CASE DIGESTS by KIM skrrrt property covered by the newly reconstituted TCT was levied on

execution. Upon motion

RES JUDICATA by respondents, the trial court, on 31 August 2004, ordered the
Eulogio v. Bell lifting of the writ of
G.R. No. 186322, July 08, 2015 execution on the ground that the property was a family home. RTC
issued on 25 November 2004 an Order directing the issuance of a
FACTS: writ of execution. Consequently, respondents filed before the CA a
The Bell siblings (respondents) are the unmarried children of Supplemental Petition with an urgent prayer for a temporary
respondent Spouses Paterno C. Bell and Rogelia Calingasan-Bell. In restraining order.
1995, the Bell siblings lodged a Complaint docketed as Civil Case No.
4581 at the (RTC) of Batangas City for annulment of documents, Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari and Injunction before the
reconveyance, quieting of title and damages against petitioners CA docketed as 87531. CA eventually enjoined the execution. On 09
Enrico S. Eulogio and Natividad Eulogio (the Eulogios). The February 2009, the CA denied petitioners' Motion for
Complaint sought the annulment of the contract of sale executed by Reconsideration. Hence, this Petition.
Spouses Bell over their residential house and lot, as well as the
cancellation of the title obtained by petitioners by virtue of the ISSUE: W/N a hearing to determine the value of respondents' family
Deed. home for purposes of execution under Article 160 of the Family
Code is barred under the principle of res judicata.
The RTC granted respondents' prayers and ordered the Register
of Deeds of Batangas City to cancel TCT in the name of defendants HELD:
the Eulogios and to YES. Res judicata applies, considering that the parties are litigating
reconstitute TCT as "family home" of the plaintiffs the Bell siblings over the same property. Moreover, the same contentions and
and Sps. Bell. evidence advanced by the petitioners to substantiate their claim
However RTC declared Spouses Bell liable to petitioners in the over respondents' family home have already been used to support
amount of PI million their arguments in the main proceedings.
plus 12% interest per annum.
Res judicata (meaning, a "matter adjudged") is a fundamental
On 9 June 2004 the RTC issued a Writ of Execution, as a result of principle of law that precludes parties from re-litigating issues
which respondents' actually litigated and determined by a prior and final judgment. It
may be argued that the cause of action in the main proceedings was
the sale of the property in dispute, while in the execution findings of the ocular investigation and relocation survey. Hence,
proceedings it was the indebtedness of Spouses Bell to petitioners. the Director of Lands filed a Petition for Amendments of the Plan
and Technical Description in the name Guerrero with the RTC. The
The settled rule, however, is that identity of causes of action does RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The CA affirmed the
not mean absolute identity. Otherwise, a party could easily escape RTC decision.
the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or SC affirmed the decisions of the CA and RTC dismissing the petition
the relief sought. The test to determine whether the causes of of the government based on the protest filed by Bustamante. In
action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will that case, it was held that there was no proof that the titleholder,
sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity of the facts Benjamin Guerrero, employed fraud in obtaining his title.
essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts
However, herein Respondent heirs of Bustamante filed another case
or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the with the LMB, DENR, to again question Guerrero's title. They alleged
same, and a judgment in the first case would be a bar to the that that Guerrero’s property covers square meters on which the
subsequent action. Hence, a party cannot, by varying the form of house of Marcelo is standing. They also alleged that fraud and
action or adopting a different method of presenting the case, misrepresentation was used by Guerrero which is a ground for the
escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause cancellation of the title.
of action shall not be twice litigated between the same parties or
ISSUE: W/N Res Judicata applies.
their privies.
RULING:

YES. Res judicata is applicable considering that the protest filed by

GUERRERO v. DIRECTOR, LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU private respondents is subsequent to a final judgment rendered by
G.R. No. 183641, April 22, 2015 this Court.

FACTS: In the case at bar, the Court finds that the four requisites of res
judicata exist.
Petitioner Guerrero obtained an OCT over a parcel of land in
Quezon City which was issued in his name. However, the This Court finds that Respondent heirs of Bustamante, in filing their
Bustamantes protested on the the title's alleged encroachment. protest, are only repeating what had previously been done by their
predecessor Angelina Bustamante. The protest by Angelina with the
The Office of the President remanded the case to the DENR for an
Director of Lands was what started the process that ultimately led
ocular investigation and resurvey of the disputed area.
to the decision in Republic v. Guerrero, a process that merely
Subsequently, the DENR was ordered to "take action" for the
mirrors the currently pending protest of private respondents with
correction of the technical description of the property based on the
public respondent LMB-DENR, the successor of the Bureau of Lands. located in Cabantian (identified as VES 15 Project) and Communal
Both protests essentially allege Guerrero's title's encroachment on (identified as VES 21 Project) in Davao City, both estimated at
the Bustamantes' alleged property. Both pray for the government to P4,000,000.00 each. Included in Carbonquillo's recommendation
file a petition in court to question Guerrero's title. Both protests was the direct negotiation of the well drilling phase of the project to
ultimately seek the amendment or cancellation of the title, for the Hydrock Wells, Inc. (Hydrock).
allegedly fraudulent encroachment. Such matters, however, have
long been examined, decided and settled with finality. On November 24, 1997, Hydrock President Roberto G. Puentespina
(Puentespina) wrote Carbonquillo informing DCWD that his
company is "willing to take the risk of undertaking the project to
test the availability of water by drilling the pilot hole so that electric
logging could be done." Puentespina also wrote that they were
YAMSON v. CASTRO willing to undertake the drilling even without the approval of DCWD
G.R. No. 194763-64, July 20, 2016 as their crew and equipment were idle.

FACTS: Thereafter, in Resolution No. 05-97 approved on November 25,

The petitioners and Danilo C. Castro & George F. Inventor 1997, the PBAC-B resolved to dispense with the advertisement
(respondents) are all officials and employees of the Davao City requirement in the conduct of the bidding and instead, opted to
Water District (DCWD). Engr. Wilfred G. Yamson (Yamson), Engr. send letters to accredited well drillers and invited their participation
Rey C. Chavez (Chavez), Arnold D. Navales (Navales) and Atty. in the VES 15 and VES 21 well drilling projects. Invited were
William V. Guillen (Guillen) occupied concurrent membership in its Hydrock, AMG Drilling and Construction, Inc. (AMG) and Drill
Pre-Bidding and Awards Committee-B (PBAC-B). Rosindo J. Almonte Mechanics Incorporated (DMI).
(Almonte), meanwhile, was the Division Manager of DCWD's
Engineering and Construction Department, while Alfonso E. Laid Only Hydrock and AMG responded favorably by submitting their
(Laid) was the Assistant General Manager for Administration respective quotations for the projects. AMG, however, requested
(collectively, the petitioners). that the project be implemented in July 1998 due to the
unavailability of its equipment at the time of the invitation. DMI, for
In Board Resolution No. 97-248 adopted on November 21, 1997, the
its part, sent its "regrets" as its drilling rigs are not available for
DCWD Board of Directors approved the recommendation of DCWD
General Manager Wilfredo A. Carbonquillo (Carbonquillo) to immediate use.
undertake the Cabantian Water Supply System Project stage by
stage, with a budgetary cost of P33,200,000.00. Initial activities for After more than six years, or on January 12, 2005, the respondents
the project were the simultaneous drilling of two wells separately filed a joint Affidavit-Complaint with the Ombudsman, charging the
petitioners with Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. are likewise similar to the foregoing allegations and defenses in the
3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for the alleged former case.
non-observance of the proper bidding procedure in the VES 21
Project and for allegedly giving Hydrock unwarranted benefits, ISSUE: W/N Res Judicata applies
advantage or preference in the "surreptitious" grant of the contract
to it. The case was docketed as OMB-M-C-05-0051-A. HELD:
NO. Clearly, the identity of these two cases is such that judgment in
Two weeks after, or on January 26, 2005, the respondents filed one administrative case would amount to res judicata in the other
another joint Affidavit-Complaint21 with the Ombudsman, likewise administrative case.
charging the petitioners with Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No.
3019, this time for the VES 15 Project, docketed as OMB-M-C-05- The finding of forum shopping does not, however, automatically
0054-A. render the two administrative cases dismissible. The consequences
of forum shopping depend on whether the act was wilful and
Less than two months later, the respondents filed two separate deliberate or not. If it is not wilful and deliberate, the subsequent
joint Affidavit-Complaints with the Ombudsman, administratively cases shall be dismissed without prejudice. But if it is wilful and
charging the petitioners with Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be
Authority, Dishonesty and Gross Negligence. The respondents dismissed with prejudice on the ground of either litis
adopted the allegations in the separate criminal complaints they pendentia or res judicata.
filed with the Ombudsman against the petitioners in OMB-M-C-05-
0051-A and OMB-M-C-05-0054-A as bases for the administrative In this case, the Court cannot grant the petitioners' prayer for the
charges. For the VES 21 Project, the administrative case against the dismissal of the two administrative cases as there is no clear
petitioners was docketed as OMB-M-A-05-093-C, while the showing that the respondents' act of filing these was deliberate and
administrative case for the VES 15 Project was docketed as OMB-M- willful. Records show that these cases were premised on the two
A-05-104-C. criminal complaints for Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019,
which were separately filed and entertained by the Ombudsman. At
Meanwhile, the Affidavit-Complaint filed on January 26, 2005 in the most, OMB-M-A-05-104-C (VES 15 Project), which was filed
OMB-M-C-05-0054-A contained essentially the same allegations as subsequent to OMB-M-A-05-093-C (VES 21 Project), should be, and
that filed in OMB-M-C-05-0051-A, albeit it referred to the VES 15 is hereby, dismissed.
Project. The petitioners' allegations and defenses in the latter case
MEJIA-ESPINOZA v. CARINO The RTC dismissed the case for lack of cause of action and held that
G.R. No. 193397, Jan. 25, 2017 the issuance of writ of execution was rendered moot because
Carino had already relinquished her possession of property. But on
FACTS: appeal, the CA reversed the RTC.
On, August 25, 1998, Petitioner Espinoza filed an action for
ejectment against respondent Carino before the MTC of Pangasinan Hence, this petition.
City. It rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner ordering Carino
to vacate the respective properties and to pay rents from time of ISSUE: W/N the principle of res judicata applies.
default, litigation expenses, and attorney’s fees.
HELD:
Petitioner filed a motion for a writ of execution which the MTC YES. Supreme Court was convinced that respondent’s complaint for
granted on March 10, 2005. Sheriff Hortaleza was able to turn over annulment of court processes, filed six months after she voluntarily
the property to petitioner’s attorney-in-fact when he found out that complied with the writ of execution, was a mere afterthought
respondent voluntarily vacated the place and levied the commercial designed to evade the execution of a decision that has long attained
lot owned by respondent to cover the monetary awards for rent, finality. Public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes final,
litigation expenses and attorney’s fees. executory, and unappealable, the prevailing party should not be
denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the
On September 19, 2005 or six months after, Carino filed a complaint losing party.
as “Annulment of Court Processes with prayer for the issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and/or The fact that she received a copy of the writ without any protest
Prohibition, and Damages" before the RTC of Dagupan City. She and voluntarily vacated the premises and turned over possession to
argued that she was deprived of the opportunity to ask for Espinoza's representative are actions of respondent’s recognition to
reconsideration of the order granting Espinoza's motion for issuance the writ of execution and is therefore, estopped from questioning
of writ of execution because she was not furnished a copy of the its validity. Thus the principle of res judicata applies in this case.
order. Espinoza emphasized that the writ of execution was properly
served and received by Nena on March 16, 2005, and that Carino
had already removed all her personal belongings from the premises
weeks before the service of the writ.
RATIO DECIDENDI  March 9, 2005 The Court ultimately denied Solid Cements
petition for review;
GONZALES v. SOLID CEMENT CORPORATION  July 12, 2005 The judgment became final and an entry of
G.R. No. 198423, October 23, 2012 judgment was recorded;
 July 15, 2008 Gonzales was actually reinstated;
FACTS:  August 4, 2008 Gonzales filed with the LA a motion for the
The current petition arose from the execution of the final and issuance of an alias writ of execution (with computation of
executory judgment in the parties’ illegal dismissal dispute (referred monetary benefits as of August 28, 2008 the day before his
to as "original case"). The Labor Arbiter (LA) resolved the case at his termination anew, allegedly due to redundancy, shall take
level on December 12, 2000. Since the LA found that an illegal effect);
dismissal took place, the company reinstated petitioner Gonzales in  August 18, 2009 The LA issued an Order directing the
the payroll on January 22, 2001. issuance of a writ of execution;
 February 19, 2010 The NLRC rendered a decision affirming
The series of developments in the original case and in the current with modification the LAs Order by including certain
petition are as follows: monetary benefits in favor of Gonzales;
 May 31, 2011 The CA reversed the NLRC and reinstated the
 October 5, 1999 Solid Cement terminated Gonzales LAs Order
employment;  November 16, 2011 The Court denied Gonzales petition for
 December 12, 2000 The LA declared that Gonzales was review, questioning the reinstatement of the LAs Order;
illegally dismissed and ordered his reinstatement;  On February 27, 2012 The Court denied Gonzales 1st
 January 5, 2001 Gonzales filed a Motion for Execution of motion for reconsideration;
reinstatement aspect;  On April 12, 2012 Gonzales again moved for reconsideration
 January 22, 2001 Solid Cement reinstated Gonzales in the and asked that his case be referred to the En Banc.
payroll;
 March 26, 2002 The NLRC modified the LA decision by ISSUE: W/N the CA erred when it issued its May 31, 2011 decision.
reducing amount of damages awarded by the LA but
otherwise affirmed the judgment; HELD:
 June 28, 2004 The CA dismissed Solid Cements certiorari YES. We believe and so hold that the CA did not only legally err but
petition; even acted outside its jurisdiction when it issued its May 31, 2011
decision. Specifically, by deleting the awards properly granted by
the NLRC and by reverting back to the LAs execution order, the CA When a conflict exists between the dispositive portion and the
effectively varied the final and executory judgment in the original opinion of the court in the text or body of the decision, the former
case, as modified on appeal and ultimately affirmed by the Court, must prevail over the latter under the rule that the dispositive
and thereby acted outside its jurisdiction. The CA likewise, in the portion is the definitive order, while the opinion is merely an
course of its rulings and as discussed below, acted with grave abuse explanatory statement without the effect of a directive. Hence, the
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by using execution must conform with what the fallo or dispositive portion of
wrong considerations, thereby acting outside the contemplation of the decision ordains or decrees.
law.
Significantly, no claim or issue has arisen regarding the fallo of the
The CAs actions outside its jurisdiction cannot produce legal effects labor tribunals and the CAs ruling on the merits of the original case.
and cannot likewise be perpetuated by a simple reference to the
principle of immutability of final judgment; a void decision can As a rule, a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited
never become final. "The only exceptions to the rule on the pleading under the Rules of Court.
immutability of final judgments are (1) the correction of clerical
errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no PELEJO v. CA
prejudice to any party, and (3) void judgments. For these reasons, G.R. No. 60800, August 31, 1982
the Court sees it legally appropriate to vacate the assailed Minute
Resolutions of November 16, 2011 and February 27, 2012, and to FACTS:
reconsider its ruling on the current petition.
Petitioners filed a complaint for "Annulment of Deed, Title, Recon-
The resolution of the court in a given issue embodied in the fallo or veyance and Damages" against private respondents over a parcel of
dispositive part of a decision or order is the controlling factor in land titled in the name of the latter. The case was dismissed by the
resolving the issues in a case. The fallo embodies the courts decisive trial court for lack of cause of action and prescription. There being
action on the issue/s posed, and is thus the part of the decision that no appeal interposed, the decision became final and executory.
must be enforced during execution. The other parts of the decision
only contain, and are aptly called, the ratio decidendi (or reason for Consequently, on motion of private respondents, a writ or
the decision) and, in this sense, assume a lesser role in carrying into possession was issued. On certiorari, petitioners contend that the
effect the tribunals disposition of the case. lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction and with grave abuse
of discretion when it issued the writ of possession because the
subject case was not decided on the merits and the rights and
obligations of the parties were not defined. They alleged that there of substantial justice. There is no point in prolonging the litigation
was no decision on who the owners were in the order dismissing when private respondents are the owners of the property and
the complaint. therefore are entitled to its possession. It would be an injustice to
allow petitioners to continue holding subject property.
The Supreme Court, on August 31, 1982, nullified the writ of
possession and enjoined private respondents and the sheriff
concerned from enforcing the said writ. It turned out however that LANDBANK vs SUNTAY
as early as April 6, 1982, the sheriff had already ejected petitioners GR No. 157903, July 20, 2016
and placed private respondents in possession of the subject
property. Hence this motion for reconsideration filed by private FACTS:
respondents.
Respondent Suntay owned land situated in Sta. Lucia, Sablayan,
Reconsidering its previous decision, the Supreme Court set aside the Occidental Mindoro with a total area of 3,682.0285 hectares. In
same and dismissed the instant petition since the writ of possession 1972, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) expropriated
has already been implemented and the subject property is 948.1911 hectares of Suntay‘s land pursuant to Presidential Decree
admittedly registered in the name of private respondents who are No. 27.
therefore entitled to its possession, hence it would be an injustice
to allow petitioners to continue holding the property in question. Petitioner Land Bank and DAR fixed the value of the expropriated
Motion granted. Petition denied. portion at P4,497.50/hectare, for a total valuation of P4,251,141.68.
Rejecting the valuation, however, Suntay filed a petition for
ISSUE: W/N private respondents in not asking for affirmative relief determination of just compensation in the Office of the Regional
in the dispositive portion of the lower court’s order would prevail Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) of Region IV, DARAB,
over considerations of substantial justice. docketed as DARAB Case No. V-0405-0001-00; his petition was
assigned to RARAD Miñas.
HELD:
NO. The procedural error incurred by private respondents in not After summary administrative proceeding, RARAD Miñas rendered a
asking for affirmative relief in the dispositive portion of the lower decision fixing the total just compensation for the expropriated
court’s order dismissing the case and which led to the dispute portion at P157,541,951.30. Land Bank moved for a reconsideration,
surrounding the propriety of the issuance of the writ of possession but RARAD Miñas denied its motion. Land Bank brought a petition
is a mere technicality which would not prevail over considerations for the judicial determination of just compensation in the RTC
(Branch 46) in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro as a Special Agrarian Thus, the RTC erred in dismissing the Land Bank‘s petition. It bears
Court, impleading Suntay and RARAD Miñas. The petition essentially stressing that the petition is not an appeal from the RARAD final
prayed that the total just compensation for the expropriated Decision but an original action for the determination of the just
portion be fixed at only P4,251,141.67. Suntay filed a motion to compensation for respondent‘s expropriated property, over which
dismiss mainly on the ground that the petition had been filed the RTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction.
beyond the 15-day reglementary period as required by Section 11,
Rule XIII of the Rules of Procedure of DARAB. After the RTC granted
the motion to dismiss, Land Bank appealed to the CA, which
sustained the dismissal. As a result, Land Bank came to the Court
(G.R. No. 157903) DELTA MOTORS v. CA
GR No. 121075, July 24, 1997

ISSUE: W/N the RTC erred in dismissing the Land Bank‘s petition for FACTS:
the determination of just compensation. Private Respondent State Investment House, INc. filed action
against DELTA for a sum of money at the RTC of Manila, Branch VI.
HELD: DELTA was required to pay P20M to the private respondent. The
The Court has declared that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to decision could not be served by DELTA due to its dissolution. It had
determine just compensation under Republic Act No. 6657 been taken over by Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the meantime.
(Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, or CARL) pertains to the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) as a Special Agrarian Court; that any Dec. 1986: SIHI moved for service of the decision by way of
effort to transfer such jurisdiction to the adjudicators of the publication. It was published in the Thunderer, a weekly Manila
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and to newspaper. Afterwards, SIHI moved for the execution, which the
convert the original jurisdiction of the RTC into appellate jurisdiction RTC granted on March 1987. Pursuant to the writ of execution,
is void for being contrary to the CARL; and that what DARAB properties of DELTA in Iloilo and Bacolod City were levied upon and
adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in a sold.
preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid to the
landowners, leaving to the courts the ultimate power to decide this DELTA commenced a special civil action for certiorari with the CA,
question. alleging that a) the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over DELTA since
there was no valid/proper service of summons rendering the
decision void, and b) the decision never became final and executory
 the decision in Civil Case No. 84-23019 "has not attained finality
The CA ruled that against DELTA on the first ground, but ruled that pending service of a copy thereof on petitioner Delta, which may
the decision never became executory because records show that appeal therefrom within the reglementary period", all proceedings
the assailed judgment had never been properly served against on and/or orders arising from the trial court's decision in Civil Case No.
PNB (which assumed DELTA’s operation upon its dissolution). The 84-23019 are null and void x x x .”) SIHI claimed that the statement
CA also stated that the publication was not a cure for such a fatal was “not necessary for the case before it” (the denial of the
defect. Omnibus motion” and therefore “could not be held binding for
establishing a precedent”).
Therefore, the CA decreed that since the decision had not yet
attained finality pending a service of a copy on DELTA, who may CA decreed to amend its resolution and delete the assailed
appeal within the reglementary period. paragraph.

DELTA filed an MR, insisting there could be no valid service of ISSUE: W/N the assailed paragraph in the CA’s resolution was
summons since the RTC decision was not in accordance with the obiter dictum.
Rules and hence void. Dismissed by CA. DELTA filed a petition with
the SC for review on certiorari. Denied. RULING:
Yes, the assailed paragraph is considered obiter dictum.
DELTA filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC, indicating that it was
appealing from the earlier decision and prayed that records be Obiter dictum – opinion expressed by a court upon some question
elevated to the CA. SIHI filed a motion to dismiss DELTA’s appeal on of law which is not necessary to the decision of the case before it;
the grounds that it was filed out of time (beyond 15 days period “by the way”. It is not binding as precedent (Cannot be basis for
after obtaining the copy of the decision). DELTA’s appeal was stare decisis).
dismissed.
0 The phrase was not raised by the petitioner expressly in its petition
DELTA filed an Omnibus motion with the CA to declare all acts and assailing the dismisssal of its notice of appeal. Hence, it could not be
proceedings relating to the earlier decision as void. The CA issued a considered a prerequisite in disposing of the issues.
resolution on Jan. 5 1995. SIHI filed a motion for clarification, asking
for a deletion of a portion of the resolution for it being mere obiter EJERCITO v. COMELEC
dictum (“While it is true that as a necessary consequence the GR No. 212398, November 25, 2014
decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 22, 1991 ruling that
FACTS: HELD:
Three days prior to the May 13, 2013 Elections, a petition for NO. The rulings in Citizens United and Buckley find bearing only on
disqualification was filed by Edgar “Egay” San Luis before the matters related to “independent expenditures,” an election law
COMELEC against Emilio Ramon “ER” P. Ejercito, who was a fellow concept which has no application in this jurisdiction. In the US
gubernatorial candidate and, at the time, the incumbent Governor context, independent expenditures for or against a particular
of the Province of Laguna. candidate enjoy constitutional protection. They refer to those
expenses made by an individual, a group or a legal entity which are
Petition alleged Ejercito distributed orange card to influence voters not authorized or requested by the candidate, an authorized
in his favor; and Ejercito exceeds the amount of expenditures committee of the candidate, or an agent of the candidate; they are
necessary. Ejercito was proclaimed Governor. expenditures that are not placed in cooperation with or with the
consent of a candidate, his agents, or an authorized committee of
Ejercito claims that the advertising contracts between ABS-CBN the candidate. In contrast, there is no similar provision here in the
Corporation and Scenema Concept International, Inc. were Philippines. In fact, R.A. No. 9006105 and its implementing rules and
executed by an identified supporter without his knowledge and regulations specifically make it unlawful to print, publish, broadcast
consent as, in fact, his signature thereon was obviously forged. Even or exhibit any print, broadcast or outdoor advertisements donated
assuming that such contract benefited him, Ejercito alleges that he to the candidate without the written acceptance of said candidate.
should not be penalized for the conduct of third parties who acted
on their own without his consent. Citing Citizens United v. Federal In any event, this Court should accentuate that resort to foreign
Election Commission decided by the US Supreme Court, he argues jurisprudence would be proper only if no law or jurisprudence is
that every voter has the right to support a particular candidate in available locally to settle a controversy and that even in the absence
accordance with the free exercise of his or her rights of speech and of local statute and case law, foreign jurisprudence are merely
of expression, which is guaranteed in Section 4, Article III of the persuasive authority at best since they furnish an uncertain guide.
1987 Constitution. He believes that an advertising contract paid for
by a third party without the candidate’s knowledge and consent
must be considered a form of political speech that must prevail REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MERALCO
against the laws suppressing it, whether by design or inadvertence. GR No. 141314, April 9, 2003

ISSUE: W/N the foreign jurisprudence cited by Ejercito is applicable FACTS:

to this case MERALCO filed with petitioner ERB an application for the revision of
its rate schedules to reflect an average increase in its distribution
charge. ERB granted a provisional increase subject to the condition We are not persuaded. American decisions and authorities are not
that should the COA thru its audit report find MERALCO is entitled per se controlling in this jurisdiction. At best, they are persuasive for
to a lesser increase, all excess amounts collected from the latter’s no court holds a patent on correct decisions. Our laws must be
customers shall either be refunded to them or correspondingly construed in accordance with the intention of our own lawmakers
credited in their favor. The COA report found that MERALCO is and such intent may be deduced from the language of each law and
entitled to a lesser increase, thus ERB ordered the refund or the context of other local legislation related thereto. More
crediting of the excess amounts. On appeal, the CA set aside the importantly, they must be construed to serve our own public
ERB decision. MRs were denied. interest which is the be-all and the end-all of all our laws. And it
need not be stressed that our public interest is distinct and different
MERALCO argues that deduction of all kinds of taxes, including from others.
income tax, from the gross revenues of a public utility is firmly
entrenched in American jurisprudence. It contends that the Public
Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 146) was patterned after Act
2306 of the Philippine Commission, which, in turn, was borrowed
from American state public utility laws such as the New Jersey
Public Utility Act. Hence, it maintains that American jurisprudence
on the inclusion of income taxes as a lawful charge to operating
expenses should be controlling. It cites the rule on statutory
construction that a statute adopted from a foreign country will be
presumed to be adopted with the construction placed upon it by
the courts of that country before its adoption.

ISSUE: W/N the Foreign Jurisprudence used by MERALCO is

applicable to the case
HELD:

NO. The foreign jurisprudence cited by MERALCO in support of its

position is not applicable in this jurisdiction.