Kapisanan ng mga Manggawa vs.

Manila Railroad Company

GR-L-25316 February 1979 (88, SCRA 616)
Second Division, Fernando
Fact:
The union seek reversal of the court decision relying on what it considered to be a
right granted by Sec 62 Article 2023
1. A member of a cooperative may notwithstanding the provisions of existing
laws execute an agreement in favor of co-operative authorizing him employer
to deduct from the salary or wages payable to him by the employer such
amount as may be specified in the agreement and to pay the amount so
deducted to the cooperative in the satisfaction of any debt or other demand
owing from the member to the cooperative.
2. Upon the exemption of such agreement the employer shall if so required by
the co-operative by a request in writing and so long as such debt or other
demand or any part of it remains unpaid make the claimant and remit forth
with the amount so deducted in the co-operative
The mandatory character of article 2023 is to compel the employer to make the
deduction of the employees debt from the salary and turn this over to the
employees credit union but this does not convert the credit unions credit into a first
priority credit.
Issue:
Whether the employees credit union is entitled to the first priority of credit
Held:
The provision for RA 2023 is clear and there is no ambiguity, thus the petitioner
appeal cannot raise any valid objection, if the enacting paragraph of the articles 1
and 2 of sec 62 Article 2023 were to give first priority in the matter of payments to
the obligations of employees in favor of their credit unions, then the law would have
so expressly declares.
Where the statutory norms speaks unequivocally there is nothing for the courts to
do except to apply it, the leaving no doubts as to scope of its operation must be
obeyed.
Abellana vs. Marave
GR L-27760 May 29, 1974
Second division Fernado
Facts

Petitioner Francisco Abellana was charged with physical injuries through reckless
imprudence in driving his cargo truck hitting a motorized pedicab and injuring its
passengers. The criminal case was filed with the city court of Ozamis City which
found Abellana guilty of charged and damages is awarded to the offended parties.
Abellana appealed such decision to the court of first instance, the offended parties
filed with another branch in Misamis Oriental a separate and independent action
for damages suffered by them from reckless driving of Abellana, wherein the alleged
employer Crispin Abellana was included as defendant, both defendant sought for
the dismissal of such action on the ground that there was no reservation for the
filing in the city of Ozamis and not allowed on criminal case already on appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the private respondent could still institute separate civil action
despite of their failure to reserve a right to file the same criminal proceeding.
Held:
There basis Rules of court provision cited in rules of court the effect that upon the
institution of a criminal action, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising
from the offense charge is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party reserves his right to institute it separately.
The interpretation ignores the de novo aspect and yield to constitutional question,
in which the court should avoid construing a statute in a manner that will lead to
constitutional doubt such construction be rejected.
counsel is not to ignore the purpose of litigation which is to assure justice not to fall
on the prey to the vice of literalness.
The law as an instrument of social control will fall in its functions if through and
ingenious construction sought to be fastened on a legal norm particularly a
procedural rule there is placed an impediment to a litigant being an opportunity of
vindicating an alleged right.

Salvatierra vs. CA
G.R. No. 107797
Fact:
In 1930, Enrique Salvatierra died intestate and without any issue. He was survived
by his legitimate brothers with estate consisting of three parcels of land consisted
of lot no. 25, 26 and 27. Marcela sold her share in favor of Venancio who now owns

2/5 shares. Bartolomes heirs sold his share to tomas represented by his widow
Catalina which owns 2/5 of the said estate, Anselmo represented his deceased
father Macario.
Venancio sold whole lot no. 27 and 149 sq.m portion of lot 26 to Lino Longalong and
Paciencia Mariano in which LOngalong took possession of the said lots. IN 1982 it
was discovered that the 149sqm thru relocation survey was outside their fence and
Anselmo Salvatierra was able to obtain a title (CTC 0-4221) which covers the whole
lot no. 26 with an area of 749 sqm.
Issue:
Whether Longalong is entiltled to the 149 sqm lot 26
What will prevail in the prescription 4 years or 10 years
Held:
When the terms of agreement are clear and unequivocal, the literal and plain
meaning should be observed Article 1370 if the terms of the contract are clear and
leave no doubt or ambiguity the literal meaning of its stipulation shall prevail, if
their terms are clear and leave no room for doubt as to the intention of the party it
is deemed obligatory to the parties of the contract.
Just like in the present situation there is no ambiguity as to stipulation of
extrajudicial partition since macarios share is 405 sqm, of 749 sqm Lot 26,
Venancio is entitled to 344 shares remaining in which 149 sqm was sold to
Longalong, the holding of the prescriptive period is 10 years instead of 4 years thus
Longalong is entitled to reconveyance of complaint filed 5 years after anselmos
fraudulent CTC.