1
Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
G.R. No. 157952 [2009]
The petitioner now needs to be reminded that certiorari is
an extraordinary remedy to correct a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when
an appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law is not available. In this regard, grave
abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction whenever the power is exercised in an arbitrary
or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or
personal aversion amounting to an evasion of a positive
duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or
to act at all in contemplation of law.
G.R. No. 157952 [2009]
The trial court's assailed order terminating the
Prosecution's presentation of evidence was merely
interlocutory.
This fact surely adds justification to the Court of Appeals'
rejection of the petition for certiorari , because it is the
settled rule that certiorari does not lie to review an
interlocutory order, but only a final judgment or order that
end the proceedings. Certiorari will be refused where there
has been no final judgment or order and the proceeding for
which the writ is sought is still pending and undetermined
in the lower court. Indeed, a writ of certiorari is not
intended to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling
unless the ruling is attended by grave abuse of discretion or
tainted by whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction, for the function of certiorari is limited to
keeping an inferior court within its jurisdiction and to
relieving persons from its arbitrary acts acts that courts
or judges have no power or authority in law to perform.
Instead, the proper remedy for the petitioner was to
proceed in the action until judgment, which, once
rendered, might then be reviewed on appeal, along with
the assailed interlocutory order. As long as the trial court
acted within its jurisdiction, its alleged error committed in
the exercise of its jurisdiction amounted to nothing more
than an error of judgment that was reviewable by a timely
appeal, not by a special civil action of certiorari.
G.R. No. 159116 [2009]
At present then, except in criminal cases where the penalty
imposed is life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua, there is
no way by which judgments of regional trial courts may be
appealed to the Supreme Court except by petition for
review on c ertiorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, in relation to Section 17 of the Judiciary Act
of 1948 as amended. The proposition is clearly stated in the
Interim Rules: "Appeals to the Supreme Court shall be taken
by petition for c ertiorari which shall be governed by Rule
45 of the Rules of Court.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
On the other hand, it is not possible to take an appeal by
certiorari to the Court of Appeals. Appeals to that Court
from the Regional Trial Courts are perfected in two (2)
ways, both of which are entirely distinct from an appeal by
certiorari to the Supreme Court. They are:
a) by ordinary appeal, or appeal by writ of error where
judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the
RTC in the exercise of original jurisdiction; and
b) by petition for review where judgment was rendered
by the RTC in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
The petition for review must be filed with the Court of
Appeals within 15 days from notice of the judgment, and as
already stated, shall point out the error of fact or law that
will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or
judgment sought to be reviewed. An ordinary appeal is
taken by merely filing a notice of appeal within 15 days
from notice of the judgment, except in special proceedings
or cases where multiple appeals are allowed in which event
the period of appeal is 30 days and a record on appeal is
necessary.
There is therefore no longer any common method of
appeal in civil cases to the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals. The present procedures for appealing to either
court and, it may be added, the process of ventilation of
the appeal are now to be made by petition for review or
by notice of appeals (and, in certain instances, by record on
appeal), but only by petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45.
G.R. No. 159116 [2009]
Rule 41, effective July 1, 1997, under which the various
modes of appeal are now specifically delineated, viz.:
Sec. 2. Modes of appeal.
(a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the Court of Appeals
in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise
of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of
appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final
order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the
adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except
in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or
separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require.
In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served
in like manner.
(b) Petition for review. The appeal to the Court of
Appeals in cases the appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases
decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
appellate decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in
accordance with Rule 42. Jurisdiction shall be by petition for
review in accordance with Rule 42.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
(c) Appeal by certiorari. In all cases where only questions
of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the
Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in
accordance with Rule 45.
G.R. No. 159116 [2009]
The liberal construction of the rules authorized by Sec. 6,
Rule 1, Rules of Court, in order to promote their objective
of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
every action and proceeding cannot be made the vehicle
by which to ignore the Rules of Court at will and at random
to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and
assessment of the issues and their just resolution. Indeed,
the policy of liberal construction mandated by the Rules of
Court may be invoked only in situations in which there is
some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, but
not where its application subverts the essence of the
proceeding or results in the utter disregard of the Rules of
Court. Imperative justice requires the correct observance of
indispensable technicalities precisely designed to ensure its
proper dispensation
G.R. No. 164195. December 4, 2009
A judgment that has acquired finality becomes immutable
and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any
respect even if the modification is meant to correct
erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be
made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court
of the land. 4 4 The reason for the rule is that if, on the
application of one party, the court could change its
judgment to the prejudice of the other, it could thereafter,
on application of the latter, again change the judgment and
continue this practice indefinitely. The equity of a particular
case must yield to the overmastering need of certainty and
unalterability of judicial pronouncements.
The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final
judgment has a two - fold purpose: (1) to avoid delay in the
administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make
orderly the discharge of judicial business and (2) to put an
end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional
errors, which is precisely why courts exist. Controversies
cannot drag on indefinitely. The rights and obligations of
every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite
period of time. The doctrine is not a mere technicality to be
easily brushed aside, but a matter of public policy as well as
a time-honored principle of procedural law.
G.R. No. 164195. December 4, 2009
Although the immutability doctrine admits several
exceptions, like: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the
so-called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to
any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever
circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision
rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
2
G.R. No. 164195. December 4, 2009
The taking of property under CARL is an exercise by the
State of the power of eminent domain. A basic limitation on
the State's power of eminent domain is the constitutional
directive that private property shall not be taken for public
use without just compensation. Just compensation refers to
the sum equivalent to the market value of the property,
broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller in open
market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and
competition, or the fair value of the property as between
one who receives and one who desires to sell. It is fixed at
the time of the actual taking by the State.
Thus, if property is taken for public use before
compensation is deposited with the court having
jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation must
include interests on its just value, to be computed from the
time the property is taken up to the time when
compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court.
G.R. No. 181571. December 16, 2009
A petition for review on certiorari raises only questions of
law. Sec. 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court, explicitly so provides,
viz.:
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party
desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order
or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan,
the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other
courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the
Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari.
The petition may include an application for a writ of
preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and
shall raise only shall raise only questions of law, which must
be distinctly set forth. Questions of law, which must be
distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the same
provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same
action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.
G.R. No. 181571. December 16, 2009
. . . [t]here exists a question of law when there is doubt on
what the law applicable to a certain set of facts is.
Questions of fact, on the other hand, arise when there is an
issue regarding the truth or falsity of the statement of facts.
Questions on whether certain pieces of evidence should be
accorded probative value or whether the proofs presented
by one party are clear, convincing and adequate to
establish a proposition are issues of fact. Such questions are
not subject to review by this Court. As a general rule, we
review cases decided by the CA only if they involve
questions of law raised and distinctly set forth in the
petition.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
G.R. No. 181571. December 16, 2009
The factual findings of the RTC, its calibration of the
testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of their
probative weight are given high respect, if not conclusive
effect, unless cogent facts and circumstances of substance,
which if considered, would alter the outcome of the case,
were ignored, misconstrued or misinterpreted.
To accord with the established doctrine of finality and
bindingness of the trial court's findings of fact, we do not
disturb such findings of fact of the RTC, particularly after
their affirmance by the CA, for Batistis, as appellant, did not
sufficiently prove any extraordinary circumstance justifying
a departure from such doctrine.
G.R. No. 182380. August 28, 2009
The indispensable elements of a petition for certiorari are:
(a) that it is directed against a tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi -judicial functions;
(b) that such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion;
and
(c) that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
G.R. No. 182380. August 28, 2009
As a rule, it is necessary to file a motion for reconsideration
in the court of origin before invoking the certiorari
jurisdiction of a superior court. Hence, a petition for
certiorari will not be entertained unless the public
respondent has been given first the opportunity through a
motion for reconsideration to correct the error being
imputed to him.
The rule is not a rigid one, however, for a prior motion for
reconsideration is not necessary in some situations,
including the following:
a. Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a
quo has no jurisdiction;
b. Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings
have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court,
or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the
lower court;
c. Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of
the question, and any further delay would prejudice the
interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the
subject matter of the action is perishable;
d. Where, under the circumstances, a motion for
reconsideration would be useless;
e. Where the petitioner was deprived of due process and
there is extreme urgency for relief;
f. Where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is
urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is
improbable;
g. Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity
for lack of due process;
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
3
h. Where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the
petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
i. Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where
public interest is involved.
G.R. No. 182380 [2009]
The distinctions between a question of law and a question
of fact are well known. There is a question of law when the
doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain
state of facts. Such a question does not involve an
examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented by the litigants or any of them. But there is a
question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or
falsehood of the alleged facts or when the query
necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence,
considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence
and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their
relation to one another and to the whole, and the
probabilities of the situation.
G.R. No. 183366. August 19, 2009
A case is not deemed duly registered and docketed until full
payment of the filing fee.
Otherwise stated, the date of the payment of the filing fee
is deemed the actual date of the filing of the notice of
appeal. The subsequent full payment of the filing fee on 28
January 2003 did not cure the jurisdictional defect. The
date of payment on 28 January 2003 is the actual date of
filing the appeal which is almost two (2) months after
Zamoras received the MTCC Decision on 29 November
2002, This is way beyond the 5-day reglementary period to
file an appeal.
The payment of the filing fee is a jurisdictional requirement
and non-compliance is a valid basis for the dismissal of the
case. The subsequent full payment of the filing fee after the
lapse of the reglementary period does not cure the
jurisdictional defect. Such procedural lapse by Zamoras
warrants the outright dismissal of his appeal. This left the
COMELEC with no choice except to declare the Orders final
and executory Orders final and executory.
A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J. August 24, 2010
Although a speedy determination of an action or
proceeding implies a speedy trial, it should be borne in
mind that speed is not the chief objective of a trial. Careful
and deliberate consideration for the administration of
justice is more important than a race to end the trial.
A genuine respect for the rights of all parties, thoughtful
consideration before ruling on important questions, and a
zealous regard for the just administration of law are some
of the qualities of a good trial judge, which are more
important than a reputation for hasty disposal of cases.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
A.M. No. MTJ-05-1580. October 6, 2010
Indeed, respondent Judge should have granted the
plaintiff's motion for immediate execution considering that
the defendant did not file the sufficient supersedeas bond
despite having appealed. Granting the plaintiff's motion for
immediate execution became his ministerial duty upon the
defendant's failure to file the sufficient supersedeas bond.
Section 19, Rule 70, of the Rules of Court clearly imposes
such duty, viz.:
Sec. 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay
same. If judgment is rendered against the defendant,
execution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless an
appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay
execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by
the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the
plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing
down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and
unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with
the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to
time under the contract, if any, as determined by the
judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a
contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the
reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises
for the preceding month or period at the rate determined
by the judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth
day of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas
bond shall be transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with
the other papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to
which the action is appealed.
Respondent Judge's excuse, that he had lost jurisdiction
over the case by virtue of the defendant's appeal, was
unacceptable in light of the clear and explicit text of the
aforequoted rule. To begin with, the perfection of the
appeal by the defendant did not forbid the favorable action
on the plaintiff's motion for immediate execution. The
execution of the decision could not be stayed by the mere
taking of the appeal. Only the filing of the sufficient
supersedeas bond and the deposit with the appellate court
of the amount of rent due from time to time, coupled with
the perfection of the appeal, could stay the execution.
G.R. No. 153142. March 29, 2010
The petitioner did not raise any issue against Ramona's
qualifications to own land in the Philippines during the trial
or, at the latest, before the finality of the RTC judgment.
The petitioner was thereby deemed to have waived the
objection, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of
Court, to wit:
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However,
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
4
when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, that there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause, or that the action is
barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the
court shall dismiss the claim.
In every action, indeed, the parties and their counsel are
enjoined to present all available defenses and objections in
order that the matter in issue can finally be laid to rest in an
appropriate contest before the court. The rule is a wise and
tested one, borne by necessity. Without the rule, there will
be no end to a litigation, because the dissatisfied litigant
may simply raise "new" or additional issues in order to
prevent, defeat, or delay the implementation of an already
final and executory judgment. The endlessness of litigation
can give rise to added costs for the parties, and can surely
contribute to the unwarranted clogging of court dockets.
The prospect of a protracted litigation between the parties
annuls the very rationale of every litigation to attain justice.
Verily, there must be an end to litigation.
G.R. No. 153142. March 29, 2010
A judgment involving the same parties, the same facts, and
the same issues binds the parties not only as to every
matter offered and received to sustain or defeat their
claims or demands, but also as to any other admissible
matter that might have been offered for that purpose and
all other matters that could have been adjudged in that
case.
The petitioner cannot now insist that the RTC did not settle
the question of the respondents' qualifications to own land
due to non-citizenship. It is fundamental that the judgment
or final order is, with respect to the matter directly
adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been
raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties
and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the
commencement of the action or special proceeding,
litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in
the same capacity.
G.R. No. 153142. March 29, 2010
For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent
action, the following requisites must concur: (a) the former
judgment must be final; (b) it must have been rendered by
a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the
parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d)
there must be between the first and second actions identity
of parties, identity of the subject matter, and identity of
cause of action.
The purpose of the doctrine is two-fold to prevent
unnecessary proceedings involving expenses to the parties
and wastage of the court's time which could be used by
others, and to avoid stale litigations as well as to enable the
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
defendant to know the extent of the claims being made
arising out of the same single incident.
Under the doctrine of res judicata, therefore, a final
judgment or decree on the merits rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the
parties or their privies in all later suits and on all points and
matters determined in the previous suit. The foundation
principle upon which the doctrine rests is that the parties
ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more
than once; that when a right or fact has been judicially tried
and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so
long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon
the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.
G.R. No. 153142. March 29, 2010
RULE 39 EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF
JUDGMENTS
Sec. 10. Execution of judgments for specific act.
(a) Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other specific acts;
vesting title. - If a judgment directs a party who execute a
conveyance of land or personal property, or to deliver
deeds or other documents, or to perform any other specific
act in connection therewith, and the party fails to comply
within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be
done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other
person appointed by the court and the act when so done
shall have like effect as if done by the party. If real or
personal property is situated within the Philippines, the
court in lieu of directing a conveyance thereof may be an
order divest the title of any party and vest it in others,
which shall have the force and effect of a conveyance
executed in due form of law.
G.R. No. 153736. August 4, 2010
For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent
action, the following requisites must concur:
(1) the former judgment must be final;
(2) it must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
(3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and
(4) there must be between the first and second actions (a)
identity of parties, (b) identity of the subject matter, and (c)
identity of cause of action.
G.R. No. 153736. August 4, 2010
The doctrine of res judicata has two aspects: the first,
known as bar by prior judgment, or estoppel by verdict, is
the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a
second action upon the same claim, demand, or cause of
action; the second, known as conclusiveness of judgment,
also known as the rule of auter action pendant, ordains that
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
5
issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot
again be raised in any future case between the same
parties involving a different cause of action and has the
effect of preclusion of issues only.
Based on the foregoing standards, this action is not barred
by the doctrine of res judicata.
First of all, bar by prior judgment, the first aspect of the
doctrine, is not applicable, because the causes of action in
the civil and the criminal actions were different and distinct
from each other. The civil action is for the recovery of
ownership of the land led by the petitioners, while the
criminal action was to determine whether the act of the
respondents of taking the coconut fruits from the trees
growing within the disputed land constituted the crime of
qualified theft. In the former, the main issue is the legal
ownership of the land, but in the latter, the legal ownership
of the land was not the main issue. The issue of guilt or
innocence was not dependent on the ownership of the
land, inasmuch as a person could be guilty of theft of the
growing fruits even if he were the owner of the land.
Conclusiveness of judgment is not also applicable. The
petitioners themselves commenced both actions, and fully
and directly participated in the trial of both actions. Any
estoppel from assailing the authority of the CA to
determine the ownership of the land based on the evidence
presented in the civil action applied only to the petitioners,
who should not be allowed to assail the outcome of the civil
action after the CA had ruled adversely against them.
Moreover, the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment is
subject to exceptions, such as where there is a change in
the applicable legal context, or to avoid inequitable
administration of justice. Applying the doctrine of
conclusiveness of judgments to this case will surely be
iniquitous to the respondents who have rightly relied on
the civil case, not on the criminal case, to settle the issue of
ownership of the land. This action for recovery of
ownership was brought precisely to settle the issue of
ownership of the property. In contrast, the pronouncement
on ownership of the land made in the criminal case was
only the response to the respondents having raised the
ownership as a matter of defense.
G.R. No. 154094. March 9, 2010
The remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution issued
by the CSC is to file a petition for review thereof under Rule
43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from notice of
the resolution.
Recourse to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 renders
the petition dismissible for being the wrong remedy.
Nonetheless, there are exceptions to this rule, to wit: (a)
when public welfare and the advancement of public policy
dictates; (b) when the broader interest of justice so
requires; (c) (c) when the writs issued are null and void
when the writs issued are null and void; or (d) when the
questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
judicial authority. As will be shown forthwith, exception (c)
applies to the present case.
G.R. No. 154270. March 9, 2010
The Court cannot anymore review the evaluation and
appreciation of the evidence, because the Court is not a
trier of facts. Although this rule admits of certain
exceptions, viz.:
(1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises, or conjecture;
(2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken;
(3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts;
(5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went
beyond the issues of the case, and the findings are contrary
to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary
to those of the trial court;
(8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without
specific evidence on which they are based;
(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well in the
petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondents; and,
(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and are
contradicted by the evidence on record, it does not appear
now that any of the exceptions is present herein. We thus
apply the rule without hesitation, and reject the appeal for
that reason.
G.R. No. 154270. March 9, 2010
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must
establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.
Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value
of the aggregate evidence on either side, and is usually
considered to be synonymous with the term greater weight
of the evidence or greater weight of the credible evidence.
Preponderance of evidence is a phrase that means, in the
last analysis, probability of the truth. It is evidence that is
more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto.
Lim successfully discharged his burden of proof as the
plaintiff. He established by preponderant evidence that he
had a superior right and title to the property. In contrast,
the petitioners did not present any proof of their better
title other than their copy of the reconstituted certificate of
title. Such proof was not enough, because the registration
of a piece of land under the Torrens system did not create
or vest title, such registration not being a mode of acquiring
ownership. The petitioners need to be reminded that a
certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or
title over the particular property described therein. Its
issuance in favor of a particular person does not foreclose
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
6
the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with
persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held
in trust for another person by the registered owner.
G.R. No. 156797. July 6, 2010
Forum shopping is the act of a party litigant against whom
an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum
seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another
forum, other than by appeal or the special civil action of
certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or
proceedings grounded on the same cause or supposition
that one or the other court would make a favorable
disposition. Forum shopping happens when, in the two or
more pending cases, there is identity of parties, identity of
rights or causes of action, and identity of reliefs sought.
Where the elements of litis pendentia are present, and
where a final judgment in one case will amount to res
judicata in the other, there is forum shopping.
For forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the
same transaction, same essential facts and circumstances
and must raise identical causes of action, subject matter
and issues. Clearly, it does not exist where different orders
were questioned, two distinct causes of action and issues
were raised, and two objectives were sought.
Lim was not guilty of forum shopping, because the factual
bases of his application for the administrative
reconstitution of the TCTs and of his petition for their
judicial reconstitution, and the reliefs thereby sought were
not identical.
G.R. No. 156797. July 6, 2010
The submission of a false certification of non-forum
shopping did not automatically warrant the dismissal of the
proceeding, even if it might have constituted contempt of
court, for Section 5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, has been clear and forthright, to wit:
RULE 7 PARTS OF A PLEADING
Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping. The plaintiff or
principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or
other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a
sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously
filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced
any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in
any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best
of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if
he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action
or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not
be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other
initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the
case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon
motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of
court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party
or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal
with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well
as a cause for administrative sanctions.
G.R. No. 156797. July 6, 2010
For litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an
action, there must be: (a) identity of the parties or at least
such as to represent the same interest in both actions; (b)
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same acts; and (c) the identity in the
two cases should be such that the judgment which may be
rendered in one would, regardless of which party is
successful, amount to res judicata in the other.
G.R. No. 157315. December 1, 2010
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of
an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order
requiring a party or a court, an agency, or a person to
refrain from a particular a particular act or acts. It may also
require the performance of a particular act or acts, in which
case it is known as a preliminary mandatory injunction.
Thus, a prohibitory injunction is one that commands a party
to refrain from doing a particular act, while a mandatory
injunction commands the performance of some positive act
to correct a wrong in the past.
As with all equitable remedies, injunction must be issued
only at the instance of a party who possesses sufficient
interest in or title to the right or the property sought to be
protected. It is proper only when the applicant appears to
be entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint, which
must aver the existence of the right and the violation of the
right, or whose averments must in the minimum constitute
a prima facie showing of a right to the final relief sought.
Accordingly, the conditions for the issuance of the
injunctive writ are:
(a) that the right to be protected exists prima facie;
(b) that the act sought to be enjoined is violative of that
right; and
(c) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the
writ to prevent serious damage.
An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse, or
a right which is merely contingent and may never arise; or
to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of
action; or to prevent the perpetration of an act prohibited
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
7
by statute. Indeed, a right, to be protected by injunction,
means a right clearly founded on or granted by law or is
enforceable as a matter of law.
G.R. No. 157315. December 1, 2010
Rule 58 of the Rules of Court clearly lays the burden on the
shoulders of the petitioners, as the parties against whom
the TRO was issued, to show cause why the application for
the writ of preliminary injunction should not issue, thus:
Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice;
exception. No preliminary injunction shall be granted
without hearing and prior notice to the party or person
sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by
affidavits or by the verified application that great or
irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the
matter can be heard on notice, the court to which the
application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue
ex parte a temporary restraining order to be effective only
for a period of twenty (20) days from service on the party
or person sought to be enjoined, except as herein provided.
Within the said twenty-day period, the court must order
said party or person to show cause, at a specified time and
place, why the injunction should not be granted, determine
within the same period whether or not the preliminary
injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue the
corresponding order.
G.R. No. 157479. November 24, 2010
Section 1, Rule 2, of the Rules of Court requires that every
ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.
A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another. The essential elements of a
cause of action are: (a) the existence of a legal right in favor
of the plaintiff; (b) a correlative legal duty of the defendant
to respect such right; and (c) an act or omission by such
defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff with a
resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the
latter may maintain an action for the recovery of relief from
the defendant. Although the first two elements may exist, a
cause of action arises only upon the occurrence of the last
element, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action
in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate
relief.
G.R. No. 157479. November 24, 2010
Subject to certain qualification, and except as otherwise
provided by law, an action commenced before the cause of
action has accrued is prematurely brought and should be
dismissed. The fact that the cause of action accrues after
the action is commenced and while the case is pending is of
no moment. It is a rule of law to which there is, perhaps no
exception, either in law or in equity, that to recover at all
there must be some cause of action at the commencement
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
of the suit. There are reasons of public policy why there
should be no needless haste in bringing up litigation, and
why people who are in no default and against whom there
is as yet no cause of action should not be summoned
before the public tribunals to answer complaints which are
groundless. An action prematurely brought is a groundless
suit. Unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause of
action at the time his action is commenced, the defect
cannot be cured or remedied by the acquisition or accrual
of one while the action is pending, and a supplemental
complaint or an amendment setting up such after-accrued
cause of action is not permissible.
G.R. No. 157659. January 25, 2010
A writ of possession, which commands the sheriff to place a
person in possession of real property, may be issued in: (1)
land registration proceedings under Section 17 of Act No.
496; (2) judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in
possession of the mortgaged property, and no third person,
not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened; (3)
extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage, pending
redemption under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended
by Act No. 4118; and (4) execution sales, pursuant to the
last paragraph of Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Anent the redemption of property sold in an extrajudicial
foreclosure sale made pursuant to the special power
referred to in Section 1 of Act No. 3135, as amended, the
debtor, his successor-in-interest, or any judicial creditor or
judgment creditor of said debtor, or any person having a
lien on the property subsequent to the mortgage or deed of
trust under which the property is sold has the right to
redeem the property at any time within the term of one
year from and after the date of the sale, such redemption
to be governed by the provisions of Section 464 to Section
466 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the extent that said
provisions were not inconsistent with the provisions of Act
3135. In this regard, we clarify that the redemption period
envisioned under Act 3135 is reckoned from the date of the
registration of the sale, not from and after the date of the
sale, as the text of Act 3135 shows.
G.R. No. 157659. January 25, 2010
Desiring to avoid any confusion arising from the conflict
between the texts of the Rules of Court (1940 and 1964)
and Act No. 3135, on one hand, and the jurisprudence
clarifying the reckoning of the redemption period in judicial
sales of real property, on the other hand, the Court has
incorporated in Section 28 of Rule 39 of the current Rules
of Court the foregoing judicial construction of reckoning the
redemption period from the date of the registration of the
certificate of sale, to wit:
Sec. 28. Time and manner of, and amounts payable on,
successive redemptions; notice to be given and filed. The
judgment obligor, or redemptioner, may redeem the
property from the purchaser, at any time within one (1)
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
8
year from the date of the registration of the certificate of
sale.
G.R. No. 157659. January 25, 2010
The court can neither halt nor hesitate to issue the writ of
possession. It cannot exercise any discretion to determine
whether or not to issue the writ, for the issuance of the writ
to the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale
becomes a ministerial function. Verily, a marked distinction
exists between a discretionary act and a ministerial one. A
purely ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or
tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed
manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority,
without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon
the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law
imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right
to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such
duty is discretionary, not ministerial. The duty is ministerial
only when its discharge requires neither the exercise of
official discretion nor the exercise of judgment.
G.R. No. 157659. January 25, 2010
First of all, Section 4, Rule 71, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
provides as follows:
Sec. 4. How proceedings commenced. Proceedings for
indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the
court against which the contempt was committed by an
order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent
to show cause why he should not be punished for
contempt.
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be
commenced by a verified petition with supporting
particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers
involved therein, and upon full compliance with the
requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions
in the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out
of or are related to a principal action pending in the court,
the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said
petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately,
unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of
the contempt charge and the principal action for joint
hearing and decision.
Indeed, a person may be charged with indirect contempt
only by either of two alternative ways, namely: (1) by a
verified petition, if initiated by a party; or (2) by an order or
any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show
cause why he should not be punished for contempt, if
made by a court against which the contempt is committed.
In short, a charge of indirect contempt must be initiated
through a verified petition, unless the charge is directly
made by the court against which the contemptuous act is
committed.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
G.R. No. 158708. August 10, 2010
Indeed, Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court expressly
lists down the pleadings and other matters that a petition
for review should contain, thus:
Sec. 6. Contents of the petition. The petition for review
shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case,
without impleading the court or agencies either as
petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement
of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied
upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible
duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award,
judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together
with certified true copies of such material portions of the
record referred to therein and other supporting papers;
and (d) contain a sworn certification against forum
shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2,
Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material dates
showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein.
The rule clearly requires the petition for review to be
accompanied by "a clearly legible duplicate original or a
certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or
resolution appealed from, together with certified true
copies of such material portions of the record referred to
therein and other supporting papers." The requirement is
intended to immediately enable the CA to determine
whether to give due course to the appeal or not by having
all the material necessary to make such determination
before it. This is because an appeal under Rule 43 is a
discretionary mode of appeal, which the CA may either
dismiss if it finds the petition to be patently without merit,
or prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions
raised therein are too unsubstantial to require
consideration; or may process by requiring the respondent
to le a comment on the petition, not a motion to dismiss,
within 10 days from notice.
G.R. No. 158708. August 10, 2010
The petitioner next filed a second motion for
reconsideration after the issuance of the resolution dated
January 8, 2003. The CA regarded her doing so as a blatant
contravention of the Rules of Court. Indeed, her act directly
violated Section 4, Rule 43, and Section 2, Rule 52, both of
the Rules of Court, viz. :
RULE 43 APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND
QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Sec. 4. Period of appeal.
The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or
from the date of its last publication, if publication is
required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of
petitio e s otio fo e t ial o e o side atio dul
filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or
agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
9
be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the
full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the
reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an
additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to
file the petition for review. No further extension shall be
granted except for the most compelling reason and in no
case to exceed fifteen (15) days.
RULE 52 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Sec. 2. Second motion for reconsideration. No second
motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution
by the same party shall be entertained.
Nonetheless, we point out that even in her prohibited
second motion for reconsideration, the petitioner did not
tender any explanation for her failure to make good her
undertaking to furnish to the CA the required certified or
legible copies of the material portions of the record.
Instead, she contented herself with merely reiterating the
grounds previously used in her first motion for
reconsideration, adding only that any further documents
needed by the CA could be made available once the records
of the case were transmitted by the CSC to the CA, as
provided in Section 11, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Contrary to the petitioner's position, the transmittal of the
records was not mandatory but only discretionary upon the
CA.
Evidently, the petitioner repeatedly disregarded the rules
too many times to merit any tolerance by the Court,
thereby exhibiting a deplorable tendency to trivialize the
rules of procedure. Yet, such rules were not to be belittled
or dismissed simply because their non-observance might
have resulted in prejudicing a party's substantive rights.
The bare invocation of substantial justice was not a magic
wand that would compel the suspension of the rules of
procedure. Of necessity, the reviewing court had also to
assess whether the appeal was substantially meritorious on
its face, or not, for only after such finding could the review
court ease the often stringent rules of procedure.
Otherwise, the rules of procedure would be reduced to
mere trifles.
G.R. No. 173822. October 13, 2010
It is a basic rule of appellate adjudication in this jurisdiction
that the trial judge's evaluation of the credibility of a
witness and of the witness' testimony is accorded the
highest respect because the trial judge's unique
opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of the
witness enables him to determine whether the witness is
telling the truth or not. Such evaluation, when afrmed by
the CA, is binding on the Court unless facts or
circumstances of weight have been overlooked,
misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if considered,
would materially affect the disposition of the case. We thus
apply the rule, considering that the petitioners have not
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
called attention to and proved any overlooked,
misapprehended, or misinterpreted circumstance.
Fortifying the application of the rule is that Mirandilla's
positive declarations on the identities of the assailants
prevailed over the petitioners' denials and alibi.
G.R. No. 179709. July 6, 2010
It is fundamental that the determination by the trial court
of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the
appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as
great respect, if not conclusive effect. Such determination
made by the trial court proceeds from its first-hand
opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses,
their conduct and attitude under grilling examination,
thereby placing the trial court in the unique position to
assess the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their
truthfulness, honesty and candor.
G.R. No. 179709. July 6, 2010
Alibi is an inherently weak and unreliable defense, because
it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. To establish
alibi, the accused must prove: (a) that he was actually in
another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime;
and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the
scene of the crime when the crime was perpetrated.
Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the
place where the accused was when the crime transpired
and the place where the crime was committed, as well as to
the facility of access between the two places.
G.R. No. 187231. June 22, 2010
The Rules of Court does not dene jurisdictional boundaries
of the courts. In promulgating the Rules of Court, the
Supreme Court is circumscribed by the zone properly
denominated as the promulgation of rules concerning
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts;
consequently, the Rules of Court can only determine the
means, ways or manner in which said jurisdiction, as fixed
by the Constitution and acts of Congress, shall be exercised.
The Rues of Court yields to the substantive law in
determining jurisdiction.
G.R. No. 188471. April 20, 2010
Section 4, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
requires that the petition for review should contain, among
others, the sworn certification on the undertakings
provided in the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 42 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, viz.:
Sec. 2. Form and contents.
xxx xxx xxx
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
10
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a
certification under oath that he has not theretofore
commenced any other action involving the same issues in
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is
such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of
the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar
action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to
promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or
agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
Only petitioner Tomas V. Alonso has executed and signed
the sworn certification against forum shopping attached to
the petition. Although neither of his co-petitioners
Mercedes V. Alonso and Asuncion V. Alonso has joined
the certification, Tomas did not present any written express
authorization in his favor authorizing him to sign the
certification in their behalf. The signing of the certification
by only one of the petitioners could not be presumed to
reflect the personal knowledge by his co-petitioners of the
ling or non-filing of any similar action or claim. Hence, the
failure of Mercedes and Asuncion to sign and execute the
certification along with Tomas warranted the dismissal of
their petition.
G.R. No. 188471. April 20, 2010
Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name
of the real party in interest, unless otherwise authorized by
law or the rules. A real party in interest is one who stands
to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or
the party entitled to the avails of the suit. "Interest" within
the meaning of the rule means material interest, an interest
in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished
from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere
incidental interest. The rule refers to a real or present
substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere
expectancy; or from a future, contingent, subordinate, or
consequential interest. One having no right or interest to
protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as a
party-plaintiff in an action.
Thus, an appeal, like this one, is an action to be prosecuted
by a party in interest before a higher court. In order for the
appeal to prosper, the litigant must of necessity continue to
hold a real or present substantial interest that entitles him
to the avails of the suit on appeal. If he does not, the
appeal, as to him, is an exercise in futility. So it is with the
petitioners.
In contrast, the Government, being the legal owner of Lot
No. 727-D-2, is the only party adversely affected by the
denial, and is the proper party entitled to assail the denial.
However, its manifest desistance from the execution of the
decision effectively barred any challenge against the denial,
for its non-appeal rendered the denial final and immutable.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
G.R. No. 191002. March 17, 2010
Black defines locus standi as "a right of appearance in a
court of justice on a given question." In public or
constitutional litigations, the Court is often burdened with
the determination of the locus standi of the petitioners due
to the ever-present need to regulate the invocation of the
intervention of the Court to correct any official action or
policy in order to avoid obstructing the efficient functioning
of public officials and offices involved in public service. It is
required, therefore, that the petitioner must have a
personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.
G.R. No. 191002. March 17, 2010
Accordingly, it has been held that the interest of a person
assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct
and personal. He must be able to show, not only that the
law or any government act is invalid, but also that he
sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some
direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely
that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must
appear that the person complaining has been or is about to
be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully
entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some
burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act
complained of.
G.R. No. 191002. March 17, 2010
It is true that as early as in 1937, in People v. Vera, the
Court adopted the direct injury test for determining
whether a petitioner in a public action had locus standi.
There, the Court held that the person who would assail the
validity of a statute must have "a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
sustain direct injury as a result."
Yet, the Court has also held that the requirement of locus
standi, being a mere procedural technicality, can be waived
by the Court in the exercise of its discretion. For instance, in
1949, in Araneta v. Dinglasan, the Court liberalized the
approach when the cases had "transcendental importance."
Some notable controversies whose petitioners did not pass
the direct injury test were allowed to be treated in the
same way as in Araneta v. Dinglasan.
In the 1975 decision in Aquino v. Commission on Elections,
this Court decided to resolve the issues raised by the
petition due to their "far-reaching implications," even if the
petitioner had no personality to file the suit. The liberal
approach of Aquino v. Commission on Elections has been
adopted in several notable cases, permitting ordinary
citizens, legislators, and civic organizations to bring their
suits involving the constitutionality or validity of laws,
regulations, and rulings.
G.R. No. 191002. March 17, 2010
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
11
The assertion of a public right as a predicate for challenging
a supposedly illegal or unconstitutional executive or
legislative action rests on the theory that the petitioner
represents the public in general. Although such petitioner
may not be as adversely affected by the action complained
against as are others, it is enough that he sufficiently
demonstrates in his petition that he is entitled to
protection or relief from the Court in the vindication of a
public right.
Quite often, as here, the petitioner in a public action sues
as a citizen or taxpayer to gain locus standi. That is not
surprising, for even if the issue may appear to concern only
the public in general, such capacities nonetheless equip the
petitioner with adequate interest to sue.
In matter of mere public right, however . . . the people are
the real parties . . . It is at least the right, if not the duty, of
every citizen to interfere and see that a public offence be
properly pursued and punished, and that a public grievance
be remedied. With respect to taxpayer's suits, the right of a
citizen and a taxpayer to maintain an action in courts to
restrain the unlawful use of public funds to his injury
cannot be denied.
G.R. No. 191002. March 17, 2010
We hold that the petitions set forth an actual case or
controversy that is ripe for judicial determination. The
reality is that the JBC already commenced the proceedings
for the selection of the nominees to be included in a short
list to be submitted to the President for consideration of
which of them will succeed Chief Justice Puno as the next
Chief Justice. Although the position is not yet vacant, the
fact that the JBC began the process of nomination pursuant
to its rules and practices, although it has yet to decide
whether to submit the list of nominees to the incumbent
outgoing President or to the next President, makes the
situation ripe for judicial determination, because the next
steps are the public interview of the candidates, the
preparation of the short list of candidates, and the
"interview of constitutional experts, as may be needed."
G.R. No. 191002. April 20, 2010
Stare decisis derives its name from the Latin maxim stare
decisis et non quieta movere, i.e., to adhere to precedent
and not to unsettle things that are settled. It simply means
that a principle underlying the decision in one case is
deemed of imperative authority, controlling the decisions
of like cases in the same court and in lower courts within
the same jurisdiction, unless and until the decision in
question is reversed or overruled by a court of competent
authority. The decisions relied upon as precedents are
commonly those of appellate courts, because the decisions
of the trial courts may be appealed to higher courts and for
that reason are probably not the best evidence of the rules
of law laid down.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
Judicial decisions assume the same authority as a statute
itself and, until authoritatively abandoned, necessarily
become, to the extent that they are applicable, the criteria
that must control the actuations, not only of those called
upon to abide by them, but also of those duty-bound to
enforce obedience to them. In a hierarchical judicial system
like ours, the decisions of the higher courts bind the lower
courts, but the courts of co-ordinate authority do not bind
each other. The one highest court does not bind itself,
being invested with the innate authority to rule according
to its best lights.
G.R. Nos. 179431-32. June 22, 2010
Lokin has correctly brought this special civil action for
certiorari against the COMELEC to seek the review of the
September 14, 2007 resolution of the COMELEC in
accordance with Section 7 of Article IX-A of the 1987
Constitution, notwithstanding the oath and assumption of
office by Cruz-Gonzales. The constitutional mandate is now
implemented by Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, which provides for the review of the judgments,
final orders or resolutions of the COMELEC and the
Commission on Audit. As Rule 64 states, the mode of
review is by a petition for certiorari in accordance with Rule
65 to be led in the Supreme Court within a limited period of
30 days. Undoubtedly, the Court has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over Lokin's petitions for certiorari and for
mandamus against the COMELEC.
G.R. Nos. 179431-32. June 22, 2010
What is truly important to consider in determining whether
forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused to the
courts and the litigants by a party who accesses different
courts and administrative agencies to rule on the same or
related causes or to grant the same or substantially the
same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of
conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora
upon the same issue.
G.R. Nos. 187958, 187961, and 187962. April 7, 2010
The Court enunciated the cardinal rules for procedural due
process in administrative or quasi-judicial tribunal, to wit:
1. The right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the
institution of the proceedings that may affect a person's
legal right;
2. The right to a reasonable opportunity to appear and
defend his rights and to introduce witnesses and relevant
evidence in his favor;
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
12
3. The right to a tribunal so constituted as to give him
reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality, and one
of competent jurisdiction; and
4. The right to a finding or decision of that tribunal
supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing
or at least ascertained in the records or disclosed to the
parties.
G.R. Nos. 187958, 187961, and 187962. April 7, 2010
The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be
heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek
a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all
instances essential. The requirements are satisfied where
the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to
explain their side of the controversy at hand. What is
frowned upon is absolute lack of notice and hearing.
G.R. No. 165025
The filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading and
the payment of the prescribed docket fee are the acts that
vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the claim. In an
action where the reliefs sought are purely for sums of
money and damages, the docket fees are assessed on the
basis of the aggregate amount being claimed. Ideally,
therefore, the complaint or similar pleading must specify
the sums of money to be recovered and the damages being
sought in order that the clerk of court may be put in a
position to compute the correct amount of docket fees.
If the amount of docket fees paid is insufficient in relation
to the amounts being sought, the clerk of court or his duly
authorized deputy has the responsibility of making a
deficiency assessment, and the plaintiff will be required to
pay the deficiency. The non-specification of the amounts of
damages does not immediately divest the trial court of its
jurisdiction over the case, provided there is no bad faith or
intent to defraud the Government on the part of the
plaintiff.
The prevailing rule is that if the correct amount of docket
fees is not paid at the time of filing, the trial court still
acquires jurisdiction upon full payment of the fees within a
reasonable time as the court may grant, barring
prescription. The "prescriptive period" that bars the
payment of the docket fees refers to the period in which a
specific action must be filed, so that in every case the
docket fees must be paid before the lapse of the
prescriptive period, as provided in the applicable laws,
particularly Chapter 3, Title V, Book III, of the Civil Code, the
principal law on prescription of actions.
G.R. No. 156185
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
Section 4, Rule 2, Rules of Court.
If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same
cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal
of the others.
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1845
It is axiomatic that bail cannot be allowed to a person
charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable
with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, without a
hearing upon notice to the Prosecution. Any judge who so
allows bail is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and the
rules, and is subject to appropriate administrative
sanctions.
The fact that the public prosecutor recommended bail for
Ancheta did not warrant dispensing with the hearing. The
public prosecutor's recommendation of bail was not
material in deciding whether to conduct the mandatory
hearing or not. For one, the public prosecutor's
recommendation, albeit persuasive, did not necessarily
bind the trial judge, in whom alone the discretion to
determine whether to grant bail or not was vested.
Whatever the public prosecutor recommended, including
the amount of bail, was non-binding. Nor did such
recommendation constitute a showing that the evidence of
guilt was not strong. If it was otherwise, the trial judge
could become unavoidably controlled by the Prosecution.
G.R. No. 155227-28
The settled rule is that defenses not pleaded in the answer
may not be raised for the first time on appeal. A party
cannot, on appeal, change fundamentally the nature of the
issue in the case. When a party deliberately adopts a
certain theory and the case is decided upon that theory in
the court below, he will not be permitted to change the
same on appeal, because to permit him to do so would be
unfair to the adverse party.
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2182 (Formerly A.M. No. 08-3007-RTJ)
We have always regarded as a fundamental precept that an
administrative complaint against a judge is inappropriate as
a remedy for the correction of an act or omission
complained of where the remedy of appeal or certiorari is a
recourse available to an aggrieved party. Two reasons
underlie this fundamental precept, namely: (a) to hold
otherwise is to render judicial office untenable, for no one
called upon to try the facts or to interpret the law in the
process of administering justice can be infallible in his
judgment; and (b) to follow a different rule can mean a
deluge of complaints, legitimate or otherwise, and our
judges will then be immersed in and be ceaselessly
occupied with answering charges brought against them
instead of performing their judicial functions.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
13
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1606-MTJ
A case is considered submitted for decision upon the
admission of the evidence of the parties at the termination
of the trial. The ninety (90) day period for deciding the case
shall commence to run from submission of the case for
decision without memoranda; in case the court requires or
allows its filing, the case shall be considered submitted for
decision upon the filing of the last memorandum or upon
the expiration of the period to do so, whichever is earlier.
Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a valid
reason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the
case unless the case was previously heard by another judge
not the deciding judge in which case the latter shall have
the full period of ninety (90) days for the completion of the
transcripts within which to decide the same.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-J
Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, which provides
as follows:
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts
and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a
decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied
without starting the legal basis therefor.
The essential purpose of the constitutional provision is to
require that a judicial decision be clear on why a party has
prevailed under the law as applied to the facts as proved;
A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-J
It is well settled that in administrative proceedings, the
complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial
evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Section 27 of the
Ombudsman Act is unequivocal. Findings of fact by the
Office of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial
evidence, are conclusive. Conversely, when the findings of
fact by the Ombudsman are not adequately supported by
substantial evidence, they shall not be binding upon the
courts.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-J
Time and again, it has been held, no less than by the
Supreme Court, that mere suspicions and speculations can
never be the basis of conviction in a criminal case. Guided
by the same doctrinal rule, this Office is not duty-bound to
proceed with the indictment of the public respondents as
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
charged. Indeed well entrenched is the rule that "(t)he
purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the
innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive
prosecution and to protect him from an open and public
accusation of crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety
of a public trial, and also to protect the state from useless
and expensive trials.
Moreover, petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of
regularity in the performance of the official duties of
respondents by affirmative evidence of irregularity or
failure to perform a duty. The presumption prevails and
becomes conclusive until it is overcome by no less than
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Every
reasonable intendment will be made in support of the
presumption and in case of doubt as to a offi e s a t
being lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of
its lawfulness.
G.R. No. 153511
There is no longer any doubt that a petition for certiorari
brought to assail the decision of the NLRC may raise factual
issues, and the CA may then review the decision of the
NLRC and pass upon such factual issues in the process. The
power of the CA to review factual issues in the exercise of
its original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is based on
Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which pertinently
provides that the CA "shall have the power to try cases and
conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all
acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases
falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including
the power to grant and conduct new trials or further
proceedings."
G.R. No. 153511
Generally, the Court does not review factual questions,
primarily because the Court is not a trier of facts. However,
where, like here, there is a conflict between the factual
findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, on the one
hand, and those of the CA, on the other hand, it becomes
proper for the Court, in the exercise of its equity
jurisdiction, to review and re-evaluate the factual issues
and to look into the records of the case and re-examine the
questioned findings.
G.R. No. 153852
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of
an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order
requiring a party or a court, an agency, or a person to
refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the
performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it is
known as a preliminary mandatory injunction. Thus, a
prohibitory injunction is one that commands a party to
refrain from doing a particular act, while a mandatory
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
14
injunction commands the performance of some positive act
to correct a wrong in the past.
G.R. No. 153852
As with all equitable remedies, injunction must be issued
only at the instance of a party who possesses sufficient
interest in or title to the right or the property sought to be
protected. It is proper only when the applicant appears to
be entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint, which
must aver the existence of the right and the violation of the
right, or whose averments must in the minimum constitute
a prima facie showing of a right to the final relief sought.
Accordingly, the conditions for the issuance of the
injunctive writ are: (a) that the right to be protected exists
prima facie; (b) that the act sought to be enjoined is
violative of that right; and (c) that there is an urgent and
paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious
damage. An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in
esse, or a right which is merely contingent and may never
arise; or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a
cause of action; or to prevent the perpetration of an act
prohibited by statute. Indeed, a right, to be protected by
injunction, means a right clearly founded on or granted by
law or is enforceable as a matter of law.
G.R. No. 155830
The adjudication of the question of ownership in an action
for the recovery of possession of realty would only be
provisional and would not even be a bar to an action
between the same parties involving the ownership of the
same property.
G.R. No. 156296
Court litigation is primarily a search for truth, and a liberal
interpretation of the rules that gives to both parties the
fullest opportunity to adduce proof is the best way to ferret
out such truth. Thus, a court may suspend its own rules or
except a case from them in order to serve the ends of
justice; or, it may altogether disregard the rules in a proper
case.
G.R. No. 157810
A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable
and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any
respect even if the modification is intended to correct
erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be
made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court
of the land. This doctrine of finality and immutability of
judgments is grounded on fundamental considerations of
public policy and sound practice to the effect that, at the
risk of occasional error, the judgments of the courts must
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
become final at some definite date set by law. The reason is
that litigations must end and terminate sometime and
somewhere; and it is essential for the effective and efficient
administration of justice that once a judgment has become
final the winning party should not be deprived of the fruits
of the verdict.
Given this doctrine, courts must guard against any scheme
calculated to bring about that result, and must frown upon
any attempt to prolong controversies. The only exceptions
to the general rule are:
(a) the correction of clerical errors;
(b) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no
prejudice to any party;
(c) void judgments; and
(d) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of
the judgments rendering execution unjust and
inequitable. None of the exceptions obtains here.
G.R. No. 157810
A judgment nunc pro tunc has been defined and
characterized thuswise:
The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the rendering
of a new judgment and the ascertainment and
determination of new rights, but is one placing in proper
form on the record, the judgment that had been previously
rendered, to make it speak the truth, so as to make it show
what the judicial action really was, not to correct judicial
errors, such as to render a judgment which the court ought
to have rendered, in place of the one it did erroneously
render, nor to supply nonaction by the court, however
erroneous the judgment may have been.
Based on such definition and characterization, the
petitio e s situatio did ot fall ithi the s ope of a u
pro tunc amendment, considering that what they were
seeking was not mere clarification, but the complete
reversal in their favor of the final judgment and the
reinstatement of the DARAB decision.
G.R. No. 158239
The distinction between a final order and an interlocutory
order is well known. The first disposes of the subject matter
in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or
action, leaving nothing more to be done except to enforce
by execution what the court has determined, but the latter
does not completely dispose of the case but leaves
something else to be decided upon. An interlocutory order
deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is
yet to be held and the judgment rendered. The test to
ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment is
interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave
something to be done in the trial court with respect to the
merits of the case? If it does, the order or judgment is
interlocutory; otherwise, it is final.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
15
G.R. No. 158239
Whether an order is final or interlocutory determines
whether appeal is the correct remedy or not. A final order
is appealable, to accord with the final judgment rule
enunciated in Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court to the
effect that "appeal may be taken from a judgment or final
order that completely disposes of the case, or of a
particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to
be appealable;" but the remedy from an interlocutory one
is not an appeal but a special civil action for certiorari.
xxx The reason for disallowing an appeal from an
interlocutory order is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a
single action, which necessarily suspends the hearing and
decision on the merits of the action during the pendency of
the appeals. Permitting multiple appeals will necessarily
delay the trial on the merits of the case for a considerable
length of time, and will compel the adverse party to incur
unnecessary expenses, for one of the parties may interpose
as many appeals as there are incidental questions raised by
him and as there are interlocutory orders rendered or
issued by the lower court. An interlocutory order may be
the subject of an appeal, but only after a judgment has
been rendered, with the ground for appealing the order
being included in the appeal of the judgment itself.
G.R. No. 158239
The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an
appeal is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65,
provided that the interlocutory order is rendered without
or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Then is certiorari under Rule 65 allowed to be resorted to.
Indeed, the Court has held that an appeal from an order
denying a motion for reconsideration of a final order or
judgment is effectively an appeal from the final order or
judgment itself; and has expressly clarified that the
prohibition against appealing an order denying a motion for
reconsideration referred only to a denial of a motion for
reconsideration of an interlocutory order.
G.R. No. 158239
That he had only three days from July 13, 2000, or until July
16, 2000, within which to perfect an appeal; and that
having filed his notice of appeal on July 19, 2000, his appeal
should have been dismissed for being tardy by three days
beyond the expiration of the reglementary period.
Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 3. Period of ordinary appeal. The appeal shall be
taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment
or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is
required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a
record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the
judgment or final order.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely
motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for
extension of time to file a motion for new trial or
reconsideration shall be allowed.
G.R. No. 158239
The Supreme Court may promulgate procedural rules in all
courts. It has the sole prerogative to amend, repeal or even
establish new rules for a more simplified and inexpensive
process, and the speedy disposition of cases. In the rules
governing appeals to it and to the Court of Appeals,
particularly Rules 42, 43 and 45, the Court allows
extensions of time, based on justifiable and compelling
reasons, for parties to file their appeals. These extensions
may consist of 15 days or more.
To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and
to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the
Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days
within which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional
Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a
motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.
Henceforth, this "fresh period rule" shall also apply to Rule
40 governing appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the
Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review from
the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals; Rule 43
on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of
Appeals and Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the
Supreme Court. The new rule aims to regiment or make the
appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the
order denying the motion for new trial, motion for
reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order
or resolution.
G.R. No. 158239
Procedural law refers to the adjective law which prescribes
rules and forms of procedure in order that courts may be
able to administer justice. Procedural laws do not come
within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the
ge e al ule agai st the et oa ti e ope atio of statues
they may be given retroactive effect on actions pending
and undetermined at the time of their passage and this will
not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is
adversely affected, insomuch as there are no vested rights
in rules of procedure.
The "fresh period rule" is a procedural law as it prescribes a
fresh period of 15 days within which an appeal may be
made in the event that the motion for reconsideration is
denied by the lower court. Following the rule on
retroactivity of procedural laws, the "fresh period rule"
should be applied to pending actions, such as the present
case.
G.R. No. 158239
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
16
Forum shopping is the act of a party litigant against whom
an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum
seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another
forum, other than by appeal or the special civil action
of certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or
proceedings grounded on the same cause or supposition
that one or the other court would make a favorable
disposition. Forum shopping happens when, in the two or
more pending cases, there is identity of parties, identity of
rights or causes of action, and identity of reliefs sought.
Where the elements of litis pendentia are present, and
where a final judgment in one case will amount to res
judicata in the other, there is forum shopping.
For forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the
same transaction, same essential facts and circumstances
and must raise identical causes of action, subject matter
and issues. Clearly, it does not exist where different orders
were questioned, two distinct causes of action and issues
were raised, and two objectives were sought.
G.R. No. 158239
The remedies of appeal and certiorari under Rule 65 are
mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. This is
a firm judicial policy. The petitioner cannot hedge her case
by wagering two or more appeals, and, in the event that
the ordinary appeal lags significantly behind the others, she
cannot post facto validate this circumstance as a
demonstration that the ordinary appeal had not been
speedy or adequate enough, in order to justify the recourse
to Rule 65. This practice, if adopted, would sanction the
filing of multiple suits in multiple fora, where each one, as
the petitioner couches it, becomes a "precautionary
measure" for the rest, thereby increasing the chances of a
favorable decision. This is the very evil that the proscription
on forum shopping seeks to put right.
The grave evil sought to be avoided by the rule against
forum shopping is the rendition by two competent tribunals
of two separate and contradictory decisions. Unscrupulous
party litigants, taking advantage of a variety of competent
tribunals, may repeatedly try their luck in several different
fora until a favorable result is reached. To avoid the
resultant confusion, the Court adheres strictly to the rules
against forum shopping, and any violation of these rules
results in the dismissal of the case.
G.R. No. 158597
Doctrinally entrenched is that the right of appeal is a
statutory right and the one who seeks to avail that right
must comply with the statute or rules. The Rules,
particularly the requirements for perfecting an appeal
within the reglementary period specified in the law, must
be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable
interdictions against needless delays and appeal in the
manner and within the period permitted by law is not only
mandatory but also jurisdictional and the failure to perfect
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
an appeal renders the judgment of the court final and
executory. Just as a losing party has the right to file an
appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also
has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the
resolution of his or her case.
Consequently, failing to perfect an appeal within the time
and manner specified by law, deprives the appellate court
of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment much less
entertain the appeal. Timeliness of an appeal is a
jurisdictional caveat that not even the Supreme Court can
trifle with.
G.R. No. 159508
A petition for certiorari may be filed to assail an
interlocutory order if it is issued without jurisdiction, or
with excess of jurisdiction, or in grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This is because
as to such order there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Rule 65
of the Rules of Court expressly recognizes the exception by
providing as follows:
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty
and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or
officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require.
G.R. No. 159508
xxx. The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must
so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions
assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial
tradition. It cannot and should not be burdened with the
task of dealing with causes in the first instance. Its original
jurisdiction to issue the so-called extraordinary writs should
be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where
serious and important reasons exist therefor. Hence, that
jurisdiction should generally be exercised relative to actions
or proceedings before the Court of Appeals, or before
constitutional or other tribunals, bodies or agencies whose
acts for some reason or another are not controllable by the
Court of Appeals. Where the issuance of an extraordinary
writ is also within the competence of the Court of Appeals
or a Regional Trial Court, it is in either of these courts that
the spe ifi a tio fo the its p o u e e t ust e
presented. This is and should continue to be the policy in
this regard, a policy that courts and lawyers must strictly
observe.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
17
G.R. No. 159746
Based on the foregoing, an appeal should be taken within
15 days from the notice of judgment or final order
appealed from. A final judgment or order is one that finally
disposes of a case, leaving nothing more for the court to do
with respect to it. It is an adjudication on the merits which,
considering the evidence presented at the trial, declares
categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties
are; or it may be an order or judgment that dismisses an
action.
G.R. No. 159746
Enumeration of Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure of what are not appealable. The amended rule
now reads:
Section 1. Subject of appeal. An appeal may be taken
from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of
the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by
these Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar
motion seeking relief from judgment;
(b) An interlocutory order;
(c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by
consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud,
mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
(e) An order of execution;
(f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of
several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-
claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is
pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and
(g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
In any of the foregoing circumstances, the aggrieved party
may file an appropriate special civil action as provided in
Rule 65.
G.R. No. 159746
Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines a
compulsory counterclaim as follows:
Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. A compulsory
counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular
courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter
of the opposi g pa t s lai a d does ot e ui e fo its
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must
be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the
amount and the nature thereof, except that in an original
action before the Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim
may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount.
(n)
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Accordingly, a counterclaim is compulsory if: (a) it arises out
of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or
occurrence which is the subject matter of the opposing
pa t s lai ; it does not require for its adjudication the
presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction; and (c) the court has jurisdiction to entertain
the claim both as to its amount and nature, except that in
an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be
considered compulsory regardless of the amount.
A compulsory counterclaim that a defending party has at
the time he files his answer shall be contained therein.
Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, a compulsory counterclaim not set up shall be
barred.
G.R. No. 159746
The four tests to determine whether a counterclaim is
compulsory or not are the following, to wit:
(a) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and the
counterclaim largely the same?
Would es judi ata a a su se ue t suit o defe da ts
claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?
(c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute
plai tiffs lai as ell as the defe da ts ou te lai ?
and
(d) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the
counterclaim, such that the conduct of separate trials of
the respective claims of the parties would entail a
substantial duplication of effort and time by the parties and
the court?
Of the four, the one compelling test of compulsoriness is
the logical relation between the claim alleged in the
complaint and that in the counterclaim. Such relationship
exists when conducting separate trials of the respective
claims of the parties would entail substantial duplication of
time and effort by the parties and the court; when the
multiple claims involve the same factual and legal issues; or
when the claims are offshoots of the same basic
controversy between the parties. If these tests result in
affirmative answers, the counterclaim is compulsory.
G.R. No. 159746
Venue related only to the place of trial or the geographical
location in which an action or proceeding should be
brought and does not equate to the jurisdiction of the
court. It is intended to accord convenience to the parties,
as it relates to the place of trial, and does not restrict their
access to the courts. In contrast, jurisdiction refers to the
power to hear and determine a cause, and is conferred by
law and not by the parties.
G.R. No. 159746
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
18
Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which
provides:
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However,
when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, that there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause, or that the action is
barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the
court shall dismiss the claim.
G.R. No. 161122
A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity
so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when
other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final
order or final resolution sought to be annulled was
rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic
fraud. Yet, the remedy, being exceptional in character, is
not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by parties
aggrieved by the final judgments, orders or resolutions. The
Court has thus instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds
for the annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud,
and by prescribing in Section 1 of Rule 47 of the Rules of
Court that the petitioner should show that the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no
fault of the petitioner. A petition for annulment that
ignores or disregards any of the safeguards cannot prosper.
G.R. No. 161122
It is elementary that a judgment of a court is conclusive and
binding only upon the parties and those who are their
successors in interest by title after the commencement of
the action in court. Section 47(b) of Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court explicitly so provides, to wit:
Section 47. Effect of judgments or final orders .The effect
of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the
Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment
or final order, may be as follows:
xxxx
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with
respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other
matter that could have been raised in relation
thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors
in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the
action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing
and under the same title and in the same capacity; xxx.
G.R. No. 161122
The principle that a person cannot be prejudiced by a ruling
rendered in an action or proceeding in which he has not
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
been made a party conforms to the constitutional
guarantee of due process of law. The operation of this
principle was illustrated where the Court declared that a
person not impleaded and given the opportunity to take
part in the proceedings was not bound by the decision
declaring as null and void the title from which his title to
the property had been derived. We said there that the
effect of a judgment could not be extended to non-parties
by simply issuing an alias writ of execution against them,
for no man should be prejudiced by any proceeding to
which he was a stranger. In the same manner, a writ of
execution could be issued only against a party, not against a
person who did not have his day in court.
G.R. No. 161909
The device of the third-party action, also known as
impleader, was in accord with Section 12, Rule 6 of the
Revised Rules of Court, the rule then applicable, viz:
Section 12. Third-party complaint. A third-party complaint
is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court,
file against a person not a party to the action, called the
third-party defendant, for contribution, indemnity,
su ogatio o a othe elief, i espe t of his oppo e ts
claim.
Explaining the application of Section 12, Rule 6, supra, the
Court said to wit:
Section 12 of Rule 6 of the Revised Rules of Court
authorizes a defendant to bring into a lawsuit any person
"not a party to the action . . . for contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any other relief in respect of his opponent's
claim." From its explicit language it does not compel the
defendant to bring the third-parties into the litigation,
rather it simply permits the inclusion of anyone who meets
the standard set forth in the rule. The secondary or
derivative liability of the third-party is central whether
the basis is indemnity, subrogation, contribution, express or
implied warranty or some other theory. The impleader of
new parties under this rule is proper only when a right to
relief exists under the applicable substantive law. This rule
is merely a procedural mechanism, and cannot be utilized
unless there is some substantive basis under applicable law.
G.R. No. 161909
Apart from the requirement that the third-party
complainant should assert a derivative or secondary claim
for relief from the third-party defendant there are other
li itatio s o said pa t s a ilit to i plead. The ule
requires that the third-party defendant is "not a party to
the action" for otherwise the proper procedure for
asserting a claim against one who is already a party to the
suit is by means of counterclaim or cross-claim under
sections 6 and 7 of Rule 6. In addition to the aforecited
requirement, the claim against the third-party defendant
must be based upon plaintiff's claim against the original
defendant (third-party claimant). The crucial characteristic
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
19
of a claim under section 12 of Rule 6, is that the original
"defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party
defendant the liability asserted against him by the original
plaintiff."
G.R. No. 161909
The requisites for a third-party action are, firstly, that the
party to be impleaded must not yet be a party to the
action; secondly, that the claim against the third-party
defendant must belong to the original defendant; thirdly,
the claim of the original defendant against the third-party
defe da t ust e ased upo the plai tiffs lai agai st
the original defendant; and, fourthly, the defendant is
attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant the
liability asserted against him by the original plaintiff.
G.R. No. 161909
Under this Rule, a person not a party to an action may be
impleaded by the defendant either (a) on an allegation of
liability to the latter; (b) on the ground of direct liability to
the plaintiff-; or, (c) both (a) and (b). The situation in (a) is
covered by the phrase "for contribution, indemnity or
subrogation;" while (b) and (c) are subsumed under the
at h all "o a othe elief, i espe t of his oppo e ts
claim."
G.R. No. 164457
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, the rule then in
effect when the information was filed in the RTC, contained
the following provisions on the proper manner of alleging
the nature and cause of the accusation in the information,
to wit:
Section 8.Designation of the offense. Whenever possible,
a complaint or information should state the designation
given to the offense by the statute, besides the statement
of the acts or omissions constituting the same, and if there
is no such designation, reference should be made to the
section or subsection of the statute punishing it. (7)
Section 9.Cause of accusation. The acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense must be stated in
ordinary and concise language without repetition, not
necessarily in the terms of the statute defining the offense,
but in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense is intended
to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper
judgment. (8)
The importance of the proper manner of alleging the
nature and cause of the accusation in the information
should never be taken for granted by the State. An accused
cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly
charged in the complaint or information. To convict him of
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
an offense other than that charged in the complaint or
information would be violative of the Constitutional right to
be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation. Indeed, the accused cannot be convicted of a
crime, even if duly proven, unless the crime is alleged or
necessarily included in the information filed against him.
G.R. No. 164457
Nonetheless, in all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution
bears the burden to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging this burden, the
Prose utio s dut is to p o e ea h a d e e ele e t of
the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of
guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily
included therein. The Prosecution must further prove the
participation of the accused in the commission of the
offense.
In doing all these, the Prosecution must rely on the
strength of its own evidence, and not anchor its success
upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused. The
burden of proof placed on the Prosecution arises from the
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that no
less than the Constitution has guaranteed. Conversely, as to
his innocence, the accused has no burden of proof, that he
must then be acquitted and set free should the Prosecution
not overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor.
G.R. No. 164457
Thus, the rule against hearsay testimony rests mainly on
the ground that there was no opportunity to cross-examine
the declarant. The testimony may have been given under
oath and before a court of justice, but if it is offered against
a party who is afforded no opportunity to cross-examine
the witness, it is hearsay just the same.
G.R. No. 164457
To address the problem of controlling inadmissible hearsay
as evidence to establish the truth in a dispute while also
safegua di g a pa t s ight to oss-examine her
ad e sa s it ess, the Rules of Cou t offe s t o solutio s.
The first solution is to require that all the witnesses in a
judicial trial or hearing be examined only in court under
oath or affirmation. Section 1, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court formalizes this solution, viz:
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. - The
examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing
shall be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation.
Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the
question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers
of the witness shall be given orally. (1a)
The second solution is to require that all witnesses be
subject to the cross-examination by the adverse party.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
20
Section 6, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court ensures this
solution thusly:
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent.
Upon the termination of the direct examination, the
witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to
any matters stated in the direct examination, or connected
therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or
bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing
upon the issue. (8a)
Although the second solution traces its existence to a
Constitutional precept relevant to criminal cases, i.e.,
Section 14, (2), Article III, of the 1987 Constitution, which
guarantees that: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall xxx enjoy the right xxx to meet the witnesses face to
face xxx," the rule requiring the cross-examination by the
adverse party equally applies to non-criminal proceedings.
G.R. No. 164457
Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court distinguishes
between a public document and a private document for the
purpose of their presentation in evidence, viz:
Section 19. Classes of documents. For the purpose of their
presentation in evidence, documents are either public or
private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of
the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and
public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign
country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except
last wills and testaments, and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
documents required by law to be entered therein.
All other writings are private.
The nature of documents as either public or private
determines how the documents may be presented as
evidence in court. A public document, by virtue of its official
or sovereign character, or because it has been
acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will)
or a competent public official with the formalities required
by law, or because it is a public record of a private writing
authorized by law, is self-authenticating and requires no
further authentication in order to be presented as evidence
in court.In contrast, a private document is any other
writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person
without the intervention of a notary or other person legally
authorized by which some disposition or agreement is
proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign
character of a public document, or the solemnities
prescribed by law, a private document requires
authentication in the manner allowed by law or the Rules of
Court before its acceptance as evidence in court.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
G.R. No. 164457
The requirement of authentication of a private document is
excused only in four instances, specifically:
(a) when the document is an ancient one within the context
of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court;
(b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable
document have not been specifically denied under oath by
the adverse party;
(c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the document
have been admitted; or
(d) when the document is not being offered as genuine.
G.R. No. 164457
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,viz:
Section 20. Proof of private documents. Before any
private document offered as authentic is received in
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker.
G.R. No. 164457
The Court has to acquit petitioner for failure of the State to
establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court
reiterates that in the trial of every criminal case, a judge
ust igidl test the States e ide e of guilt i o de to
ensure that such evidence adhered to the basic rules of
admissibility before pronouncing an accused guilty of the
crime charged upon such evidence. The failure of the judge
to do so herein nullified the guarantee of due of process of
law in favor of the accused, who had no obligation to prove
her innocence. Her acquittal should follow.
G.R. No. 167057
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of
an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final
order, requiring a party or a court, agency or person, to
refrain from a particular act or acts. It is an ancillary or
preventive remedy resorted to by a litigant to protect or
preserve his rights or interests during the pendency of the
case. As such, it is issued only when it is established that:
(a) The applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the
whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the
commission or continuance of the act or acts complained
of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either
for a limited period or perpetually; or
(b) The commission, continuance or non-performance of
the act or acts complained of during the litigation would
probably work injustice to the applicant; or
(c) A party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening,
or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
21
done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of
the applicant respecting the subject of the action or
proceeding, and tending to render the judgment
ineffectual.
The existence of a right to be protected by the injunctive
relief is indispensable.
G.R. No. 169084
We eite ate that the t ial judges e aluatio of the
credibility of a witness and of his testimony is accorded the
highest espe t e ause of the t ial judges u i ue
opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the
witness that enables him to determine whether the witness
is telling the truth or not. Such evaluation, when affirmed
by the CA, is binding on the Court unless the appellant
reveals facts or circumstances of weight that were
overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if
considered, would materially affect the disposition of the
case.
G.R. No. 169084
The rationale for the shifting of the burden of evidence is
that the accused, by his admission, is to be held criminally
liable unless he satisfactorily establishes the fact of self-
defense. But the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt is not thereby lifted from the shoulders of the State,
which carries it until the end of the proceedings.
In other words, only the onus probandi shifts to the
accused, for self-defense is an affirmative allegation that
must be established with certainty by sufficient and
satisfactory proof. He must now discharge the burden by
relying on the strength of his own evidence, not on the
weakness of that of the Prosecution, considering that the
P ose utio s e ide e, e e if eak, a ot e dis elie ed
in view of his admission of the killing.
G.R. No. 171182
Section 14 of Article VIII of the Constitution prescribes that
express findings of fact and of law should be made in the
decision rendered by any court, to wit:
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts
and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a
decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied
without stating the legal basis therefor.
Implementing the constitutional provision in civil actions is
Section 1 of Rule 36, Rules of Court, viz:
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
Section 1. Rendition of judgments and final orders. A
judgment or final order determining the merits of the case
shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the
judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of
the court.
The Constitution and the Rules of Court apparently
delineate two main essential parts of a judgment, namely:
the body and the decretal portion. Although the latter is
the controlling part, the importance of the former is not to
be lightly regarded because it is there where the court
clearly and distinctly states its findings of fact and of law on
which the decision is based. To state it differently, one
without the other is ineffectual and useless. The omission
of either inevitably results in a judgment that violates the
letter and the spirit of the Constitution and the Rules of
Court.
G.R. No. 173474
The Prosecution failed to establish the identity of the
prohibited drug that constituted the corpus delicti itself.
The omission naturally raises grave doubt about any search
being actually conducted and warrants the suspicion that
the prohibited drugs were planted evidence.
In every criminal prosecution for possession of illegal drugs,
the Prosecution must account for the custody of the
incriminating evidence from the moment of seizure and
confiscation until the moment it is offered in evidence. That
account goes to the weight of evidence. It is not enough
that the evidence offered has probative value on the issues,
for the evidence must also be sufficiently connected to and
tied with the facts in issue. The evidence is not relevant
merely because it is available but that it has an actual
connection with the transaction involved and with the
parties thereto. This is the reason why authentication and
laying a foundation for the introduction of evidence are
important.
G.R. No. 173476
A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as
evidence due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be
admitted when the following requisites concur, namely:
(a) that the declaration must concern the cause and
su ou di g i u sta es of the de la a ts death;
(b) that at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is
under a consciousness of an impending death;
(c) that the declarant is competent as a witness; and
(d) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for
homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a
victim.
G.R. No. 173476
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
22
A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res
gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to
the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur, to
wit:
(a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling
occurrence;
(b) the statements are made before the declarant had time
to contrive or devise; and
(c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question
and its immediately attending circumstances.
G.R. No. 173476
The term res gestae has been defined as "those
circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a
particular litigated act and which are admissible when
illustrative of such act."
The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res
gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or
exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with
the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be
regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also
whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose
to manufacture testimony.
G.R. No. 175602
No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not
accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime
charged. Every element of the offense must be stated in the
information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to
be included therein must be determined by reference to the
definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The
requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the
information is to inform the accused of the nature of the
accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably
prepare his defense. The presumption is that the accused
has no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute
the offense.
G.R. No. 175602
Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which
relevantly provides:
Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused.
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused
shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as
the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and
applicable to the latter.
Although it is only appellant who persisted with the present
appeal, the well-established rule is that an appeal in a
criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review
of all its aspects, including those not raised by the parties.
The records show that Rodriguez had withdrawn his appeal
due to financial reasons. However, Section 11 (a) of Rule
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
122 of the Rules of Court provides that "an appeal taken by
one or more of several accused shall not affect those who
did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the
appellant court is favorable and applicable to the latter." As
we have elucidated, the evidence against and the
conviction of both appellant and Rodriguez are inextricably
li ked. He e, appella ts a uittal, hi h is fa o a le a d
applicable to Rodriguez, should benefit the latter.
G.R. No. 177780
A preliminary investigation is designed to secure the
respondent involved against hasty, malicious and
oppressive prosecution. A preliminary investigation is an
inquiry to determine whether (a) a crime has been
committed, and (b) whether there is probable cause to
believe that the accused is guilty thereof. It is a means of
discovering the person or persons who may be reasonably
charged with a crime. Prescindingly, under Section 3 of Rule
112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the respondent
must be informed of the accusation against him and shall
have the right to examine the evidence against him and
submit his counter-affidavit to disprove criminal liability. By
far, respondent in a criminal preliminary investigation is
legally entitled to explain his side of the accusation.
G.R. No. 177780
Probable cause refers to facts and circumstances that
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and that the respondent is probably guilty
thereof.
There is no definitive standard by which probable cause is
determined except to consider the attendant conditions;
the existence of probable cause depends upon the finding
of the public prosecutor conducting the examination, who
is called upon not to disregard the facts presented, and to
ensure that his finding should not run counter to the clear
dictates of reason.
G.R. No. 177780
A presumption affects the burden of proof that is normally
lodged in the State. The effect is to create the need of
presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case that
shall prevail in the absence of proof to the contrary. As
such, a presumption of law is material during the actual
trial of the criminal case where in the establishment thereof
the party against whom the inference is made should
adduce evidence to rebut the presumption and demolish
the prima facie case. This is not so in a preliminary
investigation, where the investigating prosecutor only
determines the existence of a prima facie case that
warrants the prosecution of a criminal case in court.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
23
G.R. No. 181042
It is basic under the Rules of Court, indeed, that evidence,
to be relevant, must throw light upon, or have a logical
relation to, the facts in issue to be established by one party
or disproved by the other.
The test of relevancy is whether an item of evidence will
have any value, as determined by logic and experience, in
proving the proposition for which it is offered, or whether it
would reasonably and actually tend to prove or disprove
any matter of fact in issue, or corroborate other relevant
evidence. The test is satisfied if there is some logical
connection either directly or by inference between the fact
offered and the fact to be proved.
G.R. No. 182230
Circumstantial evidence would also be the reliable means
to do so, provided that
(a) there was more than one circumstance;
(b) the facts from which the inferences were derived were
proved; and
(c) the combination of all the circumstances was such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
What was essential was that the unbroken chain of the
established circumstances led to no other logical conclusion
e ept the appella ts guilt.
G.R. No. 182230
Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states:
Section 42. Part of the res gestae. Statements made by a
person while a startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to
the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part
of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an
equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.
For the application of this rule, three requisites must be
shown to concur, namely:
(a) that the principal act, the res gestae, must be a startling
occurrence;
(b) the statements were made before the declarant had the
time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and
(c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question
and its immediate attending circumstances.
The e uisites e e et he ei . AAA e t to Titas house
immediately after fleeing from LLL and spontaneously,
unhesitatingly and immediately declared to Tita that LLL
had sexually abused her. Such manner of denunciation of
hi as he apist as o fi ed Tita TTTs testi o
a out AAAs pa i -stricken demeanor that rendered it
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
difficult to quickly comprehend what the victim was then
saying.
G.R. No. 184926
Direct evidence proves a fact in issue directly without any
reasoning or inferences being drawn on the part of the fact
finder; in contrast, circumstantial evidence indirectly proves
a fact in issue, such that the fact finder must draw an
inference or reason from circumstantial evidence. To be
clear, then, circumstantial evidence may be resorted to
when to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to
setting a felon free.
G.R. No. 189330
The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty
could not prevail over the stronger presumption of
innocence favoring the accused. Otherwise, the
constitutional guarantee of the accused being presumed
innocent would be held subordinate to a mere rule of
evidence allocating the burden of evidence. Where, like
here, the proof adduced against the accused has not even
overcome the presumption of innocence, the presumption
of regularity in the performance of duty could not be a
factor to adjudge the accused guilty of the crime charged.
G.R. No. 189998
The Revised Rules of Court provides that public documents
may be evidenced by a copy attested by the officer having
the legal custody of the record. The attestation must state,
in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original,
or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The
attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court
having a seal, under the seal of such court.
If the record is not kept in the Philippines, the attested copy
must be accompanied with a certificate that such officer
has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in
a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in
the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
G.R. No. 180418
By preponderance of evidence is meant that the evidence
adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to that of the
other side. Essentially, preponderance of evidence refers to
the comparative weight of the evidence presented by the
opposing parties. As such, it has been defined as "the
weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on
either side," and is usually considered to be synonymous
with the term greater weight of the evidence or greater
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
24
weight of the credible evidence. It is proof that is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which
is offered in opposition thereto.
Under the rule on preponderance of evidence, the court is
instructed to find for and to dismiss the case against the
defendant should the scales hang in equipoise and there is
nothing in the evidence that tilts the scales to one or the
other side. The plaintiff who had the burden of proof has
failed to establish its case, and the parties are no better off
than before they proceeded upon their litigation. In that
situation, the court should leave the parties as they are.
Moreover, although the evidence of the plaintiff may be
stronger than that of the defendant, there is no
preponderance of evidence on the plaintiff's side if its
evidence alone is insufficient to establish its cause of
action. Similarly, when only one side is able to present its
evidence, and the other side demurs to the evidence, a
preponderance of evidence can result only if the plaintiff's
evidence is sufficient to establish the cause of action. For
this purpose, the sheer volume of the evidence presented
by one party cannot tip the scales in its favor. Quality, not
quantity, is the primordial consideration in evaluating
evidence.
G.R. No. 180418
Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly states:
Section 34. Offer of evidence. The court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose
for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
The need to formally offer evidence by specifying the
purpose of the offer cannot be overemphasized. This need
is designed to meet the demand for due process by
apprising the adverse party as well as the trial court on
what evidence the court would soon be called upon to
decide the litigation. The offer and purpose will also put the
trial court in the position to determine which rules of
evidence it shall apply in admitting or denying admission to
the evidence being offered.
A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to
rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and
strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial.
It has several functions:
(1) to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or
purposes for which the proponent is presenting the
evidence;
(2) to allow opposing parties to examine the evidence and
object to its admissibility; and
(3) to facilitate review by the appellate court, which will not
be required to review documents not previously scrutinized
by the trial court.
G.R. No. 154083
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of
the Ombudsman (AO 07):
Section 7. Finality and execution of decision. Where the
respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of
conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or
reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a
fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be
final, executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the
decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a
verified petition for review under the requirements and
conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within
fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the written Notice of
the Decision or Order denying the Motion for
Reconsideration.
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being
executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and
the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as
having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid
the salary and such other emoluments that he did not
receive by reason of the suspension or removal.
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of
the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be
strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or
failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an
order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend,
demote, fine, or censure shall be ground for disciplinary
action against said officer.
G.R. No. 156759
Jurisdiction over the person, or jurisdiction in personam
the power of the court to render a personal judgment or to
subject the parties in a particular action to the judgment
and other rulings rendered in the action is an element of
due process that is essential in all actions, civil as well as
criminal, except in actions in rem or quasi in rem.
Jurisdiction over the defendantin an action in rem or quasi
in rem is not required, and the court acquires jurisdiction
over an actionas long as it acquires jurisdiction over the
resthat is thesubject matter of the action. The purpose of
summons in such action is not the acquisition of jurisdiction
over the defendant but mainly to satisfy the constitutional
requirement of due process.
G.R. No. 156759
A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce
personal rights and obligations brought against the person
and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it
may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of,
specific property, or seek to compel him to control or
dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court.
The purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose,
through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or
liability directly upon the person of the defendant.
G.R. No. 156759
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
25
A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons
seeking to subject the property of such persons to the
discharge of the claims assailed. In an action quasi in rem,
an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the
obligation or loan burdening the property. Actions quasi in
rem deal with the status, ownership or liability of a
particular property but which are intended to operate on
these questions only as between the particular parties to
the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or
interests of all possible claimants. The judgments therein
are binding only upon the parties who joined in the action.
G.R. No. 156759
As a rule, Philippine courts cannot try any case against a
defendant who does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines because of the impossibility of acquiring
jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in
court; but when the case is an action in rem or quasi in rem
enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court,
Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the
case because they have jurisdiction over the res, and
jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant
is not essential. In the latter instance, extraterritorial
service of summons can be made upon the defendant, and
such extraterritorial service of summons is not for the
purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for the
purpose of complying with the requirements of fair play or
due process, so that the defendant will be informed of the
pendency of the action against him and the possibility that
property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he
has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of
the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to protect his
interest if he is so minded. On the other hand, when the
defendant in an action in personam does not reside and is
not found in the Philippines, our courts cannot try the case
against him because of the impossibility of acquiring
jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in
court.
G.R. No. 156759
The summons is directed to the defendant and signed by
the clerk of court under seal. It contains the name of the
court and the names of the parties to the action; a direction
that the defendant answers within the time fixed by the
Rules of Court; and a notice that unless the defendant so
answers, the plaintiff will take judgment by default and may
be granted the relief applied for.
G.R. No. 156759
The significance of the proper service of the summons on
the defendant in an action in personam cannot be
overemphasized. The service of the summons fulfills two
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
fundamental objectives, namely: (a) to vest in the court
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant; and (b) to
afford to the defendant the opportunity to be heard on the
claim brought against him.
As to the former, when jurisdiction in personam is not
acquired in a civil action through the proper service of the
summons or upon a valid waiver of such proper service, the
ensuing trial and judgment are void.
G.R. No. 156759
If, for justifiable reasons, the defendant cannot be served in
person within a reasonable time, the service of the
summons may then be effected either (a) by leaving a copy
of the summons at his residence with some person of
suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by
leaving the copy at his office or regular place of business
with some competent person in charge thereof. The latter
mode of service is known as substituted service because
the service of the summons on the defendant is made
through his substitute.
G.R. No. 156759
Only when the defendant cannot be served personally
within a reasonable time may substituted service be
resorted to. Hence, the impossibility of prompt personal
service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find
the defendant himself and the fact that such efforts failed,
which statement should be found in the proof of service or
she iffs etu . Nonetheless, the requisite showing of the
impossibility of prompt personal service as basis for
resorting to substituted service may be waived by the
defendant either expressly or impliedly.
G.R. No. 157445
Section 3, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, to
wit:
Section 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the
foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the
docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of
service of the petition, and the contents of and the
documents which should accompany the petition shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
G.R. No. 157943
Under the law of evidence, the court shall consider
evidence solely for the purpose for which it is offered, not
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
26
for any other purpose. Fairness to the adverse party
demands such exclusivity.
G.R. No. 157943
It is a fundamental rule in criminal procedure that the State
carries the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the
accused beyond a reasonable doubt, as a consequence of
the tenet ei incumbit probation, qui dicit, non qui negat,
which means that he who asserts, not he who denies, must
prove, and as a means of respecting the presumption of
innocence in favor of the man or woman on the dock for a
crime.
Accordingly, the State has the burden of proof to show: (1)
the correct identification of the author of a crime, and (2)
the actuality of the commission of the offense with the
participation of the accused. All these facts must be proved
by the State beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of its
evidence and without solace from the weakness of the
defense.
G.R. No. 158649
The person who had prepared the document was
competent to testify on the due execution and authenticity
of Exhibit V. Such authentication was done in accordance
with Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, whose Section 20
states:
Section 20. Proof of private document. Before any private
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a)By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
or
(b)By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that
which it is claimed to be.
G.R. No. 158649
Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 43. Entries in the course of business. Entries made
at, or near the time of the transactions to which they refer,
by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a
position to know the facts therein stated, may be received
as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in
his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and
in the ordinary or regular course of business.
The invocation of the rule is misplaced, however, because
the rule speaks of a situation where the person who made
the entries is dead or unable to testify, which was not the
situation here. Regardless, we have to point out that entries
made in the course of business enjoy the presumption of
regularity. If properly authenticated, the entries serve as
evidence of the status of the account of the petitioners.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
G.R. No. 159691
An absolute identity of the parties is not necessary, because
a shared identity of interest sufficed for res judicata to
apply. Moreover, mere substantial identity of parties, or
even community of interests between parties in the prior
and subsequent cases, even if the latter were not
impleaded in the first case, would be sufficient.
G.R. No. 159691
Section 47 (b) Rule 39 of the Rules of Court institutionalizes
the doctrine of res judicata in the concept of bar by prior
judgment, viz:
Section 47. Effect of judgments and final orders.The
effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of
the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the
judgment or final order, may be as follows:
xxxx
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with
respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other
matter that could have been raised in relation thereto,
conclusive between the parties and their successors in
interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the
action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing
and under the same title and in the same capacity; and
xxxx
G.R. No. 159823
Two elements that must concur in order for a civil case to
be considered a prejudicial question are expressly stated in
Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure,
to wit:
Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. The elements
of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted
civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to
the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b)
the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed.
G.R. No. 160739
The high prerogative writ of habeas corpus has been
devised as a speedy and effective remedy to relieve
persons from unlawful restraint. The Court discoursed on
the nature of the special proceeding of habeas corpus in
the following manner:
A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is a
special proceeding governed by Rule 102 of the Rules of
Court, as amended. In Ex Parte Billings, it was held that
habeas corpus is that of a civil proceeding in character. It
seeks the enforcement of civil rights. Resorting to the writ
is not to inquire into the criminal act of which the complaint
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
27
is made, but into the right of liberty, notwithstanding the
act and the immediate purpose to be served is relief from
illegal restraint. The rule applies even when instituted to
arrest a criminal prosecution and secure freedom. When a
prisoner petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, he thereby
commences a suit and prosecutes a case in that court.
G.R. No. 160739
Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor
i te ded as su stitute fo the t ial ou ts fu tio . It
cannot take the place of appeal, certiorari or writ of error.
The writ cannot be used to investigate and consider
questions of error that might be raised relating to
procedure or on the merits. The inquiry in a habeas corpus
proceeding is addressed to the question of whether the
proceedings and the assailed order are, for any reason, null
and void. The writ is not ordinarily granted where the law
provides for other remedies in the regular course, and in
the absence of exceptional circumstances. Moreover,
habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of trial.
The orderly course of trial must be pursued and the usual
remedies exhausted before resorting to the writ where
exceptional circumstances are extant.
G.R. No. 160739
Section 2, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to wit:
Section 2.Officers authorized to conduct preliminary
investigations.
The following may conduct preliminary investigations:
(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
(b) Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts;
(c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
(d) Other officers as may be authorized by law.
Their authority to conduct preliminary investigations shall
include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their
respective territorial jurisdictions.
G.R. No. 160739
Under Section 6(b) of Rule 112of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, the investigating judge could issue a
warrant of arrest during the preliminary investigation even
without awaiting its conclusion should he find after an
examination in writing and under oath of the complainant
and the witnesses in the form of searching questions and
answers that a probable cause existed, and that there was a
necessity of placing the respondent under immediate
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
G.R. No. 160739
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court explicitly states:
Section 4.When writ not allowed or discharge authorized.
If it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of
his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process
issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or
order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had
jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or
make the order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the
jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person
shall not be discharged by reason of any informality or
defect in the process, judgment, or order. Nor shall
anything in this rule be held to authorize the discharge of a
person charged with or convicted of an offense in the
Philippines, or of a person suffering imprisonment under
lawful judgment.
G.R. No. 160786
A supervening event consists of facts that transpire after
the judgment became final and executory, or of new
circumstances that develop after the judgment attained
finality, including matters that the parties were not aware
of prior to or during the trial because such matters were
not yet in existence at that time. In that event, the
interested party may properly seek the stay of execution or
the quashal of the writ of execution, or he may move the
court to modify or alter the judgment in order to harmonize
it with justice and the supervening event. The party who
alleges a supervening event to stay the execution should
necessarily establish the facts by competent evidence;
otherwise, it would become all too easy to frustrate the
conclusive effects of a final and immutable judgment.
G.R. No. 160786
According to Section 10( d) of Rule 39, Rules of Court, when
the property subject of the execution contains
improvements constructed or planted by the judgment
obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish
or remove said improvements except upon special order of
the court issued upon motion of the judgment obligee after
due hearing and after the judgment obligor or his agent has
failed to remove the improvements within a reasonable
time fixed by the court.
G.R. No. 160932
Mandamus will issue only when the petitioner has a clear
legal right to the performance of the act sought to be
compelled and the respondent has an imperative duty to
perform the same. The petitioner bears the burden to show
that there is such a clear legal right to the performance of
the act, and a corresponding compelling duty on the part of
the respondent to perform the act.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
28
G.R. No. 160932
A key principle to be observed in dealing with petitions for
mandamus is that such extraordinary remedy lies to compel
the performance of duties that are purely ministerial in
nature, not those that are discretionary.
A purely ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or
tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed
manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority,
without regard to or the exercise of its own judgment upon
the propriety or impropriety of the act done. The duty is
ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the
exercise of official discretion or judgment.
G.R. No. 161075
Article 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical
injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and
distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the
injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently
of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.
It is well settled that a civil action based on defamation,
fraud and physical injuries may be independently instituted
pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code, and does not
operate as a prejudicial question that will justify the
suspension of a criminal case.
Moreover, neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil
and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed
independently of each other. Under Rule 111, Section 3 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, in the cases
provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code,
the independent civil action may be brought by the
offended party. It shall proceed independently of the
criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party
recover damages twice for the same act or omission
charged in the criminal action.
G.R. No. 161211
Section l, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, which provides as
follows:
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.- Defenses
and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or
in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it
appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that
the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that
there is another action pending between the same parties
for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior
judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss
the claim. (2a)
Under the rule, the defenses of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and
prescription of action may be raised at any stage of the
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
proceedings, even for the first time on appeal, except that
the objection to the lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter may be barred by laches.
G.R. No. 161596
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court requires the petition
for certiorari to comply with the following requisites,
namely:
(1) the writ of certiorari is directed against a tribunal, a
board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions;
(2) such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
(3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.
G.R. No. 161596
Jurisprudence recognizes certain situations when the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari may be deemed proper,
such as:
(a) when it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and
injury to a party;
(b) where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically
exercised his judgment;
(c) where there may be danger of a failure of justice;
(d) where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and
insufficient;
(e) where the issue raised is one purely of law;
(f) where public interest is involved; and
(g) in case of urgency.
G.R. No. 161878
A party and its counsel who deliberately or neglectfully
delay the prompt termination of their court case are
further guilty of abuse of court processes and of impeding
the smooth administration of justice, rendering them
amenable to being cited for indirect contempt of court
under Section 3, (c) and (d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioners and their counsel should then show cause why
they should not be adjudged guilty of contempt of court.
The trial judge's tolerance of the delays or liberality did not
exonerate them and their counsel from their impeding the
smooth administration of justice.
G.R. No. 162385
Only questions of law may be raised in and resolved in this
appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court is not
a trier of facts and does not routinely re-examine the
evidence presented by the contending parties.
G.R. No. 162757
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
29
A writ of possession commands the sheriff to place a
person in possession of real property. It may be issued
inthe following instances, namely: (1) land registration
proceedings under Section 17 of Act No. 496; (2) judicial
foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the
mortgaged property, and no third person, not a party to the
foreclosure suit, had intervened; (3) extrajudicial
foreclosure of a real estate mortgage, pending redemption
under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No.
4118; and (4) execution sales, pursuant to the last
paragraph of Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
G.R. No. 162757
The reckoning of the period of redemption by the
mortgagor or his successor-in-interest starts from the
registration of the sale in the Register of Deeds. Although
Section 620 of Act No. 3135, as amended, specifies that the
period of redemption starts from and after the date of the
sale, jurisprudence has since settled that such period is
more appropriately reckoned from the date of registration.
This construction was due to the fact that the she iffs sale
of registered (and unregistered) lands did not take effect as
a conveyance, or did not bind the land, until the sale was
registered in the Register of Deeds.
G.R. No. 163431
On several occasions, however, the Court has treated a
petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari
when:
(a) the petition has been filed within the 15-day
reglementary period;
(b) public welfare and the advancement of public policy
dictate such treatment;
(c) the broader interests of justice require such treatment;
(d) the writs issued were null and void; or
(e) the questioned decision or order amounts to an
oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
G.R. No. 166836
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction has been increasingly
called into play on matters demanding the special
competence of administrative agencies even if such
matters are at the same time within the jurisdiction of the
courts. A case that requires for its determination the
expertise, specialized skills, and knowledge of some
administrative board or commission because it involves
technical matters or intricate questions of fact, relief must
first be obtained in an appropriate administrative
proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts
although the matter comes within the jurisdiction of the
courts. The application of the doctrine does not call for the
dismissal of the case in the court but only for its suspension
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
until after the matters within the competence of the
administrative body are threshed out and determined.
G.R. No. 169677
The rule on separate trials in civil actions is found in Section
2, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
Section 2. Separate trials. The court, in furtherance of
convenience or to avoid prejudice, may order a separate
trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party
complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of
claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party complaints
or issues.
The text of the rule grants to the trial court the discretion
to determine if a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim,
counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any separate
issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims,
counterclaims, third-party complaints or issues should be
held, provided that the exercise of such discretion is in
furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice to any
party.
G.R. No. 169677
Exceptions to the general rule are permitted only when
there are extraordinary grounds for conducting separate
trials on different issues raised in the same case, or when
separate trials of the issues will avoid prejudice, or when
separate trials of the issues will further convenience, or
when separate trials of the issues will promote justice, or
when separate trials of the issues will give a fair trial to all
parties. Otherwise, the general rule must apply.
G.R. No. 169677
Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act
No. 7975 and Republic Act No. 8249,32 vests the
Sandiganbayan with original exclusive jurisdiction over civil
and criminal cases instituted pursuant to and in connection
with Executive Orders No. 1, No. 2, No. 14 and No. 14-A,
issued in 1986 by then President Corazon C. Aquino.
Executive Order No. 1 refers to cases of recovery and
sequestration of ill-gotten wealth amassed by the Marcoses
their relatives, subordinates, and close associates, directly
or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their
public office and/or by using their powers, authority,
influence, connections or relationships. Executive Order No.
2 states that the ill-gotten wealth includes assets and
properties in the form of estates and real properties in the
Philippines and abroad. Executive Orders No. 14 and No.
14-A pe tai to the Sa diga a a s ju isdi tio o e
criminal and civil cases relative to the ill-gotten wealth of
the Marcoses and their cronies.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
30
The amended complaint filed by the Republic to implead
Asian Bank prays for reversion, reconveyance,
reconstitution, accounting and damages. In other words,
the Republic would recover ill-gotten wealth, by virtue of
which the properties in question came under sequestration
and are now, for that reason, in custodia legis.
Although the Republic has not imputed any responsibility to
Asian Bank for the illegal accumulation of wealth by the
original defendants, or has not averred that Asian Bank was
a business associate, dummy, nominee, or agent of the
Marcoses, the allegation in its amended complaint in Civil
Case No. 0004 that Asian Bank acted with bad faith for
ignoring the sequestration of the properties as ill-gotten
wealth has made the cause of action against Asian Bank
incidental or necessarily connected to the cause of action
against the original defendants.
G.R. No. 170598
Burden of proof is a term that refers to two separate and
quite different concepts, namely:
(a) the risk of non-persuasion, or the burden of persuasion,
or simply persuasion burden; and
(b) the duty of producing evidence, or the burden of going
forward with the evidence, or simply the production
burden or the burden of evidence.
In its first concept, it is the duty to establish the truth of a
given proposition or issue by such a quantum of evidence
as the law demands in the case at which the issue arises. In
its other concept, it is the duty of producing evidence at the
beginning or at any subsequent stage of trial in order to
make or meet a prima facie case. Generally speaking,
burden of proof in its second concept passes from party to
party as the case progresses, while in its first concept it
rests throughout upon the party asserting the affirmative of
the issue.
G.R. No. 170598
Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court sets the quantum
of evidence for civil actions, and delineates how
preponderance of evidence is determined, viz :
Section 1. In civil cases, the party having the burden of
proof must establish his case by a preponderance of
evidence. In determining where the preponderance or
superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the
court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the
case, the it esses a e of testif i g, thei i tellige e,
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which
they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they
testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony,
their interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon
the trial. The court may also consider the number of
witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily
with the greater number. (Emphasis supplied)
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
As the rule indicates, preponderant evidence refers to
evidence that is of greater weight, or more convincing, than
the evidence offered in opposition to it. It is proof that
leads the trier of facts to find that the existence of the
contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.
G.R. No. 170604
Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court embodies the Best
Evidence
Rule, to wit:
Section 3. Original document must be produced;
exceptions. When the subject of inquiry is the contents
of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot
be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the
offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under control of
the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or
other documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the
whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office.
G.R. No. 170604
The Best Evidence Rule stipulates that in proving the terms
of a written document the original of the document must
be produced in court. The rule excludes any evidence other
than the original writing to prove the contents thereof,
unless the offeror proves:
(a) the existence or due execution of the original;
(b) the loss and destruction of the original, or the reason for
its non-production in court; and
(c) the absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to
which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.
G.R. No. 170604
When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns
external facts, such as the existence, execution or delivery
of the writing, without reference to its terms, the Best
Evidence Rule cannot be invoked. In such a case, secondary
evidence may be admitted even without accounting for the
original.
G.R. No. 170604
For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable
requisites must concur, namely:
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
31
(a) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable
title to or interest in the real property subject of the action;
and
(b) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to
be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact
invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of
validity or legal efficacy.
G.R. No. 173297
Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court requires that unless
otherwise authorized by law or the Rules of Court every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party in interest. Under the same rule, a real party in
interest is one who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or one who is entitled to the avails of
the suit. Accordingly, a person , to be a real party in interest
in whose name an action must be prosecuted, should
appear to be the present real owner of the right sought to
be enforced, that is, his interest must be a present
substantial interest, not a mere expectancy, or a future,
contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.
G.R. No. 188056
The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy on the
hierarchy of courts, and now affirms that the policy is not to
be ignored without serious consequences. The strictness of
the policy is designed to shield the Court from having to
deal with causes that are also well within the competence
of the lower courts, and thus leave time to the Court to
deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks
that the Constitution has assigned to it. The Court may act
on petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus only when absolutely necessary
or when serious and important reasons exist to justify an
exception to the policy.
G.R. No. 188056
This Cou ts o igi al ju isdi tio to issue its of e tio a i
(as well as prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction) is not exclusive. It is shared by this
Court with Regional Trial Courts x x x, which may issue the
writ, enforceable in any part of their respective regions. It is
also shared by this Court, and by the Regional Trial Court,
with the Court of Appeals x x x, although prior to the
effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 on August 14,
1981, the latter's competence to issue the extraordinary
writs was restricted to those "in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction." This concurrence of jurisdiction is not,
however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of
the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of
the court to which application therefor will be directed.
There is after all a hierarchy of courts.
G.R. No. 188165
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
The guarantee of speedy disposition under Section 16 of
Article III of the Constitution applies to all cases pending
before all judicial, quasi judicial or administrative bodies.
The guarantee would be defeated or rendered inutile if the
hair-splitting distinction by the State is accepted. Whether
or not the fact-finding investigation was separate from the
preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the
Ombudsman should not matter for purposes of
dete i i g if the espo de ts ight to the speed
disposition of their cases had been violated.
G.R. No. 188260
In order that newly discovered evidence may be a ground
for allowing a new trial, it must be fairly shown that:
(a) the evidence is discovered after the trial;
(b) such evidence could not have been discovered and
produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable
diligence;
(c) such evidence is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative, or impeaching; and
(d) such evidence is of such weight that it would probably
change the judgment if admitted.
G.R. No. 191567
A petition for review under Rule 43 is a mode of appeal to
be taken only to review the decisions, resolutions or awards
by the quasi-judicial officers, agencies or bodies,
particularly those specified in Section 1 of Rule 43. In the
matter before us, however, the Secretary of Justice was not
an officer performing a quasi-judicial function. In reviewing
the findings of the OCP of Quezon City on the matter of
probable cause, the Secretary of Justice performed an
essentially executive function to determine whether the
crime alleged against the respondents was committed, and
whether there was probable cause to believe that the
respondents were guilty thereof.
G.R. No. 191567
On the other hand, the courts could intervene in the
Se eta of Justi es dete i atio of p o a le ause o l
through a special civil action for certiorari. That happens
when the Secretary of Justice acts in a limited sense like a
quasi-judicial officer of the executive department exercising
powers akin to those of a court of law. But the requirement
for such intervention was still for the petitioner to
demonstrate clearly that the Secretary of Justice
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. Unless such a clear demonstration is
made, the intervention is disallowed in deference to the
doctrine of separation of powers.
G.R. No. 191567
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
32
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the courts
have no right to directly decide matters over which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive
Branch of the Government, or to substitute their own
judgments for that of the Executive Branch, represented in
this case by the Department of Justice. The settled policy is
that the courts will not interfere with the executive
determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing
an information, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.
That abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal
to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in
contemplation of law, such as where the power is exercised
in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or
hostility.
G.R. No. 191567
A preliminary investigation, according to Section 1, Rule
112 of the Rules of Court, is "an inquiry or proceeding to
determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and
the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be
held for trial." The investigation is advisedly called
preliminary, because it is yet to be followed by the trial
proper in a court of law. The role and object of preliminary
investigation were "to secure the innocent against hasty,
malicious, and oppressive prosecutions, and to protect him
from open and public accusation of crime, from the
trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial, and also to
protect the State from useless and expensive
prosecutions."
G.R. No. 191567
The three purposes of a preliminary investigation, to wit:
(1) to inquire concerning the commission of a crime and the
connection of the accused with it, in order that he may be
informed of the nature and character of the crime charged
against him, and, if there is probable cause for believing
him guilty, that the State may take the necessary steps to
bring him to trial;
(2) to preserve the evidence and keep the witnesses within
the control of the State; and
(3) to determine the amount of bail, if the offense is
bailable. The officer conducting the examination
investigates or inquires into facts concerning the
commission of a crime with the end in view of determining
whether an information may be prepared against the
accused.
G.R. No. 191567
Probable cause for purposes of filing a criminal information
is defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and that
the respondent is probably guilty thereof. A finding of
probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
more likely than not a crime has been committed, and that
it was committed by the accused. Probable cause, although
it requires less than evidence justifying a conviction,
demands more than bare suspicion.
G.R. No. 191567
Courts do not reverse the Secretary of Justices fi di gs a d
conclusions on the matter of probable cause except in clear
cases of grave abuse of discretion.
G.R. No. 197291
Under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, the
discharge by the trial court of one or more of several
accused with their consent so that they can be witnesses
for the State is made upon motion by the Prosecution
before resting its case. The trial court shall require the
Prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statements
of the proposed witnesses at a hearing in support of the
discharge.
The trial court must ascertain if the following conditions
fixed by Section 17 of Rule 119 are complied with, namely:
(a) there is absolute necessity for the testimony of the
accused whose discharge is requested;
(b) there is no other direct evidence available for the
proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the
testimony of said accused;
(c) the testimony of said accused can be substantially
corroborated in its material points;
(d) said accused does not appear to be most guilty; and
(e) said accused has not at any time been convicted of any
offense involving moral turpitude.
G.R. No. 197291
A participant in the commission of the crime, to be
discharged to become a state witness pursuant to Rule 119,
must be one charged as an accused in the criminal case.
The discharge operates as an acquittal of the discharged
accused and shall be a bar to his future prosecution for the
same offense, unless he fails or refuses to testify against his
co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement
constituting the basis for his discharge. The discharge is
expressly left to the sound discretion of the trial court,
which has the exclusive responsibility to see to it that the
conditions prescribed by the rules for that purpose exist.
G.R. No. 197291
On the other hand, there is no requirement under Republic
Act No. 6981 for the Prosecution to first charge a person in
court as one of the accused in order for him to qualify for
admission into the Witness Protection Program. The
admission as a state witness under Republic Act No. 6981
also operates as an acquittal, and said witness cannot
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
33
subsequently be included in the criminal information
except when he fails or refuses to testify. The immunity for
the state witness is granted by the DOJ, not by the trial
court. Should such witness be meanwhile charged in court
as an accused, the public prosecutor, upon presentation to
him of the certification of admission into the Witness
Protection Program, shall petition the trial court for the
discharge of the witness. The Court shall then order the
discharge and exclusion of said accused from the
information.
G.R. No. 206236
The lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily
mean that the guilt of the accused cannot be proved by
evidence other than direct evidence. Direct evidence is not
the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, because circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can
supplant the absence of direct evidence. The crime charged
may also be proved by circumstantial evidence, sometimes
referred to as indirect or presumptive evidence.
Circumstantial evidence has been defined as that which
"goes to prove a fact or series of facts other than the facts
in issue, which, if proved, may tend by inference to
establish a fact in issue."
G.R. Nos. 169823-24
It is axiomatic that a complaint or information must state
every single fact necessary to constitute the offense
charged; otherwise, a motion to dismiss or to quash on the
ground that the complaint or information charges no
offense may be properly sustained. The fundamental test in
determining whether a motion to quash may be sustained
based on this ground is whether the facts alleged, if
hypothetically admitted, will establish the essential
elements of the offense as defined in the law. Extrinsic
matters or evidence aliunde are not considered. The test
does not require absolute certainty as to the presence of
the elements of the offense; otherwise, there would no
longer be any need for the Prosecution to proceed to trial.
G.R. No. 161589
There are three kinds of real actions affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein, namely:
accion de reivindicacion, accion publiciana and accion
interdictal. The first seeks the recovery of ownership as well
as possession of realty. The second proposes to recover the
right to possess and is a plenary action in an ordinary civil
proceeding. The third refers to the recovery of physical or
actual possession only (through a special civil action either
for forcible entry or unlawful detainer).
If the dispossession is not alleged to take place by any of
the means provided by Section 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court,
or, if the dispossession allegedly took place by any of such
means but the action is not brought within one year from
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
deprivation of possession, the action is properly a plenary
action of accion publiciana or accion de reivindicacion. The
explanation is simply that the disturbance of the peace and
quiet of the local community due to the dispossession did
not materialize; hence, the possessor thus deprived has no
need for the summary proceeding of accion interdictal
under Rule 70.
G.R. No. 161589
The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) has exclusive original
jurisdiction over accion interdictal.
The expansion of jurisdiction was by virtue of the
amendment by Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691 to make
Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 pertinently provide
thusly:
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where
the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction
over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
xxx xxx xxx
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7691 similarly revised Section
33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (the provision defining the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC over civil actions)
to make the latter provision state, pertinently, thus: Section
33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases.
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein where the assessed value of the property
or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such
assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation
purposes, the value of such property shall be determined
by the
assessed value of the adjacent lots.
xxx xxx xxx
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
34
As can be seen, the amendments have made the assessed
value of the property whose possession or ownership is in
issue, or the assessed value of the adjacent lots if the
disputed land is not declared for taxation purposes
determinative of jurisdiction. The allegation of the assessed
value of the realty must be found in the complaint, if the
action (other than forcible entry or unlawful detainer)
involves title to or possession of the realty, including
quieting of title of the realty. If the assessed value is not
found in the complaint, the action should be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction because the trial court is not thereby
afforded the means of determining from the allegations of
the basic pleading whether jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action pertains to it or to another court.
Courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market
value of the realty.
G.R. No. 161589
The settled rule is that the nature of the action as
appearing from the averments in the complaint or other
initiatory pleading determines the jurisdiction of a court;
hence, such averments and the character of the relief
sought are to be consulted. The court must interpret and
apply the law on jurisdiction in relation to the averments of
ultimate facts in the complaint or other initiatory pleading
regardless of whether or not the plaintiff or petitioner is
entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted
therein. The reliefs to which the plaintiff or petitioner is
entitled based on the facts averred, although not the reliefs
demanded, determine the nature of the action. The
defense contained in the answer of the defendant is
generally not determinant.
G.R. No. 161589
A suit for unlawful detainer is premised on Section 1, Rule
70, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, of which there are two
kinds, namely: (1) that filed against a tenant, and (2) that
brought against a vendee or vendor, or other person
unlawfully withholding possession of any land or building
after the expiration or termination of the right to hold
possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied. "In
an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, the main
issue is possession de facto, independently of any claim of
ownership or possession de jure that either party may set
forth in his pleading." The plaintiff must prove that it was in
prior physical possession of the premises until it was
deprived thereof by the defendant. The principal issue must
be possession de facto, or actual possession, and ownership
is merely ancillary to such issue.
The summary character of the proceedings is designed to
quicken the determination of possession de facto in the
interest of preserving the peace of the community, but the
summary proceedings may not be proper to resolve
ownership of the property. Consequently, any issue on
ownership arising in forcible entry or unlawful detainer is
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
resolved only provisionally for the purpose of determining
the principal issue of possession. On the other hand,
regardless of the actual condition of the title to the
property and whatever may be the character of the
plaintiff's prior possession, if it has in its favor priority in
time, it has the security that entitles it to remain on the
property until it is lawfully ejected through an accion
publiciana or accion reivindicatoria by another having a
better right.
G.R. No. 161589
In unlawful detainer, the complaint must allege the cause
of action according to the manner set forth in Section 1,
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when.
Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a
person deprived of the possession of any land or building
by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a
lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the
possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld
after the expiration or termination of the right to hold
possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or
the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor,
vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within
one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding
of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial
Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding
or depriving of possession, or any person or persons
claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession,
together with damages and costs. (Emphasis supplied)
The complaint must further allege the plaintiff's compliance
with the jurisdictional requirement of demand as
prescribed by Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, viz.:
Section 2. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after
demand . Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the
lessor shall be commenced only after demand to pay or
comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is
made upon the lessee, or by serving written notice of such
demand upon the person found on the premises, or by
posting such notice on the premises if no person be found
thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith after
fifteen (15) days in the case of land or five (5) days in the
case of buildings.
For the action to come under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the MTC, therefore, the complaint must
allege that: (a) the defendant originally had lawful
possession of the property, either by virtue of a contract or
by tolerance of the plaintiff; (b) the defendant's possession
of the property eventually became illegal or unlawful upon
notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the expiration or
the termination of the defendant's right of possession; (c)
the defendant thereafter remained in possession of the
property and thereby deprived the plaintiff the enjoyment
thereof; and (d) the plaintiff instituted the action within one
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
35
year from the unlawful deprivation or withholding of
possession.
G.R. No. 161589
A defendant's claim of possession de jure or his averment of
ownership does not render the ejectment suit either accion
publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. The suit remains an
accion interdictal, a summary proceeding that can proceed
independently of any claim of ownership. Even when the
question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding
the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership is to be
resolved only to determine the issue of possession.
G.R. No. 166944
The right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of
due process, but merely a statutory privilege to be
exercised only in accordance with the law. Being the party
who sought to appeal, he must comply with the
requirements of the relevant rules; otherwise, he would
lose the statutory right to appeal. It cannot be over-
emphasized, indeed, that the procedures regulating
appeals as laid down in the Rules of Court must be followed
because strict compliance with them was indispensable for
the orderly and speedy disposition of justice.
Section 2 (d), Rule 42 of the Rules of Court requires the
petition for review to be accompanied by clearly legible
duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final
orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of
court of the Regional Trial Court, and the requisite number
of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other
material portions of the record as would support the
allegations of the petition. The failure of the petitioner to
comply with the requirement shall be a sufficient ground
for the dismissal of the petition for review.
G.R. No. 161380
Laches is the failure or neglect for as unreasonable and
unexplained length of time to do that which by exerting due
diligence a party could and should have done earlier. A suit
that is barred on the ground of laches is also called a stale
demand. Laches is based on grounds of public policy that
requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of
stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a
mere question of time but is principally a question of the
inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be
enforced or asserted. Tempus enim modus tollendi
obligationes et actiones, quia tempus currit contra desides
et sui juris contemptores (For time is a means of dissipating
obligations and actions, because time runs against the
slothful and careless of their own rights). Truly, the law
serves those who are vigilant and diligent, not those who
sleep when the law requires them to act.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
For laches to bar a claim, four elements must be shown,
namely:
(1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or one under
whom he claims, giving rise to a situation of which a
complaint is made and for which the complainant seeks a
remedy;
(2) delay in asserting the complainant's right, the
complainant having had knowledge or notice of defendant's
conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to
institute a suit;
(3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant
that the complainant would assert the right on which he
bases his suit; and
(4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event that
the relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not
held to be barred.
OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J
The filing of unfounded and baseless administrative charges
against sitting judicial officers may constitute indirect
contempt under Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court,
to wit:
Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge
and hearing. After a charge in writing has been filed, and
an opportunity given to the respondent to comment
thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court
and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of
any of the following acts may be punished for indirect
contempt:
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance
of his official duties or in his official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process,
order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a person
who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real
property by the judgment or process of any court of
competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces
another to enter into or upon such real property, for the
purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in
any manner disturbs the possession given to the person
adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the
processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct
contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and
acting as such without authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or
property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or
process of a court held by him.
But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to
prevent the court from issuing process to bring the
respondent into court, or from holding him in custody
pending such proceedings.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
36
OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J
Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or
disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense,
contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or
orders of a legislative or judicial body or an interruption of
its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language
in its presence or so near thereto as to disturb its
proceedings or to impair the respect due to such a body. In
its restricted and more usual sense, contempt
comprehends a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity
of a court. The phrase contempt of court is generic,
embracing within its legal signification a variety of different
acts.
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts,
and need not be specifically granted by statute. It lies at the
core of the administration of a judicial system.
G.R. No. 154390
As a notarized document, the deed carried the evidentiary
weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution,
and had in its favor the presumption of regularity. Hence, it
was admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity, and was entitled to full faith and credit upon
its face. To rebut its authenticity and genuineness, the
contrary evidence must be clear, convincing and more than
merely preponderant; otherwise, the deed should be
upheld.
G.R. No. 156407
The final judgment rule e odied i the fi st pa ag aph
of Section 1, Rule 41, Rules of Court, which also governs
appeals in special proceedings, stipulates that only the
judgments, final orders (and resolutions) of a court of law
that o pletel disposes of the ase, o of a pa ti ula
matter therein when declared by these Rules to be
appeala le a e the su je t of a appeal i due ou se.
The same rule states that an interlocutory order or
resolution (interlocutory because it deals with preliminary
matters, or that the trial on the merits is yet to be held and
the judgment rendered) is expressly made nonappealable.
G.R. No. 156407
Section 1, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court enumerates the
specific instances in which multiple appeals may be
resorted to in special proceedings, viz:
Section 1. Orders or judgments from which appeals may be
taken. An interested person may appeal in special
proceedings from an order or judgment rendered by a
Court of First Instance or a Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court, where such order or judgment:
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
(a) Allows or disallows a will;
(b) Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased
person, or the distributive share of the estate to which such
person is entitled;
(c) Allows or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim against
the estate of a deceased person, or any claim presented on
behalf of the estate in offset to a claim against it;
(d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator,
trustee or guardian;
(e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of
the estate of a deceased person, or the administration of a
trustee or guardian, a final determination in the lower court
of the rights of the party appealing, except that no appeal
shall be allowed from the appointment of a special
administrator; and
(f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and
affects the substantial rights of the person appealing,
unless it be an order granting or denying a motion for a
new trial or for reconsideration.
Clearly, the assailed orders of the RTC, being interlocutory,
did not come under any of the instances in which multiple
appeals are permitted.
G.R. No. 156407
Under Section 6(a), Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, the letters
of administration may be granted at the discretion of the
court to the surviving spouse, who is competent and willing
to serve when the person dies intestate.
Upon issuing the letters of administration to the surviving
spouse, the RTC becomes dutybound to direct the
preparation and submission of the inventory of the
properties of the estate, and the surviving spouse, as the
administrator, has the duty and responsibility to submit the
inventory within three months from the issuance of letters
of administration pursuant to Rule 83 of the Rules of Court,
viz:
Section 1. Inventory and appraisal to be returned within
three months. Within three (3) months after his
appointment every executor or administrator shall return
to the court a true inventory and appraisal of all the real and
personal estate of the deceased which has come into his
possession or knowledge. In the appraisement of such
estate, the court may order one or more of the inheritance
tax appraisers to give his or their assistance.
G.R. No. 156407
The objective of the Rules of Court in requiring the
i e to a d app aisal of the estate of the de ede t is to
aid the court in revising the accounts and determining the
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
37
liabilities of the executor or the administrator, and in
making a final and equitable distribution (partition) of the
estate and otherwise to facilitate the administration of the
estate. Hence, the RTC that presides over the
administration of an estate is vested with wide discretion
on the question of what properties should be included in
the inventory.
G.R. No. 156407
The jurisdiction of the trial court as an intestate court is
special and limited. The trial court cannot adjudicate title to
properties claimed to be a part of the estate but are
claimed to belong to third parties by title adverse to that of
the decedent and the estate, not by virtue of any right of
inheritance from the decedent. All that the trial court can
do regarding said properties is to determine whether or not
they should be included in the inventory of properties to be
administered by the administrator. Such determination is
provisional and may be still revised.
G.R. No. 156407
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court,
either as a probate court or an intestate court, relates only
to matters having to do with the probate of the will and/or
settlement of the estate of deceased persons, but does not
extend to the determination of questions of ownership that
arise during the proceedings.
However, this general rule is subject to exceptions as
justified by expediency and convenience.
First, the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an
intestate or a testate proceeding the question of inclusion in,
or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property
without prejudice to final determination of ownership in a
separate action.
Second, if the interested parties are all heirs to the estate,
or the question is one of collation or advancement, or
the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the
probate court and the rights of third parties are not
impaired, then the probate court is competent to resolve
issues on ownership.
Verily, its jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or
collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate,
such as the determination of the status of each heir
and whether the property in the inventory is conjugal or
exclusive property of the deceased spouse.
G.R. No. 156407
Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court also provided that
any advancement by the decedent on the legitime of an
hei a e hea d a d dete ined by the court having
jurisdiction of the estate proceedings, and the final order of
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
the court thereon shall be binding on the person raising the
questions and on the heir.
Rule 90 thereby expanded the special and limited
jurisdiction of the RTC as an intestate court about the
matters relating to the inventory of the estate of the
decedent by authorizing it to direct the inclusion of
properties donated or bestowed by gratuitous title to any
compulsory heir by the decedent.
G.R. No. 157163
According to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real
action is one that affects title to or possession of real
property, or an interest therein. Such action is to be
commenced and tried in the proper court having
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated, which explains
why the action is also referred to as a localaction. In
contrast, the Rules of Court declares all other actions as
personal actions.
Such actions may include those brought for the recovery of
personal property, or for the enforcement of some contract
or recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of
damages for the commission of an injury to the person or
property. The venue of a personal action is the place where
the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or
where the defendant or any of the principal defendants
resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where
he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff, for which
reason the action is considered a transitory one.
G.R. No. 157163
Well-settled is the rule that an action to annul a contract of
loan and its accessory real estate mortgage is a personal
action. In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery
of personal property, the enforcement of a contractor the
recovery of damages.
In contrast, in a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery
of real property, or, as indicated in Section 2 (a), Rule 4 of
the then Rules of Court, a real action is an action affecting
title to real property or for the recovery of possession, or
for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of
mortgage on, real property.
G.R. No. 157163
Section 2 of Rule 4, to wit:
SEC. 2. Venue of personal actions. All other actions may
be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides, orwhere the defendant or any of
the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a
nonresident defendant where he may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
38
G.R. No. 157163
The requirements for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction or TRO are enumerated in Section 3, Rule 58 of
the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. -
A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is
established:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded,
and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining
the commission or continuance of the act or acts
complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or
acts, eitherfor a limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance
of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would
probably work injustice to the applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing,
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or
suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation
of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the
action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment
ineffectual.
G.R. No. 157163
The conditions for the issuance of the injunctive writ are:
(a) that the right to be protected exists prima facie;
(b) that the act sought to be enjoined is violative of that
right; and
(c) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the
writ to prevent serious damage.
G.R. No. 157163
As a general rule, the courts will not issue writs of
prohibition or injunction whether preliminary or final in
order to enjoin or restrain any criminal prosecution.
But there are extreme cases in which exceptions to the
general rule have been recognized, including:
(1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate
protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
(2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of
justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
(3) when there is a prejudicial question that is sub judice;
(4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority;
(5) when the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance
or regulation;
(6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
(7) when the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
(8) when it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
(9) when the charges are manifestly false and motivated by
the lust for vengeance; and
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
(10) when there is clearly no prima faciecase against the
accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been
denied.
G.R. No. 159926
PPP must be mindful of and should closely comply with the
following statutory requirements for the remedy as set
forth in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
The first requirement prescribes that the remedy is
available only when the petitioner can no longer resort to
the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief or other appropriate remedies through no fault of the
petitioner. This means that the remedy, although seen as "a
last remedy," is not an alternative to the ordinary remedies
of new trial, appeal and petition for relief. The petition
must aver, therefore, that the petitioner failed to move for
a new trial, or to appeal, or to file a petition for relief
without fault on his part.
The second requirement limits the ground for the action of
annulment of judgment to either extrinsic fraud or lack of
jurisdiction. Not every kind of fraud justifies the action of
annulment of judgment. Only extrinsic fraud does.
G.R. No. 159926
The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged
is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant
prevented the petitioner from having his day in court.
Nonetheless, extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it
was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion
for new trial or petition for relief.
G.R. No. 159926
The true office of the verification is merely to secure an
assurance that the allegations of a pleading are true and
correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter
of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.
G.R. No. 161308
Positive identification where categorical and consistent and
without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the
eyewitnesses testifying on the matter prevails over a denial.
Denial being negative evidence which is self-serving in
nature, cannot prevail over the positive identification of
prosecution witnesses. More so in this case where the
defense of denial is not corroborated by disinterested and
credible witnesses: the mother of the accused whose
presence in the crime scene was not sufficiently established
and EEE whose testimony is found to be doubtful and not
without bias.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
39
G.R. No. 161308
The non-identification and non-presentation of the weapon
actually used in the killing did not diminish the merit of the
conviction primarily because other competent evidence
and the testimonies of witnesses had directly and positively
identified and incriminated RRR as the assailant.
G.R. No. 161380
Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, viz:
Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize
presentation of evidence. When issues not raised by the
pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of
the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they
had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the
pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to
the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon
motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but
failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of
these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the
ground that it is not within the issues made by the
pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be
amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation
of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial
justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a
continuance to enable the amendment to be made.
G.R. No. 162230 August 13, 2014
There are three essential dates that must be stated in a
petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65. First, the date
when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution
was received; second, when a motion for new trial or
reconsideration was filed; and third, when notice of the
denial thereof was received. Failure of petitioner to comply
with this requirement shall be sufficient ground for the
dismissal of the petition. Substantial compliance will not
suffice in a matter involving strict observance with the
Rules. The requirement of setting forth the three (3) dates
in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is for the purpose
of determining its timeliness.
G.R. No. 163109
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a
cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is
that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out
their functions and discharge their responsibilities within
the specialized areas of their respective competence. The
rationale for this doctrine is obvious. It entails lesser
expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of
controversies. Comity and convenience also impel courts of
justice to shy away from a dispute until the system of
administrative redress has been completed.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
G.R. No. 163109
It is true that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not an ironclad rule, but recognizes exceptions,
specifically: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the
party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged
administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official
inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
(d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to
make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the
question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to
be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial
intervention is urgent; (g) where the application of the
doctrines may cause great and irreparable damage; (h)
where the controversial acts violate due process; (i) where
the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has
been rendered moot; (j) where strong public interest is
involved; and (l) in quo warranto proceedings.
G.R. No. 163109
Section 3, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, to wit:
Section 3. Default; declaration of. If the defending party
fails to answer within the time allowed therefore, the court
shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the
defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the
defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall
proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such
relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such
reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of
court.cralawred
x x x x.
(c) Effect of partial default. When a pleading asserting a
claim states a common cause of action against several
defending parties, some of whom answer and the others
fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all upon the
answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence
presented.cralawred
xxxx
G.R. No. 163753
It is axiomatic that every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable. Nevertheless, the acquittal of an
accused of the crime charged does not necessarily
extinguish his civil liability.
G.R. No. 163753
The Rules of Court requires that in case of an acquittal, the
judgment shall state "whether the evidence of the
prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
40
accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall
determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist."
G.R. No. 164246
Section 19, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
reads:
Section 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay
same. If judgment is rendered against the defendant,
execution shall issue immediately upon motion unless an
appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay
execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by
the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the
plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing
down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and
unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with
the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to
time under the contract, if any, as determined by the
judgment of the Municipal Trial Court.
xxx
G.R. No. 164246
A judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is
immediately executory, but the defendant, to stay its
immediate execution, must: (1) perfect an appeal; (2) file a
supersede s bond; and (3) periodically deposit the rentals
becoming due during the pendency of the appeal.
G.R. No. 164277
An ejectment case can be eitherfor forcible entry or
unlawful detainer. It is a summary proceeding designed to
provide expeditious means to protect the actual possession
or the right to possession of the property involved. The sole
question for resolution in the case is the physical or
material possession (possession de facto)of the property in
question, and neither a claim of juridical possession
(possession de jure)nor an averment of ownership by the
defendant can outrightly deprive the trial court from taking
due cognizance of the case. Hence, even if the question of
ownership is raised in the pleadings, like here, the court
may pass upon the issue but only to determine the
question of possession especially if the question of
ownership is inseparably linked with the question of
possession. The adjudication of ownership in that instance
is merely provisional, and will not bar or prejudice an action
between the same parties involving the title to the
property.
G.R. No. 166414
Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court enumerates the
grounds for the quashal of the complaint or information, as
follows:
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
(a) the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
(b) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
offense charged;
(c) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
person of the accused;
(d) the officer who filed the information had no authority to
do so;
(e) the complaint or information does not conform
substantially to the prescribed form;
(f) more than one offense is charged except when a single
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law;
(g) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
(h) the complaint or information contains averments which,
if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and
(i) the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted
of the offense charged, or the case against him was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent.
G.R. No. 166414
According to Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the
complaint or information is sufficient if it states the names
of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the
statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting
the offense; the name of the offended party; the
approximate date of the commission of the offense; and
the place where the offense was committed. The
fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the
averments in a complaint or information is, therefore,
whether the facts alleged therein, if hypothetically
admitted, constitute the elements of the offense.
G.R. No. 173988
Under Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the
information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused;
the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts
or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the
name of the offended party; the proximate date of the
commission of the offense; and the place where the
offense was committed.
G.R. No. 174433
Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, which states:
Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize
presentation of evidence. When issues not raised by the
pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of
the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they
had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the
pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to
the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon
motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but
failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of
these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the
ground that it is not within the issues made by the
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
41
pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be
amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation
of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial
justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a
continuance to enable the amendment to be made.
G.R. No. 176317
Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, the judgment, if it
was of conviction, must state:
(1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the
acts committed by the accused and the aggravating or
mitigating circumstances which attended its commission;
(2) the participation of the accused in the offense, whether
as principal, accomplice, or accessory after the fact;
(3) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and
(4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act
or omission to be recovered from the accused by the
offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of
the civil liability by a separate civil action has been reserved
or waived.
G.R. No. 199139
Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution states that unless
otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, any
decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. For this
reason, the Rules of Court (1997) contains a separate rule
(Rule 64) on the review of the decisions of the COMELEC
and the Commission on Audit. Rule 64 is generally identical
with certiorari under Rule 65, except as to the period of the
filing of the petition for certiorari, that is, in the former, the
period is 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order
or resolution sought to be reviewed but, in the latter, not
later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or
resolution assailed.
G.R. No. 199139
The well-established rule is that the motion for
reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an
aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The filing of
the motion for reconsideration before the resort to
certiorari will lie is intended to afford to the public
respondent the opportunity to correct any actual or fancied
error attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal
and factual aspects of the case.
The rule is not absolute, however, considering that
jurisprudence has laid down exceptions to the requirement
for the filing of a petition for certiorari without first filing a
motion for reconsideration.
.
G.R. No. 200454
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
The verification of a petition is intended to secure an
assurance that the allegations contained in the petition
have been made in good faith, are true and correct and not
merely speculative. This requirement affects the form of
the pleading, and its non-compliance will not render the
pleading defective. It is a formal, not a jurisdictional
requisite. The courts may order the correction of the
pleading if the verification is lacking, and may even act on
an unverified pleading if doing so will serve the ends of
justice.
G.R. No. 209287 July 1, 2014
Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution expressly
provides:
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
Thus, the Constitution vests judicial power in the Court and
in such lower courts as may be established by law. In
creating a lower court, Congress concomitantly determines
the jurisdiction of that court, and that court, upon its
creation, becomes by operation of the Constitution one of
the repositories of judicial power. However, only the Court
is a constitutionally created court, the rest being created by
Congress in its exercise of the legislative power.
The Constitution states that judicial power includes the
duty of the courts of justice not only "to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable" but also "to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government." It has thereby
expanded the concept of judicial power, which up to then
was confined to its traditional ambit of settling actual
controversies involving rights that were legally demandable
and enforceable.
G.R. No. 209287 July 1, 2014
Prohibition is an extraordinary writ directed against any
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions,
ordering said entity or person to desist from further
proceedings when said proceedings are without or in
e ess of said e tit s o pe so s ju isdi tio , o a e
accompanied with grave abuse of discretion, and there is
no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law. Prohibition lies against
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
42
judicial or ministerial functions, but not against legislative
or quasi-legislative functions. Generally, the purpose of a
writ of prohibition is to keep a lower court within the limits
of its jurisdiction in order to maintain the administration of
justice in orderly channels.
OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J
Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge
and hearing. After a charge in writing has been filed, and
an opportunity given to the respondent to comment
thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court
and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of
any of the following acts may be punished for indirect
contempt:
(a)Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance
of his official duties or in his official transactions;
(b)Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process,
order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a person
who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real
property by the judgment or process of any court of
competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces
another to enter into or upon such real property, for the
purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in
any manner disturbs the possession given to the person
adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c)Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the
processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct
contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
(d)Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
(e)Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and
acting as such without authority;
(f)Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
(g)The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property
in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process
of a court held by him.
OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J
Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or
disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense,
contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or
orders of a legislative or judicial body or an interruption of
its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language
in its presence or so near thereto as to disturb its
proceedings or to impair the respect due to such a body. In
its restricted and more usual sense, contempt
comprehends a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity
of a court. The phrase contempt of court is generic,
embracing within its legal signification a variety of different
acts.
G.R. No. 156995
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
The RTC, in an appeal of the judgment in an ejectment case,
shall not conduct a rehearing or trial de novo. In this
connection, Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Courtclearly
provides:
Sec. 18. Judgment conclusive only on possession; not
conclusive in actions involving title or ownership. x x x.
xxxx
The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the
appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the
same on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings
had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or
briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by
the Regional Trial Court. (7a)
Hence, the RTC violated the foregoing rule by ordering the
conduct of the relocation and verification survey "in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction" and by hearing the testimony of
the surveyor, for its doing so was tantamount to its holding
of a trial de novo.
G.R. No. 156995
Unlawful detainer is an action filed by a lessor, vendor,
vendee, or other person against whom the possession of
any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the
expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by
virtue of any contract, express or implied. To vest in the
MTC the jurisdiction to effect the ejectment from the land
of the respondents as the occupants in unlawful detainer,
therefore, the complaint should embody such a statement
of facts clearly showing the attributes of unlawful detainer.
However, the allegations of the petitioners' complaint did
not show that they had permitted or tolerated the
occupation of the portion of their property by the
respondents; or how the respondents' entry had been
effected, or how and when the dispossession by the
respondents had started. All that the petitioners alleged
was the respondents' "illegal use and occupation" of the
property. As such, the action was not unlawful detainer.
G.R. No. 163362
An "accion reivindicatoria seeks the recovery of ownership
and includes the jus utendi and the jus fruendi brought in
the proper regional trial court. Accion reivindicatoria is an
action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of
land and seeks recovery of its full possession."
G.R. No. 171672
It is when custodial investigation is underway that the
certain procedural safeguards takes over - the person must
be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to
remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him
in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
43
attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will
be appointed for him prior to any questioning.
G.R. No. 175796
According to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real
action is one that affects title to or possession of real
property, or an interest therein. Thus, an action for
partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage
on, real property is a real action. The real action is to be
commenced and tried in the proper court having
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated, which explains
why the action is also referred to as a local action.
In contrast, the Rules of Court declares all other actions as
personal actions. Such actions may include those brought
for the recovery of personal property, or for the
enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for
its breach, or for the recovery of damages for the
commission of an injury to the person or property. The
venue of a personal action is the place where the plaintiff
or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the
defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in
the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff, for which reason the
action is considered a transitory one.
G.R. No. 212865
The Court has stressed that the People of the Philippines,
being the real party in interest in every criminal
proceedings, can be represented only by the OSG in
criminal proceedings in the CA or in this Court. Yet, this rule
admits of exceptions:
A special civil action for certiorari may be filed by an
aggrieved party alleging grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of
the trial court. In a long line of cases, this Court construed
the term aggrieved parties to include the State and the
private offended party or complainant.
G.R. No. 212865
Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
pertinently states:
Section 6. Promulgation of judgment. - The judgment is
promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused
and any judge of the court in which it was rendered.
However, if the conviction is for a light offense, the
judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his
counsel or representative. When the judge is absent or
outside the province or city, the judgment may be
promulgated by the clerk of court. x x x x
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of
promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation
shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal
docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known
address or thru his counsel.
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the
accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall
lose the remedies available in these rules against the
judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen
(15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the
accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court
to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his
absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves
that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be
allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days
from notice.
G.R. No. 212865
The accused who fails to appear at the promulgation of the
judgment of conviction loses the remedies available under
the Rules of Court against the judgment, specifically:
(a) the filing of a motion for new trial or for reconsideration
(Rule 121), and
(b) an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule 122).
However, the Rules of Court permits him to regain his
standing in court in order to avail himself of these remedies
within 15 days from the date of promulgation of the
judgment conditioned upon:
(a) his surrender; and
(b) his filing of a motion for leave of court to avail himself of
the remedies, stating therein the reason for his absence.
Should the trial court find that his absence was for a
justifiable cause, he should .be allowed to avail himself of
the remedies within 15 days from notice of the order
finding his absence justified and allowing him the available
remedies from the judgment of conviction.
G.R. No. 213525
The petitioner obviously ignores that Section 13, Rule 13 of
the Rules of Court concerns two types of proof of service,
namely: the affidavit and the registry receipt, viz: Section
13. Proof of Service. x x x. If service is made by registered
mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry
receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card
shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or
in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the
certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the
postmaster to the addressee. Section 13 thus requires that
if the service is done by registered mail, proof of service
shall consist of the affidavit of the person effecting the
mailing and the registry receipt, both of which must be
appended to the paper being served. A compliance with the
rule is mandatory, such that there is no proof of service if
either or both are not submitted.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
44
G.R. No. 213847
It is worthy to note that bail is not granted to prevent the
accused from committing additional crimes. The purpose of
bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the
trial, or whenever so required by the trial court. The
amount of bail should be high enough to assure the
presence of the accused when so required, but it should be
no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this
purpose. Thus, bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to
a o odate oth the a useds interest in his provisional
li e t efo e o du i g the t ial, a d the so iet s i te est
i assu i g the a useds p ese e at t ial.
G.R. No. 213847
The right to bail is expressly afforded by Section 13, Article
III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution, viz.:
x x x All persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
This constitutional provision is repeated in Section 7, Rule
114 of the Rules of Court , as follows:
Section 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. No
person charged with a capital offense, or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall
be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong,
regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.
A capital offense in the context of the rule refers to an
offense that, under the law existing at the time of its
commission and the application for admission to bail, may
be punished with death.
G.R. No. 213847
The Court thus balances the scales of justice by protecting
the interest of the People through ensuring his personal
appearance at the trial, and at the same time realizing for
him the guarantees of due process as well as to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily
ignored the objective of bail to ensure the appearance of
the accused during the trial; and unwarrantedly
disregarded the clear showing of the fragile health and
advanced age of EEE.
A.M. No. P-10-2793
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

The writ of execution should mirror the judgment that it
enforces. The form and contents of the writ of execution
are specified in Section 8, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, viz.:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 8. Issuance, form and contents of a writ of
execution. The writ of execution shall: (1) issue in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines from the court
which granted the motion; (2) state the name of the court,
the case number and title, the dispositive part of the
subject judgment or order; and (3) require the sheriff or
other proper officer to whom it is directed to enforce the
writ according to its terms, in the manner herein after
provided:
(a) If the execution be against the property of the judgment
obligor, to satisfy the judgment, with interest, out of the
real or personal property of such judgment obligor;
(b) If it be against real or personal property in the hands of
personal representatives, heirs, devisees, legatees, tenants,
or trustees of the judgment obligor, to satisfy the
judgment, with interest, out of such properties;
(c) If it be for the sale of real or personal property, to sell
such property, describing it, and apply the proceeds in
conformity with the judgment, the material parts of which
shall be recited in the writ of execution;
(d) If it be for the delivery of the possession of real or
personal property, to deliver the possession of the same,
describing it, to the party entitled thereto, and to satisfy
any costs, damages, rents, or profits covered by the
judgment out of the personal property of the person
against whom it was rendered, and if sufficient personal
property cannot be found, then out of the real property;
and
(e) In all cases, the writ of execution shall specifically state
the amount of the interest, costs, damages, rents, or profits
due as of the date of the issuance of the writ, aside from
the principal obligation under the judgment. For this
purpose, the motion for execution shall specify the
amounts of the foregoing reliefs sought by the movant.
A.M. No. P-10-2793
The duty to exhaust all efforts to recover the balance was
laid down in Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, with
special attention to the highlighted portions, to wit:
Section 9. Execution of judgments for money, how
enforced. (a) Immediate payment on demand. The
officer shall enforce an execution of a judgment for money
by demanding from the judgment obligor the immediate
payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution
and all lawful fees. The judgment obligor shall pay in cash,
certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee, or any
other form of payment acceptable to the latter, the amount
of the judgment debt under proper receipt directly to the
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
45
Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
judgment obligee or his authorized representative if present
at the time of payment. The lawful fees shall be handed
under proper receipt to the executing sheriff who shall turn
over the said amount within the same day to the clerk of
court of the court that issued the writ.
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Satisfaction by levy. If the judgment obligor cannot
pay all or part of the obligation in cash, certified bank check
or other mode of payment acceptable to the judgment
obligee, the officer shall levy upon the properties of the
judgment obligor of every kind and nature whatsoever which
may be disposed of for value and not otherwise exempt
from execution giving the latter the option to immediately
choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon,
sufficient to satisfy the judgment. If the judgment obligor
does not exercise the option, the officer shall first levy on
the personal properties, if any, and then on the real
properties if the personal properties are insufficient to
answer for the judgment.
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Garnishment of debts and credits. The officer may levy
on debts due the judgment obligor and other credits,
including bank deposits, financial interests, royalties,
commissions and other personal property not capable of
manual delivery in the possession or control of third parties.
Levy shall be made by serving notice upon the person owing
such debts or having in his possession or control such credits
to which the judgment obligor is entitled. The garnishment
shall cover only such amount as will satisfy the judgment and
all lawful fees.
xxx xxx xxx
G.R. No. 158464
The determination of just compensation is essentially a
judicial function, consistent with the Court's roles as the
guardian of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the due
process and equal protection clauses, and as the final
arbiter over transgressions committed against
constitutional rights.
G.R. No. 159350
The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial
precedents. When a court has laid down a principle of law
as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that
principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts
are substantially the same; but when the facts are
essentially different, stare decisis does not apply because a
perfectly sound principle as applied to one set of facts
might be entirely inappropriate when a factual variance is
introduced.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
G.R. No. 160071
We also uphold the efficacy of the certification on non-
forum shopping executed by Atty. CK on the basis of the
authorization bestowed under the SPAs by the petitioners.
The lawyer of the party, in order to validly execute the
certification, must be "specifically authorized" by the client
for that purpose. With the petitioners being non-residents
of the Philippines, the sworn certification on non-forum
shopping by Atty. CK sufficiently complied with the
objective of ensuring that no similar action had been
brought by them or the respondent against each other. In
this regard, we ought not to exact a literal compliance with
Section 4, Rule 45, in relation to Section 2, Rule 42 of
the Rules of Court, that only the party himself should
execute the certification. After all, we have not been shown
by the respondent any intention on the part of the
petitioners and their counsel to circumvent the
requirement for the verification and certification on non-
forum shopping.
G.R. No. 167333
The first guideline is to restrict the concept of newly-
discovered evidence to only such evidence that can satisfy
the following requisites, namely:
(1) the evidence was discovered after trial;
(2) such evidence could not have been discovered and
produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable
diligence;
(3) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative, or impeaching; and
(4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably
change the judgment if admitted.
G.R. No. 169694
Apart from the provisional remedies expressly recognized
and made available under Rule 56 to Rule 61 of the Rules of
Court, the Court has sanctioned only the issuance of
the status quo ante order but only to maintain the last,
actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things that
preceded the controversy.
This was resorted to when the projected proceedings in the
case made the conservation of the status quo desirable or
essential, but the affected party neither sought such relief
or the allegations in his pleading did not sufficiently make
out a case for a temporary restraining order. The status quo
order was thus issued motu proprio on equitable
considerations. Also, unlike a temporary restraining order
or a preliminary injunction, a status quo order is more in
the nature of a cease and desist order, since it neither
directs the doing or undoing of acts as in the case of
prohibitory or mandatory injunctive relief.
G.R. No. 170192
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
46
Recantation by a witness is nothing new, for it is a frequent
occurrence in criminal proceedings. As a general rule, it is
not well regarded by the courts due to its nature as the
mere afterthought of the witness. To be given any value or
weight, it should still be subjected to the same tests for
credibility in addition to its being subject of the rule that it
be received with caution.
G.R. No. 170192
Double jeopardy could not result from prosecuting and
convicting the accused for both crimes considering that
they were entirely distinct from each other not only from
their being punished under different statutes but also from
their elements being different.
G.R. No. 171420
Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to
determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed; and that the respondent, who is probably guilty
thereof, should be held for trial.
G.R. No. 171420
It is a sound judicial policy for the courts to refrain from
interfering in the conduct of the preliminary investigation,
and to just leave to the DOJ the ample latitude of discretion
in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence
to establish probable cause for the prosecution of
offenders. Consistent with this policy, the courts do not
review and reverse the Secretary of Justice's findings and
conclusions on probable cause except in clear cases of
grave abuse of discretion.
G.R. No. 171420
Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently
provides as follows:
Section 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its
review. - If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold
the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and
information. He shall certify under oath in the information
that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has
personally examined the complainant and his witnesses; that
there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof;
that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the
evidence submitted against him; and that he was given an
opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise,
he shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint.
xxxx
G.R. No. 172682
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court lays down the
proper procedure in the event of the death of a litigant,
viz.:
Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. - Whenever a
party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby
extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform
the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal
representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to
comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary
action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted
for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator and the court may appoint a
guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
xxxx
G.R. No. 172682
Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court enumerates the
following actions that survive the death of a party, namely:
(1) recovery of real or personal property, or an interest
from the estate;
(2) enforcement of liens on the estate; and
(3) recovery of damages for an injury to person or property.
On the one hand, Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of
Court lists the actions abated by death as including:
(1) claims for funeral expenses and those for the last
sickness of the decedent;
(2) judgments for money; and
(3) all claims for money against the deceased, arising from
contract, express or implied.
G.R. No. 175592
A child may be a competent witness, unless the trial court
determines upon proper showing that the child's mental
maturity is such as to render him incapable of perceiving
the facts respecting which he is to be examined and of
relating the facts truthfully. The testimony of the child of
sound mind with the capacity to perceive and make known
the perception can be believed in the absence of any
showing of an improper motive to testify. Once it is
established that the child fully understands the character
and nature of an oath, the testimony is given full credence.
G.R. No. 183173
Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court expressly states that
any person "whose rights are affected by a statute,
executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation" may bring an action in the
appropriate Regional Trial Court "to determine any
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
47
question of construction or validity arising, and for a
declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder."
G.R. No. 189185
In this jurisdiction, the principle of precaution appearing in
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No.
09-6-8-SC) involves matters of evidence in cases where
there is lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a
causal link between human activity and environmental
effect. In such an event, the courts may construe a set of
facts as warranting either judicial action or inaction with
the goal of preserving and protecting the environment.
It is notable, therefore, that the precautionary principle
shall only be relevant if there is concurrence of three
elements, namely: uncertainty, threat of environmental
damage and serious or irreversible harm. In situations
where the threat is relatively certain, or that the causal link
between an action and environmental damage can be
established, or the probability of occurrence can be
calculated, only preventive, not precautionary measures,
may be taken. Neither will the precautionary principle apply
if there is no indication of a threat of environmental harm;
or if the threatened harm is trivial or easily reversible.
G.R. No. 213847
Admission to bail always involves the risk that the accused
will take flight. This is the reason precisely why the
probability or the improbability of flight is an important
factor to be taken into consideration in granting or denying
bail, even in capital cases. The exception to the
fundamental right to bail should be applied in direct ratio to
the extent of the probability of evasion of prosecution.
Apparently, an accused's official and social standing and his
other personal circumstances arc considered and
appreciated as tending to render his flight improbable.
The petitioner has proven with more than sufficient
evidence that he would not be a flight risk. For one, his
advanced age and fragile state of health have minimized
the likelihood that he would make himself scarce and
escape from the jurisdiction of our courts.
G.R. No. 192536
Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court expressly states: "An
appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not
be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be
dismissed outright."
G.R. No. 194226
An indispensable party is one who has such an interest in
the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication
cannot be made in its absence without injuring or affecting
that interest.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
G.R. No. 194226
There is no question that as a provisional remedy to
prevent irreparable injury pending the final determination
of the action, injunction can bind only the parties in the
action, or their privies or successors-in-interest. No person
who has not been impleaded and duly served with the
summons should be adversely affected by the outcome of
the action. The principle that a person cannot be prejudiced
by a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which it
has not been made a party conforms to the constitutional
guarantee of due process of law.
G.R. No. 201607
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the
Constitution or the law; it cannot be acquired through a
waiver; it cannot be enlarged by the omission of the
parties; it cannot be conferred by the acquiescence of the
court. Specifically, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended,
did not vest jurisdiction in the RTC over matters relating to
the Civil Service. Consequently, the RTC could not arrogate
unto itself the hearing and decision of a subject matter
outside of its jurisdiction.
G.R. No. 202597
Section 2(g), Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 2. Nature and purpose. - The pre-trial is mandatory.
The court shall consider:
x x xx
(g) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings,
or summary judgment, or of dismissing the action should a
valid ground therefor be found to exist;
x x xx
To be clear, the rule only spells out that unless the motion
for such judgment has earlier been filed the pre-trial may
be the occasion in which the court considers the propriety
of rendering judgment on the pleadings or summary
judgment. If no such motion was earlier filed, the pre-trial
judge may then indicate to the proper party to initiate the
rendition of such judgment by filing the necessary
motion. Indeed, such motion is required by either Rule 34
(Judgment on the Pleadings) or Rule 35 (Summary
Judgment) of the Rules of Court. The pre-trial judge
cannot motu proprio render the judgment on the pleadings
or summary judgment. In the case of the motion for
summary judgment, the adverse party is entitled to counter
the motion.
G.R. No. 211504
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
48
Consistent with the policy of encouraging alternative
dispute resolution methods, therefore, any doubt should be
resolved in favor of arbitration.
G.R. No. 211937
We emphasize that an appeal by petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 is available only as a remedy
from a decision or final order of a lower court.1wphi1 This
limitation is imposed by Section 5 of Article VIII of the
Constitution, which pertinently provides:
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
xxxx
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide,
final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
xxxx
Implementing the limitation is Section 1 of Rule 45, to wit:
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.-A party
desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order
or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan,
the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other
courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the
Supreme Court a verified petition for review
on certiorari. The petition may include an application for a
writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies
and shall raise only questions of law, which must be
distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the same
provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same
action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.
On the other hand, the review of the decisions, awards and
final orders or resolutions of quasi-judicial offices or bodies
is through the petition for review under Rule 43.
G.R. No. 211937
Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution governs the
review of the COA, in that the COA 's decisions, final orders
or rulings may be brought to the Supreme Court
on certiorari by the aggrieved pai1y within 30 days from
receipt of a copy thereof. To differentiate this review from
the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, the
Court incorporated a new rule (Rule 64) in the 1997
revision of the Rules of Court under the title Review of'
Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the
Commission on Elections and the Commission on
Audit. Except for the period for bringing the petition for
review, Rule 64 is a replication of the provisions of Rule 65
on the special civil action for certiorari.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING
 49

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman

To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)

COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING