Ateneo De Davao College of Law

Jison v. CA 164 SCRA 339 (August 15, 1988)

Ruling: Facts: Under a Contract to Sell, respondent Robert O. Phillips & Sons, Inc. sold a subdivision lot to petitioners, spouses Jison for the agreed price of Php 55,000.00 with 8% interest per annum, payable on installment basis. Pursuant to the contract, the spouses paid the Php 11,000 down payment on October 20, 1961. y y October 27, 1961 May 8, 1965 = spouses paid Php 533.85 Due to failure of petitioners to build a house as provided in the contract, a penalty of Php 5.00/sqm. was imposed. Monthly amortization increased to Php 707.24 Jan. 1, 1966 ; Feb. 1, 1966; March 1, 1966 = spouses failed to pay on said dates although the spouses subsequently paid the amounts due and was accepted. ( Na-late sa bayad ) 1 From October 1966 January 1967 , petitioners failed to pay their loans. On Jan. 11, 1967, respondent sent a letter to petitioners stating that their account was 4 months overdue. Another letter was sent on Feb. 27, 1967 reminding petitioners of the automatic rescission clause of the contract. March 1, 1967 petitioners eventually paid. 2 Feb. 1967 April 1967 , petitioners failed to pay. On April 6, 1967 respondent sent a letter to the spouses informing them that the contract was cancelled April 19, 1967 petitioners tendered payment for all the installments already due but tender was refused. Petitioners filed a complaint for specific performance. Trial court dismissed the case and declared contract cancelled. CA affirmed trial court s ruling. In obligations with a penal clause, the judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor [Art. 1229; Hodges v. Javellana, G.R. No. L-17247, April 28, 1962, 4 SCRA 1228]. In this connection, the Court said: It follows that, in any case wherein there has been a partial or irregular compliance with the provisions in a contract for special indemnification in the event of failure to comply with its terms, courts will rigidly apply the doctrine of strict construction and against the enforcement in its entirety of the industry.' where it is clear from the terms of the contract that the amount or character of the indemnity is fixed without regard to the probable damages which might be anticipated as a result of a breach of the terms of the contract; or, in other words, where the indemnity provided for is essentially a mere penalty having for its principal object the enforcement of compliance with the corporations; (Laureano v. Kilayco, 32 Phil. 194 (1943). This principle was reiterated in Makati Development Corp. v. Empire Insurance Co. [G.R. No. L-21780, June 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 557] where the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance reducing the subdivision lot buyer's liability from the stipulated P12,000.00 to Plaintiffs after finding that he had partially performed his obligation to complete at least fifty percent (50%) of his house within two (2) years from March 31, 1961, fifty percent (50%) of the house having been completed by the end of April 1961.

y y y

Issue: Whether the CA erred in not holding the respondent s act of forfeiting all previous payments made by petitioners is CONTRARY TO LAW, highly iniquitous and unconscionable.
1

***In short, spouses failed to pay the respondent on their due dates.

October 1, 1966; November 1, 1966; December 1, 1966; January 1, 1967 2 February 1, 1967; March 1, 1967; April 1, 1967

Ateneo De Davao College of Law

What the plain view cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification - whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused - and permits the warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them; the plain view doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges

People v. Leangsiri G.R. No. 112659 (Jan. 24, 1996)

Facts: Leangsiri was in the act of bringing heroine when he was arrested at NAIA. He told authorities that he was to deliver the contraband to three people at Las Palmas Hotel-Manila. Leangsiri was brought to the headquarters of NARCOM (Narcotics Command) for further investigation. A team was formed to conduct follow-up operations of the case. The team and agents then proceeded to Las Palmas Hotel and allowed Leangsiri to check in at Room 504 with the confiscated black suitcase containing the heroin. Leangsiri received a call from a contact that the suitcase would be picked up at 10 pm. Amidu met with Omogbolahan and Bhola at the hotel lobby and proceeded to Room 504. Leangsiri gave the suitcase to Amidu and his companions. After leaving the room, NARCOM agents arrested Amidu, Omogbolahan and Bhola. Amidu told authorities that she is staying at Room 413 of the same hotel. NARCOM accompanied by the hotel s owner searched Room 413 and found a piece of paper with SUCHANDA LEANGSIRI written on it tucked within the pages of Amidu s Telephone and address book. The team then proceeded to Royal Palm hotel where Omogbolahan and Bhola were staying and searched their room. The search yielded 2 black suitcases with false bottoms similar with the suitcase of Leangsiri only that they were smaller in size. A masking tape and a transparent bag was also found in the room.

The appellants were charged and were convicted in conspiring to transport heroin violative of RA 6425. Hence this petition, alleging that the search is illegal being conducted not in the direct premises of the arrest.
Issue: Whether the items confiscated without a search warrant is illegal? Held/Ruling: YES In the case at bar, appellants were arrested in Room 504 of the Las Palmas Hotel. The piece of paper bearing Leangsiri s name was obtained through a warrantless search of Room 413 of the same hotel, and found tucked within the pages of appellant Amidu s telephone and address book. Clearly, the warrantless search is illegal and the piece of paper bearing Leangsiri s name cannot be admitted as evidence against appellants. The inadmissibility of this evidence will not, however, exculpate appellants. Its exclusion does not destroy the prosecution s case against appellants. The remaining evidence still established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. xxx Objects in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine may not, however, be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant s guilt. The plain view doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. x x x Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court stated the following limitations on the application of the doctrine.