Indophil Textile Mills, Inc.

vs Adviento
GR no. 171212, August 4, 2014
Labor Law
Peralta,J.:
Facts: Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in business of
manufacturing thread for weaving. Respondent, Engr. Adviento, was hired by
petitioner to maintain its facilities. Respondent filed a complaint with the RTC
alleging that he contracted with occupational disease by reason of the gross
negligence of petitioner to provide him with safe, healthy, and workable
environment. Petitioner assailed the jurisdiction of the RTC on the ground
that
it
is
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Labor
Arbiter.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
respondents complaint praying for moral damages, exemplary damages,
compensatory damages, anchored on petitioners alleged gross negligence
in failing to provide a safe and healthy working environment for respondent.
Ruling: Yes, the maintenance of a safe and healthy workplace is ordinarily a
subject of labor cases. More, the acts complained of appear to constitute
matters involving employee-employer relations since respondent used to be
the Civil Engineer of petitioner. However, it should be stressed that
respondents claim for damages is specifically grounded on petitioners gross
negligence to provide a safe, healthy and workable environment for its
employees a case of quasi-delict.

Lim vs HMR Phil., Inc.

GR no. 201483, Aug. 4, 2014
Labor Law
Mendoza, J.:
Facts: Lim filed a case for illegal dismissal and money claims against the
respondents. Respondents were ordered to pay Lims full back wages
reckoned from his dismissal on February 3,2001 up to the promulgation of
this decision. Lim appealed after the decision has become final and
executory, contending that the payment of back wages should be from his
dismissal up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Issue: Whether or not the recomputation of backwages up to the date of
actual reinstatement would violate the principle of immutability of
judgments.
Ruling. No, the nature of an illegal dismissal case requires that backwages
continue to add on until full satisfaction. The computation required to reflect
full satisfaction does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final
decision being implemented as the illegal dismissal ruling stands. Thus, in
the present case, a computation of backwages until actual reinstatement is
not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments.

Villarosa vs Festin
GR no. 212953, Aug. 5, 2014
Remedial Law
Velasco, J.:
Facts: The petitioner and respondent were rival candidates for the mayoralty
post. Respondent was proclaimed the victor. Petitioner filed a Petition for
Protest Ad Cautelam before the RTC alleging irregularities in the conduct of
elections. RTC declared void the proclamation of the respondent. Respondent
elevated the case to the COMELEC which subsequently granted the request
of the respondent for a preliminary injunction. Petitioner assailed the
interlocutory order by way of Certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not petitioners recourse is proper.
Ruling: No, Certiorari will not generally lie against an order, ruling, or
decision of a Commission on Elections (COMELEC) division for being
premature, taking into account the availability of the plain, speedy and
adequate remedy of a motion for reconsideration. With the availability of a
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at petitioners disposal, his hasty resort
to certiorari to the Supreme Court (SC) cannot be justified.

Association of Flood Victims, vs. COMELEC

GR no. 203775, Aug. 5, 2014

Remedial Law
Carpio, J,:
Facts: Petitioners and Hernandez filed a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court against the COMELEC when it issued Minute Resolution
No. 12-0859. Kindly include a brief description on what is the minute
resolution all about prompting the petitioners to sue COMELEC.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners have legal capacity to sue.
Ruling: No, Article 44 (2) lists the juridical persons with capacity to sue, thus:
The following are juridical persons:
(2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose,
created by law; their personality begins as soon as they have been
constituted according to law.
In their petition, it stated that Association of Flood victims is a non-profit and
non-partisan organization in the process of formal incorporation. Clearly, the
petitioner cannot be considered a juridical person which can be a party to a
civil action.

Tan vs. Diamante

A.C No. 7766, Aug. 5, 2014
Legal Ethics
Facts: Petitioner filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against the
respondent charging him of violating the CPR and the lawyers oath for
fabricating and using a spurious court order, and for failing to keep his client
informed of the status of the case.
Issue: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for
violating the CPR.
Ruling: Yes, Respondents conduct of employing a crooked and deceitful
scheme to keep complainant in the dark and conceal his cases true status
through the use of a falsified court order evidently constitutes Gross
Misconduct. In cases where lawyers engaged in unlawful, dishonest, and
deceitful conduct by falsifying documents, the Supreme Court (SC) found
them guilty of Gross Misconduct and disbarred them. Basis?

Agot vs. Rivera

A.C no. 8000, Aug. 5, 2014

Legal Ethics
Facts: Complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent
charging him of violating the CPR and the lawyers oath for
misrepresentation, deceit, and failure to account for and return her money
despite several demands.
Issue: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for
violating the CPR.
Ruling: Yes, a lawyers failure to return upon demand the funds held by him
on behalf of his client, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated
the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client.
Basis?

Caram vs. Segui

GR no. 193652, Aug. 5, 2014
Remedial law

Villarama Jr., J:
Facts: The RTC had dismissed petitioners petition for the issuance of a writ of
amparo which petitioner filed in order for her to regain parental authority and
custody of Julian Yusay Caram (Baby Julian), her biological child, from the
respondent officers of the Department of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD).
Issue: Whether or not a petition for a writ of amparo is the proper recourse
for obtaining parental authority and custody of a minor child.
Ruling: No, the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem
of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, its coverage, in its
present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof. The
privilege of the writ of amparo is a remedy available to victims of
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats of a similar
nature, regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission
is a public official or employee or a private individual. It is envisioned
basically to protect and guarantee the right to life, liberty and security of
persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of life.

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs. Cabiles

GR no. 170139, Aug. 5, 2014
Labor Law/Constitutional Law

Leonen Jr., J.:

Facts: This is a petition for review on Certiorari assailing the CAs decision
declaring respondents dismissal illegal, directing petitioner to pay
respondents three-month salary equivalent to New Taiwan Dollar 46,080.00,
and ordering it to reimburse the NT$3,000.00 withheld from respondent, and
pay her NT$300.00 attorneys fees.
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred when it affirmed the ruling of the NLRC
finding the respondent illegally dismissed, awarding her 3 months worth of
salary, the reimbursement of the cost of her repatriation, and attorneys fees
despite the alleged existence of just cause of termination.
Ruling: No, Management prerogative is recognized in law and in our
jurisprudence. This prerogative, however, should not be abused. It is
tempered with the employees right to security of tenure. The burden of
proving that there is just cause for termination is on the employer. The
employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the
dismissal was for a justifiable cause. Failure to show that there was valid or
just cause for termination would necessarily mean that the dismissal was
illegal. Due process requires that the probationary employee be informed of
such standards at the time of his or her engagement so he or she can adjust
his or her character or workmanship accordingly. The employer is required to
give the charged employee at least two written notices before termination;
Aside from the notice requirement, the employee must also be given an
opportunity to be heard.
In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.,
582 SCRA 254 (2009), the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the clause or for
three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less is
unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and substantive due
process.
Section 10 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995
provides that the foreign employer and the local employment agency are
jointly and severally liable for money claims including claims arising out of an
employer-employee relationship and/or damages.

People vs. Go
GR no. 191015, Aug. 6, 2014
Remedial Law
Del Castillo Jr., J.:

Facts: PDIC filed a complaint for two counts of Estafa thru falsification of
commercial documents against private respondents. After the presentation
of all of prosecutions evidence, the respondents filed a demurrer to evidence
with leave of court. The presiding judge granted the demurrer to evidence.
No motion for reconsideration was filed by the prosecutor, but only the PDIC
which lacked the written approval of the public prosecutor. The prosecution,
thru OSG, filed a petition for certiorari to the CA claiming that the order was
issued with grave abuse of discretion. CA denied the petition because the
order became final and executor since they failed to file a motion for
reconsideration, and thus double jeopardy attached.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Ruling: Yes, A void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect, force or
efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is nonexistent. The
granting of a demurrer to evidence should be exercised with caution, taking
into consideration not only the rights of the accused, but also the right of the
private offended party to be vindicated of the wrongdoing done against him,
for if it is granted, the accused is acquitted and the private complainant is
generally left with no more remedy.

People vs. Steve

GR no. 204911, Aug. 6, 2014
Remedial Law
Perez Jr., J.:

Facts: The RTC Decision found Mike Steve y Basman and Rashid Mangtoma y
Noni guilty beyond reasonable doubt of drug pushing, particularly for
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165),
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the evidence
of the prosecution was sufficient to convict both accused-appellants of the
alleged sale of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, in violation of
Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. Kindly simplify. Inclusion of appellate courts is no
longer necessary.
Ruling: No, In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence
should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses
especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the
contrary. The SC has time and again adopted the chain of custody rule, a
method of authenticating evidence which requires that the admission of an
exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. The defense of
frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence to overcome
the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular
performance of their official duties. On the other hand, courts generally view
the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused
can concoct it to suit his or her defense.

Midway Maritime and Technological Foundation vs. Castro

GR no. 189061, Aug. 6, 2014
Civil Law
Reyes, J.:
Kindly review this case. The facts do not support well your issue and ruling.

Facts: The petitioner Midway Maritime and Technological Foundation is the

lessee of two parcels of land in Cabanatuan City. Its president, Dr.
Manglicmot, is married to Adoracion Cloma, who is the registered owner of
the property. Inside said property stands a residential building, which is now
the subject matter of the dispute, owned by the respondents.
Issue: Whether or not there was a lease agreement between the petitioner
and the respondents as regards the residential building.
Ruling: No. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the
buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally.
Nemo dat quod non habet. A building by itself is a real or immovable
property distinct from the land on which it is constructed and therefore can
be a separate subject of contracts.

UPSI Property Holdings, Inc. vs. Diesel Construction Co., Inc.

GR no. 200250, Aug. 6, 2014
Remedial Law
Mendoza, J.:

Facts: The present controversy stemmed from a complaint filed by

respondent Diesel Construction Co., Inc. (Diesel) against UPSI before the
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) for collection of unpaid
balance of the contract price and retention money under their construction
agreement, damages for unjustified refusal to grant extension of time,
interest, and attorneys fees.
Issue: Whether or not the inclusion of the legal interest in the writ of
execution despite the silence of the Court in the dispositive portion of its
judgment is binding.
Ruling: No, Any attempt on the part of the entities charged with the
execution of a final judgment to insert, change or add matters not clearly
contemplated in the dispositive portion violates the rule on immutability of
judgments. The rule is that in case of ambiguity or uncertainty in the
dispositive portion of a decision, the body of the decision may be scanned for
guidance in construing the judgment.

Padilla vs. Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corp.

GR no. 207376, Aug. 6, 2014
Remedial Law
Villarama Jr., J.:

Facts: PNB entered into several Contracts of Sale with respondent Globe
Asiatique. Respondent defaulted in payment of their balance to PNB. In the
course of credit monitoring and verification, PNB claimed it discovered 231
out of 240 Contracts to Sell to have inexistent names and addresses of
buyers. PNB filed a civil case against Globe Asiatique.
Issue: Whether or not a court can take cognizance of a compulsory
counterclaim despite the fact that the corresponding complaint was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Ruling: Yes, under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is now explicitly
provided that the dismissal of the complaint due to failure of the plaintiff to
prosecute his case is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. The effect of
this amendment on previous rulings on whether the dismissal of a complaint
carries with it the dismissal of the counterclaims as well, was discussed in
the case of Pinga v. The Heirs of German Santiago, 494 SCRA 393 (2006).

People vs. Piccio

GR no. 193681, Aug. 6, 2014
Remedial Law
Perlas-Bernabe, J.:

Facts: 16 members of PEPCI was accused of libel. The information was

quashed in the RTC. People of the Philippines, through the private
prosecutors, and with conformity of the public prosecutor filed a Notice of
Appeal. The respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the
brief for the private complainants did not carry the conforme of the OSG. CA
denied the motion which prompted the OSG to file its comment. In its
comment, the OSG asserted that the appeal, without its conformity, must fail
because under the law it is only the OSG that should represent the People in
criminal cases. CA dismissed the appeal, hence this petition.
Issue: whether or not petitioners, being mere private complainants, may
appeal an order of the trial court dismissing a criminal case even without the
OSGs conformity.
Ruling: No, Jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a criminal case
by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the OSG
that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People. The
rationale therefor is rooted in the principle that the party affected by the
dismissal of the criminal action is the People and not the petitioners who are
mere complaining witnesses. For this reason, the People are therefore
deemed as the real parties-in-interest in the criminal case and, therefore,
only the OSG can represent them in criminal proceedings pending in the CA
or in this Court. In view of the corollary principle that every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest who stands
to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party
entitled to the avails of the suit, an appeal of the criminal case not filed by
the People as represented by the OSG is perforce dismissible. The private
complainant or the offended party may, however, file an appeal without the
intervention of the OSG but only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is
concerned. He may also file a special civil action for certiorari even without
the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of preserving his interest in
the civil aspect of the case.

Rio vs. Colegio de Sta. Rosa-Makati

GR no. 189629, Aug. 6, 2014
Labor Law
Perez, J.:
Case can focus on gross inefficiency as reflected in your ruling. Kindy restate them properly in your facts and issue.

Facts: Petitioner was hired by respondent Colegio De Sta. Rosa-Makati as a

part-time school physician in June 1993. Respondent charged petitioner with
a violation on the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools and also the
Labor Code. Due to the charge, petitioner was preventively suspended for 30
days. Petitioner filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and illegal
suspension. LA ruled in favor of the petitioner. On appeal, the NLRC reversed
the decision of the LA. In a petition for Certiorari to the CA, the CA denied
due to the failure of performing the tasks required of her.
Issue: Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in
reversing the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, this being the issue in the petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA.
Ruling: No, Based on Article 282 of the Labor Code, in relation to Section 94
of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, petitioner was legally
dismissed on the ground of gross inefficiency and incompetence, and
negligence in the keeping of school or student records, or tampering with or
falsification of records. Gross inefficiency is closely related to gross neglect
because both involve specific acts of omission resulting in damage to
another.

People vs. Cerdon

GR no. 201111, Aug. 6, 2014
Criminal Law
Perez, J.:

Facts: Accused was charged for violation of Sec. 5, Article II of RA 9165

following a buy-bust operation. He now contends that he should not be
held liable since there was absence of media representatives during the
operation.
Issue: Whether or not the absence of representatives from the media or the
DOJ renders the arrest illegal.
Ruling: No, The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers
conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence
confiscated in the presence of representatives from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) pursuant to said guidelines does not
automatically render appellants arrest illegal or the item seized from him
inadmissible. The general rule is that marking of the seized items to
truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are
eventually the ones offered in evidence should be done, (1) in the
presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon
confiscation. In People v. Gum-Oyen, 585 SCRA 668 (2009), a testimony that
included the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the
presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules
on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates
even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending
team.

Our Haus Realty Devt Corp. vs. Parian

GR no. 204651, Aug. 6, 2014

Labor Law
Brion, J.:
The facts is not related to your issue. You were discussing underpayment due
to below minimum rates but your ruling and issue discusses about deduction
of value facility,
Facts: Respondents were all labourers for petitioner, a company engaged in
construction business. When Our Haus experienced financial distress, it
suspended some of its construction projects and asked affected workers,
including the respondents, to take vacation leaves. When they were asked to
report back but instead of doing so, they filed a complaint for underpayment
of their daily wages because their wages was below the minimum rates
prescribed by the wage order.
Issue: Whether or not the values of the board and lodging cannot be
deducted from their wages for failure to comply with the requirements set by
law.
Ruling: No, under the law, only the value of the facilities may be deducted
from the employees wages but not the value of supplements. If it is
primarily for the employees gain, then the benefit is a facility; if its provision
is mainly for the employers advantage, then it is a supplement. A facility
may only be deducted from the wage if the employer was authorized in
writing by the concerned employee. The valuation of a facility must be
supported by relevant documents such as receipts and company records for
it to be considered as fair and reasonable.

Benson Industries Employees Union vs. Benson Industries Inc.

GR no. 200746, Aug. 6, 2014
Labor Law
Perlas-Bernabe, J.:
Facts: Benson Industries sent its employees a notice informing them of their
intended termination from employment on the ground of closure and/or
cessation of business operations. Meanwhile, petitioners filed a notice of
strike on the ground that the companys supposed closure was merely a ploy
to replace the union members with lower paid workers but it did not push
through due to the parties amicable settlement whereby the petitioners
accepted Bensons payment of separation pay computed at 15 days for
every year of service. This notwithstanding, petitioners claimed an additional
4 days per year of service based on their existing CBA that a Separation Pay
it should be equivalent to not less than 19 days pay for every year of service.
Issue: Whether or not the CA correctly deleted the award to petitioners of
additional separation benefits equivalent to four (4) days of work for every
year of service.
Ruling: No, when the obligation to pay separation benefits, however, is not
sourced from law (particularly, Article 297 of the Labor Code), but from
contract, such as an existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between
the employer and its employees, an examination of the latters provisions
becomes necessary in order to determine the governing parameters for the
said obligation. It is only in instances of retrenchment to prevent losses and
in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or
undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses that
employees whose employment has been terminated as a result are entitled
to separation pay.

People vs. Closa

GR no. 211049, Aug. 6, 2014

Criminal Law
Reyes, J.:
Facts: Accused was charged of two (2) counts of rape and one (1) count of
attempted rape of his minor daughter. Accused was found guilty by the RTC.
On appeal, accused assigned a lone error, that the prosecution failed to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, claiming that AAAs testimony was
riddled with inconsistencies and that, more importantly, she had retracted
her testimony.
Issue: Whether or not the testimony of the victim is sufficient for conviction.
Ruling: Yes, when a woman says she was raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that a rape was committed, and if her testimony meets
the test of credibility, conviction may issue on the basis thereof. A rape
victims testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since Filipino
children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders. Settled is the
rule that the findings of fact of the trial court are accorded the highest
degree of respect by this Court considering that the trial judge is able to
personally observe the demeanor of the victim and other witnesses. Thus,
the findings may be disturbed only when: (1) the conclusion is a finding
grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the
inferences made are manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of
discretion; and (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or
premised on the absence of evidence on record.

Heirs of Francisco Narvasa, Sr. vs. Imbornal

GR no. 182908, Aug. 6, 2014

Civil Law
Perlas-Bernabe, J.:
kindly review this case. kindly focus only to one issue. Since your ruling
explains about reconveyance and implied trust, might as well present the
same in your facts for a better appreciation.
Facts: This case is about a dispute between the heirs of Basilia Imbornal
concerning a parcel of land. In deed this is a land case, but what happened
to this case? how is this relate to your issues and ruling?
Issues:
1. Whether or not the descendants of Ciriaco are the exclusive owners of
the Motherland. Where is your discussion in the ruling re this?
2. Whether or not the descendants of respondent Victoriano are the
exclusive owners of the First Accretion. Where is the ruling re this?
3. Whether or not the descendants of Pablo are the exclusive owners of
the Second Accretion on the basis of the following grounds: (a)
prescription of the reconveyance action, which was duly raised as an
affirmative defense in the Amended Answer, and (b) the existence of
an implied trust between the Imbornal sisters and Ciriaco.
Ruling: As to the procedural matters, an action for reconveyance based on an
implied trust prescribes in ten (10) years, reckoned from the date of
registration of the deed or the date of issuance of the certificate of title over
the property,[39] if the plaintiff is not in possession. However, if the plaintiff
is in possession of the property, the action is imprescriptible.
As to the existence of implied trust, Article 1456 of the Civil Code provides
that a person acquiring property through fraud becomes, by operation of law,
a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the real owner of the property.
An implied trust arises, not from any presumed intention of the parties, but
by operation of law in order to satisfy the demands of justice and equity and
to protect against unfair dealing or downright fraud.

Palm Avenue Holding Inc. vs. Sandiganbayan

GR no. 173082, Aug. 6, 2014
Remedial Law
Peralta, J.:
Facts: The PCGG sequestered all the assets of the Palm Companies. The
Republic, represented by the PCGG, filed a civil case with the Sandiganbayan
but did not implead the Palm Companies. The Palm Companies pray for the
lifting of the Writ of Sequestriation against their assets since they were not
impleaded as party-defendants within the period prescribed by the
Constitution.
Issue: Whether or not Palm Companies were denied of their right to due
process
Ruling: Yes, The Courts ruling in Presidential Commission on Good
Government v. Sandiganbayan, 290 SCRA 639 (1998), which remains good
law, reiterates the necessity of the Republic to actually implead corporations
as defendants in the complaint, out of recognition for their distinct and
separate personalities, failure to do so would necessarily be denying such
entities their right to due process. Here, the writ of sequestration issued
against the assets of the Palm Companies is not valid because the suit in
Civil Case No. 0035 against Benjamin Romualdez as shareholder in the Palm
Companies is not a suit against the latter. The Court has held, contrary to the
assailed Sandiganbayan Resolution in G.R. No. 173082, that failure to
implead these corporations as defendants and merely annexing a list of such
corporations to the complaints is a violation of their right to due process for it
would be, in effect, disregarding their distinct and separate personality
without a hearing. Here, the Palm Companies were merely mentioned as
Item Nos. 47 and 48, Annex A of the Complaint, as among the corporations
where defendant Romualdez owns shares of stocks.

Primanila Plans Inc. vs. SEC

GR no. 193791, Aug. 6, 2014
Mercantile law
Reyes, J.:
Facts: Securities and Exchange Commission issued a cease and desist order
for violating RA 8799 otherwise known as the Securities Regulation Code.
What was the violation all about? Incomplete facts!
Issue: Whether or not the issuance of cease and desist order is valid
Ruling: Yes, to equally protect individuals and corporations from baseless and
improvident issuances, the authority of the SEC under this rule is
nonetheless with defined limits. A cease and desist order may only be issued
by the Commission after proper investigation or verification, and upon
showing that the acts sought to be restrained could result in injury or fraud
to the investing public. The law is clear on the point that a cease and desist
order may be issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) motu
proprio, it being unnecessary that it results from a verified complaint from an
aggrieved party.

ECE Realty and Devt vs. Hernandez

GR no. 212689, Aug. 6, 2014
Civil Law
Reyes, J.:
Incomplete facts to support further your issue of legal interest.
Facts: Respondent filed a complaint for specific performance against the
petitioner because of its failure to turnover the condominium unit on the
promised date.
Issue: Whether or not the imposition of legal interest is proper.
Ruling: Yes, Article 2209 of the New Civil Code provides that If the obligation
consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay,
the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall
be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of
stipulation, the legal interest, which is six percent per annum.Article 2209
of the New Civil Code provides that If the obligation consists in the payment
of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for
damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of
the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal
interest, which is six percent per annum. There is no doubt that ECE
incurred in delay in delivering the subject condominium unit, for which
reason the trial court was justified in awarding interest to the respondent
from the filing of his complaint. There being no stipulation as to interest,
under Article 2209 the imposable rate is six percent (6%) by way of
damages, following the guidelines laid down in the landmark case of Eastern
Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 78 (1994).

OSG Ship Management Manila vs Pellazar

GR no. 198367, Aug. 6, 2014
Labor Law
Brion, J.:
Facts: The respondent, an oiler in the vessel of MIT Delphina, filed a
complaint for permanent total disability benefits and damages against the
petitioners because his right hand was injured after it was struck by a solid
iron pipe. Facts do not contain information re the 120 day period. What is
this period all about?
Issue: Whether or not the respondent is already entitled to the permanent
total disability benefits after the lapse of 120-day period.
Ruling: No, The mere lapse of the 120-day period itself does not
automatically warrant the payment of permanent total disability benefits.
Entitlement to disability benefits by seamen on overseas work is a matter
governed, not only by medical findings but, by Philippine law and by the
contract between the parties.

People vs. Battad

GR no. 206368, Aug. 6, 2014
Criminal Law
Reyes, J.:
Kindly review this properly.
Facts: This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals which
affirmed the conviction of Battad of the crime of Rape.?????? How is this
related to your issue?
Issue: Whether or not the contention that the victim was already 5 to 6
months pregnant but the alleged incident occurred merely 3 months before
the victims medical examination would exonerate the accused.
Ruling: No, pregnancy is not an essential element of the crime of rape.
Whether the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused,
or by some unknown individual, is of no moment. What is important and
decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the
latters will or without her consent, and such fact was testified to by the
victim in a truthful manner.

Olongapo City vs. Subic Water and Sewerage Co., Inc.

GR no. 171626, Aug. 6, 2014
Remedial Law
Brion, J.:
Facts: This is a petition for Certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of
Appeals which directed the issuance of a writ of execution against Subic
Water and Sewerage Co., Inc.
Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in
allowing execution by mere motion even after the lapse of the five-year
period, when the delay is caused by the actions of the judgment-debtor.
Kindly support your issue by presenting more substance in your facts.
Ruling: Yes, Under Rule 39, Section 6, a judgment creditor has two modes in
enforcing the courts judgment. Execution may be either through motion or
an independent action. These two modes of execution are available
depending on the timing when the judgment creditor invoked its right to
enforce the courts judgment. Execution by motion is only available if the
enforcement of the judgment was sought within five (5) years from the date
of its entry. On the other hand, execution by independent action is
mandatory if the five-year prescriptive period for execution by motion had
already elapsed. However, for execution by independent action to prosper
the Rules impose another limitation the action must be filed before it is
barred by the statute of limitations which, under the Civil Code, is ten (10)
years from the finality of the judgment.

Del Carmen vs. Sabordo

GR no. 181723, Aug. 11, 2014
Civil Law
Peralta, J.:
Facts: Suico spouses obtained a loan from DBP, to secure the said loan, they
mortgaged several lots owned by them. Subsequently, they failed to pay
their loan obligations forcing DBP to foreclose the mortgage. Suico sold their
rights to Sabordo. After that, Suico were able to repurchase the foreclosed
properties. Sabordo filed a declaratory relief raising the issue whether or not
Suico has the right to recover from them the said lots.
Issue: Whether or not consignation was a judicial deposit based on a final
judgment and such, does not require compliance with the requirements of
Art. 1256 and 1257 of the NCC.
Ruling: No, consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the court
or judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses to
accept payment, and it generally requires a prior tender of payment. It
should be distinguished from tender of payment which is the manifestation
by the debtor to the creditor of his desire to comply with his obligation, with
the offer of immediate performance. Tender is the antecedent of
consignation, that is, an act preparatory to the consignation, which is the
principal, and from which are derived the immediate consequences which
the debtor desires or seeks to obtain. Tender of payment may be
extrajudicial, while consignation is necessarily judicial, and the priority of the
first is the attempt to make a private settlement before proceeding to the
solemnities of consignation. Tender and consignation, where validly made,
produces the effect of payment and extinguishes the obligation. Under
Article 1256, the only instances where prior tender of payment is excused
are: (1) when the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not appear at the
place of payment; (2) when the creditor is incapacitated to receive the
payment at the time it is due; (3) when, without just cause, the creditor
refuses to give a receipt; (4) when two or more persons claim the same right
to collect; and (5) when the title of the obligation.

People vs. Holgado

GR no. 207992, Aug. 11, 2014
Criminal Law
Leonen, J.:
Facts: The 2 accused were charged in an information in violation of RA 9165
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. They
were apprehended after the police have conducted a buy-bust operation.
Issue: Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish compliance with
the requisites of Sec. 21 of RA 9165 why this kind of issue? What prompted
the respondent in alleging that there was non- compliance of section 21?
Ruling: No, The elements that must be established to sustain convictions for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs are settled. In People v. Morales, 616 SCRA
223 (2010), this court stated: In actions involving the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof
that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. By failing to establish
identity of corpus delicti, noncompliance with Section 21 of Republic Act (RA)
No. 9165 indicates a failure to establish an element of the offense of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs. The physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures

Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. Pedrajas

GR no. 192993, Aug. 11, 2014

Labor Law
Peralta, J.:
Facts: Hernani Pedrajas was hired as Engine boy by the petitioner. Hernani,
while the vessel was in Italy, was found hanging on the upper deck of the
vessel with a rope tied to his neck. Petitioners claim that they have no
obligation to pay death benefits to the heirs of Hernani because the latters
death was self inflicted and therefore exempted from the coverage of death
benefits under the POEA-SEC.
Issue: Whether or not the suicide committed during his term of employment
will exempt the petitioners from paying death benefits to his beneficiaries.
Ruling: Yes, the death of a seaman during the term of his employment makes
the employer liable to the formers heirs for death compensation benefits.
This rule, however, is not absolute. The employer may be exempt from
liability if it can successfully prove that the seamans death was caused by
an injury directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act. Since the
petitioners were able to prove that Hernani committed suicide, Hernanis
death is not compensable and his heirs are not entitled to any compensation
or benefits.

Dept. of Agrarian Reform vs. Galle

GR no. 171836, Aug. 11, 2014

Agrarian Reform
Del Castillo, J.:
Facts: Respondent Galle owned two contagious parcels of land known as the
Patalon Coconut Estate in Patalon, Zamboanga City. DARAB conducted
summary administrative proceedings for the acquisition of the estate. Galle
filed a case for the determination of just compensation. Did Galle filed
directly with the SC? Kindly support well your issue.
Issue: Whether or not the Supreme Court may determine just compensation.
Ruling: No, the Supreme Court is not the proper forum for the determination
of just compensation, as it is not a trier of facts, and it cannot receive
evidence to fix the correct amount of just compensation. There is thus a
need to remand the case in order to properly compute the just compensation
that Galle and her heirs are entitled to, including interest and attorneys fees,
if any. This Court is not the proper forum for that, as it is not a trier of facts,
and it cannot receive evidence to fix the correct amount of just
compensation.

Vinuya vs Executive Secretary

GR no. 162230
August 13, 2014

Political Law
Bersamin, J.:
Facts: Petitioners, members of MALAYA LOLAS, a duly registered
organization with the SEC, formed for the purpose of providing aid to the
victims of rape by Japanese military forces during World War II. Petitioners
alleged that they were denied of help by the respondents in filing a claim
against Japanese officials and military officers, however the respondents
claim the contrary because their claims were already satisfied by Japans
compliance with the Peace treaty with the Philippines.
Issue: Can the respondents be compelled to espouse their claims for official
apology and other forms of reparations against Japan before the International
Court of Justice and other international tribunals.
Ruling: No. the Constitution has entrusted to the Executive Department the
conduct of foreign relations for the Philippines. Whether or not to espouse
petitioners' claim against the Government of Japan is left to the exclusive
determination and judgment of the Executive Department. The Court cannot
interfere with or question the wisdom of the conduct of foreign relations by
the Executive Department. Accordingly, we cannot direct the Executive
Department, either by writ of certiorari or injunction, to conduct our foreign
relations with Japan in a certain manner.

SM Land Inc. vs. Bases Conversion Authority

GR no. 203655
August 13, 2014

Civil Law (obligations and Contracts)

Velasco, J.:
Facts: SM Land, Inc. (SMLI) offered to pay the Bases Conversion and
Development Authority (BCDA) for the development of BCDA's properties in
Fort Bonifacio. BCDA claimed that SMLI's offer would be "prejudicial to
government's interest for it will not yield the best value for the government,
thus, BCDA terminated the competitive challenge for the selection of BCD A's
joint venture partner for the development of a portion of Fort Bonifacio.
Issue: Whether or not there is a perfected contract which bound the
government to complete the competitive challenge initiated by its
acceptance of SMLI' s unsolicited proposal.
Ruling: No. Neither BCDA's acceptance of SMLI's unsolicited proposal, its ,
issuance of the certification of successful negotiation, nor the terms of
reference did create a contract that could give rise to a right on the part of
SMLI and an obligation on the part of BCDA to adhere to a specific selection
process.
Article 1318 of the Civil Code provides the requisites of a contract:
(1) Consent of the contracting parties;
(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established.

Krystle Realty Development Corp. Vs Albin

GR no. 196117
August 13, 2014
Civil Law (Property)
Perlas-Bernabe, J.:

Facts: Respondent (Domingo)owned an undivided one-half portion of and

registered in his name and that Mariano, however on the strength of a
contract to sell and a Deed of Sale the lot was allged to have been sold to
Caridad and subsequently transferred to petitioner Krystle Realty
Development Corporation (Krystle Realty). The sale, however, as between
Domingo and Caridad was null and void because Domingos signature was
one of forgery,and thus, the respondents heir being a substitute, upon death
of Domingo, sought annulment of sale.
Issue: Whether or not Krystle Realty is a purchaser in good faith.
Ruling: No. Verily, one is considered a buyer in bad faith not only when he
purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his seller
but also when he has knowledge of facts which should have alerted him to
conduct further inquiry or investigation,as Krystle Realty in this case.
The Court finds Petitioner was aware of Domingos interest in the subject lot,
and that Caridad had no title in her name at the time of the sale, thus, giving
rise to the conclusion that it (Krystle Realty) had been reasonably apprised of
the ownership controversy over the subject lot. Krystle Realty proceeded
with the transaction without further examining the sellers title and thus,
could not claim to have purchased the subjectlot in good faith.

Tan vs Judge Usman

AM No. RTJ-14-2390
August 13, 2014
Remedial Law (Evidence)
Peralta, J,:

Facts: An administrative complaint was filed by the petitioner against

respondent for bribery and corruption because respondent was alleged to
have been paid P250,000.00 by their opponent, as evidenced by a receipt in
one of the pending case where petitioner is involved. Petitioner further
accused respondent of knowingly issuing an unjust interlocutory order when
he cited her in contempt and respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
Complainant now prays that respondent be meted the penalty of dismissal
from service for bribery and corruption, however respondent countered that
the allegations of bribery and corruption are baseless and unfounded.
Issue: Whether respondent can be held liable for bribery and corruption?
Ruling: No. In the absence of showing direct and convincing evidence to
prove the alleged bribery, respondent judge cannot be held guilty ofsaid
charge. In the instant case, no evidence was presented showing that
respondent in fact accepted or received money or anything from in relation
to the subject cases. Neither was there any evidence toshow that respondent
judge unlawfully or wrongfully used his official function for his own benefit or
personal gain.

City of Davao vs Court of Appeals

GR no. 200538
August 13, 2014
Remedial Law (Civil Procedure)
Mendoza, J.:

Facts: Davao City was the registered owner of a parcel of land claiming that
this same parcel of land was earlier donated by the late Tagolploce and delo
Cruz to be used as a public market but was not used as such, their heirs
wrote De Guzman,who was then Davao City Mayor, seeking reconveyance of
the said land, thereafter the land, through a deed of reconveyance, was
transferred in favor of the said heirs.A few months later, under its new
mayor, Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte it was discovered that the subject property
was sold, not donated, to Davao City,thus an annulment of deed of
reconveyance was sought by the city mayor and De Guzman was impleaded
as one of the parties to the case but the latter sought his name to be
dropped from the case because he was not real party in interest and the
latter likewise alleged that the treble fees/costs granted by the lower court
was unmeritorius.
Issue: Should De Guzman be impleaded in the case as real party in interest
for reconveying the parcel of land?
Ruling: Yes. The Court cannot see why the petition questioning the dropping
of De Guzman as co-defendant was patently without merit. His submission
that he was wrongfully impleaded as a party-defendant was not even passed
upon by the CA, which merely ruled that his remedy was not certiorari,
among others. Had there been merit in De Guzman's claim that he was
wrongfully impleaded, the CA could have ordered that he be dropped as codefendant, as it ordered the remand of the case to RTC for a full blown trial.
The CA, however, did not make such an order.
In the case at bench, the imposition of treble costs was not explained at all.
The CA imposed the amount ofP5,000.00 but it did not give any reason for
such imposition. As the CA never justified it, the imposition should be
stricken off.

Siverio, Sr. Vs Silverio, Jr.

GR no. 208828-9
August 13, 2014
Remedial Law (Special Proceedings)
Villarama Jr., J.:

Facts: The late Beatriz S. Silverio died without leaving a will on October 7,
1987. She was survived by her legal heirs,husband and legitimate children.
Subsequently, an intestate proceeding for the settlement of her estate was
filed by SILVERIO, SR. (husband of the deceased), in which a letter of
admnistration was granted allowing him to dispose of some of the estate of
the diseased. In the course of the proceedings, the parties filed different
petitions and appeal challenging several orders ofthe intestate court that
went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the letter of administration granted to respondent was valid
making the sale of property likewise valid?
Ruling: Yes. Respondents should not be prejudiced by the flip-flopping
appointment of Administrator by the intestate court, having relied in good
faith that the sale was authorized and with prior approval of the intestate
court under its Omnibus Order which remained valid and subsisting insofar
as it allowed the aforesaid sale.

Anchor Savings Bank vs Pinzman Realty and Development Corp.

GR no. 192304
August 13, 2014
Civil Law (Real Estate Mortgage)
Villarama Jr., J.:

Facts: Private respondents obtained a loan from the petitioner secured by a

real estate mortgage(parcels of land) however the former defaulted payment
of his obligation leading to extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged land.
Foreclosure sale was held where the petitioner emerged as the highest
bidder of the disputed properties, and a Certificate of Sale was issued in
favor of the petitioner. The private respondents prayed for the nullification of
the foreclosure sale alleging that the amount demanded in the Notice of
Extrajudicial Sale was exorbitant and excessive.
Issue: Whether the foreclosure of the usurious mortgage was valid.
Ruling: No. It is jurisprudential axiom that a foreclosure sale arising from a
usurious mortgage cannot be given legal effect. Since the Spouses Landrito,
the debtors in this case, were not given an opportunity to settle their debt, at
the correct amount and without the iniquitous interest imposed, no
foreclosure proceedings may be instituted. A judgment ordering a foreclosure
sale is conditioned upon a finding on the correct amount of the unpaid
obligation and the failure of the debtor to pay the said amount. In this case,
it has not yet been shown that the Spouses Landrito had already failed to
pay the correct amount of the debt and, therefore, a foreclosure sale cannot
be conducted in order to answer for the unpaid debt.

Yap vs Rover Maritime Services Corp.

GR no. 198342
August 13, 2014
Labor Law
Peralta, J.:

Facts: The deceased, Dovee M. Yap, was a seafarer who had been employed
by respondents from which on the last day of its employment contract he
met an accident.
On July 17, 2007, Dovee Yap filed against respondents a complaint for
permanent disability benefits, sickwages, reimbursement of hospital,
medical, and doctors expenses, actual, moral and exemplary damages, and
attorneys fees; during the pendency of the case, Dovee Yap died. His widow,
Remedios O. Yap, substituted him as party-complainant and the claim for
disability benefits was then converted into a claim for death benefits.
Issue: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the death of
her husband, Dovee Yap.
Ruling: No. The terms and conditions of a seafarers employment, including
claims for death and disability benefits, is a matter governed, not only by
medical findings, but by the contract he entered into with his employer and
the law which is deemed integrated therein. For as long as the stipulations in
the contract are not contrary to law,morals, public order, or public policy,
they have the force of law between the parties, to wit:
XXXX in order for the beneficiaries of a seafarer to be entitled to death
compensation from the employer, it must be proven that the death of the
seafarer (1) is work-related; and (2) occurred during the term of his
contract.XXXX
A perusal of the records would revealthat petitioner failed to prove by
substantial evidence that the death ofher husband occurred during the term
of his employment contract and that the cause of death was work-related.

Sevilla vs People
GR no. 194390
August 13, 2014
Remedial Law (Criminal Procedure)
Reyes, J.:

Facts: Sevilla, a former councilor of Malabon City, was charged in an

information for the felony of falsification of public document, penalized under
Article 171(4) of the RPC, however he pleaded not guilty during the
arraignment. The Sandiganbayan found him GUILTY of Falsification of Public
Documents Through Reckless Imprudence under Article 365 of the RPC. In
the instant petition, Sevilla asserts that the Sandiganbayan erred in finding
him guilty of the felony of falsification of public documents through reckless
imprudence because Information that was filed against him specifically
charged him with the commission of an intentional felony of falsification of
public documents under Article 171(4) of the RPC and hence, he could not
be convicted of falsification of public document through reckless imprudence
under Article 365 of the RPC, which is a culpable felony.
Issue: Whether Sevilla can be convicted of the felony of falsification of
public document through reckless imprudence notwithstanding that the
charge against him in the Information was for the intentional felony of
falsification of public document under Article 171(4) of the RPC.
Ruling: Yes. This is a case covered by the rule when there is a variance
between the allegation and proof, and is similar to some of the cases decided
by this Tribunal. To stress, reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of
public documents is an offense that is necessarily included in the willful act
of falsification of public documents, the latter being the greater offense. As
such, he can be convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of
public documents notwithstanding that the Information only charged the
willful act of falsification of public documents.

People vs Sanico
GR no. 208469
August 13, 2014
Remedial Law (Evidence)
Reyes, J.:

Facts: Two separate Information were filed against the accused-appellant

before the RTC (1) Acts of Lasciviousness and (2) for Rape, however during
the arraignment accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and so trial for the
case ensued. AAA, a 12 year old minor was alleged to have been molested
and raped for series of times by the accused until on the day the accused
was caught by the parents of the victim. Testimonies were based on victims
statement, her mothers and coupled with evidence of medical examination.
Issue: Whether the accused appellant can be convicted for the offense
charged even if the quantum of proof presented is not one of proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
Ruling: Yes. The victims testimony was positive, clear and categorical and it
is a fundamental rule that the trial courts factual findings, especially its
assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and
respect and binding upon this Court, particularly when affirmed by the Court
of Appeals. This Court has repeatedly recognized that the trial court is in the
bestposition to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies
because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and
incommunicable evidence of the witnesses deportment on the stand while
testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Only the trial
judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation,
flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an
oath. These are significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses, in
the process of unearthing the truth and appellate courts will generally not
disturb such findings unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance
and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.

Fernandez vs Botica Claudio

GR no. 205870
August 13, 2014
Labor Law
Perlas-Bernabe, J.:

Facts: Fernandez was an employee of Botica Claudio until the termination of

her services on January 15, 2006 which prompted her to file a complaint for
illegal dismissal with prayer for the payment of her statutory benefits before
the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB). LA ruled that although the
termination was based on just cause, the procedural due process on
termination of employment was not properly observed, subsequently an
appeal to NLRC was made by the petitioner for being unsatisfied with the
LAs award, and the NLRC granted such appeal and found petitioner to have
been illegally dismissed, however respondent filed its first MR followed by its
second MR; despite pending MR respondent filed petition for Certiorari before
the CA which was granted by the CA.
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the NLRC gravely abused
its discretion in giving due course to Fernandezs appeal. Kindly focus on MR
as your issue.
Ruling: Yes. It is settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration from
the order, resolution or decision of the NLRC is an indispensable condition
before an aggrieved party can avail of a petition for certiorari.This is to afford
the NLRC an opportunity to rectify its perceived errors or mistakes, if
any. Hence, the more prudent recourse for respondent should have been to
move for the immediate resolution of its motion for reconsideration before
the NLRC instead of filing a petition for certioraribefore the CA, having failed
to do so, her petition for certiorariwas prematurely filed, and the CA should
have dismissed the same.

People vs Balaquiot y Balderama

GR no. 206366
August 13, 2014
Criminal Law
Perez, J.:

Facts: Appellant was arrested during a buy bust operation and was charged
with the offense of illegal sale of shabu under an Information filed before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac. When appellant was arraigned he
entered a plea of not guilty, he alleged that he was only framed up by the
police officers, on appeal he was questioning the testimony and credibility of
the officers who conducted the buy bust operation and the findings and
reports of the Chief intelligence officers that the marked sachet was the
shabu from the accused because it was not marked as such during the
incident and not at the place where it was conducted, hence this appeal was
brought before this Court.
Issue: Whether or not corpus delicti was established even if the chain of
custody was broken.
Ruling: Yes. We are satisfied that the corpus delicti of the offense in this
case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Evidently, the prosecution was
able to account for each and every link in the chain of custody over the
shabu, from the moment it was retrieved during the buy-bust operation up to
the time it was presented before the court as proof of the corpus delicti.
Contrary to appellants assertion, the failure by PO3 Espiritu and SPO1
Daraman to mark the seized shabuimmediately at the place where the buybust was conducted will notautomatically impair the integrity of the chain of
custody so established. Strictly speaking, marking the seized contraband at
the nearest police station,rather than at the place where the buy-bust
operation was conducted, is not even a violation of the procedure set forth in
Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

People vs Bala
GR no. 203048
August 13, 2014
Criminal Law
Perez, J.:

Facts: A confidential informant reported that a transaction with two Muslims

for the sale of shabu would take place in his house, acting on this information
Police Inspector Virgilio Olalia forthwith formed a buy-bust team. The
transaction happened in the house of the informant which resulted to arrest
and confiscation of the suspected shabu from the accused-appellant. On
appeal the appelant questions the evidentiary value of the seized items for
failure to marked the seized items in the place where it was taken and in the
presence of the appelant, failure to make proper inventory and further
alleged a clear viloation of failure to observe the proper procedure.
Issue:
Whether appellant is guilty of violation of RA 6425 even if there
are lapses in the chain of custody.
Ruling: YES. A review of the evidence on record will show that the
prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the
shabu which it claims as having been sold and possessed by the accusedappellant.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be
sufficiently proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and
the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor and all these elements were duly established. Appellant was caught
in flagrante delictoselling shabuthrough a buybust operation conducted by
members of the Malabon Drug Enforcement Unit. The poseur-buyer, PO1
Fernandez, positively testified that the sale took place and appellant was one
of the authors of the illegal sale of drugs, hence in fine, it has been
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant sold shabu.

Arriola vs Pilipino Star ngayon, Inc.

GR no. 175689
August 13, 2014
Labor Law
Leonen, J.:

Facts: Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. employed Arriola, section editor and writer
of its newspaper, he wrote "Tinig ng Pamilyang OFWs" until his column was
removed from publication on November 15, 1999. Since then, Arriola never
returned for work and on November 15, 2002 Arriola filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal arguing that he was a regular employee, having rights to
security of tenure, and due process were violated when Pilipino Star Ngayon,
Inc. illegally dismissed him, however Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. denied
Arriolas allegations and countered that around the third week of November
1999, Arriola suddenly absented himself from work and never returned
despite Belmontes phone callsand beeper messages. After a few months,
they learned that Arriola transferred to a rival newspaper publisher,
Imbestigador, to write "Boses ng Pamilyang OFWs."
Issue: Whether petitioner was illegaly dismissed.
Ruling: No.We agree that Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. did not illegally dismiss
Arriola, "the removal of Arriolas column from private respondent is not
tantamount to a termination of his employment as his job is not dependent
on the existence of the column TinigngPamilyang OFWs." When Pilipino Star
Ngayon, Inc. removed "TinigngPamilyang OFWs" from publication, Arriola
remained as section editor.
Moreover, a newspaper publisher has the management prerogative to
determine what columns to print in its newspaper, Arriola abandoned his
employment with Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc.

Peoples Trans-east Asia Insurance

Millenium Holding Inc.
GR no. 172404
August 13, 2014
Civil Law (Credit Transaction)
Leonen, J.:

Corp.

vs

Doctors

of

New

Facts: Doctors of New Millennium Holdings, Inc entered into a construction

and development agreement with Million State Development Corporation for
the construction of a 200-bed capacity hospital in Cainta, Rizal. Million State
Development submitted a surety bond to Doctors of New Millennium issued
by Peoples Trans-East Asia Insurance Corporation, now known as Peoples
General Insurance Corporation.
Million State Development, however, failed to comply with its obligation and
so Doctors of New Millennium filed a complaint for breach of contract with
damages with prayerfor the issuance of preliminary attachment against
Million State Development and Peoples General Insurance with the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig City.
Issue: Whether a surety bond which guarantees initial payment is impliedly
novated by an insertion of a clause in the principal contract waiving the
conditions for the initial payments release.
Ruling: No. The obligations of the surety to the principal under the surety
bond are different from the obligations of the contractor to the client under
the principal contract. The surety guarantees the performanceof the
contractors obligations upon the contractors default,its client may demand
against the surety bond even ifthere was no privity of contract between them
and this is the essence of a surety agreement.
A contract of suretyship is an agreement whereby a party, called the surety,
guarantees the performance by another party, called the principal or obligor,
of an obligation or undertaking in favor of another party, called the obligee.
By its verynature, under the laws regulating suretyship, the liability of the
surety is joint and several but is limited to the amount of the bond, and its
terms are determined strictly by the terms of the contract of suretyship in
relation to the principal contract between the obligor and the obligee.

People vs Marcelo
GR no.181541
August 18, 2014
Criminal Law
Del Castillo, J.:

Facts: Imrie Tarog informed P/Insp. Rabulan that appellant would arrive at
his rented unit in Visitors Inn, Brgy.Punta Waling-Waling, Donsol, Sorsogon to
deliver and sell an unspecified quantity of shabu, subsequently a buy-bust
team was formed and requested Tarog to participate in the operation. Tarog
was instructed to act as poseur-buyer and Rabulan then prepared a preoperation report dated August 1, 2003 and coordinated the buy-bust
operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA); appellant
was successfully arrested in the buy bust operation, a sachet of shabu was
taken from appellant and thereafter confirmed as such by Chem. Lab. of the
PNP.
Issue: Whether the appellant can be validly convicted for illegal sale of
shabu under RA 9165.
Ruling: Yes. In a prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements
must concur: "(1) [the] identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. x x x What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs is the proof that the transaction or saleactually took place, coupledwith
the presentation in court of the corpus delicti" or the illicit drug in evidence.
In this case, the prosecution successfully proved the existence of all the
essential elements of the illegal sale of shabu. Appellant was positively
identified by the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation as the
person who sold the shabu presented in court.

Magsino vs De Ocampo and Guico

GR no. 166944
August 18, 2014
Remedial Law (Civil Procedure)
Bersamin, J.:

Facts: The petitioner was the owner in fee simple of a parcel of agricultural
land and had been in physical possession of the land for more than 30
years,subsequently the respondents thereby illegally deprived him of the
possession of the land. The petitioner filed a complaint for forcible entry and
motion for preliminary mandatory injunction
while the respondent
countered that she had held a registered title in the land and that the
petitioner was a squatter on the land with no possessory rights, and likewise
her co-respondent Ramon Guico, Jr., then a Municipal Mayor in the Province
of Pangasinan, had allegedly owned the titled land being occupied and
possessed by De Ocampo. RTC ruled in favor of respondents and on appeal
to CA, the latter dismissed the petition for review becausethe petitioner did
not attach to his petition the complaint, the answer, and the motion to
dismiss.
Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals committed error in not granting the
petition for review filed by the petitioner.
Ruling: No. We begin by reminding the petitioner that 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
overemphasized, indeed, that the proceduresregulating 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.

Office of the Court Administrator vs Melchor, Jr.

August 19, 2014
Political Law (Administrative Case)
Facts: A financial audit was conducted by the complainant on the books of
account of respondent, during the course of the fiscal audit examination,

members of the financial audit team discovered evidence of irregularities in

the handling of the financial transactions of the court as well as shortage in
its financial accountabilities. Respondent readily admitted the findings of the
audit team and apologized for his negligence and further explained that the
collected bail bonds from various cases were used to defray the cost of the
hospitalization expenses of his child. He pleaded for compassionate justice
and humanitarian consideration citing "humanely error in discretion."
Issue: Whether respondent can be held administratively liable for
dishonesty, gross neglect of duty and gross misconduct and be dismissed.
Ruling: Yes. By his own admission, Melchor knowingly used the court funds
in his custody to defray the hospitalization expenses of his child, regrettably
though, personal problems or even medical emergencies in the family cannot
justify acts of using the judiciary funds held by an accountable officer of the
court. As Clerk of Court, Melchor was entrusted with delicate functions in the
collection of legal fees and receive all monies paid as legal fees, deposits,
fines and dues, and controls the disbursement of the same, and designated
as custodian of the court's funds and revenues, records, properties and
premises, and should be liable for any loss or shortage thereof.
By failing to properly remit the cash collections constituting public funds,
Melchor violated the trust reposed in him as the disbursement officer of the
Judiciary. Melchor's failure to manage and properly document the cash
collections allocated for the JDF is likewise a c !ear violation of Administrative
Circular No. 5-93.

Salmonte vs Comission on Audit

GR no. 207348
August 19, 2014
Civil Law (Poperty)
Velasco Jr., J.:

Facts: The City of Mandaue and F.F. Cruz entered into a Contract of
Reclamation Project from which F.F. Cruz undertake the reclamation of
foreshore and submerged lands from the Cabahug Causeway in that city, the
improvements introduced by F.F. Cruz would be owned by the City upon
completion of the project which under the Contract of reclamation, however
the project was not completed in 1995 because when Metro Cebu
Development Project II (MCDP II) required the widening of the Plaridel
Extension Mandaue Causeway in which the reclamation area is covered, the
structures and facilities built by F.F. Cruz subject of the MOA stood in the
direct path of the road widening project. Thus, the Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH) and Samuel B. Darza, MCDP II project director,
entered into an Agreement to Demolish, Remove and Reconstruct
Improvement dated July 23, 1997 with F.F. Cruz whereby the latter would
demolish the improvements outside of the boundary of the road widening
project and, in return, receive the total amount of PhP 1,084,836.42 in
compensation
Issue: Whether the City of Mandaue owned the poperties during the period
the properties were demolished.
Ruling: No. A careful reading of the pertinent section of the Contract of
Reclamation between F.F. Cruz and Mandaue City, however, would confirm
respondents Rances-Solantes and Sungahids view that herein respondent
Cruz was still the owner of the subject properties at the time these were
demolished. Indeed, the Contract specifies that the six (6)-year period was
no more than an estimate of the project completion, it was not a fixed period
agreed upon. Being so, the mere lapse of six (6) years from the execution of
the Contract, did not by itself deem the reclamation project completed, much
less bring about the fulfillment of the condition stipulated in the MOA (on the
shift of ownership over the demolished properties). Herein respondent Cruz,
and/or his company, at least on this particular regard, can be said to be still
the owner of the structures along Plaridel Extension x xx, when these were
demolished to give way to road widening; it was nothing but equitable that
they get compensated for the damages caused by the demolition.

People vs Yau
GR no. 208170
August 20, 2014
Remedial Law (Evidence)
Mendoza, J.:

Facts: On January 20, 2004, private complainant Alastair Onglingswam went

out of Makati Shangrila Hotel, where he was billeted, and hailed a white
Toyota taxi cab with plate number PVD-115 to take him from the said hotel to
Virra Mall Shopping Center in San Juan, Metro Manila. He noted that while he
was on the phone appellant Petrus Yau whom he noted that from time to
time would turn to him and talk as if he was also being spoken to, thereafter,
he felt groggy and fell asleep and when he woke up he was lying down, his
head was already covered with a plastic bag and he was handcuffed and
chained. Private complainant was told by this Petrus Yau that he was been
kinapped for ransom and further instructed to call his family and asked
money for his released, for 22 days of captivity he likewise suffered
maltreatment but it does not last long until Police Anti-Crimeand Emergency
Response Task Force (PACER) was able to tracked down the vehicle and
Petrus Yau and the latter admitted the crime revealed the place where the
victim was held.
Issue: Whether accused-appellant can be held liable for the crime of serious
illegal detention and kidnapped for ransom based on evidence which is
below the required quantum of evidence which is proof beyond reasonable
doubt as required in criminal cases.
Ruling: Yes. The settled rule is that a judgment of conviction based on
circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the following requisites concur:
(1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the
inferencesare derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt;
the corollary rule is that the circumstances proven must constitute an
unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to
the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.

People vs Reyes y Marasigan

GR no. 210619
August 20, 2014
Criminal Law
Reyes, J.:

Facts: In May 2002, AAA, an eleven (11) year old, while alone inside the
room of the house, accused-appellant, Common-law husband of BBB(mother
of the victim), molested her and tried to insert her genitalia to the child but
was unsuccessful; On August 5, 2002, AAA while alone in the room was
again molested by the accused-appellant while on top of the child he made a
push and pull motion and the latter felt burning pain on the area, she was
not able to tell to her mother the incident because the latter was not in their
house but when the night comes AAA was able to tell what happened, and
there AAA together with her mother, BBB, reported the incident to the law
enforcement officer and medical examination was further conducted to
support the claim. Accused-appellant was apprehended and charged for
rape.
Issue: Whether accused-appellant was guilty for the crime of statutory rape
as charged.
Ruling: Yes. Records show that the elements of statutory rape are present in
the case under review. Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse
with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of
it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary as
they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence of free
consent is conclusively presumed whenthe victim is below the age of 12. At
that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment
and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, to
convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the
burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the
accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the
complainant.

Fernandez vs Villegas
GR no. 200191
August 20, 2014

Remedial Law (Civil Procedure)

Perlas-Bernabe, J.:
Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment against respondent to
recover possession over the parcel of land, the former averred that they are
the absolute owner of the land and that the respondents are merely
tolerated to stay over the land, subsequently they are demanded to vacate
but repondents refused to vacate and surrender the possession thereof.
Respondents in defense, alleged that the land has already been donated to
respondents late husband, thus petitioner has no cause of action against the
respondent and further asserted that there was no compliance with the
required conciliation and mediation under the Katarungang Pambarangay
Law as no Certificate to File Action was attached to the complaint, thereby
rendering the complaint dismissible. On appeal to CA the court dismissed
plaintiffs complaint on the ground that verification and certification against
forum shopping attached to the CA petition was defective since it was signed
only by Lourdes, one of the plaintiffs in the case, in violation of Section 5,
Rule 7 of the Rules of Court which requires all the plaintiffs to sign the same.
Issue: Whether the CA erred in dismissing outright the petition due to a
defective verification and certification against forum shopping attached to
the CA petition.
Ruling: Yes. The Court in its decision laid down guidelines with respect to
noncompliance with the requirements on or submission of a defective
verification and certification against forum shopping , viz.:
(3) Verification is deemed substantially compliedwith when one who has
ample knowledge to swear tothe truth of the allegations in the complaint or
petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have
been made in goodfaith or are true and correct.
(4)The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the
plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be
dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable
circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a
common interestand invoke a common cause of action or defense, the
signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping
substantially complies with the Rule.

Grace Christian High School vs Lavandera

GR no. 177845
August 20, 2014

Labor Law
Perlas-Bernabe, J.:
Facts: Filipinas was employed by petitioner Grace Christian High School
(GCHS) as high school teacher since June1977 and on August 30,
2001 Filipinas filed a complaint for illegal (constructive) dismissal, nonpayment of service incentive leave (SIL) pay, separation pay, service
allowance, damages, and attorneys fees against GCHS however, the latter
denied that they illegally dismissed Filipinas. They asserted that the latter
was considered retired on May 31, 1997 after having rendered 20 years of
service pursuant to GCHS retirement plan. The LA, NLRC and CA ruled that
there was no illegal dismissal instead petitioner was retired pursuant to
GCHS Plan.
Issue: Whether the CA committed reversible error in using the multiplier
"22.5 days" in computing the retirement pay differentials of Filipinas
Ruling: No. The Labor Code states that "an employees retirement benefits
under any collective bargaining [agreement (CBA)] and other agreements
shall not be less than those provided" under the same that is, at least one
half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6)
months being considered as one whole year and that "unless the parties
provide for broader inclusions, the term one-half (1/2) month salary shall
mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the
cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves."
In the present case, GCHS has a retirement plan for its faculty and nonfaculty members, which gives it the option to retire a teacher who has
rendered at least 20 years of service, regardless of age, with a retirement
pay of one-half (1/2) month for every year ofservice.
The Court, in the case of Elegir v. Philippine Airlines,Inc., has recently
affirmed that "one-half (1/2) month salary means 22.5 days: 15 days plus 2.5
days representing one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the
remaining 5 days for [SIL]."

Lopez vs Irvine Construction Corp.

GR no. 207253

August 20, 2014

Labor Law
Perlas-Bernabe, J.:
Facts: Respondent is a construction firm which hired Lopez as laborer in
November 1994 and, thereafter, designated him as a guard at its warehouse
in Dasmarifias, Cavite in the year 2000.On December 18, 2005, Lopez was
purportedly terminated from his employment, whereupon he was told "kaw
ay lay-off muna."Thus, on January 10, 2006, he filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal with prayer for the payment of separation benefits against Irvine
before the NLRC
Issue: Whether the petitioner is a project employee and his dismissal was
valid.
Ruling: No. In this case, the NLRC found that no substantial evidence had
been presented by Irvine to show that Lopez had been assigned to carry out
a "specific project or undertaking," with its duration and scope specified at
the time of engagement thus,in view of the weight accorded by the courts to
factual findings of labor tribunals such as the NLRC, the Court, absent any
cogent reason to hold otherwise, concurs with its ruling that Lopez was not a
project but a regular employee. This conclusion is bolstered by the
undisputed fact that Lopez had been employed by Irvine since November
1994, or more than 10 years from the time he was laid off on December 27,
2005 and Article 280 of the Labor Code provides that any employee who has
rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or
broken, shall be considered a regular employee.

People vs Bayan y Neri

GR no.200987

August 20, 2014

Criminal Law
Perez, J.:
Facts: PO2 Mendoza was assigned as the poseur-buyer while PO3 de
Guzman acted as one of his backup team proceeded to the target place
together with the informant, during the entrapment they were able to arrest
appellant and his live-in partner and recover from them possession of dried
marijuana leaves wrapped in a newspaper.Appellant and Irene were brought
to the police station where PO2 Mendoza put his markings "EM" on the
plastic sachet he received from appellant. Thereafter, they brought the
plastic sachet to the crime laboratory which was therearfet found positive for
shabu.
Issue: Whether the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the guilt of appellant due to the glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies of
the prosecutions witnesses and failure to present the buy-bust money as
proof of the illegal sale of shabu
Ruling: No. Jurisprudence dictates that minor inconsistencies do not affect
the credibility of the witness. "discrepancies and inconsistencies in the
testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality
touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair their credibility.
Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used
in the buy-bust operation, failure to present the buy-bust money is not fatal
to the prosecutions cause because it is not indispensable in drugcases since
it is merely corroborative evidence, and the absence thereof does not create
a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution provided the sale of dangerous
drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is
presented before the court.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be
sufficiently proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and
the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. Indeed, all these elements were duly established.

Land Bank of the Phil. Vs Lajom

GR no. 184982

August 20, 2014

Civil Law (Agrarian Law)
Perlas-Bernabe, J.:
Facts: Respondents were the registered owners of several parcels of land in
which portion of the subject land was placed under the government's
Operation Land Transfer Program pursuant to PD 27 "Tenants Emancipation
Decree,"
and accordingly, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),
through the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), offered to pay petioners the
amounts as just compensation for the constitutive areas of the subject
portion, however, records show, that despite non-payment of the offered just
compensation, DAR granted twelve (12) Emancipation Patents in favor of the
farmer-beneficiaries.
Lajom rejected the DAR valuation and, instead, filed an amended Petition for
determination of just compensation and cancellation of land transfers against
the DAR, the LBP, and the said farmer-beneficiaries, respondents alleged,
inter alia, that in computing the amount of just compensation, the DAR
erroneously applied the provisions of PD 27 and Executive Order No. (EO)
228, Series of 1997, that have been repealed by Section 17 of Republic Act
No. (RA) 6657.
Issue:
1. Whether the provisions of RA6657 should be applied in that in computing the
amount of just compensation instead of PD 27 and EO 228
2. Whether the reckoning period to determine just compensation is on the date
of actual payment instead of the date of taking

Ruling:
1. Yes. Case law instructs that when the agrarian reform process under PD 27
remains incomplete and is overtaken by RA 6657, such as when the just
compensation due the landowner has yet to be settled, as in this case, such
just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under
RA 6657, with PD 27 and EO 228 applying only suppletorily. Hence, where RA
6657 is sufficient, PD27 and EO 228 are superseded.
2. As to the proper reckoning point, it is fundamental that just compensation
should be determined atthe time of the propertys taking and taking may be
deemed to occur, for instance, at the time emancipation patents are issued
by the government
Noveras vs Noveras

GR no. 188289
August 20, 2014
Civil Law (Persons and Family Rrelations)
Perez, J.:
Facts: David and Leticia are US citizens who own properties in the USA and
in the Philippines, Leticia obtained a decree of divorce from the Superior
Court of California in June 2005 wherein the court awarded all the properties
in the USA to Leticia, while with respect to their properties in the Philippines,
Leticia filed a petition for judicial separation of conjugal properties.
Issue: Whether Philippine Court has jurisdiction over the properties in
California, U.S.A. and the same can be included in the judicial separation
prayed for.
Ruling: No. We agree with the appellate court that the Philippine courts did
not acquire jurisdiction over the California properties of David and Leticia.
Indeed, Article 16 of the Civil Code clearly states that real property as well as
personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated.
Thus, liquidation shall only be limited to the Philippine properties.

Okabe vs Saturnino
GR no. 196040
August 26, 2014

Civil Law (Real Estate Mortgage)

Peralta, J.:
Facts: Respondent and his wife obtained a loan with the Philippine National
Bank (PNB) secured by the real estate mortgage , however they defaulted so
PNB extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, and during the allowable period
of redemption respondents failed to redeem the property, subsequently,
without taking possession, the latter sold the subject property to petitioner.
Petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance
of Writ of Possession over the subject property, to which respondent
submitted an Opposition with Motion to Dismiss. RTC ruled, among other
things, that the right of the petitioner to be placed in absolute possession of
the subject property was a consequence of her right of ownership and that
petitioner cannot be deprived of said possession being now the registered
owner of the property.
Issue: Whether an ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession
was the proper remedy of the petitioner in obtaining possession of the
subject property.
Ruling: Yes. The remedy of a writ of possession, a remedy that is available
to the mortgagee-purchaser to acquire possession of the foreclosed property
from the mortgagor, is made available to a subsequent purchaser, but only
after hearing and after determining that the subject property is still in the
possession of the mortgagor, unlike if the purchaser is the mortgagee or a
third party during the redemption period, a writ of possession may issue exparte or without hearing. In other words, if the purchaser is a third party who
acquired the property after the redemption period, a hearing must be
conducted to determine whether possession over the subject property is still
with the mortgagor or is already in the possession of a third party holding the
same adversely to the defaulting debtor or mortgagor ad if the property is in
the possession of the mortgagor, a writ of possession could thus be issued,
otherwise, the remedy of a writ of possession is no longer available to such
purchaser, but he can wrest possession over the property through an
ordinary action of ejectment.

Commisioner of Internal Revenue vs Phil. Airlines Inc.

GR no. 212536-37
August 27, 2014
Tax law
Velasco Jr., J.:
Facts: PAL was granted, under Presidential Decree No. 1590 (PD 1590), a
franchise to operate air transport services domestically and internationally
and under section 13 of the decree, PAL shall pay the government either
basic corporate income tax or franchise tax based on revenues and/or the
rate defined in the provision, whichever is lower and the taxes thus paid
under either scheme shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties and other fees.
PAL was assessed excise taxes on its February and March 2007 importation
of cigarettes and alcoholic drinks for its commissary supplies used in its
international flights. PAL filed separate administrative claims for refund
before the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for the alleged excise taxes it
erroneously paid as there was no appropriate action on the part of the then
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and obviously to forestall the
running of the two-year prescriptive period for claiming tax refunds.
Issue: Whether the "in lieu of all taxes" clause in PALs franchise exempts it
from excise tax on importations of alcohol and tobacco products for its
commissary and has not yet been withdrawn by Congress when it enacted
RA9334
Ruling: Yes. In view of PALs payment of either the basic corporate income
tax or franchise tax, whichever is lower, PAL is exempt from paying: (a) taxes
directly due from or imposable upon it as the purchaser of the subject
petroleum products; and (b) the cost of the taxes billed or passed on to it by
the seller, producer, manufacturer, or importer of the said products either as
part of the purchase price or by mutual agreement or other arrangement.
It is a basic principle of statutory construction that a later law, general in
terms and not expressly repealing or amending a prior special law, will not
ordinarily affect the special provisions of such earlier statute, as things
stand, PD 1590 has not been revoked by the NIRC of 1997, as amended or to
be more precise, the tax privilege of PAL provided in Sec. 13 of PD 1590 has
not been revoked by Sec. 131 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by Sec. 6 of
RA 9334.

Heirs of Manguardia and Manalo vs Heirs of valles

GR no. 177616
August 27, 2014
Civil Code
Del Castillo, J.:
Facts: Respondents, Marta and Simplicio, were sibling and registered owners
of the disputed parcel of land; when Marta died in 1943, she was survived by
her illegitimate daughters while on the other hand when SimpliciodiedonApril
20, 1957 he was survived by his wife and his children. It appears, however,
that on October 28, 1968, a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale over the
disputed parcel of land was executed by Simplicio and Marta in favor of their
brothers and subsequently sold to the petitioner-buyer andon October 29,
1968, the alleged buyers and new registered owners subdivided the disputed
parcel of land. On December 13, 1999, the heirs ofSimplicio and
Martacommenced an action for the Declaration of Nullity of Certificates of
Title and Deeds of Sale, they averred that the purported Deed of Absolute
Sale dated October 28, 1968 is a forgery because Marta and Simplicio were
long dead when the said document was executed thus, are all null and void
however the heirs of the buyer who were petitioners averred that their
predecessors-in-interest were innocent purchasers in good faithand for value
Issue: Whether the buyer, predecessor in interest, of the petitioner are
buyers in good faith making the deed of absolute sale valid.
Ruling: No. It must be emphasized that "the burden of proving the status of
a purchaser in good faith and for value liesupon him who asserts that
standing, in discharging the burden, it is not enough to invoke the ordinary
presumption of good faith that everyone is presumed to act in good faith.
The good faith that is here essential is integral with the very status that must
beproved. x xx Petitioners have failed to discharge that burden."
Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving that their predecessorsin-interest were buyers in good faith.

Ando vs Department of Foreign Affairs

GR no. 195432

August 27, 2014

Remedial Law
Sereno, J.:
Facts: On 16 September 2001, petitioner married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a
Japanese National, at Candaba, Pampanga however on Yuichiro Kobayashi
sought in Japana divorce in respect of his marriage with petitioner; believing
in good faith that said divorce capacitated petitioner to remarry the latter
married Masatomi Y. Ando on 13 September 2005 in Sta. Ana, Pampanga.
Recently, petitioner applied for the renewal of her Philippine passport to
indicate her surname withher husband Masatomi Y. Ando but she was told at
the Department of Foreign Affairs that the same cannot be issued to her until
she can prove bycompetent court decision that her marriage with her said
husband Masatomi Y. Ando is valid until otherwise declared.
On 29 October 2010, petitioner filed with the RTC a Petition for Declaratory
Relief, impleading the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) as respondent and
prayed for reliefs before the lower court directing the Department ofForeign
Affairs to honor petitioners marriage to her husband Masatomi Y. Ando and
to issue a Philippine Passport to petitioner under the name "Edelina Ando y
Tungol".
Issue: Whether petitioner can compel DFA to issue a Philippine Passport
under the name "Edelina Ando y Tungol and a Petition for Declaratory Relief
to honor petitioners marriage to her husband Masatomi Y. Ando.
Ruling: No. First, with respect to her prayer to compel the DFA to issue her
passport, petitioner incorrectly filed a petition for declaratory relief before
the RTC. She should have first appealed before the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs, since her ultimate entreaty was toquestion the DFAs refusal to issue
a passport to her under her second husbands name.
Second, with respect to her prayer for the recognition of her second marriage
as valid, petitioner should have filed, instead, a petition for the judicial
recognition of her foreign divorce from her first husband.