Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
POLITICAL LAW
Public Office
JUDGE FRANCISCO IBAY v. VIRGINIA LIM A.M. No. P-99-1309, S !" #$ % 11, &000
F'(")* Judge Ibay charged Virginia Lim, Stenographic Reporter, with serious neglect of duty and grave misconduct. Judge recommends that Lim be dismissed from service by reason of the following: . !or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude "libel# against another $udge% &. !or gross neglect of duty "failure to transcribe the stenographic notes of ' proceedings in ( inherited cases# '. !or grave misconduct "refusal to transcribe the stenographic notes# ). !or flagrant violation of an *dministrative +ircular "Lim traveled abroad despite her heavy bac,log# -he consultant of the .ffice of the +ourt *dministrator ".+*# recommended that respondent Lim be dismissed from the service. -he .+* adopted said recommendation. I))+ * /hether respondent should be dismissed from service by reason of her conviction in the said charges. , -.* She should be dismissed. 0o less than the +onstitution mandates that all public officers and employees should serve with responsibility, integrity and efficiency. Indeed, public office is a public trust. In the case at bar, respondent Lim1s performance as a court employee is clearly wanting. It is evident from the record that she has shown herself to be less than 2ealous in the performance of the duties of her office which demands utmost dedication and efficiency. 3er lac,adaisical attitude betrays her inefficiency and incompetence and amounts to gross misconduct. Respondent1s unfitness for public service is further bolstered by her failure to manifest to his superior, herein complainant Judge Ibay, utmost respect and obedience to the latter1s orders and instructions issued pursuant to the duties of the office the Judge holds by disregarding the latter1s orders to transcribe the long4pending stenographic notes and choosing instead to go on leave, even when her application for leave has not been approved. -his improper behavior of respondent betrays her abominable disrespect to the court itself. Such a demeanor is a failure of circumspection demanded of every public official and employee. Respondent Lim failed to reali2e that the performance of her duties are essential to the prompt and proper administration of $ustice. 0ot only does her neglect delay the administration of $ustice% it also erodes public faith in the $udiciary. -hus, there is no room in the court or government for that matter for respondent Lim1s ,ind of an employee. *ll the foregoing considered, respondent must be meted the ma5imum penalty because all involved in the dispensation of $ustice must live up to the strictest standard of integrity, probity, uprightness, honesty and diligence in the public service. /36R6!.R6, respondent Virginia 7. Lim is found 78IL-9 of gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct, violation of administrative circulars of the Supreme +ourt and conduct grossly pre$udicial to the best interest of the service, and she is hereby :IS;ISS6: from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits and with pre$udice to re4 employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government4owned and controlled corporations.
&
BAS,ER v). COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No. 1390&/ A!%3- 1&, &000
F'(")* <etitioner 3ad$i Rasul ?atador ?asher and <rivate Respondent *bul,air *mpatua were both candidates for the position of <unong ?arangay in ?arangay ;aidan, -ugaya, Lanao del Sur during the ;ay &, ==B barangay election. -he election was declared a failure and a special one was set for June &, ==B. *gain, the election failed and was reset to *ugust '>, ==B. *ccording to the +omelec, the voting started only around =:>> p.m. on *ugust '>, ==B because of the prevailing tension in the said locality. 6lection .fficer :iana :atu4Imam reported that she was allegedly advised by some religious leaders not to proceed with the election because Cit might trigger bloodshed.C She also claimed that the town mayor, Cbeing too hysterical, yelled and threatened me to declare GaH failure of election in ;aidan.C SubseAuently, the armed followers of the mayor pointed their guns at her and her military escorts, who responded in li,e manner towards the former. -he parties were then pacified at the <0< headAuarters. /ith the arrival of additional troops, the election officer proceeded to ;aidan to conduct the election starting at =:>> p.m. until the early morning of the following day. -he holding of the election at that particular time was allegedly announced Cover the mosAue.C -he tally sheet for the said CelectionC showed the following results: private respondent I &J> votes% petitioner I J votes% and ?aulo *bdul Ra2ul, a third candidate I > votes. <rivate respondent was proclaimed winner.
'
.issenting O-inion
DE LEON, JR., J.
Respondent <*7+.R maintains that petitioners have no standing to file a ta5payer1s suit since there is no showing that these cases involve e5penditure of public funds. In Kilosbayan Incorporated vs. ;orato, we have categorically stated that ta5payers, voters, concerned citi2ens and legislators, as such, may bring suit only " # in cases involving constitutional issues and "&# under certain conditions. -a5payers are allowed to sue, for e5ample, where there is a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or where a ta5 measure is assailed as unconstitutional. +oncerned citi2ens can bring suits if the constitutional Auestion they raise is of transcendental importance which must be settled early. /hile herein petitioners and intervenor claim illegal disbursement of public funds by <*7+.R in the resumption of the operations of $ai alai games, there is nothing on record to show involvement of any e5penditure of public money on the part of <*7+.R. In fact, what is essentially raised as an issue is whether <*7+.R has the reAuisite franchise to operate $ai alai games and whether it is authori2ed under its charter to enter into $oint venture agreements with private corporations. ;ore specifically, under the $oint venture *greement dated June B, === ' it is private respondent corporations ?6LL6 and !IL7*;6 which will provide infrastructure facilities to <*7+.R on a rent free basis. I cannot see how the +ourt could treat the sub$ect petitions as ta5payers1 suits when there is nothing, apart from petitioners1 bare allegations, to prove that the operations of $ai alai would involve e5penditure of public
>
LABOR LAW
ABASOLO ".'-. v). NLRC G. R. No. 11/162, Nov #$ % &9, &000
F'(")* <etitioners have been under the employ of L8-.R+. for several years their employment was abruptly interrupted when -*?*+*L6R* too, over L8-.R+.ES operations. <etitioners were caught unaware of the sudden change of ownership and its effect on the status of their employment due to the closure of L8-.R+. as a result of the sale and turnover to -*?*+*L6R*. -he Labor *rbiter dismissed the complaint finding that petitioners are not entitled to the benefits under *rticle &(' of the Labor +ode since L8-.R+. ceased to operate due to serious business losses and, furthermore, -*?*+*L6R* has assumed the sonority rights of the petitioners and other employment liabilities of L8-.R+.. *ffirming the dismissal of the complaints, the 0LR+ held that petitioners are not entitled to the protection of *rt. &(' of the Labor +ode since there was no closure of establishment or termination of services to spea, of. It declared that there was no dismissal but a Q non4hiring due mainly to GpetitionersH own violation Q. ;oreover, the benefits of *rt. &(' apply only to regular employees, not seasonal wor,ers li,e petitioners. I))+ )* . /hether or not *rticle &(' of the Labor +ode is applicable &. /hether petitioners are regular employees, as defined by law
, -.* . -he employment of petitioners with respondent L8-.R+. was technically terminated when -*?*+*L6R* too, over the formers tobacco4redrying operations in =='. -he records spea, of a sale to -*?*+*L6R* in ==' under conditions evidently so concealed that petitioners were not formally notified of the impending sale of L8-.R+.Es tobacco re4drying operations to -*?*+*L6R* and its attendant conseAuences with respect to their continued employment status under -*?*+*L6R*. -hey came to ,now of the fact of that sale only when -*?*+*L6R* too, over the said tobacco re4dying operations.
Termination of Em-loyment; Loss of Trust an! Confi!ence NO7OM v. NLRC G.R. No. 110013, J+-8 1/, &000
!acts: +armelita 0o,om was employed as a manager by Rento,il for its 3ealthcare :ivision. Later, Rento,ilEs officers received information that fictitious invoices were sent to Rento,ilEs clients whose contracts have already been terminated. -he fictitious invoices were allegedly made to inflate the gross revenues of said :ivision to ma,e up for the shortfall in its target revenues. Initial findings showed that 0o,om was involved in the anomaly so she was placed on preventive suspension. -hereafter, 0o,om admitted the irregularities and, in her written e5planation, she said that she had no e5planation and that she was leaving her fate up to management. :uring the hearing conducted by Rento,il management, 0o,om failed to appear despite notice. . *fter the investigation, it was found out that 0o,om was aware, tolerated and in fact participated in the production of fictitious invoices. -hus, 0o,omEs employment was terminated. 0o,om filed a complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal and non4payment of salaries against Rento,il before the Labor *rbiter and prayed for reinstatement, payment of bac,wages, damages and attorneyEs fees. L* ruled in favor of 0o,om. .n appeal, 0LR+ reversed the ruling of the L*. +* affirmed the 0LR+ decision holding that 0o,om was legally dismissed for loss of confidence. Issue: . /hether the acts of 0o,om constitute willful breach of trust that will $ustify her dismissal. &. /hether she was afforded due process. 3eld: -he dismissal is legal. -o constitute a valid dismissal, two reAuisites must concur, namely: "a# the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided for in *rticle &(& of the Labor +ode and "b# the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and defend himself. . In the case at bar, 0o,omEs position demands a high degree of responsibility that necessarily includes unearthing of fraudulent and irregular activities. 0o,omEs failure to detect and report to Rento,il the fraudulent activities in her division as well as her failure to give a satisfactory e5planation on the e5istence of the said irregularities constitute Cfraud or willful breach of the trust reposed on her by her employer or duly authori2ed representativeC I one of the $ust causes in terminating employment as provided for by paragraph c, *rticle &(' of the Labor +ode, as amended. +oncomitantly, petitioner1s actuations betrayed the utmost trust and confidence reposed on her by the respondent company. /e cannot, therefore, compel Rento,il to retain the employment of herein petitioner who is shown to be lac,ing in candor, honesty and efficiency reAuired of her position. Loss of confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an employee and proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee1s misconduct is not reAuired to dismiss him on this charge. It is enough that there be 1some basis1 for such loss of confidence, or that
&
T %#30'"3o0 o9 E#!-o8# 0": M'0'; # 0" P% %o;'"3v LEONARDO ".'-. v). NLRC GR NO.1&2303, JUNE 15,&000
F'(")* *urelio !uerte was originally employed by defendant R690*L:.1S ;*RK6-I07 +.R<.R*-I.0 as a muffler specialist, receiving <)J.>> per day. 3e was later appointed as supervisor with an increased compensation of < &&.>> a day. .n the other hand, :anilo Leonardo was hired by defendant as an auto4aircon mechanic at a salary rate of <'J.>> per day. 3is pay was increased to <=>.>> a day when he attained regular status si5 months later. !uerte alleges that he was he was informed by the company1s personnel manager that he would be transferred to its Sucat plant due to his failure to meet his sales Auota, and for that reason, his supervisor1s allowance would be withdrawn. !or a short time, complainant reported for wor, at the Sucat plant% however, he protested his transfer, subseAuently filing a complaint for illegal termination. .n his part, Leonardo alleges that he was also approached by the same personnel manager who informed him that his services were no longer needed. 3e, too, filed a complaint for illegal termination. I))+ * /hether the dismissal based on the failure to meet the sales Auota is legal. , -.* -he practice of a company in laying off wor,ers because they failed to ma,e the wor, Auota has been recogni2ed in this $urisdiction. (Philippine American Embroideries vs. Embroidery and Garment Workers, 26 SC A 6!", 6!#$ . In the case at bar, the petitioners1 failure to meet the sales Auota assigned to each of them constitute a $ust cause of their dismissal, re%ardless o& the permanent or probationary stat's o& their employment. !ailure to observe prescribed standards of wor,, or to fulfill reasonable wor, assignments due to inefficiency may constitute $ust cause for dismissal. Such inefficiency is understood to mean failure to attain wor, goals or wor, Auotas, either by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable period, or by producing unsatisfactory results. -his management prerogative of reAuiring standards may be availed of so long as they are e5ercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer1s interest.
T %#30'"3o0 o9 E#!-o8# 0": M'0'; # 0" P% %o;'"3v APARENTE v). NLRC G.R. No. 11652&, A!%3- &6, &000
F'(")* <etitioner was an employee by private respondent corporation until he was terminated for alleged violation of company rules and regulations, which was premised from the fact that, sometime prior his termination, petitioner while driving without driverEs license sideswiped a ten4year old girl using the companyEs truc,. 3ospital e5penses was shouldered by the company but was not reimbursed by the insurance company. -hereafter, private respondent conducted an investigation of the incident where petitioner was given the opportunity to e5plain his side and to defend himself, and in result thereof, petitioner was dismissed from employment for having violated the company rules and regulations for blatant disregard of established control procedures resulting in company damages of considerable amount. *ggrieved, petitioner instituted a case for illegal dismissal against private respondent before the Labor *rbiter.
'
, -.* -he dismissal is valid. <etitionerEs dismissal was $ustified by the companyEs rules and regulations. It is recogni2ed that company policies and regulations, unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law, are generally valid and binding on the parties and must be complied with until finally revised or amended, unilaterally or preferably through negotiation, by competent authority. -he +ourt has upheld a company1s management prerogatives so long as they are e5ercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer1s interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements. *lso, under the Labor +ode, in order that an employer may dismiss an employee on the ground of willful disobedience, there must be concurrence of at least two reAuisites: the employee1s assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, and the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made ,nown to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge. /hich are present in this case, as evidenced by the willful act of petitioner in driving without a valid driver1s license, which is a clear violation of the companyEs rules and regulations.
Right of Self/Organi0ation; Coverage PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF T,E P,ILIPPINES v). LAGUESMA G.R. No. 10163/, A!%3- 1&, &000
F'(")* +omplainant <aper Industries +orporation of the <hilippines "<I+.<# is engaged in the manufacture of paper and timber products. It has over =,>>> employees, =)) of whom are supervisory and technical staff employees. ;ore or less )(B of these supervisory and technical staff employees are signatory members of the private respondent <I+.<4?islig Supervisory and -echnical Staff 6mployees 8nion "<?S-S68#. .n *ugust =, =(=. <?S-S68 instituted a <etition for +ertification 6lection to determine the sole and e5clusive bargaining agent of the supervisory and technical staff employees of <I+.< for collective bargaining agreement "+?*# purposes. -he Secretary of the Labor issued a Resolution which upheld the ;ed4*rbiter1s .rder dated September B, =(=, with modification allowing the supervising and staff employees in +ebu, :avao and Iligan +ity to participate in the certification election. :uring the pre4election conference on January (, ==>, <I+.< Auestioned and ob$ected to the inclusion of some section heads and supervisors in the list of voters whose positions it averred were reclassified as managerial employees in the light of the reorgani2ation effected by it. !ollowing the submission by the parties of their respective position papers and evidence on this issue, the ;ed4*rbiter issued an .rder, holding that supervisors and section heads of the complainant are managerial employees and therefore e5cluded from the list of voters for purposes of certification election. I))+ * /hether the managerial employees are disAualified from $oining or forming a union represented by co4respondent <?S-S68, in view of a supervening event brought about by the changes in the organi2ational structure. , -.* -hey are disAualified. In 8nited <epsi4+ola Supervisory 8nion v. Laguesma, we had occasion to elucidate on the term Cmanagerial employees.C ;anagerial employees are ran,ed as -op ;anagers, ;iddle ;anagers and !irst Line ;anagers. -op and ;iddle ;anagers have the authority to devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies while the tas, of !irst4Line ;anagers is simply to ensure that such policies are carried out by the ran,4and4file employees of an organi2ation. 8nder this distinction, Cmanagerial employeesC therefore fall in two "&# categories, namely, the CmanagersC per se composed of -op and ;iddle ;anagers, and the CsupervisorsC composed of !irst4Line ;anagers. -hus, the mere fact that an employee is designated QmanagerC does not ipso facto ma,e him one. :esignation should be reconciled with the actual $ob description of the employee, for it is the $ob description that determines the nature of employment.
T %#30'"3o0 o9 E#!-o8# 0": M'0'; # 0" P% %o;'"3v OSS SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. VS. NLRC 3&2 SCRA 126 G.R. NO. 11&62& FEB. 9, &000
F'(")* <rivate Respondent 6den Legaspi wor,ed as a lady security guard of .SS Security *gency from June F, =(J to January F, =(F. .n January B, =(F petitioner VasAue2 acAuired the assets and properties of .SS Security *gency and absorbed some of its personnel, including Legaspi. She was assigned to render security services at the V; condominium in ;a,ati. In a memorandum addressed to petitionersE company president, the building administrator of said condominium complained of the la5ity of the guard in enforcing security measures. 3e reAuested to reorgani2e their guards assigned to the building. In compliance therewith, petitioner reassigned Legaspi and another lady security guard to other units or detachments where vacancy e5ists. -hen again, Legaspi was reassigned to another company in Ri2al. 3owever, she did not report for duty at her new assignment. Legaspi filed her complaint for underpayment and constructive dismissed. -he Labor arbiter rendered his decision declaring that LegaspiEs transfer was not sanctioned by law, hence illegal and tantamount to un$ust dismissal. <rivate respondent appealed the decision to the 0LR+ who affirmed the decision of the Labor *rbiter. 3ence, this petition. I))+ * /hether the public respondent 0LR+ committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac, or e5cess of $urisdiction in affirming the L*Es ruling that the transfer of assignment of Legaspi by petitioner was illegal tantamount to un$ust dismissal , -.* -he transfer of an employee ordinarily is within the ambit of management prerogatives. 3owever, a transfer amounts to a constructive dismissal when the transfer is unreasonable, inconvenient, or pre$udicial to the employee, and it involves a demotion in ran, or diminution of salaries, benefits and other privilege. In the case at bar, nowhere in the record does it show that the transfer of .SS Security was anything but done in good faith, without grave abuse of discretion and in the best interest of the business. 0o ;alice should be imputed form the fact that Legaspi was relieved of her assignment and, a day later, assigned a new post. /hen security guard is placed Qoff4 detailD or on QfloatingD status, in security agency parlance, it means waiting to be posted, Legaspi has not even been Qoff detailD for a wee, when she filed her complaint. .SS Security, also proved that such transfer was effected in good faith to comply with the reasonable reAuest of its client. -hus, there was no basis to order reinstatement and bac, wage inasmuch as Legaspi was not constructively dismissed. 0either is she entitled to the award of money claim for underpayment.
CIVIL LAW
Partnershi-; Evi!ence ,EIRS OF TAN ENG 7EE v). CA
F'(")* -an 6ng Kee died September ', =(). 3is heirs filed suit against the decedent1s brother -an 6ng Lay for accounting, liAuidation and winding up of the alleged partnership formed after /orld /ar II between -an 6ng Kee and -an 6ng Lay. *llegedly, after the second /orld /ar, -an 6ng Kee and -an 6ng Lay, pooled their resources and industry together, entered into a partnership engaged in the business of selling lumber and hardware and construction supplies. -hey named their enterprise C?enguet LumberC which they $ointly managed until -an 6ng Kee1s death. <etitioners claim that in =( , -an 6ng Lay and his children caused the conversion of the partnership C?enguet LumberC into a corporation called C?enguet Lumber +ompanyC, purportedly to deprive -an 6ng Kee and his heirs of their rightful participation in the profits of the business. -he R-+ declaring that ?enguet Lumber as a $oint venture a,in to a particular partnership. -he +ourt of *ppeals reversed the $udgment of the trial court. 3ence, the present petition. I))+ * /hether -an 6ng Kee and -an 6ng Lay were partners in ?enguet Lumber.
, -.* In order to constitute a partnership, it must be established that " # two or more persons bound themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, and "&# they intend to divide the profits among themselves. -he agreement need not be formally reduced into writing, since statute allows the oral constitution of a partnership, save in two instances: " # when immovable property or real rights are contributed, and "&# when the partnership has a capital of three thousand pesos or more. In both cases, a public instrument is reAuired. *n inventory to be signed by the parties and attached to the public instrument is also indispensable to the validity of the partnership whenever immovable property is contributed to the partnership. 8ndoubtedly, the best evidence would have been the contract of partnership itself, or the articles of partnership but there is none. -hus, we are as,ed to determine whether a partnership e5isted based purely on circumstantial evidence. * review of the record persuades us that the +ourt of *ppeals correctly reversed the decision of the trial court. -he evidence presented by petitioners falls short of the Auantum of proof reAuired to establish a partnership. <etitioners failed to prove that Kee contributed his resources to a common fund for the purpose of establishing a partnership. !urthermore, despite the forty years the partnership was allegedly in e5istence, Kee never as,ed for an accounting. -he essence of a partnership is that the partners share in the profits and losses. * demand for periodic accounting is evidence of a partnership. <etitioners failed to show how much their father received, if any, as his share in the profits of ?enguet Lumber +ompany for any particular period. 3ence, they failed to prove that -an 6ng Kee and -an 6ng Lay intended to divide the profits of the business between themselves, which is one of the essential features of a partnership. 3ence, the Supreme +ourt found that Kee was only an employee, not a partner. 0evertheless, petitioners would still want us to infer or believe the alleged e5istence of a partnership from this set of circumstances: that -an 6ng Lay and -an 6ng Kee were commanding the employees% that both were supervising the employees% that both were the ones who determined the price at which the stoc,s were to be sold% and that both placed orders to the suppliers of the ?enguet Lumber +ompany. -hey also point out that the families of the brothers -an 6ng Kee and -an 6ng Lay lived at the ?enguet Lumber +ompany compound, a privilege not e5tended to its ordinary employees. /here circumstances ta,en singly may be inadeAuate to prove the intent to form a partnership, nevertheless, the collective effect of these circumstances may be such as to support a finding of the e5istence of the parties1 intent. In the case at bench, even the aforesaid circumstances when ta,en together are not persuasive indicia of a partnership.
3ortgage; Accomo!ation 3ortgagor; Re!em-tion Price SPOUSES BELO v). P,ILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN7 '0. SPOUSES ESLABON G.R. No. 131330, M'%(< 1, &001
F'(")* 6duarda ?elo owned an agricultural land. She leased a portion of the said tract of land to respondents spouses ;arcos and *rsenia 6slabon in connection with the said spouses1 sugar plantation business.-he 6slabons obtained a loan from respondent <0? secured by a real estate mortgage on their own four residential houses, as well as on the agricultural land. -he assent of 6duarda to the mortgage was acAuired through a special power of attorney which she e5ecuted in favor of respondent ;arcos 6slabon. Spouses 6slabon failed to pay their loan obligation, thus, e5tra$udicial foreclosure proceedings against the mortgaged properties were instituted by <0?. *t the auction sale on June >, == , <0? was the highest bidder of the foreclosed properties. <0? appraised 6duarda of the sale at public auction of her land as well as the registration of the +ertificate of Sheriff1s Sale in its favor, and the one4year period to redeem the land.
, -.* ?y law, the vendee is bound to accept the delivery and to pay the price of the thing sold at the time and place stipulated in the contract. In the case at bench, petitioner1s obligation to pay arose as soon as the deed of sale was registered and a clean title was issued. 3owever, petitioner $ustifies non4payment on respondents1 breach of several stipulations in the contract. /e have e5amined these alleged violations vis4a4 vis the pertinent provisions of the deed of sale, ,eeping in mind that only a substantial breach of the terms and conditions thereof will warrant rescission. /hether a breach is substantial is largely determined by the attendant circumstances. <etitioner1s argument was that it was not obliged to pay until respondents compact the lots. -a,ing into account the facts of the case, we find that particular argument of petitioner to be well4ta,en. -he use to which the parcels of land was to be devoted was no secret between the parties. -he consolidated estate, which incorporated the lots sold by respondents to petitioner, was intended as the site of petitioner1s regional office. -he pro$ect had its peculiar reAuirements, not the least of which was that since a substantial edifice was to be built on the property, the site had to be made suitable for the purpose. -hus, petitioner specified that the lots be filled up in the manner specified in paragraph ) of the contract. -he importance thereof could not have been lost on respondents. 6vidently then, respondents were guilty of non4performance of said stipulation. -he deed of sale e5pressly stipulated that the vendors were to underta,e the filling. -his was to be accomplished upon the signing of the contract and insofar as petitioner was concerned, respondents obligation was demandable at once. Respondents should not be allowed to rescind the contract where they themselves did not perform their essential obligation thereunder. It should be emphasi2ed that a contract of sale involves reciprocity between the parties. Since respondents were in bad faith, they may not see, the rescission of the agreement they themselves breached.
Sales; 4na!e5uacy of the Price ABAPO v). CA G.R. No. 1&/566, M'%(< &, &000
F'(")* -he late spouses Victoriano and <lacida *bapo owned a parcel of land in +ebu. .f the J children the spouses left behind, only Santiago *bapo and +rispula *bapo4?acalso have heirs who are currently the antagonists in this case. In =FB, Santiago and +rispula e5ecuted a deed of sale under pacto de retro on the land in favor of -eodulfo Puimada. -he land was sold for <J>> with right to repurchase within J years failing which the conveyance would become absolute and irrevocable without the necessity of drawing up a new deed. 0o redemption was done within the J year period. ;ore than B years later, Puimada through a notari2ed deed of absolute sale sold the land to +rispula and her husband for <J>>. Since then until their death, the spouses ?acalso had possession, en$oyed the fruits of the land and paid the real estate ta5es to the e5clusion of Santiago. .n !eb ==>, the heirs of +rispula e5ecuted an Ce5tra$udicial declaration of heirsC and allotted unto themselves the land. .n *pril ==>, Santiago instituted a petition for reconstitution of the original certificate of title over the land in the name of his father Victoriano. It was granted. 8pon discovery of the said reconstitution of title, +rispula1s heirs interposed a petition to surrender owner1s copy of the reconstituted .+- in the hands of Santiago. -he trial court denied such petition. -hus +rispula1s heirs instituted a complaint for CPuieting of -itle with :amagesC against Santiago. Santiago assailed the due e5ecution of both the deed of sale under pacto de retro and the deed of absolute sale. 3e vehemently swore that he never sold in =FB his interest in the land. I))+ * ./hether the deed of sale under pacto de retro is an eAuitable mortgage in view of the unusually inadeAuate consideration of <J>>. &. /hether the deed of absolute sale is illegal and void. , -.* . -he price of <J>> is not unusually inadeAuate. -he e5tant record reveals that the assessed value of the land in =B> was only <)>>. -hus, at the time of the sale in =FB the price of <J>> is undisputably over and above the assessed value of <)>>. ?esides, the mere fact that the price is inadeAuate does not support the conclusion that the contract was a loan or that the property was not at all sold to Puimada. -he price fi5ed in a sale with right to repurchase is not necessarily the true value of the land sold. -he rationale is that the vendor has the right to repurchase the land. It is the practice to fi5 a relatively reduced price, although not a grossly inadeAuate one, in order to afford the vendor a retro every facility to redeem the land. -hus inadeAuacy of price is not sufficient to set aside a sale unless it is grossly inadeAuate or purely shoc,ing to the conscience. &. -he deed of absolute sale having been e5ecuted and attested through the intervention of the notary public is a public document. *s such, they are evidence of the facts in clear, uneAuivocal manner therein e5pressed. -hey have the presumption of regularity, which Santiago failed to overcome by clear, strong and convincing evidence.
Pro-erty; E6tra7u!icial Partition; 8uil!er in #oo! aith 7ILARIO v). COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 1313&9, J'0+'%8 19, &000
F'(")* :uring the lifetime of Jacinto <ada, owner of the land in dispute, his half4 brother, !eliciano <ada obtained permission from him to build a house on the disputed land. /hen !eliciano died, his son survived him, who was in turn survived by his sonEs daughter, the petitioner herein.
&>
, -.* . -he e5tra$udicial partition is valid, albeit e5ecuted in an unregistered private document. 0o law reAuires partition among heirs to be in writing and be registered in order to be valid. -he reAuirement in Sec. , Rule B) of the Revised Rules of +ourt has for its purpose the protection of creditors and the heirs themselves against tardy claims and to serve as constructive notice to others. -hus, the intrinsic validity of partition not e5ecuted with the prescribed formalities is not undermined when no creditors are involved. -he reAuirement of *rticle 'J( of the +ivil +ode that acts which have for their ob$ect the creation, transmission, modification or e5tinguishment of real rights over immovable property, must appear in a public instrument, is only for convenience, non4 compliance with which does not affect the validity or enforceability of the acts of the parties as among themselves. *nd neither does the Statute of !rauds under *rticle )>' of the 0ew +ivil +ode apply because partition among heirs is not legally deemed a conveyance of real property, considering that it involves not a transfer of property from one to the other but rather, a confirmation or ratification of title or right of property that an heir is renouncing in favor of another heir who accepts and receives the inheritance. -he =J e5tra$udicial partition being legal and effective as among his heirs, there was a valid transfer of ownership rights over the involved property. &. +onsidering that petitioners were in possession of the sub$ect property by sheer tolerance of its owners, they ,new that their occupation of the premises may be terminated any time. <ersons who occupy the land of another at the latter1s tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that they will vacate the same upon demand, failing in which a summary action for e$ectment is the proper remedy against them. -hus, they cannot be considered possessors nor builders in good faith. It is well4 settled that both *rticle ))( and *rticle J)F of the 0ew +ivil +ode which allow full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made, apply only to a possessor in good faith. Verily, persons whose occupation of a realty is by sheer tolerance of its owners are not possessors in good faith. *s such, petitioners cannot be entitled to the value of the improvements that they built on the said lot.
CRIMINAL LAW
PEOPLE v. CANONIGO G.R. No. 133519 A+;+)" 1, &000
F'(")* +anonigo was ( years old when he raped +arla ;alanay, then under & yrs of age, in front of her sister "aged J#. In the information filed against him, it was stated that the victim was & years of age. 3owever, it was not alleged that the crime of rape was committed in full view of a relative within the 'rd degree of consanguinity.. 0onetheless, the R-+ found +anonigo guilty of the crime of statutory rape and sentenced him to death. !rom this decision, +anonigo appealed. I))+ * /hether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty since the information filed against the accused did not allege the Aualifying circumstance that the rape was committed in full view of a relative within the third degree of consanguinity of the victim. , -.* 9es. +anonigo should only be sentenced to reclusion perpetua. &
PEOPLE v). RIGLOS '0. RIGLOS G.R. No. 131653, S !" #$ % 1, &000
F'(")* +amilo Valde2 was sitting at the terrace of house when respondent Lamberto Riglos arrived. Lamberto as,ed money from +amilo but the latter refused, and instead, told him to go home. Suddenly, Lamberto slapped +amilo on the face several times, which caused the latter to push Lamberto away. Lamberto then pulled +amilo1s hand and the latter fell to the ground. Swiftly, Lamberto drew a .'( caliber gun from his waist and shot +amilo. -he first shot missed +amilo. Lamberto fired a second shot hitting +amilo on the chest.. +amilo managed to slowly enter the house and proceed to their room while Lamberto $ust stayed at the terrace *fter the first shot, respondent /ilfredo, who was at a neighbor1s house proceeded to the residence of +amilo. -hen /ilfredo went to where Lamberto was and said: CLet us get inside and ,ill him, brother.C -he two entered the house and went to the bedroom. 8pon seeing the wounded +amilo sitting on the bed, Lamberto and /ilfredo shot him several times. -hey trial court convicted the respondent of murder Aualified by treachery with the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and dwelling and sentenced him to suffer the supreme penalty of death. Respondent appealed contending that the Aualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength are absent, since the act of aggression was preceded by a violent Auarrel between him and the victim. I))+ * . /hether the appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of treachery was proper. &. /hether the appreciation of abuse of superior strength was proper. , -.* . In the instant case, there are two stages of the act of aggression committed against the victim. -he first one was preceded by a heated argument when the victim refused to give money to accused Lamberto, which led the latter to shoot the victim on the chest. -he aggression against the victim, +amilo, had already ceased when after the second shot that hit him on the chest, he slowly retreated to the bedroom in their house. 3owever, the subseAuent act was definitely treacherous. 8pon the arrival of accused4 appellant /ilfredo, he uttered these words to Lamberto, CLet us get inside and ,ill him, brotherC, and then they immediately went inside the victim1s house, and at the entrance of the door leading to the couple1s bedroom, they saw the wounded +amilo sitting on the bed and shot him several times. -he attac, was a total surprise to the victim as he did not e5pect any from accused4appellant /ilfredo with whom he had no Auarrel. !urthermore, the suddenness of the attac, made it impossible for the victim to defend himself. -he victim was totally defenseless when both accused attac,ed him. -reachery
&&
, -.* -he trial court erred in imposing the supreme penalty of death on the respondent. Section of Republic *ct 0o. BFJ= amending *rticle ''J of the Revised <enal +ode provides: 555 555 555 -he death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: . /hen the victim is under eighteen " (# years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step4parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common4law spouse of the parent of the victim. . . . -he attendant circumstances enumerated parta,e of the nature of Aualifying circumstances since the same are punishable by the single indivisible penalty of death and not reclusion perpetua to death. It has been the rule that Aualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. If the same are not pleaded but proved, they shall be considered only as aggravating circumstances. :ue to the absence of allegation in each of the criminal complaints in these cases that the private complainant was a minor, the respondent can be held liable for three "'# counts of simple rape only and for which the impossible penalty is reclusion perpetua. 4ncom-lete Self .efense
&'
3alversation of Public un!s ESTRELLA v). SANDIGANBAYAN GR No. 1&2150 J+0 &0, &000
F'(")* .n July , =BJ, petitioner was appointed as ;unicipal +ashier & in the .ffice of the ;unicipal -reasurer, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, with a bond in the amount of <&(,>>>.>>. ' <er *udit *ssignment .rder 0o. L7*: (F4 dated January &(, =(F issued by the +ommission on *udit "+.*#, Regional .ffice RII, he was audited of his cash and accounts for the period from ;arch ( to &), =(F only. ) !or reasons un,nown, the cash and accounts of the petitioner were not audited for the period from July , =BJ, the date of his appointment, up to ;arch B, =(F. *ll in all, petitioner received cash advances totalling <&)=,(&=.&J. .f the <&)=,(&=.&J, petitioner was able to liAuidate on 0ovember &>, =(J the amount of <&=,>('.JB ( only. -he amount of <&,'=J.F= resulting from the liAuidation of petitioner1s cash collections was added to <&=,>('.JB, thus, petitioner1s accountability was reduced to <& (,')=.==. *fter establishing the amount of the shortage as reflected in 65hibit C:C, the .I+ ;unicipal -reasurer submitted his progress report demonstrating further restitution of petitioner1s disallowed cash advances and vouchers in the amount of < ),)>F.>> and < &,'>'.>> or a total of <&F,B>=.>>, &F thereby further reducing his liability to < = ,F)>.==. /hile petitioner admitted his accountability to be only <F),J'(.=J, he doubted the accuracy of the said amount for the reason that in his perception, his liability was allegedly between <'>,>>>.>> and <)>,>>>.>> only. &B Resultantly, petitioner was charged with malversation of public funds in the Information filed with respondent Sandiganbayan. -he Sandiganbayan rendered its decision convicting petitioner. -here being no modifying circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the +ourt imposes on the accused the indeterminate penalty from -/6LV6 " &# 96*RS, !IV6 "J# ;.0-3S and 6L6V60 " # :*9S of reclusion temporal as minimum to 6I73-660 " (# 96*RS, 6I73- "(# ;.0-3S and .06 " # :*9 of reclusion temporal as ma5imum, the fine eAual to -/. 380:R6: 6I73-660 -3.8S*0: -3R66 380:R6: !.R-9 0I06 <6S.S *0: 0I06-940I06 +60-*V.S "<& (,')=.==#, the amount malversed, and perpetual special disAualification. '> 3ence, this petition. I))+ * /hether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt. , -.* 9es. *rticle & B of the Revised <enal +ode holds liable for malversation a public officer who shall appropriate public funds or property for which he is accountable, or shall ta,e or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to ta,e such public funds or property. !urthermore, the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authori2ed officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses. -he elements of malversation of public funds are "a# the offender is a public officer, "b# he had custody or control of the funds or property by reason of the duties of
&)
REMEDIAL LAW
Civil Proce!ure; Amen!ment to Conform to Evi!ence MAUNLAD SAVINGS = LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC. v). COURT OF APPEALS '0. NUBLA G.R. No. 11191&, Nov #$ % &6, &000
FACTS* <etitioner instituted a complaint for a sum of money against private respondent 0ubla and his brother on the basis of a promissory note allegedly e5ecuted by them to secure a loan, which they failed to pay, and continuously defaulted. In their *nswer the defendants admitted that they e5ecuted the promissory note but denied any liability thereunder, alleging that they did not receive any value out of the transaction nor did the said document reflect the real agreement between the parties. 3owever, the said *nswer was not under oath. ;aunlad Savings presented its evidence relying on the admission by the 0ublas of the genuineness and due e5ecution of the sub$ect promissory note, inasmuch as their *nswer was not under oath as reAuired by Section (, Rule ( of the Rules of +ourt. SubseAuently, 0ubla testified that the loan documents and the promissory note did not embody the real agreement of the parties because they signed blan, documents on the understanding that they were signing as mere representatives of 6ver4Rise, and not in their personal capacity. -he petitioner raised no ob$ection. -he 0ublas filed a ;otion to *dmit *mended *nswer citing Section J, Rule > of the Rules of +ourt, which allows the amendment of pleadings to conform to the evidence. <etitioner filed its opposition to the said motion. ?oth motions were denied ratiocinating that the proposed amendment in the amended answer will ultimately change or alter the theory of the defense and thus cannot be allowed under Section ', Rule > of the Rules of +ourt. ISSUES* . /hether the amended answer of herein respondent, made after the presentation of evidence can be admitted, thus altering the theory of the case to the pre$udice of the petitioner. &. /hether the ob$ection was timely made. ,ELD* . 8nder Sec. B, Rule ( of the Rules of +ourt, when the cause of action is anchored on a document, the genuineness or due e5ecution of the said document shall be deemed impliedly admitted unless the defendant, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts. Said rule should be read in con$unction with Sec. = of Rule '> of the Revised Rules of 6vidence which provides, in substance, that when the parties have reduced their agreement to writing they have made such writing the only repository and memorial of the truth, and whatever is not found in the writing must be understood to have been waived or abandoned, 'nless he puts in issue that there is a mista,e or imperfection in the writing, or that it does not
&J
Civil Proce!ure; Service of Summons BANCO DO BRASIL v). T,E COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No). 1&1265-6/, J+0 15, &000
F'(")* *n abandoned vessel was sei2ed by the ?ureau of +ustoms. <rior to the sei2ure, its authori2ed representative had entered into a salvage agreement with private respondent 8R?I0. to secure and repair the vessel. -o enforce its preferred salvorEs lien, 8R?I0. filed with the R-+ of ;anila a <etition for +ertiorari, <rohibition and ;andamus assailing the sei2ure. <rivate respondent amended its petition to include ?anco :o ?rasil as defendant being one of the claimants of the vessel. 8pon motion of the private respondent, the trial court allowed summons by publication to be served upon defendants who were not residents and had no direct representative in the country. <rivate respondent testified during the presentation of evidence that, for being a nuisance defendant, petitioner caused irreparable damage to private respondent in the amount of S'>>,>>>. -he trial court ruled in favor of the private respondent and awarded the damage sought. -he petitioner Auestioned its liability for damages, on the ground that there was no valid service of summons as service was on the wrong party T the ambassador of ?ra2il. 3ence, it argued, the trial court did not acAuire $urisdiction over petitioner. <etitioner now contends that the action filed against it is an action for damages, as such it is an action in personam which reAuires personal service of summons. I))+ * /hether a valid service of summons was made upon the petitioner.
, -.* It is invalid. /hen a defendant is a nonresident and he is not found in the country, summons may be served e5traterritorially. 3owever, e5tra$udicial service of summons apply only where the action is in rem or Auasi in rem. -his is so inasmuch as, in such actions, $urisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prereAuisite to confer $urisdiction on the court provided that the court acAuires $urisdiction over the res. 3owever, where the action is in personam $urisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary. /hen the defendant is a non4resident, personal service of summons within the state is essential to the acAuisition of $urisdiction over the person. -his cannot be done, however, if the defendant is not physically present in the country, and thus, the court cannot acAuire $urisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him. It must be stressed that any relief granted in rem or Auasi in rem actions must be confined to the res, and the court cannot lawfully render a personal $udgment against the defendant. +learly, the publication of summons effected by private respondent is invalid and ineffective for the trial court to acAuire $urisdiction over the person of petitioner, since by see,ing to recover damages from petitioner, private respondentEs action became in personam. ?earing in mind the in personam nature of the action, personal or, if not
&F
Civil Proce!ure; Com-romise CALLA v). MAGLALANG G.R. No. 110&65, F $%+'%8 9, &000
F'(")* -hrough the years, petitioners1 occupancy and possession of their respective residential units were in the concept of an owners pursuant to the agreement, albeit verbal, that they had with !elipe ;aglalang that their monthly payments shall be treated and considered as installment payments for the purchase of said units. /hen !elipe ;aglalang died, herein petitioners continued to pay their monthly installments to the herein respondent, being one of the successors4in4interest of the late !elipe ;aglalang. SubseAuently, complaints for e$ectment were filed allegedly by the respondent against each of the petitioners. /hen the case reached the Supreme +ourt through a <etition for Review on +ertiorari filed by petitioners, the parties entered into a +ompromise *greement, which states in part: +.;<R.;IS6 *7R66;60CIn compliance with the oral agreement made between the herein petitioners and the respondent1s deceased father during his lifetime, the latter agrees to relinAuish and forever waives all his rights and interests including that of his siblings over the residential housesLunits and presently occupied by the petitioners. C*ll their payments made in the past for more than twenty five "&J# years shall be considered as installment payments and in full satisfaction of the purchase price thereof% 555 555 555 CRespondent underta,es not to disturb or interfere with the petitioners1 actual occupationLpossession of the sub$ect residential housesLunits. C-hat <*R-I6S forever waive all their causes of action against each other and consider the JudgmentLResolutionL.rder to be issued on this +ompromise *greement as final and e5ecutory.D I))+ * /hether the +ompromise *greement is legally acceptable. , -.* -he said +ompromise *greement is legally acceptable as nothing therein is contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy, and the same having been freely and intelligently e5ecuted by and between petitioners and respondent, $udicial approval thereof is in order.
Criminal Proce!ure; Arrests CUEVAS v). MU>O4 G.R. No. 1102&0, D ( #$ % 1/, &000
F'(")* .n *ug &', ==B, the 3ong Kong ;agistrate1s +ourt at 6astern ;agistracy issued a warrant for the arrest of respondent for seven "B# counts of accepting an advantage as an agent and seven "B# counts of conspiracy to defraud. .n Sept ', ===, the <hilippine :ept. of Justice "R< :.J # received a reAuest for the provisional arrest of the respondent from the ;utual Legal *ssistance 8nit, International Law :ivision of the 3ong Kong :ept. of Justice "3K :.J# pursuant to *rticle " # of the Q*greement ?etween -he 7ovEt .f R< *nd -he 7ovEt .f 3ong Kong !or -he Surrender .f *ccused *nd +onvicted <ersonsC "R<43K 65tradition *greement#. -he R< :.J forwarded the reAuest for provisional arrest to the *nti47raft :ivision of the 0?I. .n Sept B, ===, for and in behalf of the 7ovEt of 3ong Kong, the 0?I filed an application for the provisional arrest of respondent with the R-+ of ;anila, which granted the application and issued the corresponding .rder of *rrest. Respondent was arrested and detained at the 0?I detention cell.
&B
-he .rder of *rrest is valid. +irst. -here was urgency for the provisional arrest of the respondent. Section &>"a# of <.:. 0o. >F= reads as follows:
<rovisional *rrest I "a# In case of urgency, the reAuesting state may, pursuant to the relevant treaty or convention and while the same remains in force, re,'est &or the provisional arrest of the accused, pending receipt of the reAuest for e5tradition made in accordance with Section ) of this :ecree ))).D
and *rticle
" # In urgent cases, the person sought may, in accordance with the law of the reAuested <arty, be provisionally arrested on the application of the reAuesting <arty ))).D
*t the time the reAuest for provisional arrest was made, respondent1s pending application for the discharge of a restraint order over certain assets held in relation to the offenses charged, was set to be heard by the +ourt of !irst Instance of 3ong Kong on Sept B, ===. -he 3K :.J was concerned that the pending reAuest for the e5tradition of the respondent would be disclosed to the latter during the said proceedings, and would motivate respondent to flee the <hilippines before the reAuest could be made. *lso, considering the charges against the respondent, for each count of which, if found guilty, he may be punished with seven "B# and fourteen " )# years imprisonment, respectively. 8ndoubtedly, the gravity of the imposable penalty is a factor to consider in determining the li,elihood that the accused will abscond if allowed provisional liberty. It is, after all, but human to fear a lengthy, if not a lifetime, incarceration. !urthermore, it has also not escaped the attention of this +ourt that respondent appears to be affluent and possessed of sufficient resources to facilitate an escape from this $urisdiction. Second. -he reAuest for provisional arrest of respondent and its accompanying documents are valid despite lac, of authentication. -here is no reAuirement under <: 0o. >F= and in the R<43K 65tradition *greement for the authentication of a reAuest for provisional arrest and its accompanying documents. -ast. -here was sufficient factual and legal basis for the determination of probable cause as a reAuisite for the issuance of the .rder of *rrest. /e have defined probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest as Cthe e5istence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.C -he determination of probable cause is a function of the Judge. Such is the mandate of our +onstitution which provides that a warrant of arrest shall issue only upon probable cause to be determined personally by the $udge after e5amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. -he reAuest for the respondent1s provisional arrest was accompanied by facsimile copies of the outstanding warrant of arrest issued by the 3ong Kong government, a summary of the facts of the case against respondent, particulars of his birth and address, an intention to reAuest his provisional arrest and the reason therefor. -he said documents were appended to the application for respondent1s provisional arrest filed in the R-+, and formed the basis of the $udge1s finding of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest against respondent.
&(
&=
Evi!ence PEOPLE v). ALVARE4 '0. VILLAS G.R. No. 1&1659, Nov #$ % &&, &000
F'(")* -he trial court declared accused *LV*R6O and VILL*S guilty of ;urder beyond reasonable doubt, as principal. !or insufficiency of evidence co4accused ?860*V60-8R* VILL*S was acAuitted. -he appellants contend that their co4accused were acAuitted by the trial court after it re$ected the respective identifications made and uncorroborated testimony of 0enita, the prosecution witness. * fortiori, appellants claim they can not be convicted on the basis of the same uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution witness which the trial court has characteri2ed as Cundeserving of any belief for being inherently incredible,C Cbeyond any common human e5perience,C Cinherently improbable,C Cpatently incredible,C Cgravely doubtful and unconvincingC and Cundeserving of faith and credenceC. I))+ * /hether a conviction of an accused can be based upon a testimony which was the same basis for the acAuittal of the co4accused. , -.* 0otably, the trial court did not accord full faith and credence to the identification made by the witness of erstwhile accused ?uenaventura Villas as one of the perpetrators of the crime. -hat fact, however, does not entirely impugn her credibility as a witness relative to the other aspects of the case. -he trial court found as sufficiently convincing the testimony of 0enita as regards her identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. -he settled rule is that the testimony o& a *itness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part as the corroborative evidence or improbabilities
'>
Evi!ence; Cre!ibility of a 2itness PEOPLE v). ESPERO G.R. No. 116619, D ( #$ % 1, &000
F'(")* *ppellant was found guilty of murder. 3e contends that the lone prosecution eyewitness, Roderic,, is biased for the reason that the deceased victim was his uncle and that he had a grudge against the appellant, and thus said witness wanted to e5act revenge. 3e also contends that Roderic, gave inconsistent testimonies. I))+ * /hether the witness lac,s credibility because of his relation to the victim and grudge against the accused , -.* -he ,inship e5isting between the deceased victim and prosecution witness Roderic, <ere2 as well as the latter1s alleged hostile attitude toward the appellant does not militate against the credibility of the said prosecution eyewitness. It has been held that revenge is a normal reaction of one betrayed, harmed or otherwise of one who has lost a loved one, but it does not &ollo* that the desire to aven%e s'ch betrayal, harm or loss *o'ld incl'de implicatin% even innocent persons. *fter a thorough review of the case, /e find no cogent reason to overturn the decision of the trial court finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for ,illing -ababan. <rosecution eyewitness Roderic, gave a clear and convincing account of the stabbing incident which sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt the liability of the appellant for the death of the victim. 3is presence at the scene of the crime was not successfully disputed by the appellant. .n the other hand, appellant1s uncorroborated defense of alibi is not persuasive and the same pales in the light of the positive identification made by Roderic,.
'
Evi!ence; Cre!ibility of a 2itness; Alibi DITC,E v). COURT OF APPEALS '0. TAM G.R. No. 110/99, M'%(< 6, &000
F'(")* *t around F:>> o1cloc, in the evening, -am, his wife, son and a farm helper were on their way home. /hile riding a motorcycle driven by -am they were ambushed at ?gy. San RoAue. -am continued to negotiate the road amid the gunfire. -en meters away from the ambush site, -am loo,ed bac, and this time he saw ) men firing and chasing them. 3e positively identified & of the ) men as petitioner :itche and the now deceased 6spa@a. <etitioner1s defense is basically alibi. 3is testimony was corroborated by defense witness 7ilbuena, his ?arangay Secretary. .n cross4e5amination, witness 7ilbuena admitted that petitioner :itche reAuested him to testify on his behalf. -he trial court convicted petitioner of !rustrated ;urder. .n appeal, the +ourt of *ppeals modified the trial courtEs decision, in that the petitioner is only guilty of *ttempted ;urder. <etitioner filed a ;otion for Reconsideration and a ;otion for 0ew -rial praying that the case be remanded to the lower court for the reception of the testimonies of new witnesses to the effect that at the time relevant to this case, they were residing within the vicinity of the ambush site and that when the shooting incident too, place, it was already dar, as it was already, in their estimate, B:>> o1cloc, and not F:>> o1cloc, in the evening as declared by the prosecution witnesses. -he +ourt of *ppeals denied both ;otion for Reconsideration and ;otion for 0ew -rial. I))+ * . /hether the ;otion for 0ew -rial should be granted on the basis of QallegedlyD newly discovered evidence. &. /hether the defense of alibi should prosper. , -.* . It was correctly dismissed. 0ot only is such allegedly newly discovered evidence necessarily predicated on the alleged incredulousness of the prosecution witness, whose credibility has in fact already been determined by the trial court, but more importantly, it merely attempts to corroborate the earlier defense of the petitioner on the alleged impossibility of positive identification. 3ence, the additional evidence sought to be presented by the defense is not really a ne*ly discovered evidence as contemplated by la* and therefore will not change the result of the case. -he findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, given the clear advantage of a trial $udge over an appellate court in the appreciation of testimonial evidence. +onsidering that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were straightforward, consistent and replete with details, aside from the fact that there is nothing in the record which shows that the witnesses were moved by any improper motive, the presumption is that the witnesses were not biased and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credence. &. /e re$ect the alibi of petitioner that he was in his house preparing the minutes of the *ssociation of ?arangay +ouncil of *sturias. /hen averring alibi, two essential reAuirements must be strictly met in order that the same may be of value to the defense, namely, " # that the accused was not present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and "&# that it was physically impossible for him to be there at the time.
'&
Evi!ence; Cre!ibility PEOPLE v). ?UIBIDO G.R. No. 135113, A+;+)" &3, &000
F'(")* ;ontemayor and his co4accused Puibido, was charged of the crime of robbery with homicide. ?erganio, one of the accused, disclosed to the police his ,nowledge involving the ,illing of Sofio Verguela when he was arrested. 3e confessed that he was in the company of herein appellants when the said crime was committed. ?erganio agreed to testify for the prosecution upon advice of his father after having been assured of immunity from the instant criminal complaint by the prosecution. -rue to his underta,ing, he narrated during the trial a detailed account of the facts and circumstances before, during and after the commission of the crime, sub$ect of the instant criminal case. *fter analy2ing the evidence, the trial court found as follows: It is clear from the testimony of prosecution witness ?erganio that he was certain that ;ontemayor as one of those who robbed and ,illed Sofio Verguela. -hus, the defense of alibi clearly appears nothing but a mere fabrication designed to e5culpate him of the crime charged. Puibido did not put up a defense% instead, he opted to escape from detention. 3is escape even during the pendency of the case is therefore a clear indication of his guilt. I))+ )* . /hether the testimony of ?erganio, a co4conspirator is credible% &. /hether the defense of alibi is to appreciated.
, -.* It is a well4settled rule that testimonial evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must foremost be credible in itself. -he test to determine the value or credibility of testimony of a witness is whether or not such is in conformity with common ,nowledge and consistent with the e5perience of man,ind. -he fact that the prosecution witness may have been a co4 conspirator in the commission of the offense is not in itself sufficient to dilute the credibility of, much less a ground to disregard altogether, his testimony. -he general rule is that the testimony of a co4conspirator is not sufficient for conviction unless supported by other evidence. -he reason is that it comes from a polluted source. It must be received with caution because, as is usual with human nature, a culprit, confessing a crime, is li,ely to put the blame as far as possible on others rather than himself. ?y way of e5ception, the testimony of a co4conspirator may, even if uncorroborated, be sufficient as when it is shown to be sincere in itself, because given unhesitatingly and in a straightforward manner, and is full of details which by their nature could not have been the result of deliberate afterthought. &. -he trial court correctly re$ected the defense of alibi of the appellant for the reason that he was positively identified by ?erganio who does not appear to have any motive against him to fabricate evidence. *lso, the distance of the alleged whereabouts of the appellant in relation to the scene of the crime does not preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. :ecision affirmed.
''
LEGAL ET,ICS
Lawyer:s Con!uct; .irect Contem-t BUGARING v). ESPA>OL G.R. No. 133090, J'0+'%8 19, &001
F'(")* +ourt of *ppeals affirmed the decision of the Regional -rial +ourt of +avite, declaring petitioner 6fren ?ugaring guilty in direct contempt of court. <etitioner argued that while it might appear that he was carried by his emotions in espousing the case of his client I by persisting to have his documentary evidence mar,ed despite the respondent $udge1s contrary order I he did so in the honest belief
')
, -.* . -he +ourt cannot help but notice the sarcasm in the petitioner1s use of the phrase Cyour honor please.C !or, after using said phrase he manifested utter disrespect to the court in his subseAuent utterances. Surely this behavior from an officer of the +ourt cannot and should not be countenanced, if proper decorum is to be observed and maintained during court proceedings. Indeed, the conduct of petitioner in persisting to have his documentary evidence mar,ed to the e5tent of interrupting the opposing counsel and the court showed disrespect to said counsel and the court, was defiant of the court1s system for an orderly proceeding, and obstructed the administration of $ustice. -he power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the preservation of order in $udicial proceedings and to the enforcement of $udgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and conseAuently, to the due administration of $ustice. :irect contempt is committed in the presence of or so near a court or $udge, as in the case at bar, and can be punished summarily without hearing. 3ence, petitioner cannot claim that there was irregularity in the actuation of respondent $udge in issuing the contempt order inside her chamber without giving the petitioner the opportunity to defend himself or ma,e an immediate reconsideration. -he records show that petitioner was cited in contempt of court during the hearing in the sala of respondent $udge, and he even filed a motion for reconsideration of the contempt order on the same day. -he +ourt of *ppeals aptly stated:
?ut Ca lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his client1s causeC "/'enaseda v. +lavier, 226 SC A 6"2, 626 #. 3e should not forget that he is an officer of the court, bou 0d to e5ert every effort and placed under duty, to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of $ustice pursuant to +anon &, +anons of <rofessional Responsibility " Gome3 v. Presidin% 4'd%e, (C, /r. 52, 63amis City, 2"# SC A "!2, "!# #. 3e should not, therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of $ustice per Rule >.>'.
&. *lthough respondent $udge was $ustified in citing petitioner in direct contempt of court, she erred in imposing a fine in the amount of <',>>>.>> which e5ceeded the ceiling of <&,>>>.>> under S+ *dm. +irc. 0o. &&4=J which too, effect on 0ovember F, ==J. It was not established that the fine was imposed in bad faith. -he +ourt of *ppeals thus properly ordered the return of the e5cess of < ,>>>.>>. *side from the fine, the three days imprisonment meted out to petitioner was $ustified and within the >4day limit prescribed in Section , Rule B of the Rules of +ourt, as amended. It is our view and we hold, therefore, that the +ourt of *ppeals did not commit any reversible error in its assailed decision
"u!icial Con!uct MANIO v. FERNANDO A.M. No. RTJ-00-12/9, S !" #$ % &9, &000
F'(")* Jeanet ;anio charged Judge !ernando with Cgiving me a hard timeC by free2ing Call my accounts "time deposits and Savings *ccount# at the ban,,C thus preventing her from withdrawing money needed Cto buy a parcel of land.C ?ecause of her complaint against respondent Judge, the latter filed a case for per$ury against her. -o her surprise, a warrant of arrest was served upon her. -hereafter, ;anio reAuested that her complaint against respondent Judge be dismissed. In another letter dated on the same day, she stated that she is withdrawing her complaint since it was out of ignorance and her anger at respondent Judge that she complained against him. -he case was referred to a consultant of the .ffice of the +ourt *dministrator ".+*# to conduct the necessary investigation, report and recommendation. 3owever, no investigation ensued since on the dates the case was set for hearing, complainant did not appear.
'J
"u!icial Con!uct; 4ssuance of Or!er of Release SANTIAGO v). JUDGE JOVELLANOS A.M. No. MTJ-00-1&/9, A+;+)" 1, &000
F'(")* +omplainant Jesusa ;. Santiago alleges that she is the private complainant in several criminal cases, all entitled: C<eople of the <hilippines vs. Violeta ;adera,C 8pon failure of the accused to appear at the scheduled hearing of the criminal cases, she was arrested on July &, ==F pursuant to a bench warrant issued against her and detained at the municipal $ail of San Ildefonso, ?ulacan. She was released the following day pursuant to the .rder of Release dated *pril ', ==F issued by respondent Judge Jovellanos. +omplainant Santiago Auestions the propriety of the said .rder of Release on two "&# grounds: first, the authority of Judge Jovellanos to issue the said .rder of Release and, second, the date of issuance thereof. Santiago points out that ;adera was arrested and detained in San Ildefonso, ?ulacan and her cases were pending before the ;-+ of said municipality but it was respondent $udge from the ;+-+ of *lcala4?autista, <angasinan which issued the .rder of Release. *lso, while ;adera was arrested on July &, ==F, the .rder of Release was dated *pril ', ==F. *n investigation was ensued against Judge Jovellanos and the investigating committee found out that the $udge deliberately lied when he said he cancelled the property bond posted by the accused for her failure to register the property within ten " ># days to the proper office. 0o property bond had reached the +ourt that issued the warrant of arrest. Judge Jovellanos had ta,en advantage of his position as <residing Judge, ;+-+, *lcala4?autista, <angasinan, ,nowing fully well that he issued an order for the release of a detained person, even without the approved property bond. I))+ * /hether Judge JovellanoEs issuance of the .rder of Release was proper.
, -.* -his +ourt agrees with the factual findings of the investigating $udge and the .ffice of the +ourt *dministrator. In Victorino +ru2 v. Judge Reynold P. 9ane2a, Section 'J of ?< ?lg. &= and Sections B and = of Rule ) are to be construed and applied in con$unction with each other. -he abovecited rules do not give the ;etropolitan -rial Judge blan,et authority to grant applications for bail. -here are prereAuisites to be complied with. !irst, the application for bail must be filed in the court where the case is pending. In the absence or unavailability of the $udge thereof, the application for bail may be filed with another branch of the same court within the province or city. Second, if the accused is arrested in a province, city or municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may be filed with any regional trial court of the place. If no $udge thereof is available, then with any metropolitan trial $udge or municipal circuit trial $udge therein. It is clear from this +ourt1s disAuisition in 7ane3a that Judge Jovellanos1 reliance on Section =, Rule ) of the =(J Rules of +riminal <rocedure is misplaced. 7ane3a, in fact, only highlights that Judge Jovellanos, contrary to prescribed procedures, approved the applications for bail of accused whose cases were not only pending in other courts but who were li,ewise arrested and detained outside his territorial $urisdiction. It also does not appear from the records of these cases that the $udges having $urisdiction over the accused were absent or otherwise unavailable to act upon their applications for bail. /orse, Judge Jovellanos ordered the release of ;adera without the corresponding bail bond being posted. Judge Jovellanos1 invocation of good faith and his plea that he was only moved by humanitarian considerations cannot e5cuse his conduct. /e have often stressed that
'F
.isbarment UI v). ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO ADM. CASE No. 3319, J+0 /, &000
F'(")* +omplainant Leslie 8i was married to +arlos 8i. -hey had four children. Sometime in :ecember =(B, however, complainant found out that her husband, +arlos 8i, was carrying on an illicit relationship with respondent *tty. Iris ?onifacio, a graduate of the +ollege of Law of the 8niversity of the <hilippines was admitted to the <hilippine ?ar in =(& with whom he begot a daughter sometime in =(F, and that they had been living together. -his illicit relationship was admitted by +arlos to his wife. +onseAuently, complainant went to respondentEs office and introduced herself as the legal wife of +arlos. Respondent, on the other hand, told the complainant that her relationship with the complainantEs husband was over. 3owever, after Auite sometime, complainant learned that the illicit relationship continues and that respondent had another child. * complaint for disbarment, was then filed on *ugust , =(= by the complainant against respondent *tty. Iris ?onifacio before the +ommission on ?ar :iscipline of the Integrated ?ar of the <hilippines on the ground of immorality, more particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainant1s husband, +arlos 8i. It is respondent1s contention that her relationship with +arlos 8i is not illicit because they were married abroad and that after June =(( when respondent discovered +arlos 8i1s true civil status, she cut off all her ties with him. Respondent averred that +arlos 8i never lived with her in *labang, and that he resided in, San Juan, ;etro ;anila. It was respondent who lived in *labang in a house which belonged to her mother, Rosalinda L. ?onifacio% and that the said house was built e5clusively from her parents1 funds. -he ?oard of 7overnors of the Integrated ?ar of the <hilippines dismissed the complaint for lac, of merit. *tty. Iris ?onifacio was, however reprimanded. I))+ * /hether the alleged illicit relationship with a married man constitutes grossly immoral conduct. , -.* /e agree with the findings. * lawyer may be disbarred for Cgrossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitudeC. * member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity. It is difficult to state with precision and to fi5 an infle5ible standard as to what is Cgrossly immoral conductC or to specify the moral delinAuency and obliAuity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. -he rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight4 laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment. Immoral conduct has been defined as Cthat conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.C In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent *tty. ?onifacio that when she met +arlos 8i, she ,new and believed him to be single. Respondent fell in love with him and they got married and as a result of such marriage, she gave birth to two "&# children. 8pon her ,nowledge of the true civil status of +arlos 8i, she left him. Simple as the facts of the case may sound, the effects of the actuations of respondent are not only far from simple, they will have a rippling effect on how the standard norms of our legal practitioners should be defined. <erhaps morality in our liberal society today is a far cry from what it used to be before. -his permissiveness
'B
'(