Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FACTS:
Respondent is one of the registered owner of a land which was occupied by Galiga, a
lessee, from 1979-1993. Galiga sold the land to petitioner on 1993, which the former
pretended to be the owner of the land. Upon learning about the occupation of petitioner to
his land, he sent a letter to him informing him to vacate the property and filed a complaint
for ejectment thru Rosario Diaz, Jr. on October 1994. The MeTC rendered its decision in
favor of the respondent.
Petitioner filed a petition, claiming that Diaz has no authority to file the complaint which
was denied. Thus, raised his petition to the CA. The CA affirmed the RTCs decision.
ISSUES:
What then, is the effect of a complaint filed by those who has no authority to represent a
plaintiff in filing an action?
HELD:
A complaint is filed for and on behalf of the plaintiff by ones who is not authorized to do
so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any
legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no
jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff. Therefore, MeTC never acquired
jurisdiction over this case and all proceedings before it were null and void.
#132
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD:
Yes. She claimed that the man who impregnated her represented to be
separated from hi, the fact remains that the man is still married. Thus, there
is no doubt that respondent engaged in sexual relation with a married man,
which not only violate the moral standards expected of employees of the
judiciary but also a desecration of the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
#133
FACTS:
October 3, 2000, Mrs. Vergara was found dead inside their house, lying
lifeless on a bamboo bed. During that time victims husband went to Quezon
City at 6am, leaving her, his children, and the appellant. Appellant works at
their rice mill as a helper. According to witnesses, appellant seems to be
restless and that he went in and out of the victims house a couple of times.
The last time they saw him; he was carrying his bag and never came back.
Henry, the husband, came home and found the inside of the house in disarray
and his wife covered in blood.
Appellant was apprehended in Capiz and has been using different allias to
avoid the authorities. He was brought back to San Pablo and was tried. He
was later found guilty and was sentenced to death, which was later reduced
to a lesser punishment in the retrial.
ISSUES:
HELD:
Yes. Appellant was not seen by the victims family since the crime. The
flight of an accused, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a
circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be establish, for a truly
innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to
defend himself and assert his innocence.
#134
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD:
No. The information filed with the MCTC cannot be used as a basis for valid
indictment. There is no point in proceeding under defective information that
could never be the basis of a valid conviction. The information filed with the
MCTC must thus first be amended and thereafter filed with the RTC.
Pending the filing of such information, the RTC has not yet acquired
jurisdiction.
#135
FACTS:
October 15, 1991, Africa gave the land to Rodriguez as payments of his
obligations to him. Rodriguez made a proposal to petitioners allowing them
to continue operations and management which the latter denied and instead
offered to grant the same terms and conditions as those given to independent
small growers in General Santos. As no agreement was reached petitioner
dismantled and removed all improvements introduced in the farm damaging
the land and its crops.
On April 1992, respondent filed a complaint for recovery and sum of money
and damages against petitioners which was granted by the RTC.
Both petitioner and respondent filed an appeal to the CA, whose decision in
favor to respondent with modification of the RTCs decision.
ISSUES:
HELD:
#136
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD:
#137
FACTS:
August 18, 2001, the Manor Hotel at Kamias Road, Quezon City was
engulfed by fire that killed 74 people and injured several others. Upon
investigation, it was found that the cause was a faulty electrical wiring
systems. In conclusion, the cause of the incident was due to gross negligence
of the public officials and the local government, who are incharge in the
licensing operation of the Manor Hotel.
The formal complaint was filed against petitioner and several other officials,
before the Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the OMB for grave
misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and gross
negligence. June 17, 2003, petitioner was found guilty. On July 26, 2004, the
OMB issued a memorandum that modified the decision, stating that the
benefits he received must be returned to the government.
ISSUES:
Whether or not petitioner is liable for the acts and omission of his
subordinates.
HELD:
#138
FACTS:
November 3, 2007, 9pm, CCC, DDD and appellant was drinking outside the
house while AAA was inside. 1am November 4, she went to bed and the
others went in. 3am, AAA was asleep on the wooden bed, while CCC and
appellant were asleep on the floor. Appellant then went beside her and kissed
her. He threatened to kill her if she makes any noise. She was shocked and
was unable to do anything but cry. He raped her. After the deed, appellant
said hell marry her and fell asleep. AAA didnt repot immediately because
of fear.
7am, appellant, CCC and DDD went to mass, afterwards AAA went to mass.
7pm, AAA told DDD what happened and DDD told CCC, which the latter
told BBB. AAA, CCC, and DDD report the incident. AAA was examined.
Result showed deep-healed lacerations was evident and probably caused 21
days prior. No spermatozoa were found inside her private parts. November
5, 2007, appellant was arrested. On his defense, he said that they were lovers
from 2003-2004. During his stay with them, he and AAA had 2 sexual
encounters, first was October 31, 2007 and on November 4, 2007 which are
both consensual.
April 15, 2008, the RTC found appellant guilty of the crime of rape.
Appellant then raised the case to the CA, which affirmed the latters
decision.
ISSUES:
HELD:
No. The conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual
assault is of utmost importance in establishing the truth or falsity of the
charge of rape. In the present case, the acts of AAA after the alleged rape are
totally uncharacteristic of one who has been raped. Her indifference on the
lingering presence of the appellant at the scene of the alleged crime after the
same happened instead of immediately reporting the incident naturally
makes her testimony tainted with uncertainty. AAAs failure to resist the
alleged assault indubitably casts doubt on her credibility and the veracity of
her narration of the incident.
#139
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD:
Yes. Petitioner was an officer on the active service when he committed the
violations. Clearly the General Court Martial has jurisdiction of the case.
Having established the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial over the
case and the person of the petitioner the President, as Commander-in-chief,
therefore acquired the jurisdiction to confirm petitioners sentence and
mentioned in Art 47 of the Article of War.
#140
FACTS:
November 19, 1992 January 5, 1993, the spouses Villuga made purchases
of construction supplies from Kelly Hardware in the sum of P 259,809.50,
which has not been paid up to this time. Thus, Kelly filed a complaint to the
RTC on March 3, 1995. The rendered decision was in favor to Kelly.
Petitioners, on their answer to the allegations, said that they already made
payments on March 4 and August 9, 1994 amounting to P 130, 301.80. Thus,
the remaining balance should not be P 259, 809.50. Respondent say that the
payment made was deducted to their other obligations that the petitioners
owed from them.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. It was then
raised to the CA which was also denied.
ISUUES:
Whether or not the summary judgment issued by the RTC was proper and
with legal bases.
HELD:
In their case, petitioners did not assert that the payment made should be
deducted to the sum sought to recover by respondent, leading the court to no
other conclusion that these payment were indeed applied to their other debts.