SECTION 1

China Banking Corporation v. Abe

G.R. No. 182547
January 10, 2011
1. Any perceived denial of her right to be heard on the banks motion for execution had been cured
by her motion for reconsideration and the RTCs action on the same.
2. Any party cannot complain that the court acted on her motion more promptly than she expected
especially since she actually offered no legitimate reason for opposing the issuance of a writ of
possession in the banks favor.
The Heritage Hotel Manila, acting through its owner, Grand Plaza Hotel, Corp. vs. National Union
of Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila Supervisors
Chapter (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC)
GR No. 178296
January 12, 2011
Well-settled is the rule that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as
applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
Gutierrez v. House of Representatives
GR No. 193459
January 19, 2011
1. Mere suspicion of partiality does not suffice. The act of the head of a collegial body cannot be
considered as that of the entire body itself.
2. An abbreviated pace in the conduct of proceedings is not per se an indication of bias.
3. Petitioners initial participation in the impeachment proceedings the opportunity to file an
Answer starts after the Committee on Justice finds the complaint sufficient in form and
substance.
4. The determination of sufficiency of form and substance of an impeachment complaint is an
exponent of the express constitutional grant of rule-making powers of the House of
Representatives which committed such determinative function to public respondent
5. While "promulgation" would seem synonymous to "publication," there is a statutory difference in
their usage.
6. Promulgation must thus be used in the context in which it is generally understoodthat is, to
make known. Since the Constitutional Commission did not restrict "promulgation" to "publication,"
the former should be understood to have been used in its general sense. It is within the discretion
of Congress to determine on how to promulgate its Impeachment Rules, in much the same way
that the Judiciary is permitted to determine that to promulgate a decision means to deliver the
decision to the clerk of court for filing and publication.
7. Publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation is but one avenue for
Congress to make known its rules. Had the Constitution intended to have the Impeachment Rules

published, it could have stated so as categorically as it did in the case of the rules of procedure in
legislative inquiries, per Neri. Other than "promulgate," there is no other single formal term in the
English language to appropriately refer to an issuance without need of it being published.
Real v. Sangu Philippines
G.R. No. 168757
January 19, 2011
The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process.
The law requires the employer to furnish the employee sought to be dismissed with two written notices
before termination of employment can be legally effected; This procedure is mandatory and its absence
taints the dismissal with illegality.
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. (PDIC) v. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank
G.R. No. 176438
January 24, 2011
The essence of procedural due process is found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and
submit ones evidence in support of his defense.
Pimentel, Jr. v. Senate Committee of the Whole
GR No 187714
March 8, 2011
The referral of the investigation by the Ethics Committee to the Senate Committee of the Whole is
an extraordinary remedy that does not violate Senator Villars right to due process.
The only limitation to the power of Congress to promulgate its own rule is the observance of
quorum, voting and publication when required.
Internal rules of the House or Senate need not be published unless such rules expressly provide
for their publication before the rules can take effect.
The Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole itself provide that the rules must be published
before the rules can take effect.
Verzosa, Jr v. Carague
GR No 157838
March 8, 2011
View that it is basic tenet in the observance of administrative due process that the tribunal or any
of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of law and facts of the controversy and not
simply accept the view of the subordinate.

People v. Paling
GR No 185390
March 16, 2011
The judge can rely on the transcripts of stenographic notes and calibrate the testimonies of
witness in accordance with their conformity to common experience, knowledge and observation of
ordinary men- such reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process of law.
Bangayan v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation
GR No 149193
April 4, 2011
The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it
criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a
fundamental right which is art of due process; this right, however, has always been understood as
requiring not necessarily an actual cross-examination but merely an opportunity to excuse the right to
cross-examine if desired.
Lopez v. Alturas
GR No 191008
April 11, 2011
Dismissals have two facts: the legality of the act of dismissal, which constitutes substantive due
process, and the legality of the manner of dismissal which constitutes procedural due process.
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) v. Commission on Elections
GR No 176951 GR No 177499 GR No 178056
April 12, 2011
Local government units covered by the Cityhood Laws belong to a class of their own- they have
proven themselves viable and capable to become component cities of their respective provinces.
View that the 16 Cityhood Laws stick out like a sore thumb, starkly showing an obvious violation
of the equal protection clause- the Cityhood Laws create distinctly privileged cities with only Php20 million
annual income, discriminating against cities with Php100 million annual income created before and after
the enactment of the Cityhood Laws.
Navarro v. Ermita
GR No 180050
April 12, 2011
View that Aquino v. Commission on Elections, GR No 189793, 617 SCRA 623 (2010), and now
this Dinagat Islands province case, will mangle beyond recognition the bedrock constitutional principles of
proportional representation in the House of Representatives, as well as the egalitarian rule of one
person, one vote universally honored in all modern civilized societies and rooted in the Equal Protection
Clause.

Republic v. Sandiganbayan (First Division)

GR No 166859
April 12, 2011
View that procedurally, the fundamental requirement of due process involves the opportunity to be
heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner- whether in the substantive or in the procedural
signification, due process must comport with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just.
Lacson vs. Executive Secretary
G.R. Nos. 165399 and 165475
May 30, 2011
The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain ones side
or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, and to submit any evidence he may have
in support of his defense.
Gannapao vs. Civil Service Commission
G.R. No. 180141
May 31, 2011
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative
proceeding, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action
or ruling complained of.
Lucas vs. Lucas
G.R. No. 190710
June 6, 2011
A petition to establish illegitimate filiation is an action in rem by the simple fling of the petition to
establish illegitimate filiation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which undoubtedly had jurisdiction
bovver the subject matter of the petition, the latter thereby acquired jurisdiction over the case; If at all,
service of summons or notice made to the defendant, i t is not for the purpose of vesting the court with
jurisdiction, but merely for satisfying the due process requirements.
Munoz vs. Yabut, Jr.
G.R. No. 142676
June 6, 2011
No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case
are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court a writ of execution can be issued only against a
party and not against one who did not have his day in court.
Regalado vs. Regalado
G.R. No. 196919
June 6, 2011
No adjudication can be against the successor of the deceased of the fundamental right to a day in
court is denied.
Flores vs. Montemayor

G.R. No. 170146

June 8, 2011
The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain ones side
or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
The rights of parties in an administrative proceeding are not violated by the brevity of the decision
rendered by the Office of the President (OP) incorporating the findings and conclusions of an
administrative body, for as long as the constitutional requirement of due process has been satisfied.
That the Office of the President (OP) denied the motion by sustaining the Presidential Anti-Graf
Commission (PAGC) findings without any separate discussion of respondents arguments and belatedly
submitted evidence only meant that the OP found the same lacking in merit and insufficient to overturn its
ruling on respondents administrative liability.
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) vs. Group Management Corporation (GMC)
G.R. No. 167000
June 8, 2011
It is settled in jurisprudence that to stay execution of a final judgment, a supervening even must
create a substantial change in the right or relations of the parties which would render execution of a final
judgment unjust, impossible or inequitable making it imperative to stay immediate execution in the interest
of justice.
Heirs of Dr. Hose Deleste vs. Land Bank of the Philippines
G.R. No. 169913
June 8, 2011
To be exempt from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), all that is needed is
one valid reclassification of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural by a duly authorized government
agency before 15 June 1988, when the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) took effect; Vested
rights which have already accrued cannot just be taken away by the expedience of issuing a local zoning
ordinance reclassifying agricultural land into a residential/commercial area.
The importance of actual notice in subjecting a property under the agrarian reform program
cannot be underrated, as noncompliance with it treads roughshod with the essential requirements of
administrative due process.
Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
G.R. No. 171101
July 5, 2011
View that is not per se wrong for an administrative agency, such as the Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council (PARC), to adopt wholesale the reports of its representatives or designated teams, which
were specifically mandated to conduct an investigation of the matter, and which possessed the
competence to perform the task.

National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms Inc. V. Energy Regulatory Commission
and Manila Electric Company, Inc.

G.R. No. 190795

July 6, 2011
The Constitution recognized higher values than administrative economy, efficiency and efficacy.
The Bill of Rights in general and the Due Process Clause in particular were designed to protect the fragile
values of a vulnerable citizenry from the overbearing concern for efficiency and efficacy that might
characterize praise worthy government officials. Moreover, when an administrative procedure, ran
roughshod over fundamental values like the right of the citizenry to due process, as enshrined in the
Constitution and other statutes, the Court would not let that procedure stand.
Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is granted,
there is no denial of due process.
Any defect in the observance of due process requirements is cured by the filing of a Motion for
Reconsideration (MR).
Dela Torre vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 160088
July 13, 2011
Since the purpose of formally impleading a party is to assure him a day in court, once the
protective mantle of due process of law has in face been accorded to a litigant, whatever the imperfection
in form, the real litigant may be held liable as a party.
Abosta Ship Management Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission (First Division)
and Arnulfo R. Flores
G.R. No. 163252
July 27, 2011
Under the law, technical rules of evidence are not binding in administrative proceedings, and the
NLRC and the labor Arbiters "shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each
case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of
due process.
Petronilo J. Barayuga v. Adventist University of the Philippines
G.R. No. 168008
August 17, 2011
The requirements of due process in an administrative context are satisfied when the parties are
afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy, for the
essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard.
Jose R. Catacutan v. People of the Philippines
G.R. 175991
August 31, 2011
Due process simply demands an opportunity to be heard. Due process is satisfied when the parties are
afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy. Where an opportunity
to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due

process. There is also no denial of due process when the trial court did not allow petitioner to introduce as
evidence.
Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. Distribution Management Association
G.R. 155849
August 31, 2011
The proceedings for the punishment of the contumacious act committed outside the personal
knowledge of the judge generally need the observance of all the elements of due process of law, that is,
notice, written charges, and an opportunity to deny and to defend such charges before guilt is adjudged
and sentence imposed. Therefore, the word summary with respect to the punishment for contempt refers
not to the timing of the action with reference to the offense but to the procedure that dispenses with the
formality, delay, and digression that result from the issuance of process, service of complaint and answer,
holding hearings, taking evidence, listening to arguments, awaiting briefs, submission of findings, and all
that goes with a conventional court trial.
SECTION 2
Fajardo v. People
G.R. No. 190889
January 10, 2011
1. Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view" of an officer, who has a right to be
in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.
2. It applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a
particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.
People v. Ng Yik Bun
G.R. No. 180452
January 10, 2011
1. Warrantless arrest is considered reasonable and valid under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure.
2. In People v. Alunday, we held that when a police officer sees the offense, although at a distance,
or hears the disturbances created thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene, he may effect an
arrest without a warrant on the basis of Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as the offense
is deemed committed in his presence or within his view.
3. Accused-appellants were found to be in possession of prohibited drugs without proof that they
were duly authorized by law to possess them. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is,
therefore, a prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on the part of accused-appellants.

People v. Dequina

G.R. No. 177570

January 19, 2011
1. Settled is the rule that no arrest, search or seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by
a competent judicial authority. Any evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding; Certain legal and judicial exceptions.
2. Circumstances where lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private
person.
3. The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such
waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly.
People v. Uyboco
G.R. No. 178039
January 19, 2011
1. The second instance of lawful warrantless arrest covered by paragraph (b) cited above
necessitates two stringent requirements before a warrantless arrest can be effected: (1) an
offense has just been committed; and (2) the person making the arrest has personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
2. Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which means an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion.A reasonable suspicion, therefore, must be founded on probable
cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.
3. In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a
warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within
the latter's reach.The phrase "within the area of his immediate control" means the area from
within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.
Miller vs. Perez
G.R. No. 165412
May 30, 2011
Probable cause is defines as the existence of such facts and circumstance as would excite 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.
The determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information in courts is an
executive function which pertains at the first instance to the public prosecutor and then to Secretary of
Justice.
A finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to
procure a conviction.

People of the Philippines v. Mantalaba

G.R. 186227
July 20, 2011
As an incident to the lawful arrest of the accused after the consummation of the buy-bust
operation, the arresting officers had authority to search the person of the accused. Non-compliance by the
apprehending buy-bust team with Section 21 of R.A. 9344 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground
and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer. Its non-compliance will not render the arrest illegal or the items confiscated from
him are inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.
Stephen Sy v. People of the Philippines
G.R. 182178
August 15, 2011
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial
question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the
search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and
seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured. In searches
incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search; generally, the process cannot be reversed.
Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if
the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. Although probable cause
eludes exact and concrete definition, it ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in them to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is
guilty of the offense with which he is charged.
Abraham Miclat, Jr. v. People of the Philippines
G.R. 176077
August 31, 2011

Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are
subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The plainview
doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular
area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer
that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The
law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he
can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece
of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery
inadvertent.

People of the Philippines v. Rolando S. Delos Reyes

G.R. 174774
August 31, 2011

Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained there from may
be admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving
motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the
accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures; and (6) stop and frisk
situations.
Thus, a peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person: (a) when, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense (arrest in flagrante delicto); (b) when an offense has just been committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it (arrest effected in hot pursuit); and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another (arrest of escaped prisoners).
SECTION 4
Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty Entitled Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the
University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court.
AM No 10-10-4-SC
March 8, 2011
The legal reasoning used in the past by this Court to rule that freedom of expression is not a
defense in administrative cases against lawyers for using intemperate speech in open court or in court
submissions can similarly be applied to respondents invocation of academic freedom.
Yambot v. Tuguero
GR No 69895
March 23, 2011

A newspaper should not be held to account to a point of suppression or honest mistakes or

imperfection in the choice of words. Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but
merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed and implies an intention to do ulterior and
unjustifiable harm.
The concept of privileged communication is implicit in the constitutionally protected freedom of
the press, which would be threatened when criminal suits are unscrupulously leveled by persons wishing
to silence the media on account of unfounded claims of inaccuracies in news reports.

SECTION 9
Vda.Ouano v. Republic
G.R. No. 168770
February 9, 2011
1. In expropriation, the private owner is deprived of property against his will. the mandatory
requirement of due process ought to be strictly followed.
2. Public use, as an eminent domain concept, has now acquired an expansive meaning to include
any use that is of usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is productive of general benefit [of the
public].
3. The government cannot plausibly keep the property it expropriated in any manner it pleases and,
in the process, dishonor the judgment of expropriation.
4. The notion, therefore, that the government, via expropriation proceedings, acquires unrestricted
ownership over or a fee simple title to the covered land, is no longer tenable.The taking of a
private land in expropriation proceedings is always conditioned on its continued devotion to its
public purpose. As a necessary corollary, once the purpose is terminated or peremptorily
abandoned, then the former owner, if he so desires, may seek its reversion, subject of course to
the return, at the very least, of the just compensation received.
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Pagayatan
G.R. No. 177190
February 23, 2011

1. It is the offered purchase price of DAR for the land contained in the notice of acquisition and not
the price determined in an administrative proceeding before the PARAD.
2. It is only after the DAR has made its final determination of the initial valuation of the land that the
landowner may resort to the judicial determination of the just compensation for the land.
3. Sec. 16 of RA 6657 only allows the release of the initial valuation of the DAR and the LBP to the
landowner prior to the determination by the courts of the final just compensation due.
National Power Corporation vs. Tuazon
G.R. No. 193023
June 22, 2011

Just compensation should be equivalent to the full value of the land traversed by the transmission
lines. Court pronouncement in Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1 (1991) that the exercise of the power of eminent
domain necessarily includes the imposition of right-of-way easements upon condemned property without
loss of title or possession remains doctrinal and should be applied.
Section 3-A (b) of R.A. No. 6395, as amended, is not binding on the Court.

Land Bank of the Philippines v. Severino Listana

G.R. No. 168105
July 27, 2011

It stressed that the determination of just compensation is inherently judicial in nature. For the
fixing of just compensation with the Special Agrarian Court is not an appeal from the agrarian reform
adjudicators decision but an original action, the same has to be filed within the 15 day period stated in
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Rules; Otherwise, the adjudicators decision will
attain finality. This rule is not only in accord with law and settled jurisprudence but also with the principles
of justice and equity.
Export Processing Zone Authority (now Philippine Export Zone Authority) v. Pulido
G.R. No. 188995
August 24, 2011

The power of eminent domain is not an unlimited power. Section 9, Article III of the 1987
Constitution sets down the essential limitations upon this inherent right of the State to take private
property, namely: (a) that the taking must be for a public purpose; and (b) that just compensation must be
paid to the owner. The State must first establish that the exercise of eminent domain is for a public
purpose, which, here, is already settled. What remains to be determined is the just compensation. In Apo
Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank, the Court has held that compensation cannot be just to the owner in the
case of property that is immediately taken unless there is prompt payment, considering that the owner
thereby immediately suffers not only the loss of his property but also the loss of its fruits or income. Thus,
in addition, the owner is entitled to legal interest from the time of the taking of the property until the actual
payment in order to place the owner in a position as good as, but not better than, the position he was in
before the taking occurred.
National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay
G.R. No. 165828
August 24, 2011

Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. It is settled that the
taking of private property for public use, to be compensable, need not be an actual physical taking or
appropriation. Indeed, the expropriators action may be short of acquisition of title, physical possession, or
occupancy but may still amount to taking. Compensable taking includes destruction, restriction,
diminution, or interruption of the rights of ownership or of the common and necessary use and enjoyment
of the property in a lawful manner, lessening or destroying its value. It is neither necessary that the owner
be wholly deprived of the use of his property, nor material whether the property is removed from the
possession of the owner, or in any respect changes hands.

SECTION 10
Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
G.R. No. 171101
July 5, 2011

A law authorizing interference, when appropriate, in the contractual relations between or among
parties is deemed read into the contract and its implementation cannot successfully be resisted by force
of the non-impairment guarantee; Impairment obtains if a subsequent law changes the terms of a contract
between the parties, imposes new conditions, dispenses with those agreed upon or withdraws existing
remedies for the enforcement of the rights of the parties necessarily, the constitutional proscription
would not apply to laws already in effect at the time of contract execution, as in the case of RA 6657.
View that the non-impairment clause deals with a fundamental right against the exercise of
legislative power, and not of judicial or quasi-judicial power.
Renato V. Diaz V. The Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
G.R. No. 193007
July 19, 2011
A person who will neither be prejudiced by nor be affected by the alleged diminution in return of
investments that may result from the Value Added Tax (VAT) imposition has no personality to invoke the
non-impairment of contract clause on behalf of private investors in the tollway projects except to the
extent that specific constitutional or statutory limitations are impaired. Thus, even if the imposition of VAT
on tollway operations may seem burdensome to implement, it is not necessarily invalid unless some
aspect of it is shown to violate any law or the Constitution. Here, it remains to be seen how the taxing
authority will actually implement the VAT on tollway operations. Any declaration by the Court that the
manner of its implementation is illegal or unconstitutional would be premature.
SECTION 12
Jesalva v. People
G.R. No. 187725
January 19, 2011
Custodial investigation refers to "any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way."
Lopez v. Alturas
GR No 191008
April 11, 2011
The right to counsel and the assistance of one in investigations involving termination cases is
neither indispensable nor mandatory, except when the employee himself requests for one or that he
manifests that he wants a formal hearing on the charges against him.

SECTION 16
RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT - BRANCH
56, MANDAUE CITY, CEBU.
A.M. No. 09-7-284-RTC
February 16, 2011

1. Judges burdened with heavy caseloads should request the Court for an extension of the
reglementary period within which to decide their cases if they think they cannot comply with their
judicial duty.
2. It is not enough that he pens his decision; it is imperative to promulgate the same within the
mandated period.
3. The honor and integrity of the judicial system is measured not only by the fairness and
correctness of decisions rendered, but also by the efficiency with which disputes are resolved.
Naguiat v. Capellan
AM No MTJ-11-1782
March 23, 2011
The raison dtre of courts lies not only in properly dispensing justice but also in being able to do
so seasonably.
Villa vs. Ayco
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2284
July 13, 2011
The publics faith and confidence in the judicial system depends largely on the judicious and
prompt disposition of cases and other matters pending before the courts failure to decide a case or
resolve a motion within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition
of administrative sanction against the erring judge.
SECTION 21
Flores vs. Montemayor
G.R. No. 170146
June 8, 2011

The dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation does not constitute double jeopardy,
preliminary investigation not being part of the trial.
Double jeopardy attaches on (1) upon a valid indictment, (2) before a competent court, (3) after
arraignment, (4) when a valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the defendants was convicted or
acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.

The same wrongful act committed by the public officer can subject him to civil, administrative and
criminal liabilities; Dismissal of a criminal action does not foreclose institution of an administrative
proceeding against the same respondent, nor carry with it the relief from administrative liability.