Professional Documents
Culture Documents
APRIL 2014
Espinas vs. COA
G.R. No. 198271, April 1, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS; COMMISSION
ON AUDIT; POWERS: Since the Extraordinary and
Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) of GovernmentOwned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs),
Government Financial Institutions (GFIs) and
their subsidiaries, are, pursuant to law,
allocated by their own internal governing
boards, as opposed to the EME of National
Government Agencies (NGAs) which are
appropriated
in
the
annual
General
Appropriations Act (GAA) duly enacted by
Congress, there is a perceivable rational impetus
for the Commission on Audit (CoA) to impose
nuanced control measures to check if the EME
disbursements of GOCCs, GFIs and their
subsidiaries constitute irregular, unnecessary,
excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable
government expenditures.
JUNE 2014
Eijansantos vs. Special Presidential Task
Force 156
G.R. No. 203696, June 2, 2014
Mendoza, J.
LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS; LIABILITIES OF
PUBLIC OFFICERS: Misconduct has a legal and
uniform definition. It is defined as an intentional
wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of
law or standard of behavior, especially by a
government official. A misconduct is grave
where the elements of corruption, clear intent
to violate the law or flagrant disregard of
established rule are present. Eijansantos
apparently failed in one of his duties and
responsibilities as an evaluator which was to
conduct a physical verification/inspection of
manufacturing and plant facilities. While he
followed the instructions and training given to
him by his superiors at the Center, he neither
conducted a physical verification/inspection on
the
actual
office
premises
and
the
manufacturing and plant facilities of Evergreen,
nor did he conduct such verification or
inspection on Evergreens suppliers and
exporters. Definitely, as a Senior Tax Specialist,
Eijansantos ought to know that there was a
necessity to thoroughly verify the authenticity of
tax credit applications before processing the
same. There is no doubt that the petitioner,
together with the other evaluators, committed a
deliberate disregard of established rules which
can only be considered as grave misconduct.
OSG vs. CA
G.R. No. 199027, June 9, 2014
Reyes, J.
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT;
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS: On the matter of counsels
representation for the government, the
Administrative Code is not the only law that
delves on the issue. Specifically for local
government units, the LGC limits the lawyers
who are authorized to represent them in court
actions. The OSG could not represent at any
stage a public official who was accused in a
criminal case. This was necessary to prevent a
clear conflict of interest in the event that the
OSG would become the appellate counsel of the
People of the Philippines once a judgment of the
public official's conviction was brought on
appeal. In this case, CA committed grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolutions
which obligated the OSG to represent the
Municipality of Saguiran. Such ruling disregarded
the provisions of the LGC that vested exclusive
authority upon legal officers to be counsels of
local government units. Even the employment of
a special legal officer is expressly allowed by the
law only upon a strict condition that the action
or proceeding which involves the component city
or municipality is adverse to the provincial
government or to another component city or
municipality.
JULY 2014
Araullo vs. Benigno Aquino III
G.R. No. 209287, et sq., July 1, 2014
Bersamin, J.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS; CHECKS AND
BALANCES: These violations in direct violation
Go vs. Republic
G.R. No. 202809, July 2, 2014,
Mendoza, J.
CITIZENSHIP;
NATURALIZATION
AND
DENATURALIZATION: The records of the case
show that the joint affidavits executed by Gos
AUGUST 2014
DAR vs. Galle
G.R. No. 171836, August 11, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
BILL OF RIGHTS; EMINENT DOMAIN; JUST
COMPENSATION: It has been the consistent
pronouncement of the SC that the determination
of just compensation is basically a judicial
function. Also, it is settled that in the
computation of just compensation for land taken
for agrarian reform, both Section 17 of Republic
Act No. 6657 (RA 6657 or the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988/CARL) and the
formula
prescribed
in
the
applicable
Administrative Order of the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) should be considered.
While the SC acknowledges that Galles estate
was expropriated to the extent of 356.8257
hectares, the computation of the exact amount
of just compensation remains an issue that must
be resolved, taking into consideration both
Section 17 of RA 6657 and AOs 6 and 11. 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.
SEPTEMBER 2014
GMA Network, Inc., vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014
Peralta, J.
BILL OF RIGHTS; FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION:
Contending that Sec. 9(a) of COMELEC Resolution
No. 9615, limiting the broadcast and radio
advertisements of candidates and political
parties for national election positions to an
aggregate total of 120 minutes and 180 minutes
respectively, to be violative of the freedom of
the press, the petitioners filed the instant
petitions praying that said COMELEC Resolution
be declared unconstitutional. Finding for the
petitioners, the SC ruled that Political speech is
one of the most important expressions protected
by the Fundamental Law. Accordingly, the same
must remain unfettered unless otherwise
justified by a compelling state interest. The
assailed rule on aggregate-based airtime limits
is unreasonable and arbitrary as it unduly
restricts and constrains the ability of candidates
and political parties to reach out and
communicate with the people. Here, the
adverted reason for imposing the aggregatebased airtime limits leveling the playing field
does not constitute a compelling state interest
which would justify such a substantial restriction
on the freedom of candidates and political
parties
to
communicate
their
ideas,
philosophies, platforms and programs of
government.
10
OCTOBER 2014
Buena, Jr., vs. Benito
G.R. No. 181760, October 14, 2014
Leonen. J.
LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS; THE CIVIL SERVICE:
The position of Assistant Schools Division
Superintendent belongs to the Career Executive
Service. The appointee to the position must be
career executive service eligible. Permanent
appointment to positions in the Career Executive
Service presupposes that the appointee has
passed
the
Career
Executive
Service
examinations. In this case, respondent does not
possess the required career executive service
NOVEMBER 2014
Re: Alleged Loss of Boxes of Copy Paper
A.M. No. 2008-23-SC, November 10, 2014
Bersamin, J.
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS; CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION: There is grave misconduct when
the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law, or flagrant disregard of
established rule are present. Dishonesty is
defined as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or
defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity;
lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle;
lack of fairness and straight forwardness. Both
gross misconduct and dishonesty are grave
offenses that are punishable by dismissal even
for the first offense. Conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service is also classified as a
grave offense under Section 22(t) of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of
Executive Order No. 292 and other pertinent
Civil Service laws, with the penalty for the first
offense being suspension for six (6) months and
one (1) day to one (1) year, and for the second
offense being dismissal. The Civil Service laws
and rules contain no description of what specific
acts constitute the grave offense of conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
However, jurisprudence has been instructive,
with the Court having considered the following
acts or omissions as constitutive of conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service,
namely: (a) misappropriation of public funds; (b)
abandonment of office; (c) failure to report
back to work without prior notice; (d) failure to
keep public records and property safe; (e)
making false entries in public documents; and (f)
falsification of court orders. For making false
statements, committing perjury and stealing the
copy paper, Austria and Glor are guilty of grave
misconduct, gross dishonesty, and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Their dismissal from the service is the proper
penalty, with forfeiture of retirement benefits,
except accrued leave credits, and perpetual
disqualification from reemployment in the
Government. In addition, the records of the case
should be referred to the Department of Justice
for investigation with a view to the filing, if
warranted, of the appropriate criminal
proceedings.
11
12
13
14
DECEMBER 2014
BCDS vs. COA Chairperson Pulido-Tan
G.R. No. 209219, December 2, 2014
Reyes, J.
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW;
FINDINGS
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES ACCORDED RESPECT
AND FINALITY: Findings of administrative
agencies are accorded not only respect but also
finality when the decision and order are not
tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that
would amount to grave abuse of discretion. It is
only when the COA has acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, that this Court entertains a petition
questioning its rulings.
ill
or
a
it
to
15
JANUARY 2015
Yinlu Bicol Mining Corp., vs. Trans-Asia Oil
and Energy Devt Corp.
G.R. No. 207942, January 12, 2015
Bersamin, J.
NATIONAL
ECONOMY
AND
PATRIMONY;
EXPLORATION,
DEVELOPMENT,
AND
UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: Rights
pertaining to mining patents issued pursuant to
the Philippine Bill of 1902 and existing prior to
November 15, 1935 are vested rights that cannot
be impaired. Mining rights acquired under the
Philippine Bill of 1902 and prior to the
effectivity of the 1935 Constitution were vested
rights that could not be impaired even by the
Government. Indeed, the mining patents of Yinlu
were issued pursuant to the Philippine Bill of
1902 and were subsisting prior to the effectivity
of the 1935 Constitution. Consequently, Yinlu
and its predecessors-in-interest had acquired
vested rights in the disputed mineral lands that
could not and should not be impaired even in
light of their past failure to comply with the
requirement of registration and annual work
obligations.
16
17
FEBRUARY 2015
De Castro vs. People
G.R. No. 171672, February 2, 2015
Bersamin, J.
BILL OF RIGHTS; SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE:
The right to remain silent and to counsel can be
invoked only in the context in which the Miranda
doctrine applies when the official proceeding is
conducted under the coercive atmosphere of a
custodial interrogation. There are no cases
extending them to a non-coercive setting. The
rights are invocable only when the accused is
under custodial investigation. A person
undergoing a normal audit examination is not
under custodial investigation and, hence, the
audit examiner may not be considered the law
enforcement officer contemplated by the rule.
By a fair analogy, Marieta may not be said to be
under custodial investigation. She was not even
being investigated by any police or law
enforcement
officer.
She
was
under
administrative investigation by her superiors in a
private firm and in purely voluntary manner. She
was not restrained of her freedom in any
manner. She was free to stay or go. There was
no evidence that she was forced or pressured to
say anything.
18
In re: Alcantara
A.M. No. P-15-3296, February 17, 2015
Per Curiam
LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS; LIABILITIES OF
PUBLIC OFFICERS: Grave misconduct is
committed when there has been a
transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, more particularly, unlawful
behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.
The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the
additional elements of corruption, willful intent
to violate the law, or to disregard established
rules, all of which must be established by
substantial evidence, and must necessarily be
manifest in a charge of grave misconduct. In
this case, Alcantara and Jacinto admitted to
taking and encashing checks of their co-workers
without permission. There is no doubt that their
acts of repeatedly stealing the checks and
forging the signatures of their co-workers
constitute grave misconduct and dishonesty.
ELECTION
LAW;
CANDIDACY:
Nuisance
candidates are persons who file their certificates
of candidacy to put the election process in
mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion
among the voters by the similarity of the names
of the registered candidates or by other
circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate
that the candidate has no bona fide intention to
run for the office for which the certificate of
candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a
faithful determination of the true will of the
electorate. To minimize the logistical confusion
caused by nuisance candidates, their certificates
of candidacy may be denied due course or
cancelled by respondent. This denial or
cancellation may be motu proprio or upon a
verified petition of an interested party,
subject to an opportunity to be heard.
Respondent in this case declared petitioner a
nuisance candidate without giving him a chance
to explain his bona fide intention to run for
office. Respondent had already declared
petitioner a nuisance candidate even before the
clarificatory hearing. This was an ineffective
opportunity to be heard.
People vs. CA
G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015
Peralta, J.
BILL OF RIGHTS; DOUBLE JEOPARDY: As a
general rule, the prosecution cannot appeal or
bring error proceedings from a judgment
rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal
case. The reason is that a judgment of acquittal
is immediately final and executory, and the
prosecution is barred from appealing lest the
constitutional
prohibition
against
double
jeopardy be violated. Despite acquittal,
however, either the offended party or the
accused may appeal, but only with respect to
the civil aspect of the decision. Or, said
judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court showing that the lower court, in
acquitting the accused, committed not merely
reversible errors of judgment, but also exercised
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, or a denial of due
process, thereby rendering the assailed
judgment null and void. If there is grave abuse
of discretion, granting petitioners prayer is not
tantamount to putting private respondents in
double jeopardy.
19
MARCH 2015
Nacion vs. COA
G.R No. 204757, March 17, 2015
Reyes, J.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE DUE
PROCESS: In administrative proceedings, the
essence of due process is the opportunity to
explain ones side or seek a reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained of, and to
submit any evidence he may have in support of
his defense. The demands of due process are
sufficiently met when the parties are given the
opportunity to be heard before judgment is
rendered.
In re: Parreno
OCA IPI No. 14-220-CA-J, March 17, 2015
Bersamin, J.
LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS; LIABILITIES OF
PUBLIC OFFICERS: Although often holding that a
heavy caseload is insufficient reason to excuse a
Judge from disposing his cases within the
reglementary period, the absence of malice or
deliberate attempt to impede the dispensation
of justice can exculpate him from liability.
20
21
LABOR LAW
APRIL 2014
Universidad de Sta. Isabel vs. Sambajon
G.R. Nos. 196280 & 196286, April 2, 2014
Villarama, Jr., J.
LABOR STANDARDS; KINDS OF EMPLOMENT;
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT: A probationary
employee is one who is on trial by the employer
during which the employer determines whether
or not said employee is qualified for permanent
employment. It is well-settled that the employer
has the right or is at liberty to choose who will
be hired and who will be denied employment. In
that sense, it is within the exercise of the right
to select his employees that the employer may
set or fix a probationary period within which the
latter may test and observe the conduct of the
former before hiring him permanently. While
there is no statutory cap on the minimum term
of probation, the law sets a maximum trial
period during which the employer may test the
fitness and efficiency of the employee.
22
23
24
accidental slippage in handling of the 200kilogram globe valve, such employee is eligible
for disability benefits under the Collective
Bargaining Agreement executed between his
employer and its union.
JUNE 2014
Nahas vs. Olarte
G.R. No. 169247, June 2, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT: [The Court
finds] nothing capricious or whimsical with the
NLRCs finding and thus affirm Nahas liability in
accordance with Section 64 of the Omnibus
Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (RA
8024), to wit: Section 64. Solidary Liability The
liability of the principal/employer and the
recruitment placement agency on any and all
claims under this Rule shall be [joint] and
solidary. [] If the recruitment/placement
agency is a juridical being, the corporate
officers and directors and partners as the case
may be, shall themselves be jointly and
solidarily liable with the corporation or
partnership for the aforesaid claims and
damages.
25
26
27
LABOR
STANDARDS;
DISMISSAL
FROM
EMPLOYMENT; RELIEF FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL:
An employee refusing a valid management
prerogative cannot file a complaint for illegal
dismissal and shall not be entitled to monetary
awards.
LABOR
STANDARDS;
TERMINATION
OF
EMPLOYMENT; DUE PROCESS: The Labor Code
and its IRR are silent on the procedural due
process required in terminations due to disease.
Despite the seeming gap in the law, Section 2,
Rule 1, Book VI of the IRR expressly states that
the employee should be afforded procedural due
process in all cases of dismissals.
LABOR
STANDARDS;
DISMISSAL
FROM
EMPLOYMENT; AUTHORIZED CAUSES: The
separation of NPC employees affected by its
reorganization and privatization was a foregone
conclusion. In recognition of this, the EPIRA gave
the assurance that these employees shall receive
the separation pay and other benefits due them
under existing laws, rules or regulations or be
able to avail of the privileges under a separation
plan which shall be one and one-half month
salary for every year of service in the
government. The employees separation being
an unavoidable consequence of the mandated
restructuring and privatization of the NPC, the
liability to pay for their separation benefits
should be deemed existing as of the EPIRAs
effectivity, and were thus transferred to PSALM
pursuant to Section 49 of the law.
28
JULY 2014
Immaculate Conception Academy vs.
Camilon
G.R. No. 188035, July 2, 2014
Villarama, Jr., J.
LABOR STANDARDS; SEPARATION PAY: Camilon
is clearly not entitled to separation pay. Camilon
was holding a position which involves a high
degree of responsibility requiring trust and
confidence as it involves financial interests of
the school. She was guilty of gross and habitual
negligence in failing to regularly pre-audit the
report of the school cashier, check the entries
therein and keep custody of the petty cash fund.
Had she been assiduously doing her job, the
unaccounted school funds would have been
discovered right away. Hence, she should not be
granted separation pay. To rule otherwise would
be to reward Camilon for her negligent acts
instead of punishing her for her offense. This is
in line with the Courts ruling in Reno Foods,
Inc. vs. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng ManggagawaKatipunan that separation pay is only warranted
when the cause for termination is not
attributable to the employees fault, such as
those provided in Articles 283 and 284 of the
Labor Code, as well as in cases of illegal
dismissal in which reinstatement is no longer
feasible. It is not allowed when an employee is
dismissed for just cause.
29
Mendoza, J.
LABOR STANDARDS; DISABILITY BENEFITS: A
seafarer may have basis to pursue an action for
total and permanent disability benefits only if
any of the following conditions are present: (a)
The company-designated physician failed to
issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in
sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the
120-day period and there is no indication that
further medical treatment would address his
temporary total disability, hence, justify an
extension of the period to 240 days; (b) 240 days
had lapsed without any certification issued by
the company designated physician; (c) The
company-designated physician declared that he
is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day
period, as the case may be, but his physician of
choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion;
(d)
The
company-designated
physician
acknowledged that he is partially permanently
disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on
his own and jointly with his employer, believed
that his disability is not only permanent but
total as well; (e) The company-designated
physician recognized that he is totally and
permanently disabled but there is a dispute on
the disability grading; (f) The companydesignated physician determined that his
medical condition is not compensable or workrelated under the POEA- SEC but his doctor-ofchoice and the third doctor selected under
Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise
and declared him unfit to work; (g) The
company-designated physician declared him
totally and permanently disabled but the
employer refuses to pay him the corresponding
benefits; and (h) The company-designated
physician
declared
him
partially
and
permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240day period but he remains incapacitated to
perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of
said periods. Furthermore, the onus probandi
falls on the seafarer to establish or substantiate
his claim that he is entitled to disability benefits
by the requisite quantum of evidence. He has to
prove causation between the nature of his
employment and his illness, or that the risk of
contracting the illness was increased by his
working condition. Otherwise, for lack of factual
and legal basis, he will not be entitled to any
claim.
30
31
32
AUGUST 2014
Lim vs. HMR Philippines
G.R. No. 201483, August 4, 2014
Mendoza, J.
LABOR
STANDARDS;
DISMISSAL
FROM
EMPLOYMENT;
BACKWAGES:
The
recomputation of the consequences of illegal
dismissal upon execution of the decision does
not constitute an alteration or amendment of
the final decision being implemented. The illegal
dismissal ruling stands; only the computation of
monetary consequences of this dismissal is
33
34
SEPTEMBER 2014
Omni Hauling Services vs. Bon
G.R. No. 199388, September 3, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
LABOR STANDARDS; KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT;
PROJECT EMPLOYMENT: In order to safeguard
the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of
the word project to prevent employees from
attaining a regular status, employers claiming
that their workers are project employees should
not only prove that the duration and scope of
the employment was specified at the time they
were engaged, but also that there was indeed a
project. Thus, if a garbage contractor
terminates the employment of its garbage truck
drivers and paleros, which the former alleges
were project employees yet the contractor
failed to show evidence to prove such assertion,
the presumption under Art. 280 of the Labor
Code that the garbage truck drivers and paleros
are regular employees, and that their refusal to
sign employment contract stating that they were
rehired for the duration of the renewed
service contract is not a valid ground for
dismissal.
PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION; COURT OF
APPEALS: In labor disputes, grave abuse of
discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when,
inter alia, its findings and the conclusions
reached thereby are not supported by
substantial evidence. The CA correctly granted
respondents certiorari petition since the NLRC
gravely abused its discretion when it held that
respondents were project employees despite
petitioners failure to establish their project
employment
status
through
substantial
evidence.
35
36
37
OCTOBER 2014
INC Shipmanagement vs. Rosales
G.R. No. 195832, October 1, 2014
Brion, J.
LABOR STANDARDS; DISABILITY BENEFITS: Dr.
Cruz, the company physician, gave Rosales a
partial permanent disability assessment but a
private physician gave him a permanent total
disability
assessment.
Under
these
circumstances, the assessment of the companydesignated physician is more credible for having
been arrived at after months of medical
attendance and diagnosis, compared with the
assessment of a private physician done in one
day on the basis of an examination or existing
medical records.
38
39
NOVEMBER 2014
Goodyear Philippines vs. Angus
G.R. No. 185449, November 12, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
LABOR STANDARDS; RETIREMENT PAY VIS-A-VIS
SEPARATION PAY: In the absence of a specific
provision in the CBA prohibiting recovery of
separation pay on top of the retirement pay, the
employee is entitled to both. Retirement
benefits and separation pay are not mutually
exclusive. Retirement benefits are a form of
reward for an employee's loyalty and service to
an employer and are earned under existing laws,
CBAs, employment contracts and company
policies. On the other hand, separation pay is
that amount which an employee receives at the
time of his severance from employment.
Moreover, the release and quitclaim signed by
the employee cannot be used by the employer
to legalize the denial of the former's rightful
claims. Under prevailing jurisprudence, a
quitclaim cannot bar an employee from
demanding benefits to which he is legally
entitled.
40
LABOR
STANDARDS;
FIT-TO-WORK
CERTIFICATION: Hipe failed to comply with the
procedure laid down under Section 20 (B) (3) of
the 2000 POEA-SEC with regard to the joint
appointment by the parties of a third doctor
whose decision shall be final and binding on
them in case the seafarers personal doctor
disagrees
with
the
company-designated
physicians
fit-to-work
assessment.
Jurisprudence provides that the seafarers noncompliance with the said conflict resolution
procedure results in the affirmance of the fit-towork certification of the company- designated
physician. In light of the contrasting diagnoses of
the company-designated physician and Hipes
personal doctor, Hipe filed his complaint before
the NLRC but prematurely did so without any
regard to the conflict-resolution procedure
under Section 20 (B) (3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC.
Thus, consistent with Jurisprudence, the fit-towork certification of the company designated
physician ought to be upheld.
LABOR
STANDARDS;
DISMISSAL
FROM
EMPLOYMENT; CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL: The
Court subscribes to the uniform rulings of the
Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA that Villareal
was constructively and illegally dismissed. When
Villareal was relieved from duty, he was placed
on floating status, thus, the employer should
prove that there are no posts available to which
the employee temporarily out of work can be
assigned. Peak failed to discharge the burden of
proving that there were no other posts available
for Villareal after his recall from his last
assignment. Worse, no sufficient reason was
given for his relief and continued denial of a
new assignment.
LABOR
STANDARDS;
DISMISSAL
FROM
EMPLOYMENT;
REINSTATEMENT
VIS-A-VIS
SEPARATION PAY; BACKWAGES: Under Article
279 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 6715, an employee who is unjustly
dismissed shall be entitled to (1) reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges; and, (2) full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and to other benefits or their
monetary equivalent computed from the time
his compensation was withheld up to the time of
actual reinstatement. The award of separation
pay must be deleted because, separation pay is
only granted as an alternative to reinstatement.
Villareals backwages must be computed from
the time of his unjustified relief from duty up to
his actual reinstatement.
certification
of
the
company-designated
physician should prevail. The Court does so for
the following reasons: first, the records show
that Belmonte only consulted the private
physician after his complaint with the LA has
been filed; second, the medical certificate was
issued after a one-day consultation; and third,
the medical certification was not supported by
particular
tests
or
medical
procedures
conducted on Belmonte that would sufficiently
controvert the positive results of those
administered to him by the company-designated
physician.
41
42
LABOR
STANDARDS;
DISMISSAL
FROM
EMPLOYMENT; JUST CAUSES: To terminate the
employment of workers simply because they
asserted their legal rights by filing a complaint is
illegal. It violates their right to security of
tenure and should not be tolerated. [] It is the
burden of the employer to prove that the
employee was not dismissed or, if dismissed,
that such dismissal was not illegal.
DECEMBER 2014
Fuji Television vs. Espiritu
G.R. Nos. 204944-45, December 3, 2014
Leonen, J.
LABOR STANDARDS; KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT;
REGULAR EMPLOYMENT; DISMISSAL FROM
EMPLOYMENT;
CONSTRUCTIVE
DISMISSAL:
[Respondent, whose contract was not renewed
after she was diagnosed with cancer] was a
regular employee and was illegally dismissed.
She was entitled to security of tenure and could
be dismissed only for just or authorized causes
and after the observance of due process. Under
the four-fold test, the control test is the most
important. The line should be drawn between
rules that merely serve as guidelines towards
the achievement of the mutually desired result
without dictating the means or methods to be
employed in attaining it, and those that control
or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the
party hired to the use of such means.
Respondent proved that petitioner had control
over her work as indicated in her contract. The
manner of petitioner, informing respondent that
her contract would no longer be renewed, is
tantamount to constructive dismissal.
PHILEC vs. CA
G.R. No. 168612, December 10, 2014
Leonen, J.
LABOR RELATIONS; COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT: The schedule of training allowance
stated in the memoranda served on Lipio and
Ignacio, Sr. did not conform to Article X, Section
4 of the June 1, 1997 collective bargaining
agreement. A collective bargaining agreement is
a contract executed upon the request of either
the employer or the exclusive bargaining
JANUARY 2015
Daraug vs. KGJSFLEET Management
G.R. No. 211211, January 14, 2015
Mendoza, J.
LABOR STANDARDS; DISABILITY BENEFITS:
Permanent total disability means disablement of
an employee to earn wages in the same kind of
work, or work of similar nature, that he was
trained for or accustomed to perform, or any
kind of work which a person of his mentality and
attainment could do. In disability compensation,
it is not the injury which is compensated, but
rather the incapacity to work resulting in the
impairment of one's earning capacity. As Daraug
was never actually incapacitated, it would be
highly unjust if he would be awarded the
disability benefits which the law accords only to
the deserving and utterly unfair to KGJS if they
would be made to pay.
43
44
LABOR
STANDARDS;
DISMISSAL
FROM
EMPLOYMENT; AUTHORIZED CAUSES: It is wellsettled that the filing by an employee of a
complaint, such as the petitioner Manarpiis, for
illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement
is proof enough of his desire to return to work,
thus, negating the employers charge of
abandonment. An employee who takes steps to
protest his dismissal cannot logically be said to
have abandoned his work. In this case,
petitioner did not abandon her work but was
told not to report for work anymore after being
served a written notice of termination of
company closure on July 27, 2000. Further, if the
business closure is due to serious losses or
financial reverses, the employer must present
sufficient proof of its actual or imminent losses;
it must show proof that the cessation of or
withdrawal from business operations was bona
fide in character. A written notice to the DOLE
thirty days before the intended date of closure
is also required and must be served upon each
and every employee of the company one month
before the date of effectivity to give them
sufficient time to make the necessary
arrangement. Such requirements were not
complied with by the respondent company,
thereby proving that the petitioner was illegally
dismissed.
FEBRUARY 2015
Milan vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 202961, February 4, 2015
Leonen, J.
LABOR STANDARDS; WAGES: An employer is
allowed to withhold terminal pay and benefits
pending the employees return of its properties.
45
46
47
LABOR
STANDARD;
DISMISSAL
FROM
EMPLOYMENT; CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL: In
this case, respondents themselves claimed that
after having removed Tatel from his post at
Bagger Werken on August 24, 2009 due to several
infractions
committed
thereat,
they
subsequently reassigned him to SKI from
September 16, 2009 to October 12, 2009 and
then to IPVG from October 21 to 23, 2009.
Thereafter, and until Tatel filed the instant
complaint for illegal dismissal six (6) months
later, or on May 4, 2010, he was not given any
other postings or assignments. While it may be
true that respondents summoned him back to
work through the November 26, 2009
Memorandum, which Tatel acknowledged to have
received on December 11, 2009, records are
bereft of evidence to show that he was given
another detail or assignment. As the "off-detail"
period had already lasted for more than six (6)
months, Tatel is therefore deemed to have been
constructively dismissed.
MARCH 2015
Metroguards Security vs. Hilongo
G.R. No. 215630, March 9, 2015
Villarama, Jr., J.
LABOR
STANDARDS;
DISMISSAL
FROM
EMPLOYMENT; RELIEF FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL:
The re-computation of the consequences of
illegal dismissal upon execution of the decision
does not constitute an alteration or amendment
of the final decision being implemented. The
illegal dismissal ruling stands; only the
computation of monetary consequences of this
dismissal is affected, and this is not a violation
of the principle of immutability of final
judgments. However, in this case, the CA
incorrectly concluded that the April 30, 2010
Decision of the Labor Arbiter became final on
June 11, 2013, contrary to its own finding that it
became final and executory on April 26, 2013.
This led to its erroneous computation of the
additional back wages and separation pay of
Hilongo, as well as reckoning the date of the 12%
legal interest. Following the teaching of Nacar v.
Gallery Frames that the computation of the
monetary consequences (back wages and
separation pay) of the illegal dismissal decision
should be reckoned from its finality, the
additional back wages and separation pay of
Hilongo should be computed from May 1, 2010 to
April 26, 2013. Further, the payment of legal
interest of 12% per annum should also be from
April 26, 2013 up to June 30, 2013. Thereafter,
in accordance with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
Monetary Boards Circular No. 799, series of
2013, the legal interest computed from July 1,
48
LABOR
STANDARDS;
DISMISSAL
FROM
EMPLOYMENT; JUST CAUSES: Sanchez was
dismissed due to theft. She alleged that she was
illegal dismissed for there was not intent to gain
on her part. The court ruled that Court finds
that Sanchez was validly dismissed by SLMC for
her willful disregard and disobedience of Section
1, Rule I of the SLMC Code of Discipline, which
reasonably punishes acts of dishonesty, i.e.,
theft, pilferage of hospital or co-employee
property, [] or its attempt in any form or
manner from the hospital, co-employees,
doctors, visitors, [and] customers (external and
internal) with termination from employment.
Such act is obviously connected with Sanchezs
work, [which], as a staff nurse, [involves] the
proper stewardship of medical supplies.
49
CIVIL LAW
APRIL 2014
Nieves vs. Duldulao
G.R. No. 190276, April 2, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
AGRARIAN
LAW;
AGRICULTURAL
LEASE:
Agricultural lessees, being entitled to security of
tenure, may be ejected from their landholding
only on the grounds provided by law. These
grounds the existence of which is to be proven
by the agricultural lessor in a particular case
are enumerated in Section 36 of Republic Act
No. (RA) 3844, otherwise known as the
Agricultural Land Reform Code. In this case, it
was established that the agricultural lessees
willfully and deliberately failed to pay the lease
rentals when they fell due, which is one of the
grounds for dispossession of their landholding as
provided in said provision of law. [Note:
provision of law tackled not part of this year's
Civil Law bar syllabus.]
50
JUNE 2014
PNB vs. Garcia
G.R. No. 182839, June 2, 2014
Brion, J.
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS; MORTGAGE; REAL
ESTATE MORTGAGE: The Amendment of Real
Estate Mortgage constituted by Jose Sr. over the
entire property without his co-owners' consent is
not necessarily void in its entirety. The right of
the PNB as mortgagee is limited though only to
the portion which may be allotted to Jose Sr. in
the event of a division and liquidation of the
subject property. Registration of a property
alone in the name of one spouse does not
destroy its conjugal nature. What is material is
the time when the property was acquired.
51
Paulino vs. CA
G.R. No. 205065, June 4, 2014
Mendoza, J.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS; TORRENS TITLE: In
reconstitution proceedings, the Court has
repeatedly ruled that before jurisdiction over
the case can be validly acquired, it is a
condition sine qua non that the certificate of
title has not been issued to another person. If a
certificate of title has not been lost but is in
fact in the possession of another person, the
reconstituted title is void and the court
rendering the decision has not acquired
jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of new
title. In the case at bench, the CA found that the
RTC
lacked
jurisdiction
to
order
the
reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No.
301617, there being no lost or destroyed title
over the real property, the respondent having
duly proved that TCT No. 301617 was in the
name of a different owner, Florendo, and the
technical description appearing on that TCT No.
301617 was similar to the technical description
52
53
54
Uy vs. Fule
G.R. No. 164961, June 30, 2014
Bersamin, J.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS; TORRENS TITLE: The
standard is that for one to be a purchaser in
good faith in the eyes of the law, he should buy
the property of another without notice that
some other person has a right to, or interest in,
55
JULY 2014
AFP-RSBS vs. Republic
G.R. No.180086, July 2, 2014
Leonen, J.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS; REGISTRATION:
[What] is important in computing the period of
possession is that the land has already been
declared alienable and disposable at the time of
the
application
for
registration.
Upon
satisfaction
of
this
requirement,
the
computation of the period may include the
period of adverse possession prior to the
declaration that land is alienable and
disposable.
56
AUGUST 2014
Lim vs. HMR Philippines
G.R. No. 201483, August 4, 2014
Mendoza, J.
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS; LOAN; INTEREST RATE:
Lim argues that legal interest in accordance with
the case of Eastern Shipping must also be
awarded. The rules on legal interest in Eastern
Shipping have, however, been recently modified
by Nacar in accordance with Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas Monetary Board (BSP-MB) Circular No.
799, which became effective on July 1, 2013.
Pertinently, it amended the rate of legal interest
in judgments from 12% to 6% per annum, with
the qualification that the new rate be applied
prospectively. Thus, the 12% per annum legal
interest in judgments under Eastern Shipping
shall apply only until June 30, 2013, and the new
rate of 6% per annum shall be applied from July
1, 2013 onwards.
57
PROPERTY;
OWNERSHIP;
OWNERSHIP
IN
GENERAL: [It] is settled that [o]nce a contact
of lease is shown to exist between the parties,
the lessee cannot by any proof, however strong,
overturn the conclusive presumption that the
lessor has a valid title to or a better right of
possession to the subject premises than the
lessee. Section 2(b), Rule 131 of the Rules of
Court prohibits a tenant from denying the title
of his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation of landlord and
tenant between them.
58
59
60
SEPTEMBER 2014
ECE Realty vs. Mandap
G.R. No. 196182, September 1, 2014
Peralta, J.
OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; CONTRACTS;
ESSENTIAL REQUISITES; CONSENT: [Petitioner
questions the decision of the CA holding that it
employed fraud to induce respondent to enter a
contract with it. The SC ruled that though]
petitioner was guilty of fraud, such fraud
however is not sufficient to nullify its contract
with respondent. Jurisprudence has shown that
in order to constitute fraud that provides basis
to annul contracts, it must fulfill two conditions.
First, the fraud must be dolo causante or it must
be fraud in obtaining the consent of the party.
This is referred to as causal fraud. Second, the
fraud must be proven by clear and convincing
evidence and not merely by a preponderance
thereof. In the present case, respondent failed
to prove that the misrepresentation made by
petitioner was the causal consideration or the
principal inducement which led her into buying
her unit in the said condominium project. [Such
being the case, petitioners misrepresentation in
its advertisements does not constitute causal
fraud which would have been a valid basis in
annulling the Contract to Sell between
petitioner and respondent.]
61
62
OCTOBER 2014
Spouses Ocampo vs. Heirs of Dionisio
63
64
65
66
NOVEMBER 2014
PROPERTY;
OWNERSHIP;
OWNERSHIP
IN
GENERAL: Ejectment proceedings are summary
proceedings intended to provide an expeditious
means of protecting actual possession or right to
possession of property. Title is not involved. The
sole issue to be resolved is who is entitled to the
physical or material possession of the premises
or possession de facto. [] Issues as to the right
of possession or ownership are not involved in
the action; evidence thereon is not admissible,
except only for the purpose of determining the
issue of possession.
67
68
69
70
DECEMBER 2014
Mangaser vs. Ugay
G.R. No. 204926, December 3, 2014
Mendoza, J.
PROPERTY; POSSESSION; ACQUISITION OF
POSSESSION: Possession can be acquired by
juridical acts. These are acts to which the law
gives the force of acts of possession. Examples
of these are donations, succession, execution
and registration of public
instruments,
inscription of possessory information titles and
the like. The reason for this exceptional rule is
that possession in the eyes of the law does not
mean that a man has to have his feet on every
square meter of ground before it can be said
that he is in possession. It is sufficient that
petitioner was able to subject the property to
the action of his will.
CREDIT
TRANSACTIONS;
SURETYSHIP:
A
contract of suretyship is an agreement whereby
a party, called the surety, guarantees the
performance by another party, called the
principal or obligor, or an obligation or
undertaking in favor of another party, called the
obligee. Although the contract of a surety is
secondary only to a valid principal obligation,
the surety becomes liable for the debt or duty of
another although it possesses no direct or
personal interest over the obligations nor does it
receive any benefit therefrom. [] Mallari was
duty-bound [by applicable GSIS internal rules] to
ensure that the procedural and documentary
requisites were duly complied with before
affixing his signature on the bond. In the same
way, he should not have signed the attestation
clause as the required underwriting work had
not been diligently complied with. His failure to
act accordingly was a gross and inexcusable
violation of the GSIS-avowed policy on strict
underwriting.
JANUARY 2015
NFF Industrial vs. G & L Assoc. Brokerage
G.R. No. 178169, January 12, 2015
Peralta, J.
SALES; DELIVERY: Under the Civil Code, the
vendor is bound to transfer the ownership of and
deliver, as well as warrant the thing which is the
object of the sale. The ownership of thing sold is
considered acquired by the vendee once it is
delivered to him. Thus, ownership does not pass
by mere stipulation but only by delivery. In the
law on sales, delivery may be either actual or
constructive, but both forms of delivery
contemplate the absolute giving up of the
control and custody of the property on the part
of the vendor, and the assumption of the same
by the vendee.
71
72
73
74
FEBRUARY 2015
Republic vs. Roasa
G.R. No. 176022, February 2, 2015
Peralta, J.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS; REGISTRATION: An
applicant for original registration of title based
on a claim of exclusive and continuous
possession or occupation must show the
existence of the following: (1) open, continuous,
exclusive
and
notorious
possession,
by
themselves or through their predecessors-ininterest, of land; (2) the land possessed or
occupied must have been declared alienable and
disposable agricultural land of public domain;
(3) the possession or occupation was under a
bona fide claim of ownership; (4) possession
dates back to June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Therefore, what is important in computing the
period of possession is that the land has already
been declared alienable and disposable at the
time of the application for registration. Upon
satisfaction
of
this
requirement,
the
computation of the period may include the
period of adverse possession prior to the
declaration that land is alienable and
disposable. In the present case, there is no
dispute that the subject lot has been declared
alienable and disposable on March 15, 1982. This
is more than eighteen (18) years before Roasa's
application for registration, which was filed on
75
76
Reyes, J.
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS; SURETYSHIP: A surety
is considered in law as being the same party as
the debtor in relation to whatever is adjudged
touching the obligation of the latter, and their
liabilities are interwoven as to be inseparable.
[Also,] when the obligor or obligors undertake to
be jointly and severally liable, it means that
the obligation is solidary, as in this case.
MARCH 2015
Javate vs. Spouses Tiotuico
G.R. No. 187606, March 9, 2015
77
Peralta, J.
Carpio, J.
78
79
80
TAXATION
APRIL 2014
CIR vs. Team [Phils.] Operation Corp.
G.R. No. 179260, April 2, 2014
Perez, J.
TAX REFUND/CREDIT: There are three essential
conditions for the grant of a claim for refund of
creditable withholding income tax, to wit: (1)
the claim is filed with the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue within the two-year period
from the date of payment of the tax (2) it is
shown on the return of the recipient that the
income payment received was declared as part
of the gross income and (3) the fact of
withholding is established by a copy of a
statement duly issued by the payor to the payee
showing the amount paid and the amount of the
tax withheld therefrom.
JUNE 2014
CIR vs. Insular Life
G.R. No. 197192, June 4, 2014
Reyes, J.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION: "Time and
again, the Court has held that it is a necessary
judicial practice that when a court has laid
down a principle of law as applicable to a
certain facts, it will adhere to that principle and
apply it to all future cases in which the facts are
substantially the same. Stare decisis et non
quieta movere, stand by the decisions and
disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply
means that for the sake of certainty, a
conclusion reached in one case should be
applied to those that follow if the facts are
substantially the same, even though the parties
may be different. It proceeds from the first
principle of justice that, absent any powerful
countervailing considerations, like cases ought
to be decided alike. Thus, where the same
questions relating to the same event have been
put forward by the parties similarly situated as
in a previous case litigated and decided by a
competent court, the rule of stare decisis[is] a
bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue."
The Court has pronounced in Republic of the
Philippines v. Sunlife Assurance Company of
Canadathat under the Tax Code although
respondent is a cooperative, registration with
the CDA is not necessary in order for it to be
exempt from the payment of both percentage
taxes on insurance premiums, under Section
121; and documentary stamp taxes on policies of
insurance or annuities it grants, under Section
199. The CTA observed that the factual
circumstances obtaining in Sunlife and the
present case are substantially the same. Hence,
the CTA based its assailed decision on the
doctrine enunciated by the Court in the said
case.
81
82
JULY 2014
83
AUGUST 2014
SEPTEMBER 2014
Agriex vs. Commissioner, BOC
G.R. No. 158150, September 10, 2014
Bersamin, J.
GOVERNMENT
REMEDIES;
ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES:It is well-settled that the Collector of
Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure
and forfeiture proceedings, and regular courts
84
OCTOBER 2014
NAPOCOR vs. City of Cabanatuan
G.R. No. 177332, October 01, 2014
Leonen, J.
LOCAL TAXATION: The Citys yearly imposition
of the 25% surcharge, which was sustained by
the trial court and the Court of Appeals,
resulted in an aggregate penalty that is way
higher than NAPOCORs basic tax liabilities. A
surcharge regardless of how it is computed is
already a deterrent. While it is true that
imposing a higher amount may be a more
effective deterrent, it cannot be done in
violation of law and in such a way as to make it
confiscatory.
85
NOVEMBER 2014
La Suerte Cigar vs. CA
G.R. Nos. 125346, 136328-29, 144942,
148605, 158197, & 165499, November 11,
2014
Leonen, J.
EXCISE TAX: Stemmed leaf tobacco is subject to
the specific tax under Section 141(b). It is a
partially prepared tobacco. The removal of the
stem or midrib from the leaf tobacco makes the
resulting stemmed leaf tobacco a prepared or
partially prepared tobacco. Since the Tax Code
contained no definition of partially prepared
tobacco, then the term should be construed in
its general, ordinary, and comprehensive sense.
However, importation of stemmed leaf tobacco
is not included in the exemption under Section
137. The transaction contemplated in Section
137 does not include importation of stemmed
leaf tobacco for the reason that the law uses the
word sold to describe the transaction of
transferring the raw materials from one
manufacturer to another. Finally, excise taxes
are essentially taxes on property because they
are levied on certain specified goods or articles
manufactured or produced in the Philippines for
domestic sale or consumption or for any other
disposition, and on goods imported. In this case,
there is no double taxation in the prohibited
sense despite the fact that they are paying the
specific tax on the raw material and on the
finished product in which the raw material was a
part, because the specific tax is imposed by
explicit provisions of the Tax Code on two
different articles or products: (1) on the
stemmed leaf tobacco; and (2) on cigar or
cigarette.
GOVERNMENT REMEDIES; JUDICIAL REMEDIES:
[In] an action for the refund of taxes allegedly
erroneously paid, the Court of Tax Appeals may
determine whether there are taxes that should
have been paid in lieu of the taxes paid.
Determining the proper category of tax that
86
the
two
to
be
used
BIR vs. CA
G.R. No. 197590, November 24, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
TAX REMEDIES; ASSESSMENT: [Tax] evasion is
deemed complete when the violator has
knowingly and willfully filed a fraudulent return
with intent to evade and defeat a part or all of
the tax. Corollarily, an assessment of the tax
deficiency is not required in a criminal
prosecution for tax evasion. However, in
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of
Appeals, we clarified that although a deficiency
assessment is not necessary, the fact that a tax
is due must first be proved before one can be
prosecuted for tax evasion.
87
88
DECEMBER 2014
LG Electronics vs. CIR
G.R. No. 165451, December 3, 2014
Leonen, J.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION: The claim
of a taxpayer under a tax amnesty shall be
allowed when the liability involves the
deficiency in payment of income tax. However,
it must be disallowed when the taxpayer is
assessed on his capacity as a withholding tax
agent because the person who earned the
taxable income was another person other than
the withholding agent.
JANUARY 2015
Banco de Oro vs. Republic
G.R. No. 198756, January 13, 2015
Leonen, J.
FINAL WITHHOLDING TAX: Should there have
been a simultaneous sale to 20 or more
lenders/investors, the Poverty Eradication and
Alleviation Certificates or the PEACe Bonds are
deemed deposit substitutes within the meaning
of Sec. 22(Y) of the 1997 NIRC and RCBC Capital
would have been obliged to pay the 20% FWT on
the interest or discount from the PEACe Bonds.
Further, the obligation to withhold the 20% final
tax on the corresponding interest from the
PEACe Bonds would likewise be required of any
lender/investor had the latter turned around
and sold said PEACe Bonds, whether in whole or
part, simultaneously to 20 or more lenders or
investors. The Court notes, however, that under
Section 242 of the 1997 NIRC, interest income
received by individuals from long-term deposits
or investments with a holding period of not less
than five (5) years is exempt from the final tax.
Thus, should the PEACe Bonds be found to be
within the coverage of deposit substitutes, the
proper procedure was for the Bureau of Treasury
to pay the face value of the PEACe Bonds to the
bondholders and for the BIR to collect the
unpaid FWT directly from RCBC Capital, or any
lender or investor if such be the case, as the
withholding agents.
89
90
FEBRUARY 2015
China Banking vs. CIR
G.R. No. 172509, February 4, 2015
Sereno, C.J.
TAX REMEDIES; ASSESSMENT; PRESCRIPTIVE
PERIOD OF ASSESMENT: The assessment of the
tax is deemed made and the three-year period
for collection of the assessed tax begins to run
on the date the assessment notice had been
released, mailed or sent by the BIR to the
taxpayer. Thus, failure of the BIR to file a
warrant of distraint or serve a levy on taxpayer's
properties nor file collection case within the
three-year period is fatal. Also, the attempt of
the BIR to collect the tax through its Answer
with a demand for the taxpayer to pay the
assessed DST in the CTA is not deemed
compliance with the Tax Code.
MARCH 2015
Cargill Philippines vs. CIR
G.R. No. 203774, March 11, 2015
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
VALUE-ADDED TAX: [During] the period [from]
December 10, 2003 (when BIR Ruling No. DA-48903 was issued) to October 6, 2010 (when the
Aichi case was promulgated), taxpayersclaimants need not observe the 120-day period
before it could file a judicial claim for refund of
excess input VAT before the CTA. Before and
after the aforementioned period (i.e., December
10, 2003 to October 6, 2010), the observance of
the 120-day period is mandatory and
jurisdictional to the filing of such claim.
91
92
MERCANTILE LAW
APRIL 2014
Narra Nickel Mining vs. Redmont
Consolidated Mines
G.R. No. 195580, April 21, 2014
Velasco, Jr., J.
CORPORATION
LAW;
NATIONALITY
OF
CORPORATIONS; GRANDFATHER RULE: The
Grandfather Rule is a method to determine the
nationality of the corporation by making
reference to the nationality of the stockholders
of the investor corporation. Based on a SEC Rule
and DOJ Opinion, the Grandfather Rule or the
second part of the SEC Rule applies only when
the 60-40 Filipino-foreign equity ownership is in
doubt (i.e., in cases where the joint venture
corporation
with
Filipino
and
foreign
stockholders with less than 60% Filipino
stockholdings [or 59%] invests in other joint
venture corporation which is either 60-40%
Filipino-alien or the 59% less Filipino). Stated
differently, where the 60-40 Filipino- foreign
equity ownership is not in doubt, the
Grandfather Rule will not apply.
JUNE 2014
Yujuico vs. Quiambao
G.R. No. 180416, June 2, 2014
Perez, J.
CORPORATION LAW; STOCKHOLDERS AND
MEMBERS; RIGHT TO INSPECT: A criminal action
based on the violation of a stockholder's right to
93
94
JULY 2014
Commissioner of Customs vs. Oilink
International
G.R. No. 161759, July 2, 2014
Bersamin, J.
CORPORATION LAW; CORPORATE JURIDICAL
PERSONALITY; DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE
JURIDICAL PERSONALITY: [The] doctrine of
piercing the corporate veil has no application
here because the Commissioner of Customs did
not establish that Oilink had been set up to
avoid the payment of taxes or duties, or for
purposes that would defeat public convenience,
justify wrong, protect fraud, defend crime,
confuse legitimate legal or judicial issues,
perpetrate deception or otherwise circumvent
the law.
AUGUST 2014
Palm Avenue Holding vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 173082, August 6, 2014
Peralta, J.
CORPORATION LAW; CORPORATE JURIDICAL
PERSONALITY; DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE
JURIDICAL
PERSONALITY:
The
writ
of
sequestration issued against the assets of the
corporation is not valid because the suit in the
civil case was against the shareholder in the
corporation and is not a suit against the latter.
Thus, the 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. Furthermore, the
sequestration
order
issued
against
the
corporation is deemed automatically lifted due
to the failure of the Republic to commence the
proper judicial action or to implead them
therein
within
the
period
under
the
Constitution.
95
SEPTEMBER 2014
Ching vs. Subic Bay Golf and Country Club
G.R. No. 174353, September 10, 2014
Leonardo-De Castro, J.
CORPORATION LAW; STOCKHOLDERS AND
MEMBERS; DERIVATIVE SUIT: A derivative suit
cannot prosper without first complying with the
legal requisites for its institution. Thus, a
complaint which contained no allegation
whatsoever of any effort to avail of intracorporate remedies allows the court to dismiss
it, even motu proprio. Indeed, even if
petitioners thought it was futile to exhaust
intra-corporate remedies, they should have
stated the same in the Complaint and specified
the reasons for such opinion. The requirement of
this allegation in the Complaint is not a useless
formality which may be disregarded at will.
Co vs. Yeung
G.R. No. 212705, September 10, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
LAW;
UNFAIR
COMPETITION: Unfair competition is defined as
the passing off (or palming off) or attempting to
pass off upon the public of the goods or business
of one person as the goods or business of
another with the end and probable effect of
deceiving the public. This takes place where the
defendant gives his goods the general
appearance of the goods of his competitor with
the intention of deceiving the public that the
goods are those of his competitor. Here, it has
been established that Co conspired with the
Laus in the sale/distribution of counterfeit
96
LAW;
STOCKHOLDERS
AND
97
file
the
OCTOBER 2014
Lanuza, Jr., vs. BF Corporation
G.R. No. 174938, October 1, 2014
Leonen, J.
CORPORATION LAW; CORPORATE JURIDICAL
PERSONALITY; DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE
JURIDICAL PERSONALITY: A corporations
representatives are generally not bound by the
terms of the contract executed by the
corporation. They are not personally liable for
obligations and liabilities incurred on or in
behalf of the corporation.
98
SEC vs. CA
G.R. No. 187702, October 22, 2014
Sereno, C.J.
SECURITIES
REGULATION
CODE;
PROXY
SOLICITATION: The power of the SEC to
investigate violations of its rules on proxy
NOVEMBER 2014
Lopez Realty vs. Spouses Tanjangco
G.R. No. 154291, November 12, 2014
Reyes, J.
CORPORATION LAW; BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND
TRUSTEES; MEETINGS: [The] general rule is that
a corporation, through its board of directors,
should act in the manner and within the
formalities, if any, prescribed by its charter or
by the general law. However, the actions taken
in such a meeting by the directors or trustees
may be ratified expressly or impliedly.
99
DECEMBER 2014
Victorio-Aquino vs. Pacific Plans
G.R. No. 193108, December 10, 2014
Peralta, J.
CORPORATION
LAW,
DISSOLUTION
AND
LIQUIDATION; CORPORATE REHABILITATION:
While the voice and participation of the
creditors is crucial in the determination of the
viability of the rehabilitation plan, as they stand
to benefit or suffer in the implementation
thereof, the interests of all stakeholders is the
ultimate and prime consideration.
JANUARY 2015
Eastern Shipping vs. BPI/MS Insurance
G.R. No. 182864, January 12, 2015
Perez, J.
TRANSPORTATION LAW; BILL OF LADING: Mere
proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a
common carrier and of their arrival in bad order
at their destination constitutes a prima facie
case of fault or negligence against the carrier. If
no adequate explanation is given as to how the
deterioration, loss, or destruction of the goods
happened, the transporter shall be held
responsible. In this case, the fault is attributable
to ESLI.
100
FEBRUARY 2015
Doa Adela Export Intl vs. Trade and
Investment Dev't Corp.
G.R. No. 201931, February 11, 2015
Villarama, Jr., J.
SPECIAL COMMERCIAL LAWS: Section 2 of R.A.
No. 1405, the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits,
provides for exceptions when records of deposits
may be disclosed. These are under any of the
following instances: (a) upon written permission
of the depositor, (b) in cases of impeachment,
(c) upon order of a competent court in the case
of bribery or dereliction of duty of public
officials or, (d) when the money deposited or
invested is the subject matter of the litigation,
and (e) in cases of violation of the Anti-Money
Laundering Act, the Anti-Money Laundering
Council may inquire into a bank account upon
order of any competent court.
MARCH 2015
Abad vs. Phil. Comm. Satellite Corp.
G.R. No. 200620, March 18, 2015
Villarama, Jr., J.
CORPORATION LAW; STOCKHOLDERS AND
MEMBERS; INTRA-CORPORATE DISPUTE: Upon
the enactment of Republic Act No. 8799, the
jurisdiction of the SEC over intra-corporate
controversies and the other cases enumerated in
Section 5 of P.D. No. 902-A was transferred to
the Regional Trial Court. The jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan has been held not to extend even
to a case involving a sequestered company
notwithstanding that the majority of the
members of the board of directors were PCGG
nominees.
101
CRIMINAL LAW
APRIL 2014
Consigna vs. People
G.R. Nos. 175750-51, April 2, 2014
Perez, J.
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS; ANTI-GRAFT AND
CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT: The following are the
essential elements of violation of Sec. 3(e) of
R.A. No. 3019: (1) the accused must be a public
officer discharging administrative, judicial or
official functions (2) he must have acted with
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
inexcusable negligence and (3) that his action
caused any undue injury to any party, including
the government, or giving any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
in the discharge of his functions. There is no
doubt that Consigna, being a municipal
treasurer, was a public officer discharging
official functions when she misused such position
to be able to take out a loan from Moleta, who
was misled into the belief that she, as municipal
treasurer, was acting on behalf of the
municipality.
102
103
104
MAY 2014
People vs. Feliciano, Jr.
G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014
Leonen, J.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS; MURDER/HOMICIDE:
For treachery to be considered, two elements
must concur: (1) the employment of means of
JUNE 2014
People vs. Salipada
G.R. No. 188710, June 2, 2014
Sereno, C.J.
CIRCUMSTANCES
AFFECTING
CRIMINAL
LIABILITY;
QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES:
Without any evidence to appreciate the
aggravating circumstance of treachery in the
killing of Calim, respondent can only be held
liable as principal for the crime of homicide. For
treachery to be considered, it must be present
and seen by the witness right at the inception of
the attack. Where no particulars are known as to
how the killing began, the perpetration of an
attack with treachery cannot be presumed.
Furthermore, Watamamas theory of mistaken
identity is not persuasive; witnesses need not
know the names of the assailants, as long as
they recognize the latters faces.
105
106
107
108
JULY 2014
Suyan vs. People
G.R. No. 189644, July 2, 2014
Sereno, C.J.
109
CIRCUMSTANCES
AFFECTING
CRIMINAL
LIABILITY;
QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES:
Treachery as a qualifying circumstance must be
deliberately sought to ensure the safety of the
accused from the defensive acts of the victim.
The unexpectedness of an attack cannot be the
sole basis of a finding of treachery even if the
attack was intended to kill another as long as
the victims position was merely accidental. A
finding of the existence of treachery should be
based on clear and convincing evidence. Such
evidence must be as conclusive as the fact of
killing itself. In this case, no evidence was
presented to show that petitioner consciously
adopted or reflected on the means, method, or
form of attack to secure his unfair advantage.
110
111
112
Del Castillo, J.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS; RAPE: Rape may be
committed by a man having carnal knowledge of
a woman through threat or intimidation.
According to AAA, every time Juan [i.e.
Bunagan] will have sexual intercourse with her,
he would issue threats that he would kill her, her
mother and grandmother. Although AAAs
minority was alleged, the same was not proved
during trial; neither was her Birth Certificate
submitted in evidence. Her relationship with the
Juan was likewise not established. Although the
Information alleged that Juan is an uncle of
AAA, such relationship was not proved during
trial. Based on Juans testimony, he was never
married to AAAs relative.
AUGUST 2014
People vs. Basman
G.R. No. 204911, August 6, 2014
Perez, J.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS: [Failure] to strictly comply
with the prescribed procedures in the inventory
of seized drugs does not render the arrest of the
accused-appellants
illegal
or
the
item
seized/confiscated from them inadmissible. The
essential thing to consider is the preservation
of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items, as the same would be utilized in
the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.
113
114
SEPTEMBER 2014
People vs. Baturi
G.R No. 189812, September 1, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS: Arguing that the failure of
the buy-bust team to comply with the procedure
governing the handling, custody and disposition
115
116
Perez, J.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS; RAPE: When the
rape victim had testified in a straightforward
and categorical manner that the accused had
used force and intimidation to insert his penis
into her vagina, and the trial court gave
credence to her testimony, such findings are
binding upon the Supreme Court. In addition,
the sweetheart theory, absent any substantial
evidence as proof of a relationship between the
victim and the accused, will not be a sufficient
defense for rape. Besides, the fact that both
parties are sweethearts does not negate rape.
117
Reyes, J.
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS; BOUNCING CHECKS LAW:
The Court, however, considers Campos' defense
that she exerted efforts to reach an amicable
settlement with her creditor after the checks
which she issued were dishonored by the drawee
bank. Campos categorically declared in her
petition that, she has in her favor evidence to
show that she was in good faith and indeed
made arrangements for the payment of her
obligations subsequently after the dishonor of
the checks. Clearly, this statement was a
confirmation that she actually received the
required notice of dishonor from FWCC. Campos
would not have entered into the alleged
arrangements beginning January 1996 until May
1998 if she had not received a notice of dishonor
from her creditor, and had no knowledge of the
insufficiency of her funds with the bank and the
dishonor of her checks.
118
OTHER
OCTOBER 2014
People vs. Dela Cruz
G.R. No. 205821, October 1, 2014
Leonen, J.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS: Apart from the blatantly
irregular handling by PO1 Bobon of the seven (7)
sachets, it is also admitted that no physical
inventory and taking of photographs in the
presence of Dela Cruz or of any of the other
persons specified by Section 21 were conducted.
The significance of complying with Section 21s
requirements cannot be overemphasized. Noncompliance is tantamount to failure in
establishing identity of corpus delicti, an
essential element of the offenses of illegal sale
and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. By
failing to establish an element of these offenses,
engender
the
119
120
NOVEMBER 2014
121
122
123
124
DECEMBER 2014
Rivera vs. People
G.R. No. 156577, December 3, 2014
Mendoza, J.
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS; ANTI-GRAFT AND
CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT: [There] are two ways
by which a public official violates Sec. 3(e) of
R.A. No. 3019 in the performance of his
functions, namely: by causing undue injury to
any party, including the Government; or by
giving any private party any unwarranted
benefit, advantage or preference. The Court
found that the petitioners committed undue
injury to the government and gave unwarranted
125
126
JANUARY 2015
People vs. Bosito
G.R. No. 209346, January 12, 2015
Carpio, J.
CIRCUMSTANCES
AFFECTING
CRIMINAL
LIABILITY; JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: Selfdefense, to be successfully invoked, must be
proven by clear and convincing evidence that
excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on
the part of the person invoking it. Bosito failed
to present adequate evidence to prove
otherwise. Thus, his claim of self-defense
cannot stand.
127
128
FEBRUARY 2015
Villareal vs. People
G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2015
Sereno, C.J.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES; CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
ENACT PENAL LAWS: Although courts must not
remain indifferent to public sentiments, in this
case the general condemnation of a hazingrelated death, they are still bound to observe a
fundamental principle in our criminal justice
system. No act constitutes a crime unless it is
made so by law. Nullum crimen, nulla poena
sine lege. Even if an act is viewed by a large
section of the populace as immoral or injurious,
it cannot be considered a crime, absent any law
prohibiting its commission. Had the Anti-Hazing
Law been in effect then, these five accused
fraternity members would have all been
convicted of the crime of hazing punishable by
reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment). The
absence of malicious intent does not
automatically mean, however, that the accused
fraternity members are ultimately devoid of
criminal liability. The Revised Penal Code also
punishes felonies that are committed by means
of fault (culpa).
129
130
131
Abola,
upon
being
frisked
after
his
apprehension, was found possessing another
plastic sachet containing 0.15 gram of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
There is no evidence on record showing that he
was legally authorized to possess the same.
Neither was there any explanation that he did
not freely or consciously possess the said illegal
drug. Settled is the rule that possession of
dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie
evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi,
which is sufficient to convict an accused in the
absence of a satisfactory explanation of such
possession. Clearly, all the elements of the
offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
are likewise present in this case.
132
133
134
People vs. CA
G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015
Peralta, J.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS; RAPE: In reviewing
rape cases, the lone testimony of the victim is
and should be, by itself, sufficient to warrant a
judgment of conviction if found to be credible.
Also, it has been established that when a woman
declares that she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is necessary to mean that she has
been raped, and where her testimony passes the
test of credibility, the accused can be convicted
on that basis alone. This is because from the
nature of the offense, the sole evidence that
can usually be offered to establish the guilt of
the accused is the complainants testimony
itself.
MARCH 2015
Tionco vs. People
G.R. No.192284, March 11, 2015
Del Castillo, J.
OTHER
135
136
REMEDIAL LAW
APRIL 2014
Reyes, J.
NHA vs. CA
G.R. No. 173802, April 7, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGEMENTS AND FINAL
ORDERS; IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL AND
EXECUTORY JUDGMENTS: It is well-settled that
a decision that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable, and may no longer
be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be
made by the court that rendered it or by the
Highest Court of the land. In this case, the Court
concurs with the CAs view that the Assailed
Order had already become final and executory
at the time when the NHA sought to have it
reconsidered before the court a quo. As
evidenced by the registry return receipt on
record, the NHA however, moved for
reconsideration therefrom only on March 11,
1999, or more than four (4) months from notice.
As the motion was filed way beyond the 15-day
reglementary period prescribed therefor, the
court a quos judgment had already lapsed into
finality.
137
138
139
140
Leonen, J.
JURISDICTION: Article 143 of the Muslim Code
would reveal that Sharia courts has jurisdiction
over real actions when the parties are both
Muslims. The fact that the Sharia courts have
concurrent jurisdiction with the regular courts in
cases of actions involving real property means
that jurisdiction may only be exercised by the
said courts when the action involves parties who
are both Muslims. In cases where one of the
parties is a non-muslim, the Shariah Courts
cannot exercise jurisdiction over it. It would
immediately divest the Shariah court jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
JUNE 2014
De Leon vs. Hercules Agro
141
142
Paulino vs. CA
G.R. No. 205065, June 4, 2014
Mendoza, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES;
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT: The Court agrees
with the CA that LRA was not estopped from
assailing the RTC Decision because it never
attained finality for being null and void, having
been rendered by a court without jurisdiction
over the reconstitution proceedings.
143
144
145
146
147
ATO vs. CA
G.R. No. 173616, June 25, 2014
De Castro, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES;
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION, AND EFFECTS OF
JUDGMENTS: Section 21, Rule 70 provides that
the judgment of the RTC in ejectment cases
appealed to it shall be immediately executory
and can be enforced despite the perfection of
an appeal to a higher court. To avoid such
immediate execution, the defendant may appeal
said judgment to the CA and therein apply for a
writ of preliminary injunction. In this case, the
decisions of the MTCC, of the RTC, and of the
CA, unanimously recognized the right of the ATO
to possession of the property and the
corresponding
obligation
of
Miaque
to
immediately vacate the subject premises. This
means that the MTCC, the RTC, and the Court of
Appeals all ruled that Miaque does not have any
right to continue in possession of the said
premises. It is therefore puzzling how the Court
of Appeals justified its issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction with the sweeping
statement that Miaque appears to have a clear
legal right to hold on to the premises leased by
him from ATO at least until such time when he
shall have been duly ejected therefrom by a writ
of execution of judgment caused to be issued by
the MTCC.
148
JULY 2014
Araullo vs. Benigno Aquino III
G.R. No. 209287, et sq., July 1, 2014
Bersamin, J.
SPECIAL
CIVIL
ACTIONS;
CERTIORARI,
PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS: With respect to
the Court, however, the remedies of certiorari
and prohibition are necessarily broader in scope
and reach, and the writ of certiorari or
prohibition may be issued to correct errors of
jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal,
corporation, board or officer exercising judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions but also to
set right, undo and restrain any act or grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality
of the Government, even if the latter does not
exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions. This application is expressly
authorized by the text of the second paragraph
of Section 1, [Article VII of the 1987
Constitution]. Thus, petitions for certiorari and
prohibition are appropriate remedies to raise
constitutional issues and to review and/or
prohibit or nullify the acts of legislative and
executive officials. Necessarily, in discharging its
duty under [the subject constitutional duty] to
set right and undo any act of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of
149
150
151
152
SPECIAL
CIVIL
ACTIONS;
CERTIORARI,
PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS: The [petition
for certiorari] should have been filed within 60
days from notice of the denial of the Motion for
Reconsideration of the assailed Order. Section 4,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that a
special civil action for certiorari should be
instituted within 60 days from notice of the
judgment, order, or resolution, or from the
notice of the denial of the motion for
reconsideration of the judgment, order, or
resolution being assailed. The 60-day period,
however, is inextendible to avoid any
unreasonable delay, which would violate the
constitutional rights of parties to a speedy
disposition of their cases. Thus, strict
compliance of this rule is mandatory and
imperative. But like all rules, the 60-day
limitation may be relaxed for the most
persuasive of reasons, which must be
sufficiently shown by the party invoking
liberality. Furthermore, in the absence of a
motion for reconsideration, the Petition for
Certiorari should have been dismissed.
Jurisprudence consistently holds that the filing
of a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite
to the institution of a petition for certiorari.
Although this rule is subject to certain
exceptions, none of which is present in this
case. The Court must emphasize that while
litigation is not a game of technicalities, this
does not mean that procedural rules may be
ignored at will or that their non-observance may
be dismissed simply because it may prejudice a
partys substantial rights. Mere invocations of
substantial justice and liberality are not enough
for the court to suspend procedural rules. Again,
except only for the most compelling or
persuasive reasons, procedural rules must be
followed to facilitate the orderly administration
of justice.
153
154
155
156
EVIDENCE;
BURDEN
OF
PROOF
AND
PRESUMPTIONS: It is a settled rule that, as in
other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon
the party who, as determined by the pleadings
or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative
issue. Contentions must be proved by competent
evidence and reliance must be had on the
strength of the partys own evidence and not
upon the weakness of the opponents defense.
This principle holds true especially when the
latter has had no opportunity to present
evidence because of a default order, as in the
present case. The petitioner is not automatically
entitled to the relief prayed for. The pieces of
documents presented by BDO are not only selfserving but are not supported by sufficient and
credible evidence. BDO failed to meet its burden
of proving its claims by preponderance of
evidence.
157
158
AUGUST 2014
Association of Flood Victims vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 203775, August 5, 2014
Carpio, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION:
[Under] Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules
of Court, only natural and juridical persons or
entities authorized by law may be parties to a
civil action, which must be prosecuted and
defended by a real party-in-interest. A real
party-in-interest is the person who stands
benefitted or injured to the outcome of the case
or is entitled to the avails of the suit. Moreover,
under Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court the
facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or
be sued or the authority of the party to sue or
be sued in a representative capacity or the legal
existence of an organized association of persons
that is made a party, must be averred.
159
separate
action.
Since
petitioners
counterclaim is compulsory in nature and its
cause of action survives that of the dismissal of
respondents complaint, then it should be
resolved based on its own merits and evidentiary
support.
People vs. Go
G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE;
DEMURRER
TO
EVIDENCE: [The] power of courts to grant
demurrer in criminal cases should be exercised
with great caution, because not only the rights
of the accused but those of the offended party
and the public interest as well are involved.
Once granted, the accused is acquitted and the
offended party may be left with no recourse.
Thus, in the resolution of demurrers, judges
must act with utmost circumspection and must
engage in intelligent deliberation and reflection,
drawing on their experience, the law and
160
SEPTEMBER 2014
Meyr Enterprises vs. Cordero
G.R. No. 197336, September 3, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES;
APPEAL; MODES OF APPEAL: The question of
existence of bad faith is a factual issue, and the
same may not be raised in a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45, where only
questions of law may be entertained. Thus, a
corporation who instituted a suit for damages
which the trial court and the CA dismissed
cannot question such dismissal before the
Supreme Court under Rule 45 when the factual
findings of the lower courts point out that the
suit had all the marks of malicious prosecution.
161
Peralta, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENTS AND FINAL
ORDERS; IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL AND
EXECUTORY JUDGMENTS: Well-entrenched in
jurisprudence is the rule that factual findings of
the trial court, especially when affirmed by the
appellate court, are accorded the highest
degree of respect and considered conclusive
between the parties, save for the following
exceptional and meritorious circumstances: (1)
when the factual findings of the appellate court
and the trial court are contradictory; (2) when
the findings of the trial court are grounded
entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(3) when the lower courts inference from its
factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd
or impossible; (4) when there is grave abuse of
discretion in the appreciation of facts; (5) when
the findings of the appellate court go beyond
the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain
relevant facts which, if properly considered, will
justify a different conclusion; (6) when there is
a misappreciation of facts; (7) when the findings
of fact are themselves conflicting; and (8) when
the findings of fact are conclusions without
mention of the specific evidence on which they
are based, are premised on the absence of
evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on
record. In the instant case, there is an absence
of any record to otherwise prove FSIs neglect in
the fulfillment of its obligations under the
contract, this Court shall refrain from reversing
the findings of the courts below, which are fully
supported by and deducible from, the evidence
on record. Indeed, FBI failed to present any
evidence to justify its refusal to pay FSI for the
works it was contracted to perform. As such,
Supreme Court does not see any reason to
deviate from the assailed rulings.
162
163
Angeles vs. CA
G.R. No. 178733, September 15, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CONTEMPT: Elisa
Angeles alleged that respondents committed
contempt for defying the order of the trial court
to elevate the records of her case to the Court
of Appeals. [] Contrary to [] Angeles
allegations, the records show that respondents
were merely implementing the orders issued by
the trial court in Civil Case No. 69213 and that
no stay order was issued against the
enforcement of the subject writ of execution.
There is no sufficient showing of acts committed
by respondents which may constitute contempt,
such as among others, refusing to obey [a]
lawful order of the court or act of disrespect to
the dignity of the court which tends to hamper
the orderly proceedings and lessen its efficiency.
164
People vs. Go
G.R. No. 201644, September 24, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE;
CONTROL
OF
PROSECUTION: As provided in Section 5, Rule
110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
all criminal actions are prosecuted under the
direction and control of the public prosecutor.
Therefore, it behooved the respondents herein
to implead the People of the Philippines as
respondent in the CA case to enable the Solicitor
General to comment on the petition.
165
166
167
OCTOBER 2014
Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals
G.R. No. 172505, October 1, 2014
Leonen, J.
CIVIL
PROCEDURE;
VERIFICATION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING:
There is no question that Ferro Chemicals, Inc.
committed forum shopping when it filed an
appeal before the Court of Appeals and a
petition for certiorari before the SC assailing the
same trial court decision. The test for
determining the existence of forum shopping is
whether the elements of litis pendentia are
present, or whether a final judgment in one case
amounts to res judicata in another. Thus, there
is forum shopping when the following elements
are present: (a) identity of parties, or at least
such parties as represent the same interests in
both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and
relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the
same facts; and (c) the identity of the two
preceding particulars, such that any judgment
rendered in the other action will, regardless of
which party is successful, amount tores judicata
in the action under consideration; said requisites
are also constitutive of the requisites for auter
action pendant or lis pendens.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; JURISDICTION OF
CRIMINAL COURTS: The information charged
Antonio Garcia with violation of Article 318 of
168
169
Good
reasons
consist
of
compelling
circumstances justifying immediate execution,
lest judgment becomes illusory, that is, the
prevailing partys chances for recovery on
execution from the judgment debtor are
altogether nullified. The good reason
yardstick imports a superior circumstance
demanding urgency that will outweigh injury or
damage to the adverse party and one such good
reason that has been held to justify
discretionary execution is the imminent danger
of insolvency of the defeated party. The factual
findings that NSSC is under a state of
rehabilitation and had ceased business
operations, taken together with the information
that NSSC President and General Manager
Orimaco had permanently left the country with
his
family,
constitute
such
superior
circumstances that demand urgency in the
execution of the October 31, 2007 Decision
because respondents now run the risk of its nonsatisfaction by the time the appeal is decided
with finality.
170
171
172
NOVEMBER 2014
Metro Manila Shopping Mecca vs. Toledo
G.R. No. 190818, November 10, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENTS AND FINAL
ORDERS;
COMPROMISE
AGREEMENTS:
A
compromise agreement is a contract whereby
the parties, by making reciprocal concessions,
avoid a litigation or put an end to one already
commenced. It contemplates mutual concessions
and mutual gains to avoid the expenses of
litigation; or when litigation has already begun,
to end it because of the uncertainty of the
result. Its validity is dependent upon the
fulfillment of the requisites and principles of
contracts dictated by law; and its terms and
conditions must not be contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public policy, and public order.
When given judicial approval, a compromise
agreement becomes more than a contract
binding upon the parties. Having been
sanctioned by the court, it is entered as a
determination of a controversy and has the force
and effect of a judgment. It is immediately
executory and not appealable, except for vices
of consent or forgery. The nonfulfillment of its
terms and conditions justifies the issuance of a
writ of execution; in such an instance, execution
becomes a ministerial duty of the court.
173
SPECIAL
CIVIL
ACTIONS;
CERTIORARI,
PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS: To justify the
grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari,
the petitioner must satisfactorily show that the
court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused
the discretion conferred upon it. In labor
disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be
ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its
findings and conclusions are not supported by
substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to justify a conclusion. The onus
probandi falls on the seafarer to establish his
claim for disability benefits by the requisite
quantum of evidence to justify the grant of
relief. Guided by the foregoing considerations,
the Court finds that the CA committed reversible
error in granting Hipes certiorari petition since
the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in
dismissing the complaint for permanent
disability benefits for Hipes failure to establish
his claim through substantial evidence.
174
175
Reyes, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; PROVISIONAL REMEDIES;
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: Talo-ot Port, where
LCMC [operates] their facility, is a national
infrastructure project. The Certificate of
Registration and Permit to Operate granted by
the CPA is premised on a contract for a national
infrastructure project contemplated by R.A. No.
6957, as amended by R.A. No. 7718, the
termination or rescission of which cannot be
validly enjoined by an injunctive writ issued by a
lower court pursuant to R.A. No. 8975.
176
177
178
DECEMBER 2014
People vs. Dawali
G.R. No. 193385, December 1, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
EVIDENCE; CHAIN OF CUSTODY: The most
important factor is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items as they will be used to determine the guilt
or innocence of the accused. As long as the
evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal
drug are properly preserved, strict compliance
of the requisites under Section 21 of RA 9165
may be disregarded. Though there were
deviations from the required procedure, i.e.,
making physical inventory and taking of
photograph of the seized item, still, the
integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous
drug seized from appellants were duly proven by
the prosecution to have been properly
preserved; its identity, quantity and quality
remained untarnished.
SPECIAL
CIVIL
ACTIONS;
CERTIORARI,
PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS: A writ of
mandamus is employed to compel the
performance, when refused, of a ministerial
duty which is that which an officer or tribunal in
obedience to the mandate of legal authority,
without regard to or the exercise of his or its
own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety
of the act done. The writ of execution has
already been implemented. The proper remedy
is to cite the disobedient party in contempt.
179
180
JANUARY 2015
Aguilar vs. Lightbringers
G.R. No. 209605, January 12, 2015
Mendoza, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; PRE-TRIAL: During pre-trial,
if the absent party is the plaintiff, then his case
shall be dismissed. If it is the defendant who
fails to appear, then the plaintiff is allowed to
present his evidence ex parte and the court shall
render judgment on the basis thereof. In the
case at bench, the petitioners failed to attend
the pre-trial conference. They did not even give
any excuse for their non-appearance. Thus, the
MCTC properly allowed respondent to present
evidence ex parte. Thus, the Court can only
consider the evidence on record offered by
respondent. The petitioners lost their right to
present their evidence during the trial and, a
fortiori, on appeal due to their disregard of the
mandatory
attendance
in
the
pre-trial
conference.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES;
APPEAL; MODES OF APPEAL: Thus, the question
in the case at bench is whether or not the
petitioners attached the sufficient pleadings and
material portions of the records in their petition
Briones vs. CA
G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; VENUE: [A] complaint
directly assailing the validity of the written
instrument itself should not be bound by the
181
182
183
184
EVIDENCE;
BURDEN
OF
PROOF
AND
PRESUMPTIONS: To sustain a conviction based
on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that
the circumstantial evidence presented must
constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to
a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the
guilty person. The circumstantial evidence must
exclude the possibility that some other person
has committed the crime. Unfortunately, in the
case at bar, the Supreme Court finds that the
prosecution failed to present sufficient
circumstantial evidence to convict [Zabala] of
the offense charged. We find that the pieces of
evidence presented before the trial court fail to
provide
a
sufficient
combination
of
circumstances, as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
FEBRUARY 2015
Paje vs. DENR Secretary
G.R. No. 207257, February 3, 2015
Del Castillo, J.
185
186
EVIDENCE; CHAIN OF CUSTODY: [Noncompliance] with the procedure outlined [in Sec.
21, R.A. 9165] does not make the conviction of
the accused invalid. It can be easily understood
from a cursory reading of the implementing rules
that the crucial factor is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items since they will be used to determine the
guilt or innocence of the accused.
187
188
Ong vs. Co
G.R. No. 206653, February 25, 2015
Mendoza, J.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; SUMMONS: Substituted
service of summons [requires] that the process
server should first make several attempts on
personal service. Several attempts means at
least three (3) tries, preferably on at least two
different dates. In addition, the sheriff must cite
why such efforts were unsuccessful. The date
and time of the attempts on personal service,
the inquiries made to locate the defendant, the
name/s of the occupants of the alleged
residence or house of defendant and all other
acts done, though futile, to serve the summons
People vs. CA
G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015
Peralta, J.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE;
SUFFICIENCY OF
COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION: As a general
rule, a complaint or information must charge
only one offense, otherwise, the same is
defective. The rationale behind this rule
prohibiting
duplicitous
complaints
or
informations is to give the accused the necessary
knowledge of the charge against him and enable
him to sufficiently prepare for his defense. The
State should not heap upon the accused two or
more charges which might confuse him in his
defense. Non-compliance with this rule is a
ground for quashing the duplicitous complaint or
information under Rule 117 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure and the accused may raise
the same in a motion to quash before he enters
his plea, otherwise, the defect is deemed
waived. The accused herein, however, cannot
avail of this defense simply because they did not
file a motion to quash questioning the validity of
the Information during their arraignment. Thus,
they are deemed to have waived their right to
question the same. Also, where the allegations
of the acts imputed to the accused are merely
different counts specifying the acts of
perpetration of the same crime, as in the instant
case, there is no duplicity to speak of.
MARCH 2015
189
LEGAL ETHICS
APRIL 2014
In re: Tiongson
B.M. No. 2482, April 1, 2014
Carpio, J.
DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY;
MISCONDUCT OF OTHER COURT PERSONNEL: In
administrative proceedings, substantial evidence
is the quantum of proof required for a finding of
guilt, and this requirement is satisfied if the
employer has reasonable ground to believe that
the employee is responsible for the misconduct.
In this case, upon being called by the Office of
the Bar Confidant (OBC), Tiongson admitted that
he indeed brought a digital camera inside the
bar examination room. Thus, [the Supreme Court
finds] that Tiongsons transgression of the rules
issued by the OBC amounts to misconduct.
JUNE 2014
190
191
192
193