Jeffrey N.

Reyes Remedial Law Review 1

LLB-IV BLOCK B

CASE DIGEST NO. 1

Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals

Pinausukan Seafood House, Roxas Boulevard, In., petitioner vs. Far East Bank &
Trust Company, Bank of the Philippine Islands and Hector I. Galura, respondents
G.R. No. 159926, January 20, 2014

FACTS:
Bonier de Guzman, then the President of petitioner corporation (Pinausukan) executed four
real estate mortgages involving petitioners parcel of land in favor of Far East Bank and Trust
Company (BPI). The parcel of land was registered under the name of Pinausukan. Due to unpaid
obligation, the Bank commenced proceedings for the extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgages.
Learning of the impending sale of its property by reason of the foreclosure of the
mortgages, Pinausukan, represented by Zsae Carrie de Guzman, brought against the Bank and the
sheriff an action for the annulment of real estate mortgages in the RTC (Civil Case No. 01-0300)
averring that Bonier had obtained the loans only in his personal capacity and had constituted the
mortgages on the corporate asset without Pinausukan's consent through a board resolution.
The counsels of the parties did not appear in court on the date scheduled for hearing.
Accordingly, the RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 01-0300 for failure to prosecute. The order of
dismissal attained finality. The sheriff issued a notice of extrajudicial sale concerning the property
of Pinausukan. The notice was received by Pinausukan a week later.
Pinausukan inquired from the RTC and learned that Atty. Michael Dale Villaflor (Atty.
Villaflor), its counsel of record, had not informed it about the order of dismissal issued on October
31, 2002. Pinausukan brought the petition for annulment in the CA seeking the nullification of the
order of October 31, 2002 dismissing Civil Case No. 01-0300.
The CA dismissed the petition for annulment.

ISSUE:
Whether or not CA has jurisdiction over the case
HELD:
YES. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), formal
establishment of the annulment of a judgment or final order as an action independent from the
generic classification of litigations in which the subject matter was not capable of pecuniary
estimation, and expressly vested the exclusive original jurisdiction over such action in the CA. The
action in which the subject of the litigation was incapable of pecuniary estimation continued to be
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC, which replaced the CFI as the court of general
jurisdiction. Since then, the RTC no longer had jurisdiction over an action to annul the judgment
of the RTC, eliminating all concerns about judicial stability. To implement this change, the Court
introduced a new procedure to govern the action to annul the judgment of the RTC in the 1997
revision of the Rules of Court under Rule 47, directing in Section 2 that the annulment may be
based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

CASE DIGEST NO. 2

Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals

Enaida F. Lanting, petitioner, vs. Honorable Ombuddsman, Anti-Graft

Investigator Oscar Ramos, Mayor Lito Atienza, Emmanuel Sision, Virgilio Forbes,
Charito Rumbo, Director Erlinda Magalong and Ernesto Saw, Jr., respondents
G.R. No. 141426, May 6, 2005

FACTS:
Zenaida F. Lanting, petitioner, was the Administrative Officer IV of the City Council of
Manila. She filed with the Office of the Ombudsman an affidavit-complaint charging then Manila
Vice-Mayor Jose Atienza, Jr., now City Mayor, Emmanuel Sison, Secretary to the City Council,
and Charito Rumbo, Human Resource Management Officer III, respondents, with violation of
Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). She alleged that these city
officials unlawfully and feloniously appointed Ernesto Saw, Jr., a Chinese citizen working in
Taiwan, and brother-in-law of Charito Rumbo, to the position of Researcher in the City Council.
Petitioner also questions the appointment in the City Government of several individuals which are
relatives of the respondents. Petitioner also questions the appointment in the City Government of
several individuals which are relatives of CSC Director Erlinda Magalong.
 Respondents city officials filed their joint counter-affidavit denying petitioners charges. They
averred that Ernesto Saw, Jr. is a Filipino citizen as shown by his birth certificate and Personnel
Data Sheet. Assuming that he is a Chinese citizen, such fact alone would not disqualify him from
being employed in the City of Manila, there being no law prohibiting a foreigner from being
employed as researcher or consultant in the government.
The Graft Investigator Officer issued a resolution recommending that petitioners complaint
be dismissed. It stated that: first, the evidence does not warrant the filing of graft charges; and
second, the appointments are governed by the Civil Service Commission.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution on the ground that the
Investigator conveniently and intentionally skirted the issue of falsification of public documents
which are crystal clear the complaint. Petitioner then prayed for a re-investigation of her complaint
by a Special Prosecutor. The Ombudsman denied the motion.

Dissatisfied, Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and mandamus. Aside from
several procedural errors, the petition was dismissed on the ground that the CA has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the assailed Ombudsmans resolution.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was again denied. The CA held that the
Congress through The Ombudsman Act of 1989 designated only the Supreme Court as the
appellate authority in Ombudsman decisions in criminal cases.

ISSUE:

Whether or not CA has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the assailed Ombudsmans
resolution

HELD:

NO. Petitioners complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman is for violation
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Acts. It is not an administrative complaint. Nowhere in
petitioners complaint did she allege administrative offenses, such as dishonesty or misconduct on
the part of respondents. Considering that petitioners complaint is criminal in nature, the Supreme
Court has the sole authority to review the Ombudsmans Resolutions on pure question of law as
expressly mandated in Section 14, 2nd paragraph of R.A. 6770, otherwise known as The
Ombudsman Act of 1989

In administrative and disciplinary cases, appeals from the Ombudsman must be taken to
the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.