferent
assets or nvestments. Of partcuar reevance was the purchase of Unted Coconut Panters
Bank (UCPB) and the atters acquston of a arge bock of San Mgue Corporaton (SMC)
shares. Pettoners COCOFED, et al. admtted that the Phppne Coconut Authorty, the
agency charged wth the coecton and use of the coconut evy fund, used pubc funds to
purchase the UCPB shares from Edward Co|uangco, |r., whch was ater rembursed from the
coconut evy funds.
Because of ths, the Presdenta Commsson on Good Governance (PCGG)
commenced suts n Sandganbayan for the recovery of -gotten weath aganst COCOFED et
al., on the premse that the sequestered farmers UCPB shares are unawfuy acqured asset.
The Sandganbayan ssued two summary |udgments whch favored the Repubc. Hence, the
petton.
ISS)ES*
1.) Whether or not the Sandganbayan has |ursdcton over the sub|ect matter of
compants even f the respondent Repubc faed to prove the |ursdctona fact that
the sequestered assets consttute -gotten weath of former Presdent Marcos and
Co|uanco
2.) Whether or not the COCOFED, et al. were deprved of ther rghts to be heard and to
speedy tra when the Sandganbayan toerated the respondent Repubcs datory
tactcs resutng to the apse of amost twenty years of tgaton
3.) Whether or not Sectons 1 and 2 of P.D. No. 755, Artce III, Secton 5 of P.D. 961 and
Artce III, Secton 5 of P.D. No. 1468, are consttutona
-ELD*
Pettons are DENIED.
he .andi#an!a$an has ,urisdiction over the su!,ect matter of the su!divided
amended complaints
It s cear that |ursdcton over the sub|ect matter s conferred by aw. In turn, the
queston on whether a gven sut comes wthn the pae of a statutory conferment s
determned by the aegatons n the compant, regardess of whether or not the pantff w
be entted at the end to recover upon a or some of the cams asserted theren.
|udgng from the aegatons of the COCOFEDs ega acts thereat made, t s fary
obvous that both CC Nos. 0033-A and CC 0033-F partake, n the context of EO Nos. 1, 2 and
14, seres of 1986, the nature of -gotten weath suts. Both dea wth the recovery of
sequestered shares, property or busness enterprses camed, as aeged n the
correspondng basc compants, to be -gotten assets of Presdent Marcos, hs crones and
nomnees and acqured by takng undue advantage of reatonshps or nfuence and/or
through or as a resut of mproper use, converson or dverson of government funds or
property. Recovery of these assets--determned as sha herenafter be dscussed as prima
facie -gotten--fas wthn the unquestonabe |ursdcton of the Sandganbayan.

P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. 7975 and E.O. No. 14, Seres of 1986, vests the
Sandganbayan wth, among others, orgna |ursdcton over cv and crmna cases
nsttuted pursuant to and n connecton wth E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. Correatvey, the
PCGG Rues and Reguatons defnes the term "+ll%Botten Wealth" as "any asset, property,
business enterprise or material possession of persons within the purview of L!.O.M 4os. 1 and
5, ac$uired by them directly, or indirectly thru dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates
andNor business associates by any of the following means or similar schemes":

The Repubcs averments n the amended compants, partcuary those detang the
aeged wrongfu acts of the COCOFED, et al., suffcenty revea that the sub|ect matter
thereof comprses the recovery by the Government of -gotten weath acqured by then
Presdent Marcos, hs crones or ther assocates and dummes through the unawfu,
mproper utzaton or dverson of coconut evy funds aded by P.D. No. 755 and other sster
decrees. Presdent Marcos hmsef ssued these decrees n a brazen bd to egaze what
amounts to prvate takng of the sad pubc funds.
As prevousy dscussed, a perusa of the aegatons easy reveas the suffcency of
the statement of matters dscosng the cam of the government aganst the coco evy funds
and the assets acqured drecty or ndrecty through sad funds as -gotten weath.
Moreover, the Court found no rue that drects the Repubc to frst prove the sub|ect matter
|ursdcton of the court before whch the compant s fed. Rather, such burden fas on the
shouders of COCOFED, et al. n the hearng of a moton to dsmss anchored on sad ground
or a premnary hearng thereon when such ground s aeged n the answer.
he COCO1ED- et al. "ere not deprived of their ri#hts to !e heard and to speed$
trial
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
183
Evdenty, for the ordery admnstraton of |ustce, the pantff sha frst adduce
evdence n support of hs compant and after the forma offer of evdence and the rung
thereon, then comes the turn of defendant under Secton 3 (b) to adduce evdence n
support of hs defense, countercam, cross-cam and thrd party compant, f any. Devaton
from such order of tra s purey dscretonary upon the tra court, n ths case, the
Sandganbayan, whch cannot be questoned by the partes uness the vtatng eement of
grave abuse of dscreton supervenes. Thus, the rght of COCOFED to present evdence on
the man case had not yet rpened. And the rendton of the parta summary |udgments
overtook ther rght to present evdence on ther defenses.

It cannot be stressed enough that the Repubc as we as heren pettoners were we
wthn ther rghts to move, as they n fact separatey dd, for a parta summary |udgment.
Summary |udgment may be aowed where, save for the amount of damages, there s, as
shown by affdavts and ke evdentary documents, no genune ssue as to any matera fact
and the movng party s entted to a |udgment as a matter of aw. A "genune ssue", as
dstngushed from one that s fcttous, contrved and set up n bad fath, means an ssue of
fact that cas for the presentaton of evdence. Summary or acceerated |udgment,
therefore, s a procedura technque amed at weedng out sham cams or defenses at an
eary stage of the tgaton Ceary, pettoner COCOFEDs rght to be heard had not been
voated by the mere ssuance of PS|-A and PS|-F before they can adduce ther evdence.
Regardng the rght to speedy dsposston of cases, n 'ello v. ,eople, the court hed
that: "In )ernat, the Court dened pettoners cam of dena of hs rght to a speedy dsposton
of cases consderng that |he| . chose to reman sent for eght years before companng of the
deay n the dsposton of hs case. The Court rued that pettoner faed to seasonaby assert hs
rght and he merey sat and wated from the tme hs case was submtted for resouton. In ths
case, pettoner smary faed to assert hs rght to a speedy dsposton of hs case.. He ony
nvoked hs rght to a speedy dsposton of cases after |hs convcton|.. Pettoners sence may
be consdered as a waver of hs rght."
An examnaton of COCOFED, et al.s arguments and the cted ndca of deay woud
revea the absence of any aegaton that COCOFED, et al. moved before the Sandganbayan
for the dsmssa of the case on account of vexatous, caprcous and oppressve deays that
attended the proceedngs. Foowng 'ello, COCOFED, et al. are deemed to have waved
ther rght to a speedy dsposton of the case. Moreover, deays, f any, pre|udced the
Repubc as we. What s more, the aeged breach of the rght n queston was not rased
beow. As a matter of setted |ursprudence, but sub|ect to equay setted excepton, an
ssue not rased before the tra court cannot be rased for the frst tme on appea.
.ections 8 and A of P.D. No. <::- Article 000- .ection : of P.D. 9;8 and Article 000-
.ection : of P.D. No. 8B;=- are unconstitutional
The coconut evy was mposed n the exercse of the States nherent power of
taxaton. The Court has rued tme and agan that taxes are mposed ony for a pubc
purpose. "They cannot be used for purey prvate purposes or for the excusve beneft of
prvate persons." When a aw mposes taxes or eves from the pubc, wth the ntent to gve
undue beneft or advantage to prvate persons, or the promoton of prvate enterprses, that
aw cannot be sad to satsfy the requrement of pubc purpose.
In ths case, the coconut evy funds were sourced from forced exactons decreed under
P.D. Nos. 232, 276 and 582, among others, wth the end-goa of deveopng the entre
coconut ndustry. Ceary, to hod therefore, even by aw, that the revenues receved from
the mposton of the coconut eves be used purey for prvate purposes to be owned by
prvate ndvduas n ther prvate capacty and for ther beneft, woud contravene the
ratonae behnd the mposton of taxes or eves.

Needess to stress, courts do not, as they cannot, aow by |udca fat the converson
of speca funds nto a prvate fund for the beneft of prvate ndvduas. In the same ven,
the Court cannot subscrbe to the dea of what appears to be an ndrect - f not exacty
drect - converson of speca funds nto prvate funds, i.e., by usng speca funds to
purchase shares of stocks, whch n turn woud be dstrbuted for free to prvate ndvduas.
Even f these prvate ndvduas beong to, or are a part of the coconut ndustry, the free
dstrbuton of shares of stocks purchased wth speca pubc funds to them, nevertheess
cannot be |ustfed.
Pany enough, the coconut evy funds are pubc funds. The Court has rued n
*epublic v. COCO=!. that the coconut evy funds are not ony affected wth pubc nterest;
they are prima facie pubc funds. In fact, ths pronouncement that the eves are
government funds was admtted and recognzed by respondents, COCOFED, et al., n G.R.
No. 147062-64. And more mportanty, n the same decson, the Court ceary expaned
exacty what knd of government fund the coconut eves are. The Court was categorca n
sayng that coconut eves are treated as speca funds by the very aws whch created them.
If ony to stress the pont, P.D. No. 1234 expressy stated that coconut eves are speca
funds to be remtted to the Treasury n the Genera Fund of the State, but treated as Speca
Accounts.
To recaptuate, Artce VI, Secton 29 (3) of the 1987 Consttuton, restatng a genera
prncpe on taxaton, en|ons the dsbursement of a speca fund n accordance wth the
speca purpose for whch t was coected, the baance, f there be any, after the purpose has
been fufed or s no onger forthcomng, to be transferred to the genera funds of the
government. Thus, n order to determne whether the reevant provsons of P.D. Nos. 755,
961 and 1468 comped wth Artce VI, Secton 29 (3) of the 1987 Consttuton, a ook at the
pubc pocy or the purpose for whch the CCSF evy was mposed s necessary.
As couched, P.D. No. 276 created and exacted the CCSF "to advance the
governments avowed pocy of protectng the coconut ndustry." Evdenty, the CCSF was
orgnay set up as a speca fund to support consumer purchases of coconut products. To
put t a bt dfferenty, the protecton of the entre coconut ndustry, and even more
mportanty, for the consumng pubc provdes the ratonae for the creaton of the coconut
evy fund. There can be no qubbng then that the foregong provsons of P.D. No. 276
ntended the fund created and set up theren not especay for the coconut farmers but for
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
185
the entre coconut ndustry, abet the mprovement of the ndustry woud doubtess
redound to the beneft of the farmers. Upon the foregong perspectve, the foowng
provsons of P.D. Nos. 755, 961 and 1468 nsofar as they decared, as the case may be,
that: "|the coconut evy| fund and the dsbursements thereof |sha be| authorzed for the
beneft of the coconut farmers and sha be owned by them n ther prvate capactes;" or
the coconut evy fund sha not be construed by any aw to be a speca and/or fducary fund,
and do not therefore form part of the genera fund of the natona government ater on; or
the UCPB shares acqured usng the coconut evy fund sha be dstrbuted to the coconut
farmers for free, voated the speca pubc purpose for whch the CCSF was estabshed.

In sum, not ony were the chaenged presdenta ssuances unconsttutona for
decreeng the dstrbuton of the shares of stock for free to the coconut farmers and,
therefore, negatng the pubc purpose decared by P.D. No. 276, i.e., to stabze the prce of
edbe o and to protect the coconut ndustry. They kewse recassfed, nay treated, the
coconut evy fund as private fund to be dsbursed and/or nvested for the beneft of private
individuals n ther private capacities, contrary to the orgna purpose for whch the fund was
created. To compound the stuaton, the offendng provsons effectvey removed the
coconut evy fund away from the cav of pubc funds whch normay can be pad out ony
pursuant to an appropraton made by aw. The converson of pubc funds nto prvate
assets was egay aowed, n fact mandated, by these provsons. Ceary therefore, the
pertnent provsons of P.D. Nos. 755, 961 and 1468 are unconsttutona for voatng Artce
VI, Secton 29 (3) of the Consttuton. In ths context, the dstrbuton by PCA of the UCPB
shares purchased by means of the coconut evy fund - a speca fund of the government - to
the coconut farmers, s therefore vod.
In addton, Artce III, Secton 5 of P.D. No. 961 expcty takes away the coconut evy
funds from the coffer of the pubc funds, or, to be precse, prvatzed revenues derved from
the coco evy. These dentca provsons of P.D. Nos. 961 and 1468 kewse voate Artce IX
(D), Secton 2(1) of the Consttuton, defnng the powers and functons of the Commsson on
Audt ("COA") as a consttutona commsson.
The Consttuton, by express provson, vests the COA wth the responsbty for State
audt. As an ndependent supreme State audtor, ts audt |ursdcton cannot be undermned
by any aw. Indeed, under Artce IX (D), Secton 3 of the 1987 Consttuton, "|n|o aw sha
be passed exemptng any entty of the Government or ts subsdary n any guse whatever,
or any investment of public funds, from the |ursdcton of the Commsson on Audt."
Foowng the mandate of the COA and the parameters set forth by the foregong provsons,
t s cear that t has |ursdcton over the coconut evy funds, beng speca pubc funds.
Conversey, the COA has the power, authorty and duty to examne, audt and sette a
accounts pertanng to the coconut evy funds and, consequenty, to the UCPB shares
purchased usng the sad funds. However, decarng the sad funds as partakng the nature
of prvate funds, ergo sub|ect to prvate appropraton, removes them from the coffer of the
pubc funds of the government, and consequenty renders them mpervous to the COA audt
|ursdcton. Ceary, the pertnent provsons of P.D. Nos. 961 and 1468 dvest the COA of ts
consttutonay-mandated functon and undermne ts consttutona ndependence.
It effectvey deprves the COA of ts consttutonay-nvested power to audt and sette
such accounts. The converson of the sad shares purchased usng speca pubc funds nto
pure and excusve prvate ownershp has taken, or w competey take away the sad funds
from the boundares wth whch the COA has |ursdcton. Obvousy, the COA s wthout audt
|ursdcton over the recept or dsbursement of prvate property. Accordngy, Artce III,
Secton 5 of both P.D. Nos. 961 and 1468 must be struck down for beng unconsttutona, be
they assayed aganst Secton 2(1), Artce XII (D) of the 1973 Consttuton or ts counterpart
provson n the 1987 Consttuton.
From the foregong dscussons, t s fary estabshed that the coconut evy funds are
speca pubc funds. Consequenty, any property purchased by means of the coconut evy
funds shoud kewse be treated as pubc funds or pubc property, sub|ect to burdens and
restrctons attached by aw to such property.
FIRST LE/ANTO,TAIS-O INS)RANCE COR/ORATION v.
C-E"RON /-ILI//INES, INC.
G.R. No. 1;;8?9, 18 'anuar 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
-uretyship arises upon the solidary binding of a person % deemed the surety % with the
principal debtor, for the purpose of fulfilling an obligation. 'he contract of a surety is in
essence secondary only to a valid principal obligation, the surety becomes liable for the debt
or duty of another although it possesses no direct or personal interest over the obligations
nor does it receive any benefit therefrom. 'he e#tent of a suretyOs liability is determined by
the language of the suretyship contract or bond itself. +t cannot be e#tended by implication,
beyond the terms of the contract.
Respondent Chevron Phppnes, Inc. (Chevron) sued pettoner Frst Lepanto-Tasho
Insurance Corporaton, now known as FLT Prme Insurance Corporaton (FLT), for the
payment of unpad o and petroeum purchases made by ts dstrbutor Fumtechnks
Corporaton (Fumtechnks). Fumtechnks, represented by Ma. Lourdes Aposto, had apped
for and was ssued Surety Bond by FLT for the amount of P15,700,000.00. As stated n the
attached rder, the bond was n compance wth the requrement for the grant of a credt ne
wth the Chevron to guarantee payment/remttance of the cost of fue products wthdrawn
wthn the stpuated tme n accordance wth the terms and condtons of the agreement.
Fumtechnks defauted on ts obgaton. The check t ssued to Chevron Phppnes,
Inc. was dshonored for reason of beng a cosed account Smutaneousy, a etter was sent to
Fumtechnks demandng that the atter submt to FLT copy of the agreement secured by the
bond, together wth any arrangement that Furntechnks mght have made or any ongong
negotaton wth Catex n connecton wth the settement of the obgatons sub|ect of the
Catex etter. In ts etter, Fumtechnks wrote FLTs counse nformng that t cannot submt
the requested agreement snce no such agreement was executed between Fumtechnks and
Chevron. It expaned that beng an accessory contract, the bond cannot exst wthout a
prncpa agreement as t s essenta that the copy of the basc contract be submtted to the
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
187
proposed surety for the apprecaton of the extent of the obgaton to be covered by the
bond apped for.

The Regona Tra Court (RTC) dsmssed the compant as we as FLT's countercam.
Subsequenty, the Court of Appeas (CA) rued n favor of Chevron. Accordngy, FLT cannot
nsst on the submsson of a wrtten agreement to be attached to the surety bond
consderng that Chevron was not aware of such requrement and unwrtten company pocy.
It aso decared that FLT s estopped from assang the ora credt ne agreement, havng
consented to the same upon presentaton by Fumtechnks of the surety bond t ssued.
ISS)ES*
1. Whether or not FLT Prme Insurance Corporaton s abe to Chevron Phppnes, Inc. n
the absence of a wrtten contract wth Fumtechnks Corporaton
2. Whether or not the Honorabe Court of Appeas erred n not strkng out Chevron
Phppnes, Inc.s Moton for Reconsderaton of the Regona Tra Court Decson for
beng ,ro =orma, consequenty, n not decarng the RTC decson as fna and
executory n so far as t dsmssed the compant
-ELD*
1L Prime 0nsurance Corporation "ill not !e lia!le as a suret$ in the a!sence of a
"ritten contract "ith 1umitechni2s Corporation
The aw s cear that a surety contract shoud be read and nterpreted together wth
the contract entered nto between the credtor and the prncpa. Secton 176 of the
Insurance Code states that the abty of the surety or suretes sha be |ont and severa
wth the obgor and sha be mted to the amount of the bond. It s determned strcty by
the terms of the contract of suretyshp n reaton to the prncpa contract between the
obgor and the obgee.
A surety contract s merey coatera one, ts bass s the prncpa contract or
undertakng whch t secures. Necessary, the stpuatons n such prncpa agreement must
at east be communcated or made known to the surety partcuary n ths case where the
bond expressy guarantees the payment of Chevrons fue products wthdrawn by
Fumtechnks n accordance wth the terms and condtons of ther agreement. The bond
specfcay makes reference to a wrtten agreement.
It s basc that f the terms of a contract are cear and eave no doubt upon the
ntenton of the contractng partes, the tera meanng of ts stpuatons sha contro.
Moreover, beng an onerous undertakng, a surety agreement s strcty construed aganst
the credtor, and every doubt s resoved n favor of the sodary debtor. Havng accepted the
bond, Chevron, as credtor must be hed bound by the recta n the surety bond that the
terms and condtons of ts dstrbutorshp contract be reduced n wrtng or at the very east
communcated n wrtng to the surety. Such non-compance by the credtor mpacts not on
the vadty or egaty of the surety contract but on the credtor's rght to demand
performance.
Chevron/s Motion for %econsideration not necesaril$ pro forma
The mere fact that a moton for reconsderaton reterates ssues aready passed upon
by the court does not, by tsef, make t a pro forma moton. Among the ends to whch a
moton for reconsderaton s addressed s precsey to convnce the court that ts rung s
erroneous and mproper, contrary to the aw or evdence; the movant has to dwe of
necessty on ssues aready passed upon.
MARINO B. ICDANG v. SANDIGANBA7AN #Se5ond D$0$1$on( and
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES
G.R. No. 18899!, 28 'anuar 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION#"$%%ara&a, 'r., '.(
'he fact that not a single document was produced and no witness was produced by
the defense in a span of @ years afforded them by the -andiganbayan, it can be reasonably
inferred that the petitioner did not have those evidence in the first place.
A Speca Audt Team was formed by the Commsson on Audt (COA) Regona Offce
XII, Cotabato Cty to conduct comprehensve audt on the 1996 funds for vehood pro|ects
of the OSCC-Regon XII. In the report, they noted that Marno B. Icdang (Icdang), the
Regona Drector of the Offce for Southern Cutura Communtes (OSCC) Regon XII n
Cotabato Cty, was granted cash advances whch remaned unqudated. The report aso
dscosed that out of the tota P920,933.00 aocated for 1996 vehood pro|ects, the amount
of P445,892.80 was dsbursed eavng a baance of P475,040.20; however, fna tra baance
as of December 31, 1996 showed that the offce has exhausted the aocated funds for the
whoe year; the utzaton of the P475,040.20 coud not be expaned by the Accountant so
that t may be concuded that such was msapproprated.
A demand etter was sent by the COA for Icdang to mmedatey produce the mssng
funds. Icdang faed to compy wth the demand. Hence, the audt team recommended the
ntaton of admnstratve and crmna charges aganst hm.
The Sandganbayan (SB) convcted hm for voaton of Art. 217 of the Revsed Pena
Code, as amended, and acqutted hm for voaton of Secton 3(e) of Repubc Act No. 3019
(Ant-Graft and Corrupt Practces Act). He fed a moton for reconsderaton requestng that
he be gven another chance to present hs evdence, statng that hs nabty to attend the
tra were due to fnanca constrants such that even when some of the schedued hearngs
were sometmes hed n Davao Cty and Cebu Cty, he st faed to attend the same.
However, the SB dened the same.
ISS)E*
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
189
Whether or not the gross neggence of Icdangs counse deprved hm of the
opportunty to present defense evdence
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
At the schedued nta presentaton of defense evdence on August 11, 2003, ony
Icdang appeared nformng that when he passed by that mornng to hs counses resdence,
the atter was and thus requested for postponement. Wthout ob|ecton from the
prosecuton and on condton that Atty. Ira w present a medca certfcate wthn fve days,
the SB reset the hearng to October 16 and 17, 2003. The SB aso sad that f by the next
hearng Icdang s not yet represented by hs counse, sad court sha appont a counse de
oficio n the person of Atty. Wfredo C. Andres of the Pubc Attorneys Offce.However, on
October 16, 2003, the SB receved a etter from Icdang requestng for postponement ctng
the untmey death of hs nephew and sweng of hs feet due to arthrts. He assured the
court of hs attendance n the next hearng t w set at a ater date. Accordngy, the SB
reset the hearngs to February 12 and 13, 2004. On February 4, 2004, the SB agan receved
a etter from Icdang requestng another postponement for medca (arthrts) and fnanca
(ack of funds for attorneys/appearance fee) reasons. He assured the court of hs avaabty
after the May 10, 2004 eectons.Ths tme, the SB dd not grant the request and decared the
case submtted for decson on the bass of the evdence on record.
On March 30, 2004, Atty. Ira fed an Urgent Moton for Reconsderaton of the
February 12, 2004 order submttng the case for decson, ctng crcumstances beyond hs
contro. In the nterest of |ustce, the SB reconsdered ts earer order submttng the case for
decson and gave the Icdang a ast chance to present hs evdence on August 17 to 18,
2004. On August 17, 2004, Atty. Ira appeared but requested that presentaton of evdence
be postponed to the foowng day, whch request was granted by the SB. The next day,
however, ony Icdang appeared sayng that hs awyer s ndsposed. Over the ob|ecton of
the prosecuton and n the supreme nterest of |ustce, the SB canceed the hearng and
reschedued t to November 15 and 16, 2004. Atty. Ira was drected to submt a verfed
medca certfcate wthn 10 days under pan of contempt, and the SB kewse apponted a
counse de oficio n the person of Atty. Roberto C. Omandam who was drected to be ready
at the schedued hearng n case Icdangs counse s not ready, stressng that the court w
no onger grant any postponement. St, Icdang was drected to secure the servces of
another counse f Atty. Ira s not avaabe.Wth the decaraton by Maacaang that
November 15, 2004 s a speca non-workng hoday, the hearng was reset to November 16,
2004 as prevousy schedued.
On November 16, 2004, Atty. Ira appeared but manfested that he has no wtness
avaabe. Over the ob|ecton of the prosecuton, hearng was reset to March 14 and 15,
2005. Atty. Ira agreed to submt the case for decson on the bass of prosecuton evdence
n the event that he s unabe to present any wtness on the aforesad dates. On March 14,
2005, the SB agan reset the hearng dates to May 26 and 27, 2005 for ack of matera
tme.However, at the schedued hearng on May 26, 2005, Icdang manfested to the court
that Atty. Ira was rushed to the hospta havng suffered a stroke, thereupon the hearng
was reschedued for September 21 and 22, 2005 wth a drectve for Atty. Ira to submt a
verfed medca certfcate.On September 22, 2005, Atty. Ira appeared but agan manfested
that he has no wtness present n court. On the commtment of Atty. Ira that f by the next
hearng he st fas to present ther evdence the court sha consder them to have waved
such rght, the hearng was reset to February 8 and 9, 2006. However, on February 9, 2006,
the defense counse manfested that he has some other commtment n another dvson of
the SB and hence he s constraned to seek canceaton of the hearng. Wthout ob|ecton
from the prosecuton and consderng that the ntended wtness was Icdang hmsef, the SB
reset the hearng to Apr 17 and 18, 2006, whch dates were ater moved to August 7 and 8,
2006. On August 7, 2006, over the ob|ecton of the prosecuton, the SB granted the moton
for postponement by the defense on the ground of ack of fnanca capacty. The hearng
was for the ast tme reset to October 17 and 18, 2006, whch date was ater changed to
October 11 and 12, 2006.
The foregong shows that the defense was granted ampe opportunty to present ther
evdence as n fact severa postponements were made on account of Atty. Iras heath
condton and Icdangs ack of fnanca resources to cover transportaton costs. The SB
exercsed utmost enency and compasson and even apponted a counse de oficio when
Icdang cted ack of money to pay for attorneys fee. In those nstances when ether Icdang
or hs counse was present n court, the foowng documentary evdence sted durng the
pre-tra, aegedy n the possesson of Icdang, and whch he undertook to present at the
tra, were never produced n court at any tme: (1) Lqudaton Report by Icdang; (2)
Certfcaton of Accountant ZambaLa|aratu of the Natona Commsson on Indgenous Peope,
Regon XII, Cotabato Cty; and (3) Dfferent Certfcatons by pro|ect offcers and barangay
captans.If ndeed these documents exsted, Icdang coud have ready submtted them to
the court consderng the ength of tme he was gven to do so. The fact that not a snge
document was produced and no wtness was produced by the defense n a span of <
ear1 afforded them by the SB, t can be reasonaby nferred that Icdang dd not have those
evdence n the frst pace.
MARITIME IND)STR7 A)T-ORIT7 #MARINA( andDor ATT7. OSCAR M. SE"ILLA v.
MARC /RO/ERTIES COR/ORATION
G.R. No. 1;?128, 18 Februar 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, J.(
When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for
summary &udgment cannot take the place of trial.
A Contract of Lease was entered nto by the pettoner Martme Industry Authorty
(MARINA), a government agency represented by then Admnstrator and concurrenty Vce-
Charman of the Board of Drectors Oscar M. Seva wth the respondent Marc Propertes
Corporaton represented by ts Executve Vce-Presdent Ercson M. Marquez. The sad
contract states that the MARINA offces w be transferred from PPL Budng to MARC 2000
Tower, both owned by the respondent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
191
However, the respondent receved a etter from Admnstrator Seva on December 14,
2001 requestng for the rescsson of ther contract of ease for the reason that the Board of
Drectors of MARINA dd not approve the proposed transfer of ther offce. The respondent
then expressed ts approva to the rescsson upon rembursement of P1,055,000.00
representng the amount pad to ts Contractors for carpentry and eectrca works done and
payment of penaty equvaent to two (2) months renta or P2,527,215.48 n accordance wth
Art. IX, Sec. 9.00 of the Contract of Lease. The pettoners asserted that MARINA s not abe
to pay the penaty as there was no perfected contract because the same was not approved
by the Board and the Offce of the Presdent.
The respondent fed a cv case before the Regona Tra Court of Mana aganst
MARINA and Admnstrator Seva and consequenty fed a moton for summary |udgment n
ts favor on the bass that there s no genune ssue n ths case as to any matera fact even
as to the amount of damages. Pettoners opposed assertng that there s ndeed a genune
factua ssue regardng the absoute abty for the amount beng camed as actua
expenses for repars/renovatons works done on repondents budng after the executon of
the Contract of Lease. The RTC rued that the summary |udgment for the sad cam s
proper. The pettoners sought reef from the Court of Appeas (CA) but the sad court
sustaned the tra courts order. Hence, ths petton.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the CA was correct n sustanng the tra courts order grantng the
moton for parta summary |udgment
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
Contrary to the fndngs of the tra court and CA, the Answer fed by pettoners
contaned a specfc dena of absoute abty for the amount beng camed as actua
expenses for repars/renovatons works done on repondents budng after the executon of
the Contract of Lease.
Wth regard to the cam for rembursement, pantff has yet to concusvey prove that
the ateratons/renovatons t cams to have been made n ts budng were actuay made
and that the same were actuay n accordance wth the aeged request made by MARINA.
Very, defendants have yet to actuay acquesce to the veracty of the
accompshment reports, recept, etc. submtted by pantff snce the same are st sub|ect
to verfcaton whch can ony be acheved through a fu-bown tra.
It must be stressed that tra courts have mted authorty to render summary
|udgments and may do so ony when there s ceary no genune ssue as to any matera
fact. When the facts as peaded by the partes are dsputed or contested, proceedngs for
summary |udgment cannot take the pace of tra. As aready stated, the burden of
demonstratng ceary the absence of genune ssues of fact rests upon the movant, n ths
case the respondent, and not upon pettoners who opposed the moton for summary
|udgment. Any doubt as to the proprety of the rendton of a summary |udgment must thus
be resoved aganst the respondent. But here, the parta summary |udgment was premsed
merey on the tra courts hasty concuson that respondent s entted to the rembursement
sought smpy because pettoners faed to pont out what partcuar works were not done or
mpemented not n accordance wth MARINAs specfcatons after demands were made by
respondent and the fng of the compant n court. Precsey, a tra s conducted after the
ssues have been |oned to enabe heren respondent to prove, frst, that repar/renovaton
works were actuay done and such were n accordance wth MARINAs request, and second,
that t actuay advanced the cost thereof by payng the contractors; and more mportanty,
to provde opportunty for the pettoners to scrutnze respondents evdence, cross-examne
ts wtnesses and present rebutta evdence. Moreover, the tra court shoud have been more
crcumspect n rung on the moton for summary |udgment, takng nto account pettoners
concern for |udcous expendture of pubc funds n settng ts abtes to respondent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
193
CELERINO E. MERCADO 0. BELEN ES/INOCILLA and FERDINAND ES/INOCILLA
G.R. No. 18<1!9, 1 Februar 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, J.(
+n a constructive trust, there is neither a promise nor any fiduciary relation to speak of and
the so%called trustee neither accepts any trust nor intends holding the property for the
beneficiary.
Doroteo Espnoca owned a parce of and n Sorsogon wth an area of 570 sq. m.
After he ded, hs fve chdren, Savacon, Aspren, Isabe, Macaro, and Donsa dvded sad
ot equay among themseves. Later, Donson ded and thus, Macaro took possesson of
Donsas share. Thereafter, n 1977, Macaro and hs daughters Betty Guaba and Sada
Gabeo sod 225 sq. m. to hs son Roger Espnoca, husband of Been and father of
Ferdnand Espnoca. In 1985, Roger sod 114 sq. m. to Cardad Atenza.
Pettoner Ceerno sued the respondents to recover two portons of the sub|ect ots,
one of whch he bought from Aspren and the other whch aegedy beonged to hm but was
occuped by Macaros house. Accordng to hm, he s entted to own and possess 171 sq. m.
of the sub|ect ot, havng nherted the same from hs mother Savacon and a porton of t he
bought from hs aunt Aspren. On the other hand, respondents cam that they rghtfuy
possess the and they occupy vy vrtue of acqustve prescrpton and that there s no bass
for Ceernos cam of encroachment.
ISS)E*
Whether or not Ceernos acton to recover the sub|ect porton s barred by
prescrpton
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
Prescrpton, as a mode of acqurng ownershp and other rea rghts over mmovabe
property, s concerned wth apse of tme n the manner and under condtons ad down by
aw, namey, that the possesson shoud be n the concept of an owner, pubc, peacefu,
unnterrupted, and adverse. Acqustve prescrpton of rea rghts may be ordnary or
extraordnary. Ordnary acqustve prescrpton requres possesson n good fath and wth
|ust tte for 10 years. In extraordnary prescrpton, ownershp and other rea rghts over
mmovabe property are acqured through unnterrupted adverse possesson for 30 years
wthout need of tte or of good fath.
Here, pettoner hmsef admts the adverse nature of respondents' possesson wth hs
asserton that Macaro's frauduent acquston of Donsa's share created a constructve
trust. In a constructve trust, there s nether a promse nor any fducary reaton to speak of
and the so-caed trustee (Macaro) nether accepts any trust nor ntends hodng the
property for the benefcary (Savacon, Aspren, Isabe). The reaton of trustee and cestui
$ue trust does not n fact exst, and the hodng of a constructve trust s for the trustee
hmsef, and therefore, at a tmes adverse. Prescrpton may supervene even f the trustee
does not repudate the reatonshp.
Then, too, respondents' unnterrupted adverse possesson for 55 years of 109 sq. m. of
Lot No. 552 was estabshed. Macaro occuped Donsa's share n 1945 athough hs cam
that Donsa donated t to hm n 1945 was ony made n a 1948 affdavt. The Court aso
agrees wth the CA that Macaro's possesson of Donsa's share was pubc and adverse
snce hs other co-owners, hs three other ssters, aso occuped portons of Lot No. 552.
Indeed, the 1977 sae made by Macaro and hs two daughters n favor of hs son Roger
confrms the adverse nature of Macaro's possesson because sad sae of 225 sq. m. was an
act of ownershp over Macaro's orgna share and Donsa's share. In 1985, Roger aso
exercsed an act of ownershp when he sod 114 sq. m. to Cardad Atenza. It was ony n the
year 2000, upon recept of the summons to answer pettoner's compant, that respondents'
peacefu possesson of the remanng porton (109 sq. m.) was nterrupted. By then,
however, extraordnary acqustve prescrpton has aready set n n favor of respondents.
Moreover, the CA correcty dsmssed pettoner's compant as an acton for
reconveyance based on an mped or constructve trust prescrbes n 10 years from the tme
the rght of acton accrues. Ths s the other knd of prescrpton under the Cv Code, caed
extnctve prescrpton, where rghts and actons are ost by the apse of tme. Pettoner's
acton for recovery of possesson havng been fed 55 years after Macaro occuped
Donsa's share, t s aso barred by extnctve prescrpton. The CA whe condemnng
Macaro's frauduent act of deprvng hs three ssters of ther shares n Donsa's share,
equay emphaszed the fact that Macaro's ssters wasted ther opportunty to queston hs
acts.
ANITA L. MIRANDO v. /EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES
G.R. No. 1;9298, 28 'anuar 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION- #"ILLARAMA, 'R., J(
(s long as the property taken does not belong to the accused who has a valid claim
thereover, it is immaterial whether said offender stole it from the owner, a mere possessor,
or even a thief of the property to be guilty of the crime of $ualified theft.
Pettoner Anta L. Mranda (Mranda) was charged wth quafed theft for unawfuy
encashng the amount of P797, 187.85 beongng to Vdeo Cty Commerca, Inc. and Vva
Vdeocty, Inc. (VVCI), wthout ts consent, and to whom she was then empoyed as a
bookkeeper.
The RTC found pettoner guty beyond reasonabe doubt of quafed theft. On appea,
the CA affrmed the decson of the RTC. The CA hed that contrary to pettoners cam that
the prosecuton faed to show who was the absoute owner of the thng stoen, there was no
doubt that the persona property taken by pettoner does not beong to her but to |efferson
Tan and hs |ont venture partner VCCI. Thus, pettoner was abe to gan from takng other
peopes property wthout ther consent. More, she was abe to perpetrate the crme due to
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
195
her poston n VCCI whch gave her access to the |ont venture account of VCCI and |efferson
Tan, both of whom reposed trust and confdence n her. She expoted sad trust and
confdence to ther damage n the amount of P797,187.85.
ISS)E*
Whether the phrase " sha take the persona property of another wthout the atter's
consent x x x" n artce 308 of the revsed pena code n reaton to artce 310 of the same
code woud requre as an eement of "quafed theft" an estabshed proof of "ownershp" of
the property aegedy stoen
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
The eements of the crme of theft as provded for n Artce 308 of the Revsed Pena
Code are as foows: (1) that there be takng of persona property; (2) that sad property
beongs to another; (3) that the takng be done wth ntent to gan; (4) that the takng be
done wthout the consent of the owner; and (5) that the takng be accompshed wthout the
use of voence aganst or ntmdaton of persons or force upon thngs. Theft becomes
quafed when any of the foowng crcumstances under Artce 310s present: (1) the theft s
commtted by a domestc servant; (2) the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence;
(3) the property stoen s ether a motor vehce, ma matter or arge catte; (4) the property
stoen conssts of coconuts taken from the premses of a pantaton; (5) the property stoen s
fsh taken from a fshpond or fshery; and (6) the property was taken on the occason of fre,
earthquake, typhoon, vocanc erupton, or any other caamty, vehcuar accdent or cv
dsturbance.
The prosecuton was abe to prove beyond reasonabe doubt that the amount
of P797,187.85 taken does not beong to pettoner but to VCCI and that pettoner took t
wthout VCCIs consent and wth grave abuse of confdence by takng advantage of her
poston as accountant and bookkeeper. The prosecutons evdence proved that pettoner
was entrusted wth checks payabe to VCCI or Vva by vrtue of her poston as accountant
and bookkeeper. She deposted the sad checks to the |ont account mantaned by VCCI and
|efferson Tan, then wthdrew a tota of P797,187.85 from sad |ont account usng the pre-
sgned checks, wth her as the payee. In other words, the bank account was merey the
nstrument through whch pettoner stoe from her empoyer VCCI.
As correcty hed by the CA, the sub|ect of the crme of theft s any persona property
beongng to another. Hence, as ong as the property taken does not beong to the accused
who has a vad cam thereover, t s mmatera whether sad offender stoe t from the
owner, a mere possessor, or even a thef of the property. In any event, as stated above, the
factua fndngs of the courts a quo as to the ownershp of the amount pettoner stoe s
concusve upon ths Court, the fndng beng adequatey supported by the evdence on
record.
MAGSA7SA7 MARITIME COR/ORATION andDor WASTFEL,LARSEN
MANAGEMENT ADS v. OBERTO LOB)STA
G.R. No. 1;;8;8, 28 'anuar 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, J.(
'he standard terms of the ,O!( -tandard !mployment Contract governing the
employment of =ilipino seafarers are intended to be read and understood in accordance with
the provisions of the "abor Code so that disablement of an employee to work for more than
15> days or incapacity to return to work which is classified as total and permanent disability
under the "abor Code is also applicable to seafarers.
Oberto Lobusta (Lobusta) was hred as an Abe Seaman by Magsaysay Martme
Corporaton (MMC) n behaf of ts prncpa Wastfe-Larsen Management A/S. The
empoyment contract provdes that the standard terms and condtons governng the
empoyment of Fpno seafarers on board ocean-gong vesses under Department Order No.
33 of the Department of Labor and Empoyment and Memorandum Crcuar No. 55 of the
Phppne Overseas Empoyment Admnstraton (POEA Standard Empoyment Contract),
sha be strcty and fathfuy observed.
Two months after Lobusta boarded MV Fossanger, he companed of breathng
dffcuty and back pan. On May 12, 1998, whe the vesse was n Sngapore, Lobusta was
admtted at Geneages Martme Medca Center and was dagnosed to be sufferng from
severe acute broncha asthma wth secondary nfecton and umbosacra musce stran.
Sometme n October 2000, MMC suggested that Lobusta be examned by a doctor for an
ndependent medca examnaton, whose fndngs t was agreed upon, woud be consdered
fna. The doctor opned that Lobusta s not ft to return to work due to hs ness.
As no settement was reached, Lobusta fed a compant for dsabty benefts
camng that snce he was not abe to work for more than 120 days, he suffered a
permanent tota dsabty n accordance wth the provsons of the Labor Code. The Labor
Arbter rued that the provsons of the Labor Code on permanent tota dsabty do not appy
to seafarers. Hence, Lobusta was not awarded the maxmum rate for permanent and tota
dsabty under Secton 30 and 30-A of the 1996 POEA Standard Empoyment Contract. On
appea to the Natona Labor Reatons Commsson, the decson of the Labor Arbter was
affrmed. On petton for certorar before the Court of Appeas (CA), t was decared that
Lobusta s sufferng from permanent tota dsabty and awarded the maxmum rate of
dsabty benefts. Hence, the nstant petton by MMC.
ISS)E*
Whether or not the POEA Standard Empoyment Contract does not consder the mere
apse of more than one hundred twenty (120) days as tota and permanent dsabty
-ELD*
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
197
Petton DENIED.
In ,alisoc v. !asways arine, +nc., the Court sad that whether the Labor Codes
provson on permanent tota dsabty appes to seafarers s aready a setted matter. In
,alisoc, the earer case of *emigio v. 4ational "abor *elations Commission was cted where
the Court sad that the standard empoyment contract for seafarers was formuated by the
POEA "to secure the best terms and condtons of empoyment of Fpno contract workers
and ensure compance therewth," and "to promote and protect the we-beng of Fpno
workers overseas"; and that Secton 29 of the POEA Standard Empoyment Contract provdes
that a rghts and obgatons of the partes to the contract, ncudng the annexes thereof,
sha be governed by the aws of the Repubc of the Phppnes, nternatona conventons,
treates and covenants where the Phppnes s a sgnatory. In affrmng the Labor Code
concept of permanent tota dsabty, *emigio further stated:
Thus, the Court has apped the Labor Code concept of permanent tota dsabty
to the case of seafarers. In ,hilippine 'ransmarine Carriers v. 4"*C, the Court
affrmed the award of dsabty benefts to the seaman, ctng !CC v. -anico,
B-+- v. C(, and )e&erano v. !CC that "dsabty shoud not be understood more
on ts medca sgnfcance but on the oss of earnng capacty. Permanent tota
dsabty means dsabement of an empoyee to earn wages n the same knd of
work, or work of smar nature that |he| was traned for or accustomed to
perform, or any knd of work whch a person of |hs| mentaty and attanment
coud do. It does not mean absoute hepessness."
In 3ergara v. <ammonia aritime -ervices, +nc., the Court aso sad that the standard
terms of the POEA Standard Empoyment Contract agreed upon are ntended to be read and
understood n accordance wth Phppne aws, partcuary, Artces 191 to 193 of the Labor
Code, as amended, and the appcabe mpementng rues and reguatons n case of any
dspute, cam or grevance. Accordng to 3ergara, these provsons of the Labor Code, as
amended, and mpementng rues are to be read hand n hand wth the frst paragraph of
Secton 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA Standard Empoyment Contract. It was stated that:
As these provsons operate, the seafarer, upon sgn-off from hs vesse, must
report to the company-desgnated physcan wthn three (3) days from arrva
for dagnoss and treatment. For the duraton of the treatment but n no case to
exceed 120 days, the seaman s on temporary total disability as he s totay
unabe to work. He receves hs basc wage durng ths perod unt he s
decared ft to work or hs temporary dsabty s acknowedged by the company
to be permanent, ether partay or totay, as hs condton s defned under the
POEA Standard Empoyment Contract and by appcabe Phppne aws. If the
120 days nta perod s exceeded and no such decaraton s made because the
seafarer requres further medca attenton, then the temporary tota dsabty
perod may be extended up to a maxmum of 240 days, sub|ect to the rght of
the empoyer to decare wthn ths perod that a permanent parta or tota
dsabty aready exsts. The seaman may of course aso be decared ft to work
at any tme such decaraton s |ustfed by hs medca condton.
The medca report that Lobusta "ought not to be consdered ft to return to work as an
Abe Seaman" vadates that hs dsabty s permanent and tota as provded under the
POEA Standard Empoyment Contract and the Labor Code, as amended. In fact, the CA has
found that Lobusta was not abe to work agan as a seaman and that hs dsabty s
permanent "as he has been unabe to work snce 14 May 1998 or for more than 120 days."
Ths perod s more than eght years, counted unt the CA decded the case. On the CA rung
that Lobustas dsabty s permanent snce he was unabe to work "for more than 120 days,"
t was carfed n 3ergara that ths "temporary tota dsabty perod may be extended up to
a maxmum of 240 days." Thus, the Court affrms the award to Lobusta of US$60,000 as
permanent tota dsabty benefts, the maxmum award under Secton 30 and 30-A of the
1996 POEA Standard Empoyment Contract.
/EO/LE OF T-E /-ILI//INES v. ED)ARDO CASTRO AND RENERIO DELOS RE7ES
G.R. No. 18;!;?, 1< Mar5A 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION #"ILLARAMA, 'R., '.(
=or the defense of alibi to prosper, the re$uirements of time and place must be strictly
met. +t is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was
committed, but he must also demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time the same
was committed.
At around Seven Ocock n the evenng of 9 September 2002, Rcardo Pacheco
Benedcto (Benedcto), a merchant and owner of a store seng bakery suppes and pastres
n Bagong Sang, Caoocan Cty, was tendng hs store aong wth hs hepers, one of whom
was Emy Austra ("Austra"), when four (4) armed men entered the store and announced a
hod-up. Two (2) of the armed men proceeded to the tabe of Benedcto askng the atter to
brng out hs gun. One (1) of the armed men stayed outsde the store whe the other one (1)
guarded Austra. Snce Benedcto ressted the assaut, a commoton ensued promptng the
armed man guardng Austra and the ookout statoned outsde the store to |on and hep
ther other companons. Takng advantage of sad commoton, Austra ran outsde the store
and crossed the street. Immedatey after crossng the street, Austra heard three (3)
gunshots and saw the four (4) assaants wakng out of the store, one of them carryng
Benedctos bet bag.
Wtness Austra, n her testmony, narrated the sequence of events that transpred
durng the ncdent. She confrmed that she had recognzed the appeants as among the
armed men who robbed the store and ked her empoyer and that she had ater been
nformed by the pocemen that ther names were Eduardo Castro and Renero Deos Reyes.
She dentfed appeant Castro as the one who approached the tabe of the vctm whe
appeant Deos Reyes was the one who guarded her. She testfed that appeant Deos
Reyes sad, "HOLD UP ITO, DAPA", whe hodng a gun. Thereafter, they heard appeant
Castro shoutng that Benedcto was resstng. Appeant Deos Reyes and the other assaant
then ran towards the tabe of the vctm and at that |uncture, she had run outsde the store.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
199
Afterwards, she heard three (3) gunshots.
Denyng any nvovement or partcpaton n the robbery and kng n ths case, Deos
Reyes, posng an ab as a defense, camed that on 9 September 2002, at around 6:30 n
the evenng, he was nsde the house of hs n-aws at Phase 8-B, Package 4, Lot 1416,
Bagong Sang, Caoocan Cty, where he had been stayng snce |uy 2002. He admtted that
he was a trcyce drver pyng the route coverng a phases of Bagong Sang and that from
the scene of the crme, t woud ony take an eght (8) mnute trcyce rde for hm to reach
hs n-aws house. Smary denyng any nvovement, Castro asserted that, as narrated by
wtnesses, he was at the barangay outpost at the tme of the commsson of the crme. He
arrved thereat before 6:00 ocock n the evenng and eft at around 8:00 ocock n the
evenng.
The Regona Tra Court (RTC) found appeants guty of the offense charged and mposed
on them the penaty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC hed that a the evdence ponted to the
appeants as the perpetrators of the crme, and the exstence of conspracy was suffcenty
aeged and proven durng tra. On appea, the Court of Appeas (CA) affrmed the decson of
the RTC. The CA dd not gve credence to Castro and Deos Reyes attempt to assa Austras
testmony.
ISS)ES:
1. Whether or not the dentty of the one who actuay shot the vctm s matera
2. Whether or not the postve dentfcaton of the accused by the wtness s credbe and
suffcent enough
-ELD:
Petton DENIED.
Case aw estabshes that whenever homcde has been commtted by reason of or on
the occason of the robbery, a those who took part as prncpas n the robbery w aso be
hed guty as prncpas of robbery wth homcde athough they dd not take part n the
homcde, uness t appears that they sought to prevent the kng.
Here, evdence shows that Castro and Deos Reyes and ther two co-accused entered
the store and decared a robbery. Austra postvey dentfed appeant Castro as one of the
two assaants who proceeded to Benedctos tabe and asked hm to gve them hs gun,
whe appeant Deos Reyes, who decared the robbery, guarded her and the other store
hepers as the fourth assaant served as the ookout. Austra testfed that she was abe to
escape and that she heard three gunshots mmedatey after crossng the street opposte the
store. She aso saw the assaants eavng the store wth Benedctos bag.
Taken together, Castros and Deos Reyes actons proved beyond reasonabe doubt
that they acted n concert to attan a common purpose. The evdence does not show that
any of Castro and Deos Reyes sought to avert the kng of Benedcto. In ,eople v. !bet,

the
Supreme Court (SC) rued that once conspracy s shown, the act of one s the act of a. The
precse extent or modaty of partcpaton of each of them becomes secondary, snce a the
consprators are prncpas.
The SC concurs wth the tra and appeate courts n re|ectng Castro and Deos Reyes
defenses of dena and ab. Tme and agan the SC has rued that ab s the weakest of a
defenses, for t s easy to fabrcate and dffcut to prove; t cannot preva over the postve
dentfcaton of the accused by the wtnesses. Moreover, for the defense of ab to prosper,
the requrements of tme and pace must be strcty met. It s not enough to prove that the
accused was somewhere ese when the crme was commtted, but he must aso demonstrate
by cear and convncng evdence that t was physcay mpossbe for hm to have been at
the scene of the crme at the tme the same was commtted. Such physca mpossbty was
not shown to have exsted n ths case where Castros and Deos Reyes testmones
confrmed they were n the same ocaty (Bagong Sang) when the robbery-kng took
pace.
L)IS /. /INEDA v. NEIL T. TORRES, S-ERIFF III, M)NICI/AL TRIAL CO)RT IN CITIES,
BRANC- 2, ANGELES CIT7
A.M. No. /,12,?2!;, ?! 'anuar 2!12, T-IRD DI"ISION #/era%2a, J.(
!#ecution of writs by a -herrif outside his territorial &urisdiction without notice to the
place where the same is to be implemented as re$uired by (dministrative Circular 4o. 15
tantamount to abuse of authority.
Lus Pneda fed a compant aegng that Sherff Ne Torres took two vans of Pneda
by vrtue of wrts of repevn ssued by the Muncpa Tra Court n Ctes, Branch 2, Angees
Cty wthout notfyng n wrtng the sherff- n-charge n San Fernando Cty, Pampanga,
where the vehces were ocated. Pneda aeged that Sherff Torres voated paragraph 5 of
Admnstratve Crcuar No. 12 snce there was a Certfcaton dssued by |uanta M. Fores,
Cerk of Court IV of the MTCC of San Fernando Cty, Pampanga, statng that Torres dd not
request for assstance regardng the mpementaton of the sub|ect wrts. Sherff Torres
camed that he went to the Offce of the Cerk of Court (OCC), MTCC, San Fernando Cty,
Pampanga, merey receved the court processes Sherff Torres had n possesson.
Pneda stated, however, that Sherff Torres coud not have comped wth
Admnstratve Crcuar No. 12 because there was a copy of the securty guard's ogbook and
showed that Sherff Torres arrved at ther pace around 10:08 n the mornng whe the
certfed true copes ndcated at 11:50 n the mornng and that Sherff Torres merey
submtted copes of the wrts and made no notce n wrtng n seekng the assstance of the
sherff of San Fernando. The Offce of Court Admnstrator found Sherff Torres guty of Grave
Abuse of Authorty and Voaton of Admnstratve Crcuar No. 12.
ISS)E*
Whether or not Torres s guty of Grave Abuse of Authorty and Voaton of
Admnstratve Crcuar No. 12
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
201
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
The Court agrees wth the fndngs and recommendaton of the OCA. By the very
nature of hs dutes, a sherff performs a very senstve functon n the dspensaton of
|ustce. He s duty-bound to know the basc rues reatve to the mpementaton of wrts of
executon, and shoud, at a tmes show a hgh degree of professonasm n the performance
of hs dutes. The sherff s the front-ne representatve of the |ustce system n ths country,
and f he oses the trust reposed n hm, he nevtaby dmnshes, kewse, the fath of the
peope n the |udcary.
Indeed, Admnstratve Crcuar No. 12 s expct as to the rues to be foowed n the
mpementaton of wrts. Paragraph 2 thereof states that a Cerks of Court of the
Metropotan Tra Court and Muncpa Tra Courts n Ctes, and/or ther deputy sherffs sha
serve a court processes and execute a wrts of ther respectve courts wthn ther
terrtora |ursdcton. Paragraph 5 of the same crcuar s kewse cear and sef-expanatory
that no sherff or deputy sherff sha execute a court wrt outsde hs terrtora |ursdcton
wthout frst notfyng n wrtng, and seekng the assstance of, the sherff of the pace where
the executon sha take pace.
Guded by the above-mentoned Crcuar, t s cear that respondent's act of
mpementng the sub|ect wrts n San Fernando Cty, when hs terrtora |ursdcton s
confned ony to Angees Cty, s a voaton of the Crcuar and tantamount to abuse of
authorty. Whe respondent camed that he personay nformed the OCC of San Fernando
Cty, he, however, faed to prove that he made wrtten notce as requred by Admnstratve
Crcuar No. 12. A mere submsson of the copes of the court processes to the OCC w not
suffce as to the wrtten notce requrement.
Precsey, Admnstratve Crcuar No. 12 was promugated n order to streamne the
servce and executon of court wrts and processes n courts and to better serve the pubc
good and factate the admnstraton of |ustce. The requrement of notce s based on the
rudments of |ustce and far pay. It frowns upon arbtrarness and oppressve conduct n the
executon of an otherwse egtmate act. It s an ampfcaton of the provson that every
person must, n the exercse of hs rghts and n the performance of hs dutes, act wth
|ustce, gve everyone hs due, and observe honesty and good fath. An mmedate
enforcement of a wrt does not mean the abdcaton of the notfcaton requrement.
The Court have consstenty stressed that offcers of the court and a court personne
are exhorted to be vgant n the executon of the aw. Sherffs, as agents of the aw, are
therefore caed upon to dscharge ther dutes wth due care and utmost dgence. They
cannot afford to err n servng court wrts and processes and n mpementng court orders
est they undermne the ntegrty of ther offce and the effcent admnstraton of |ustce.
/R)DENTIAL BAN: #no6 BanI o3 2Ae /A$%$@@$ne I1%and1( v. ANON0O S.A. MA)RICIO
1ub12$2u2ed b A$1 %eEa% Ae$r1, MARIA MA)RICIO- et al.
G.R. No. 18??8!, 18 'anuar 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
*es &udicata applies when the present labor case is closely related to the civil case
that was decided with finality. Undeniably, the acts and omissions alleged by the )ank in the
civil case as basis of its counterclaim against auricio are the very same acts and omissions
which were used as grounds to terminate his employment.
Respondent Antono Maurco was hred by pettoner Prudenta Bank (Bank) and
currenty the Branch Manager of the Banks Magaanes Branch when he was dsmssed from
empoyment. Maurcos dsmssa was brought by the asserton of hs voaton of every rue
on safe bankng practces so he coud accommodate Spouses Marceo and Corazon Cruz
(Spouses Cruz) transactons nvovng mons of pesos whch resuted n substanta oss and
pre|udce to the Bank. Maurco camed n contrary and even |ustfed hs acton through the
deeds of rea estate mortgaged executed by Spouses Cruz n favor of the Bank.
Investgaton was conducted by the Bank aowng Maurco to report and expan why
an acton shoud not be nsttuted aganst hm. However, nvestgaton was termnated upon
the determnaton of suffcent evdence resutng to Maurcos dsmssa. Smutaneousy
Maurco fed wth the Natona Labor Reatons Commsson (NLRC) a compant for ega
dsmssa; whe Spouses Cruz sought fed a compant for the nuty of the rea estate
mortgage to the Regona Tra Court (RTC).

Whe the ega dsmssa compant was awatng resouton by the Labor Arbter (LA),
RTC rued n favor of the Spouses Cruz and Maurco. The nuty of the rea estate mortgage
was affrmed by the Court of Appeas (CA)
The LA rued n favor of the Bank, hodng that the Bank was |ustfed n termnatng
Maurcos empoyment but nonetheess ordered the Bank to pay Maurco hs 13th month
pay and other reefs. NLRC dened the parta appea of Maurco and affrmed the LAs
decson. Upon recourse, the CA set asde the NLRC decson and rued n favor of Maurco.
ISS)E*
Whether or not res &udicata appes n a cv case on one hand and a abor case on the
other hand
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.
The dssmarty of the cv and abor cases based on the dfferent quanta of proof -
the former requrng preponderance of evdence whe the atter ony cas for substanta
evdence; does not bar the doctrne of res &udicata.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
203
Secton 47, Rue 39 of the Rues of Court ays down two man rues on the doctrne of
res |udcata referred to as "bar by former |udgment", or the effect of a |udgment as a bar to
the prosecuton of a second acton upon the same cam, demand or cause of acton; and
"concusveness of |udgment", whch precudes the retgaton of a partcuar fact or ssues
n another acton between the same partes on a dfferent cam or cause of acton.
It was further reterated n the case of "opez v. *eyes, under ths rue, f the record of
the former tra shows that the |udgment coud not have been rendered wthout decdng the
partcuar matter, t w be consdered as havng setted that matter as to a future actons
between the partes, and f a |udgment necessary presupposes certan premses, they are
as concusve as the |udgment tsef.
The foregong fnds appcaton to the nstant case. Irrefutaby, the present abor case
s cosey reated to the cv case that was decded wth fnaty. Undenaby, the acts and
omssons aeged by the Bank n the cv case as bass of ts countercam aganst Maurco
are the very same acts and omssons whch were used as grounds to termnate hs
empoyment.
Thus, the CA dd not err n |udgment for appyng the prncpe of res &udicata. The
partes ought not to be permtted to tgate the same ssue more than once; that, when a
rght or fact has been |udcay tred and determned by a court of competent |ursdcton, or
an opportunty for such tra has been gven, the |udgment of the court, so ong as t remans
unreversed, shoud be concusve upon the partes and those n prvty wth them n aw or
estate.
S/O)SES 'OSE and MILAGROS "ILLACERAN and FAR EAST BAN: = TR)ST
COM/AN7 v. 'OSE/-INE DE G)>MAN
G.R. No. 199!88. 22 Februar 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION#"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
+f the words of a contract appear to contravene the evident intention of the parties,
the latter shall prevail. -uch intention is determined not only from the e#press terms of
their agreement, but also from the contemporaneous and subse$uent acts of the parties.
|osephne De Guzman (De Guzman), theregstered owner of a parce of and,
mortgaged the ot to the Phppne Natona Bank (PNB) of Santago Cty to secure a
oan. She executed a Speca Power of Attorney n favor of Magros Vaceran (Magros)n
order to secure a bgger oan to fnance a busness venture on her behaf. Consderng De
Guzmans unsatsfactory oan record wth the PNB, Magros suggested that the tte of the
property be transferred to her and |ose Vaceran and they woud obtan a bgger oan as
they have a credt ne of up toP5,000,000 wth the bank.
On |une 19, 1996, De Guzman executed a smuated Deed of Absoute Sae n favor of
the spouses Vaceran, went to the PNB and pad the amount of P721,891.67 usng the
money of the spouses Vaceran. The spouses Vaceran regstered the Deed of Sae and
secured TCT n ther names.
Thereafter, unknown to De Guzman, they mortgaged the property wth Far East Bank
& Trust Company (FEBTC) Santago Cty to secure a oan of P1,485,000. Later, when De
Guzman earned of the oan reease, she asked for the oan proceeds ess the amount
advanced by the spouses Vaceran to pay the PNB oan. The spouses Vaceran refused to
gve the money. De Guzman offered to pay P350,000 provded that the spouses Vaceran
woud execute a deed of reconveyance of the property. In vew of the smuated character of
ther transacton, the spouses Vaceran executed a Deed of Absoute Sae dated September
6, 1996 n favor of De Guzman. They aso promsed to pay ther mortgage debt wth FEBTC
to avod exposng the property to possbe forecosure and aucton sae. However, the
spouses Vaceran faed to sette the oan and subsequenty the property was extra|udcay
forecosed.

The Regona Tra Court (RTC) rued that the Deed of Sae was vad and bndng on
the partes. The RTC aso found that t was a reatvey smuated contract, smuated ony as
to the purchase prce, but nonetheess bndng upon the partes nsofar as ther true
agreement s concerned. Aggreved, the spouses Vaceran appeaed. The Court of Appeas
(CA) affrmed the decson wth modfcaton.

ISS)E*
Whether or not the Deed of Sae dated |une 19, 1996 s a smuated contract and not a
true sae of the sub|ect property.
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
Artce 1345 of the Cv Code provdes that the smuaton of a contract may ether be
absoute or reatve. In absoute smuaton, there s a coorabe contract but t has no
substance as the partes have no ntenton to be bound by t. The man characterstc of an
absoute smuaton s that the apparent contract s not reay desred or ntended to produce
ega effect or n any way ater the |urdca stuaton of the partes. As a resut, an absoutey
smuated or fcttous contract s vod, and the partes may recover from each other what
they may have gven under the contract. However, f the partes state a fase cause n the
contract to concea ther rea agreement, the contract s ony reatvey smuated and the
partes are st bound by ther rea agreement. Hence, where the essenta requstes of a
contract are present and the smuaton refers ony to the content or terms of the contract,
the agreement s absoutey bndng and enforceabe between the partes and ther
successors n nterest.
The prmary consderaton n determnng the true nature of a contract s the ntenton
of the partes. If the words of a contract appear to contravene the evdent ntenton of the
partes, the atter sha preva. Such ntenton s determned not ony from the express
terms of ther agreement, but aso from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the
partes. In the case at bar, there s a reatve smuaton of contract as the Deed of Absoute
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
205
Sae dated |une 19, 1996 executed by De Guzman n favor of pettoners dd not refect the
true ntenton of the partes.
It s worthy to note that both the RTC and the CA found that the evdence estabshed
that the aforesad document of sae was executed ony to enabe pettoners to use the
property as coatera for a bgger oan, by way of accommodatng De Guzman. Thus, the
partes have agreed to transfer tte over the property n the name of pettoners who had a
good credt ne wth the bank. The CA found t nconcevabe for De Guzman to se the
property for P75,000 as stated n the |une 19, 1996 Deed of Sae when pettoners were abe
to mortgage the property wth FEBTC for P1,485,000. Another ndcaton of the ack of
ntenton to se the property s when a few months ater, on September 6, 1996, the same
property, ths tme aready regstered n the name of pettoners, was reconveyed to De
Guzman aegedy for P350,000.
BAN: OF T-E /-ILI//INE ISLANDS, v. ED)ARDO -ONG, do$nE bu1$ne11 under
2Ae na&e and 12%e GS)/ER LINE /RINTING /RESSH and T-E CO)RT OF
A//EALS
G.R. No. 191;;1, 18 Februar 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
With the enactment of the new law, &urisdiction over the li$uidation proceedings
ordered in -!C Case was transferred to the *'C branch designated by the -upreme
Court to e#ercise &urisdiction over cases formerly cognizable by the -!C.
EYCO Group of Companes (EYCO) fed a petton for suspenson of payments and
rehabtaton before the Securtes and Exchange Commsson (SEC). A stay order was
ssued en|onng the dsposton n any manner except n the ordnary course of busness
and payment outsde of egtmate busness expenses durng the pendency of the
proceedngs, and suspendng a actons, cams and proceedngs aganst EYCO unt
further orders from the SEC. Subsequenty, the hearng pane approved the proposed
rehabtaton pan prepared by EYCO. However by September 1999, SEC rendered ts
decson dsapprovng the petton for suspenson of payments, termnatng EYCOs
proposed rehabtaton pan and orderng the dssouton and qudaton of the
pettonng corporaton. On appea by EYCO, the CA uphed the SEC rung. Sometme n
November 2000 whe the case was st pendng wth the CA, Pettoner Bank of the
Phppne Isands (BPI), fed wth the Regona Tra Court (RTC), a petton for extra-
|udca forecosure of rea propertes mortgaged to t by Eyco Propertes, Inc. and Bue
Star Mahogany, Inc. Pubc aucton of the mortgaged propertes was schedued on
December 19, 2000.
Camng that the forecosure proceedngs ntated by BPI was ega, respondent
Eduardo Hong (Hong), an unsecured credtor of Nkon Industra Corporaton, one of the
companes of EYCO, fed an acton for n|uncton and damages aganst the BPI n the
same court. On ts prncpa cause of acton, the compant aeged that: Frst, the ex-
offco sherff has no authorty to se the mortgaged propertes; Second, the SEC, at
whch the qudaton s pendng, has |ursdcton over the mortgaged propertes to the
excuson of any other court; and Thrd, forecosure shoud be dsaowed so as not to
pre|udce other credtors or cause dscrmnaton among them. EYCO, on the contrary,
asserted the |ursdcton of the RTC on the ssue of property and vadty of the
forecosure n accordance wth Secton 1, Rue 4 of the 1997 Rues of Cv Procedure, as
amended, the sut beng n the nature of a rea acton. BPI fed a moton to dsmss wth
the RTC whch dened the moton and the moton for reconsderaton. The CA affrmed
the dena of the moton to dsmss as t hed that questons reatng to the vadty or
egaty of the forecosure proceedngs, ncudng an acton to en|on the same, must
necessary be cognzabe by the RTC, notwthstandng that the SEC kewse possesses
the power to ssue n|uncton n a cases n whch t has |ursdcton as provded n Sec. 6
(a) of Presdenta Decree (P.D.) No. 902-A. Further, the CA stated that an acton for
forecosure of mortgage and a ncdents reatve thereto ncudng ts vadty or
nvadty s wthn the |ursdcton of the RTC and s not among those cases over whch
the SEC exercses excusve and orgna |ursdcton under Sec. 5 of P.D. No. 902-
A. Hence, ths petton.
ISS)E*
Whether the RTC can take cognzance of the n|ucton of the forecosure
proceedngs ntated by BPI despte the pendency of SEC case
-ELD:
Petton DENIED

Perusa of the compant reveas that Hong does not ask the tra court to rue on ts
nterest or cam -- as an unsecured credtor of two companes under EYCO -- aganst the
atters propertes mortgaged to BPI. The compant prncpay seeks to en|on the
forecosure proceedngs ntated by BPI over those propertes on the ground that such
propertes are hed n trust and paced under the |ursdcton of the apponted Lqudator.
Thus, the cv case s one for n|uncton wth prayer for damages.
An acton for n|uncton s a sut whch has for ts purpose the en|onment of the
defendant, perpetuay or for a partcuar tme, from the commsson or contnuance of a
specfc act, or hs compuson to contnue performance of a partcuar act. It has an
ndependent exstence, and s dstnct from the ancary remedy of premnary n|uncton
whch cannot exst except ony as a part or an ncdent of an ndependent acton or
proceedng. In an acton for n|uncton, the auxary remedy of premnary n|uncton,
prohbtory or mandatory, may ssue.
As a rue, actons for n|uncton and damages e wthn the |ursdcton of the
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
207
RTC pursuant to Secton 19 of Batas Pambansa Bg. 129, otherwse known as the
"|udcary Reorganzaton Act of 1980," as amended by Repubc Act (R.A.) No. 7691.
On the other hand, Sec. 6 (a) of P.D. No. 902-A empowered the SEC to "ssue
premnary or permanent n|unctons, whether prohbtory or mandatory, n a cases n
whch t has |ursdcton." Such cases n whch the SEC exercses orgna and excusve
|ursdcton are the foowng:
(a) Devces or schemes empoyed by or any acts, of the board of drectors,
busness assocates, ts offcers or partnershp, amountng to fraud and
msrepresentaton whch may be detrmenta to the nterest of the
pubc and/or of the stockhoder, partners, members of assocatons or
organzatons regstered wth the Commsson;
(b) Controverses arsng out of ntra-corporate or partnershp reatons,
between and among stockhoders, members or assocates; between
any or a of them and the corporaton, partnershp or assocaton of
whch they are stockhoders, members or assocates, respectvey; and
between such corporaton, partnershp or assocaton and the state
nsofar as t concerns ther ndvdua franchse or rght to exst as such
entty; and
(c) Controverses n the eecton or appontments of drectors, trustees,
offcers or managers of such corporatons, partnershps or assocatons.
Prevousy, under the Rues of Procedure on Corporate Recovery, the SEC upon
termnaton of cases nvovng pettons for suspenson of payments or rehabtaton
may, motu proprio, or on moton by any nterested party, or on the bass of the fndngs
and recommendaton of the Management Commttee that the contnuance n busness of
the debtor s no onger feasbe or proftabe, or no onger works to the best nterest of
the stockhoders, partes-tgants, credtors, or the genera pubc, order the dssouton
of the debtor and the qudaton of ts remanng assets appontng a Lqudator for the
purpose. The debtors propertes are then deemed to have been conveyed to the
Lqudator n trust for the beneft of credtors, stockhoders and other persons n nterest.
Ths notwthstandng, any en or preference to any property sha be recognzed by the
Lqudator n favor of the securty or enhoder, to the extent aowed by aw, n the
mpementaton of the qudaton pan.
However, R.A. No. 8799, whch took effect on August 8, 2000, transferred to the
approprate regona tra courts the SECs |ursdcton over those cases enumerated n
Sec. 5 of P.D. No. 902-A. Secton 5.2 of R.A. No. 8799 provdes:
SEC. 5.2 The Commssons |ursdcton over a cases enumerated under Secton 5 of
Presdenta Decree No. 902-A s hereby transferred to the Courts of genera |ursdcton or
the approprate Regona Tra Court: ,rovided, that the Supreme Court n the exercse of ts
authorty may desgnate the Regona Tra Court branches that sha exercse |ursdcton
over these cases. The Commsson sha retan |ursdcton over pendng cases nvovng
ntra-corporate dsputes submtted for fna resouton whch shoud be resoved wthn one
(1) year from the enactment of ths Code. TAe Co&&$11$on 1Aa%% re2a$n Jur$1d$52$on
o0er @end$nE 1u1@en1$on o3 @a&en21DreAab$%$2a2$on 5a1e1 3$%ed a1 o3 ?! 'une 2!!!
un2$% 3$na%% d$1@o1ed.
Upon the effectvty of R.A. No. 8799, SEC Case was no onger pendng. The
SEC fnay dsposed of sad case when t rendered on September 14, 1999 the decson
dsapprovng the petton for suspenson of payments, termnatng the proposed
rehabtaton pan, and orderng the dssouton and qudaton of the pettonng
corporaton. Wth the enactment of the new aw, |ursdcton over the qudaton
proceedngs ordered n SEC Case was transferred to the RTC branch desgnated by the
Supreme Court to exercse |ursdcton over cases formery cognzabe by the SEC.
There s no showng n the records that SEC Case No. 09-97-5764 had been
transferred to the approprate RTC desgnated as Speca Commerca Court at the tme
of the commencement of the n|uncton sut on December 18, 2000. Gven the urgency
of the stuaton and the proxmty of the schedued pubc aucton of the mortgaged
propertes as per the Notce of Sherffs Sae, Hong was constraned to seek reef from
the same court havng |ursdcton over the forecosure proceedngs Hong thus fed Cv
Case n the RTC on December 2000 questonng the vadty of and en|onng the
extra|udca forecosure ntated by BPI. Pursuant to ts orgna |ursdcton over suts for
n|uncton and damages, the RTC propery took cognzance of the n|uncton case fed by
the Hong. No reversbe error was therefore commtted by the CA when t rued that
the RTC had |ursdcton to hear and decde Hongs compant for n|uncton and
damages.
Lasty, t may be mentoned that whe the Consortum of Credtor Banks had
agreed to end ther opposton to the qudaton proceedngs upon the executon of the
Agreement

dated February 10, 2003, on the bass of whch the partes moved for the
dsmssa of G.R. No. 145977, t s to be noted that BPI s not a party to the sad
agreement. Thus, even assumng that the SEC retaned |ursdcton over SEC Case No.
09-97-5764, BPI was not bound by the terms and condtons of the Agreement reatve
to the forecosure of those mortgaged propertes beongng to EYCO and/or other
accommodaton mortgagors.
FELICIDAD STA. MARIA "ILLARAN, et al. v.
DE/ARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM AD')DICATION BOARD, et al.
G.R. No. 19!882, ; Mar5A 2!12, T-IRD DI"ISION #/era%2a, J.(
(grarian disputes refer to any controversy relating to tenancy over lands devoted to
agriculture, among others. +t includes any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements over
lands devoted to agriculture. +t also includes any controversy relating to compensation of
lands ac$uired under *.(. 4o. 77:9 and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership
from landowner to farm workers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
209
Bernardo Sta. Mara had been a tenant-ter of <acienda |aa-Haa, estate of spouses
Francsco de Bor|a and |osefna Tangco. By vrtue of Presdenta Decree No. 27, he was
ssued Certfcates of Land Transfers coverng three parces of rceand sub|ect of ths case.
The certfcates were the bass for the ssuance of emancpaton patents and Transfer
Certfcates of Tte (TCTs). The controversy arose when respondent Lorenzo Marano
aegedy entered the sub|ect property foowng the death of Sta. Mara, cutvated the same,
and approprated the harvest a to hmsef. After no compromse was reached before the
Barangay Agraran Reform Commttee (BARC) and the Muncpa Agraran Reform Offce
(MARO), pettoners Fecdad Sta. Mara Varan, et al., the hers of Sta. Mara, formay
demanded Marano to vacate the sub|ect property but the atter dd not heed the demand.
Marano then fed before the Department of Agraran Reform Ad|udcaton Board
(DARAB) Regona Offce a petton for the dsquafcaton of Varan, et al. as farmer-
benefcares and for the canceaton of the pertnent emancpaton patents and TCTs ssued
to Sta. Mara. Marano camed that he was a sub-tenant n the and unt Sta. Maras death
and that Varan, et al. eft the and de. Varan, et al. countered that Marano entered the
and by steath and strategy and that t was the reguar courts not the DARAB whch had
|ursdcton over the case n as much as Marano was a mere "squatter" or usurper. The
Regona Ad|udcator ssued a |udgment n favor of Marano, whch the DARAB affrmed. The
ssue was rased n the Court of Appeas (CA) but the same was dsmssed because of the
ncorrect remedy avaed by Varan, et al. The CA aso hed that the dspute arose from the
supposed tenancy reatonshp whch exsted between Sta. Mara and Marano, hence, t
came undedr the competence of DARAB to resove.
ISS)ES*
1.) Whether or not a petton for certiorari under Rue 65 s the proper remedy from an
adverse decson of DARAB
2.) Whether or not the case s removed from the |ursdcton of the Department of
Agraran Reform (DAR) snce the dsputants are agraran reform benefcares and a
mere usurper or "squatter"
-ELD*
Petton s DENIED.
A petition for certiorari is not the proper remed$ from an adverse decision of
DA%AB
The Court agreed wth the CA that Varan, et al. have resorted to a wrong mode of
appea by pursung a Rue 65 petton from the DARABs decson. Secton 60 of Repubc Act
(R.A.) No. 6657 ceary states that the modaty of recourse from decsons or orders of the
then speca agraran courts s by petton for revew. In turn, Secton 61 of the aw
mandates that |udca revew of sad orders or decsons are governed by the Rues of Court.
Secton 60 thereof s to be read n reaton to R.A. No. 7902, whch expanded the |ursdcton
of the CA to ncude excusve appeate |ursdcton over a fna |udgments, decsons,
resoutons, orders or awards of Regona Tra Courts and quas-|udca agences,
nstrumentates, boards or commssons. On ths bass, the Supreme Court ssued Crcuar
No. 1-95 governng appeas from a quas-|udca bodes to the CA by petton for revew
regardess of the nature of the queston rased. Hence, the Rues drect that t s Rue 43 that
must govern the procedure for |udca revew of decsons, orders, or resoutons of the DAR
as n ths case. Under Supreme Court Crcuar No. 2-90, moreover, an appea taken to the
Supreme Court or the CA by a wrong or napproprate mode warrants a dsmssa.

Thus, Varan, et al. shoud have assaed the decson of the DARAB before the
appeate court via a petton for revew under Rue 43. By fng a speca cv acton for
certiorari under Rue 65 rather than the mandatory petton for revew, Varan, et al. had
ceary taken an napproprate recourse. For ths reason aone, the Court found no reversbe
error on the part of the CA n dsmssng the petton before t. Whe the rue that a petton
for certiorari s dsmssbe when avaed of as a wrong remedy s not nfexbe and admts of
exceptons - such as when pubc wefare and the advancement of pubc pocy dctates; or
when the broader nterest of |ustce so requres; or when the wrts ssued are nu and vod;
or when the questoned order amounts to an oppressve exercse of |udca authorty - none
of these exceptons was obtaned n the case.
he case is not removed from the ,urisdiction of the DA%
The fndngs contaned n the sad BARC Report ndsputaby pace the controversy
wthn the cass of dsputes over whch the DAR exercses prmary |ursdcton as provded n
Secton 50 of R.A. No. 6657. Agraran dsputes refer to any controversy reatng to tenancy
over ands devoted to agrcuture, among others. The statutory vesture of power n the DAR
s to be read n con|uncton wth Secton 3 (d) of R.A. No. 6657, whch defnes an agraran
dspute as any controversy reatng to tenura arrangements, whether easehod, tenancy,
stewardshp or otherwse, over ands devoted to agrcuture, ncudng dsputes concernng
farm workers assocatons or representaton of persons n negotatng, fxng, mantanng,
changng or seekng to arrange terms or condtons of such tenura arrangements. It
ncudes any controversy reatng to compensaton of ands acqured under ths Act and other
terms and condtons of transfer of ownershp from andowner to farm workers, tenants and
other agraran reform benefcares, whether the dsputants stand n the proxmate reaton
of farm operator and benefcary, andowner and tenant, or essor and essee. It refers to any
controversy reatng to, nter aa, tenancy over ands devoted to agrcuture.
Thus, armed wth the BARC Report whch tsef states that no concaton has been
arrved at by the partes prevousy, and foowng a faed attempt at concaton before the
MARO, Marano fed a petton aganst Varan, et al. for ther dsquafcaton to become
agraran reform benefcares wth the Offce of the Regona Ad|udcator of the DAR. Reyng
on the BARCs fndngs, the Regona Ad|udcator noted that, ndeed, Sta. Mara had voated
the terms of hs and grant when he empoyed sub-tenants n the cutvaton of the sub|ect
andhodng - a drect contraventon of the prohbtons nsttuted n Secton 27 of R.A. No.
3844 and n Secton 24 (2) of R.A. No. 1199, as amended. These two provsons prohbt an
agrcutura essee or tenant from, among others, empoyng a essee on the andhodng
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
211
except n case of ness or ncapacty where aborers may be empoyed but whose servces
sha be on hs account. It turned out aso that the Regona Ad|udcator had found
mertorous the BARC fndngs that Marano was ony among other thrd partes n favor of
whom the usufructuary rghts over the andhodng had been surrendered by Sta. Mara; and
that snce Marano was the ast sub-tenant to take possesson of the andhodng n the seres
of renqushments made by Sta. Mara foowng the ssuance of hs certfcates of and
transfer n 1973, t was deemed proper to protect Maranos securty of tenure on the sub|ect
property. Ths, especay snce Maranos unrebutted evdence s to the effect that he has
been n contnuous and actua possesson and cutvaton of the dsputed ands.
')AN GALO/E v. CRESENCIA B)GARIN
G.R. No. 188999, !1 Februar 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, J.(
'he absence of receipt to prove tenancy relationship is immaterial given respondents
e#plicit admission that the rentals she received from petitioner is insignificant. oreover, an
agricultural leasehold relation may e#ist either upon an oral or written agreement.
Respondent Ceresenca Bugarn fed a petton for recovery of possesson, e|ectment
and payment of rentas before the Department of Agraran Reform Ad|udcaton Board
(DARAB) aganst pettoner |uan Gaorpe, who farms respondents parce of and n Sto.
Domngo, Nueva Ec|a. Respondent cams that she ent the and to pettoner n 1991
wthout an agreement and that the atter gave nothng n return as a sgn of grattude or
monetary consderaton for the use of the and. Pettoner on the other hand countered that
respondent cannot recover the and yet for he had been farmng t for a ong tme and that
he pays rent rangng from P4,000 to P6,000 or 15 cavans of palay per harvest.
The Provnca Ad|udcator dsmssed the petton and rued that pettoner s a tenant
entted to securty of tenure. On appea, the DARAB reversed the Ad|udcators decson and
rued that pettoner s not a de &ure tenant because the eements of consent and sharng
are not present; that respondents act of endng her and wthout consderaton cannot be
taken as mped tenancy; and that no recepts prove pettoners payment of rentas. The
Court of Appeas affrmed DARABs rung
ISS)E*
Whether or not a tenancy reatonshp exsts between the partes despte the absence
of recept, provng pettoners payment of rentas.
-ELD*
Petton GRANTED.

The essenta eements of an agrcutura tenancy reatonshp are: (1) the partes are
the andowner and the tenant or agrcutura essee; (2) the sub|ect matter of the
reatonshp s agrcutura and; (3) there s consent between the partes to the reatonshp;
(4) the purpose of the reatonshp s to brng about agrcutura producton; (5) there s
persona cutvaton on the part of the tenant or agrcutura essee; and (6) the harvest s
shared between the andowner and the tenant or agrcutura essee.
The CA and DARAB rung that there s no sharng of harvest s based on the absence
of recepts to show pettoners payment of rentas. We are constraned to reverse them on
ths pont. The matter of renta recepts s not an ssue gven respondents admsson that
she receves rentas from pettoner. To reca, respondents compant n )arangay Case No.
99-6 was that the renta or the amount she receves from pettoner s not much. Ths fact s
evdent on the record of sad case whch s sgned by respondent and was even attached as
Annex "D" of her DARAB petton. Consequenty, we are thus unabe to agree wth DARABs
rung that the affdavts of wtnesses that pettoner pays 15 cavans of palay or the
equvaent thereof n pesos as rent are not concrete proof to rebut the aegaton of
nonpayment of rentas. Indeed, respondents admsson confrms ther statement that
rentas are n fact beng pad. Such admsson bees the cam of respondents
representatve, Ceso Rabang, that pettoner pad nothng for the use of the and.
Contrary aso to the CA and DARAB pronouncement, respondents act of aowng the
pettoner to cutvate her and and recevng rentas therefor ndubtaby show her consent
to an unwrtten tenancy agreement. An agrcutura easehod reaton s not determned by
the expct provsons of a wrtten contract aone. Secton 5 of Repubc Act (R.A.) No. 3844,
otherwse known as the Agrcutura Land Reform Code, recognzes that an agrcutura
easehod reaton may exst upon an ora agreement.
Thus, a the eements of an agrcutura tenancy reatonshp are present. Respondent
s the andowner; pettoner s her tenant. The sub|ect matter of ther reatonshp s
agrcutura and, a farm and. They mutuay agreed to the cutvaton of the and by
pettoner and share n the harvest. The purpose of ther reatonshp s ceary to brng about
agrcutura producton. After the harvest, pettoner pays renta consstng of palay or ts
equvaent n cash. Respondents moton to supervse harvesting and threshing, processes
n palayfarmng, further confrms the purpose of ther agreement. Lasty, pettoners
persona cutvaton of the and s conceded by respondent who kewse never dened the
fact that they share n the harvest.
NOR:IS DISTRIB)TORS, INC. and ALE. D. B)AT v. DELFIN S. DESCALLAR
G.R. No. 182822, 1< Mar5A 2!12, FIRST DI"ISION #"$%%ara&a, 'r., J.(
'he failure to reach the monthly sales $uota is not a valid basis for loss of trust and
confidence as what (rticle 5?5/c0 of the "abor Code contemplates is that for termination to
be legal, there must be a willful breach of trust, which must be done intentionally, knowingly
and purposely, without &ustifiable e#cuse.
As Branch Manager of the Igan Cty Branch of pettoner, Norks Dstrbutors, Inc.,
respondent Defn S. Descaar was n charge of both the empoyees and the saes and
coecton, dutes he performed snce 1997. On 20 |une 2002, he was requred by the
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
213
pettoner to expan n wrtng why he shoud not be penazed or termnated for beng
absent wthout offca eave (AWOL) or renderng under-tme servce on certan dates from 3
Apr 2002 to 11 |une 2002. He submtted hs expanaton the foowng day, statng he went
to the bank or foowed-up on prospects on the sad dates. Furthermore, on 5 |uy 2002,
pettoner conducted an nvestgaton and found that respondent was not abe to prove the
statements he decared on hs expanatons. The pettoner then suspended the respondent
for ffteen (15) days wthout pay begnnng on |uy 8. Durng the respondents suspenson,
the Interna Audtor of the company conducted a random operatona revew and audt of the
Igan Cty Branch and such audt resuted n fndngs aganst respondent.
Fndngs aganst the respondent ncuded hs aegedy refusa to accept redempton
payment from a customer on ther deposted motorcyce unt, the chargng of an amount n
excess of a customers account baance, the dsbursement of saes commsson to
unauthorzed persons and the appcaton of saes commsson on the down payments of
severa wak-n customers. On 20 |uy 2002, pettoner asked respondent to submt a wrtten
expanaton regardng the fndngs aganst hm, whch the atter then comped wth. On 25
|uy 2002, respondent was then agan paced under a preventve suspenson for ffteen (15)
days wthout pay due to a dscovered shortage of P800 n the companys TNT fund durng a
cash count.
On 12 August 2002 respondent receved a "Notce to Show Cause" from the pettoner
statng that the audt fndngs are suffcent grounds for hs termnaton. On 21 August 2002,
pettoner termnated respondents servces for oss of trust and confdence and gross
neffcency.
Respondent then fed a compant for ega suspenson and ega dsmssa before
the Labor Arbter, wheren the atter found that respondent was ndeed ega dsmssed.
Pettoner, aggreved wth the Decson of the Labor Arbter, appeaed to the NLRC whch
then reversed the Labor Arbters Decson. After hs Moton for Reconsderaton was dened,
respondent fed a petton for certiorari wth the Court of Appeas (CA) whch then uphed the
decson of the Labor Arbter.
ISS)ES*
1. Whether or not the CA gravey erred n not gvng weght to the affdavts and sworn
certfcatons of the wtnesses, and n fndng that they reed entrey on the affdavts of
ther wtnesses n termnatng respondent
2. Whether or not the CA commtted grave error n hodng that the faure of
respondent to reach hs monthy saes quota s not a vad bass for oss of trust and
confdence
-ELD*
Petton DENIED.
%el$in# solel$ on the affidavits of "itnesses in termination cases
The pettoner, n termnatng the respondent, reed entrey on the affdavts and
sworn certfcatons of the wtnesses. However, a the compants were found to be
nadmssbe as evdences as they were contradcted by nvestgatons conducted by the
pettoner. Customer Ludy Gamboas compant of respondents act of decnng to accept
payment s not to be reed upon as the act of refusa to receve such payment stemmed
from the |ustfcaton that the motorcyce has aready been repossessed as Gamboa faed to
sette her account on the tme due. Aso, the compant by another customer, Amy Pastor,
regardng the supposedy excessve amount charged by respondent, s aso deemed
rreevant as an audt report conducted by the nterna audtor of pettoner showed that
there was no over-coecton.
And asty, the pettoner accused respondent for the atters gvng of authorzed
commssons to Gary Been, who turned out to be a egtmate Personazed Saes
Representatve of Norks Dstrbutors, as evdenced by the contract they sgned. In vew of
the foregong, t can be shown that the pettoner erred n reyng soey on the affdavts of
ther wtness and that such affdavts, havng no weght, cannot be used as evdence n the
termnaton case aganst respondent.
Monthl$ sales &uota not a valid !asis for loss of trust and confidence
It s stated n Artce 282 of the Labor Code that oss of trust and confdence s a
ground for termnaton of an empoyee. However t requres that such breach of trust be
wfu - whether t be done ntentonay, knowngy and purposey, wthout |ustfabe
excuse. Respondent, beng the pettoner Branch Manager n Iga Cty, hods such poston
of trust and confdence as hs dutes ncude the admnstraton of the branch, supervson
over a the empoyees and management of saes and coecton. Respondent was termnated
on the ground of oss of trust and confdence for supposedy commttng acts nmca to the
companys nterests - specfcay hs faure to reach the monthy quota expected of hm.
The Court fnds that faure to reach the monthy saes quota s not a vad ground for
oss of trust and confdence as ths s not what has been contempated n Artce 282(c) of
the Labor Code. Severa factors can be attrbuted to the ow saes performance, whch may
not be controed by the respondent. It beng nvountary on hs part, the factors cannot be
taken as a vad ground as they are not to be consdered wfu breach of trust, for they were
not done ntentonay, knowngy and purposey, wthout |ustfabe excuse.
Furthermore, t has been stated that n termnaton cases, the burden of proof rests
upon the empoyer to show that the dsmssa s for a |ust and vad cause and faure to do
so woud necessary mean that the dsmssa was ega. Moreover, the quantum of proof
needed n these knds of cases s substanta evdence for the termnaton to be hed
ega. In the case at bar, the records show that the pettoner faed to dscharge ths burden
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
215
and therefore, the Court uphods the fndngs of both the Labor Arbter and the CA that
respondent was egay dsmssed.

Villarama Digest Pool

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Villarama Digest Pool

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

WILFREDO M. BARON, et al. v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MAGIC SALES, INC.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen