Carredo v.

People
183 SCRA 273 (1990)
Facts: Accused after arraignment waives his right to appear in court during
the trial while under a bond. At the presentation of the principal witness the
court issued a subpoena to the accused to appear on trial for the purpose of
meeting the witness face to face, however he did not appear with the
justification of his waiver. Subsequently the municipal judge issued order of
arrest of the accused with confiscation of his cash bond and ordering the
bondsman to show cause why no judgment shall be rendered against him.
Issue: Whether or not an accused may be compelled by the court to appear
before the court despite waiver in favor of trail by absentia.
Held: The court held that such waiver only constitutes a waiver of the right
of the accused to meet the witness face to face. It does not in effect deprive
the prosecution of its right to require the presence of the accused for the
purpose of identification by its witnesses which is vital in the conviction of
the accused. It does not further release the accused from his obligation
under the bond to appear in court whenever so required. The accused is
accorded with the right to waive his own personal right but not his duty and
obligation to the court.
trial in absentia not allowed when it is necessary to establish the identity of
accused

by

the

witness

Equal Protection Clause

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
- means that the states must apply the law equally and cannot give
preference to one person or class of persons over another.

20th Century Fox v CA 164 SCRA 655 (1988)

F: Petitioner sought the help of the NBI in connection with its anti-piracy
campaign alleging that some videotape outlets are engaged in marketing
copyrighted films in violation of PD 449 or Decree on the Protection of
Intellectual Property. A search warrant was issued to the NBI which was
later withdrawn by the court upon motion to lift search warrant due to lack
of probable cause which was affirmed by the appellate court.
I: WON the court erred in lifting the search warrant due to lack of probable
cause.
R: Article 3, section 2 of the Constitution provides that no search warrant

shall be issued without probable cause.

PROBABLE CAUSE is defined as a valid search as such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. The
constitutional provisions demand no less than personal knowledge by the
complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of the
search warrant may be justified to convince the judge, not the individual
making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the search warrant.In the
case at bar, the issuance of the warrant was due to the misrepresentation of
the NBI that copyright infringements were being committed. There was no
probable cause since the agents have no personal knowledge of such fact.
Court ordered that the master tapes be presented from which the
copyrighted films were allegedly copied for the validity of the issuance of
the search warrant since the court could not afford to make any
presumption that duplicates were taken from the master copy of the
petitioner.
Columbia Pictures v CA

261 SCRA 144 (1996)

F: Acting upon a formal complaint by the petitioner on violation of PD 449,

NBI agents surveillance different video establishments in Metro Manila
including the private respondent. A search warrant was secured with
affidavits and depositions of the NBI with 2 witnesses. Search and seizure of
copyrighted materials were taken by the NBI and a motion to lift search
warrant was filed and was denied by the court. On motion for
reconsideration, the court upholds the motion to lift on grounds that no
original copy of the films were presented when securing the warrant citing
the case of 20th Century Fox vs CA. On appeal, the CA sustained the ruling
of the trial court.

I: WON the ruling on the cited case applicable in the case at bar.
R: No because rules and decisions must be applied prospectively. The ruling
in the cited case is not applicable since the ruling in the case at bar
happened before such ruling was ever upheld. The ruling in the
20th Century Fox only serves as a guidepost and not absolute since it is not
always necessary to present the original tapes before ascertaining probable
cause.

Buaya v Stronghold

GR. No, 139020

10.11.00

F: Stronghold filed a case against Buaya who is the manager of

its Cebu branch for recovery of un-remitted collection of money. The lower
court ruled on Strongholds favor. Buaya appealed before the CA which
ruled in his favor remanding the case back to the lower court. Subsequent
hearings were set with failure of Buaya and his counsel to appear many
times until Stronghold filed a petition to reinstate the previous decision of
the court. The court decision becomes final and executory and it denied all
other appeals made before it. Buaya thus herein files a motion for certiorari.
I: (1) Can a decision from the lower court that is annulled by the appellate
court be reinstated by the same court that rendered the decision; (2) When
the appellate court annuls the decision of the lower court on grounds of
failure to give notice to Buaya at pre-trial and remanded it back to the said
lower court, does the proceeding in the lower court merely requires
presentation of evidence by Buaya alone without requiring Stronghold to

present its evidence for cross examination by Buaya.

R: (1) On annulled decision, the court correct that the CA did not annulled
the lower courts decision but merely set aside to allow petitioner to present
his evidence. There is nothing wrong when the court reinstated its decision
after failure of petitioner to present evidence despite the ample time given
for him to do so. It is also required for the petitioner to attach an authentic
copy of the original decision to support his claim that the CA annulled the
lower courts decision. Failure to comply said requirement is a ground for
dismissal of petition.(2) On final and executory judgment, it becomes the
law of the case regardless of claims that it is erroneous. Final judgments
are decisions rendered by court with competent jurisdiction acting within
its authority and its judgment cannot be altered even at risk of occasional
legal infirmities of errors it may contain. Litigation must end sometime and
somewhere. In view of efficient and effective administration of judgment
once a decision has become final, the prevailing party should not be
deprived of the favorable judgment rendered upon them on suits involving
the same issues and parties.
Argel v Pascua

A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131

8.20.01

F: Petitioner who was charged with murder was previously acquitted by

Judge Pascua. After his acquittal, said Judge modified her decision on the
account that she made a mistake of rendering her previous judgment
believing there was no witness against the accused due to the fact that the
testimony of the witness was not attached to the records when she wrote
her decision. After finding the accused guilty of murder she ordered the
arrest of the accused.
I: WON a final judgment by the court can be susceptible for amendment or
modification.

R: No. The final judgment becomes the law of the case and is immune from
alteration or modification regardless of claims of incorrectness or error. A
judgment of acquittal in criminal cases becomes immediately effective upon
its promulgation. It cannot be recalled for amendment only in case of any
clerical error, clarify any ambiguity caused by omission or mistake in the
dispositive portion. The inherent power of the court to modify its decision
does not extend to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case.
Add Comment
Res Judicata
02/14/2011
0 Comments

Agilent Technologies v Integrated Silicon Technology

4.14.04

F: Petitioner Agilent is foreign corporation not licensed to transact business

in thePhilippines but engaged services of the defendant Silicon Tech by a 5year Value Added Assembly Services Agreement ("VAASA"). Silicon filed a
complaint on "Specific Performance and Damages" against Agilent in a civil
case No. 3110-01-C alleging breach of oral agreement by petitioner to
extend their contract for 5 more years. Consequently, Agilent filed a
complaint against Silicon on "Specific Performance, Recovery of Possession,
and Sum of Money with Replevin, Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, and
Damages" before the RTC as Civil Case No. 3123-2001-C. Agilent prayed
that a writ of replevin or a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, be
issued ordering defendants to immediately return and deliver to plaintiff its

equipment, machineries which were left in the plant of Silicon. Silicon filed
motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of legal capacity of Agilent to sue, litis
pendentia, forum shopping and failure to state cause of action. Such motion
was denied by the trial court and granted motion for replevin by the
plaintiff. Without filing motion for reconsideration, Silicon filed motion for
certiorari to the appellate court. Court of Appeals granted respondents
petition for certiorari, set aside the assailed Order of the trial court and
ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 3123-2001-C thus this petition for
review assailing the decision of the CA.
I: (1) whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in
giving due course to respondents petition, notwithstanding the failure to
file a Motion for Reconsideration and (2) whether or not the Court of
Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing Civil Case No. 3123-2001C.
R: CA contends RTC has no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 3123-2001-C
because of the pendency of Civil Case No. 3110-2001-C therefore, a motion
for reconsideration was not necessary before resort to a petition for
certiorari. There is no urgency of the case that merits dispensing the
procedure of filing motion for reconsideration before a certiorari may be
filed. Respondents availed of premature remedy which the CA should have
dismissed outright.Litis pendencia is not appreciated in the case since the
instituted actions in both civil cases are different, the first is an action for
"Specific Performance and Damages" the other is action for "Specific
Performance, Recovery of Possession, and Sum of Money with Replevin,
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, and Damages." The issues involved are
also different: WON there is a breach of oral agreement for renewing
theVAASA on the first case while on the second case WON the petitioner
has the right to possess the subject properties. In the absence of the
requisites of litis pendencia, the court ruled that the trial court is not barred

from taking cognizant to both cases.In assailing the legal capacity of Agilent
to sue, the court cited the following principles:
he principles regarding the right of a foreign corporation to bring
suit in Philippine courts may thus be condensed in four
statements: (1) if a foreign corporation does business in the Philippines
without a license, it cannot sue before the Philippine courts;47 (2) if a
foreign corporation is not doing business in the Philippines, it needs no
license to sue before Philippine courts on an isolated transaction or on a
cause of action entirely independent of any business transaction48; (3) if a
foreign corporation does business in the Philippines without a license, a
Philippine citizen or entity which has contracted with said corporation may
be estopped from challenging the foreign corporations corporate
personality in a suit brought before Philippine courts;49 and (4) if a foreign
corporation does business in the Philippines with the required license, it can
sue before Philippine courts on any transaction.Two general tests to
determine whether or not a foreign corporation can be considered as "doing
business" in the Philippines
.1. substance test - whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body
of the business or enterprise for which it was organized or whether it has
substantially retired from it and turned it over to another.2. continuity test
- implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and
contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the
exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in the
progressive prosecution of, the purpose and object of its organization.The
court ruled that Agilent categorically is not doing business in
the Philippines, hence as a foreign corporation not doing business in
the Philippines
, it needed no license before it can sue before our courts. The court granted

the petition of Agilent reversing the CA decision of dismissing Civil Case

No. 3123-2001-C while granting the petition of Agilent for Writ of Replivin.
Cayana v CA

03.18.04

F: It appears that the petitioners and respondents father, with the marital
consent of his wife, sold two parcels of land to their son, one of the
respondents in this case. At the death of the father, the mother filed an
Affidavit of Adverse Claims pertaining to the two parcels of land, alleging
that the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of their son were forgeries. However,
later on, she issued an affidavit withdrawing such adverse claims. Later on,
together with petitioners of this case and respondent Marceliano, they filed
a case against respondent Pastor, for the cancellation of the Deed of
Absolute Sale and reconveyance of the two parcels of land. Meanwhile,
respondent Pastor entered into an agreement of counter guaranty with
respondent corporation using second parcel of land; mortgaged first parcel
to respondent bank and sold first parcel of land to a certain Rosafina
Reginaldo, who then mortgaged the land to respondent bank.As the civil
case against respondents was ongoing, respondents filed an answer but
were found to be in default, the court allowed petitioners to file evidence ex
parte. The court decided the civil case in favor of petitioners, declaring the
deed of absolute sale null and void but denied the prayer for reconveyance
saying that the mother was still the owner of the land. No appeal was
entered by respondents and the decision was deemed final. The mortgage
on the first parcel of land was foreclosed and the bank being the highest
bidder, bought the property who then sold it to respondent spouses
Marceliano Cayabyab. The respondent spouses M.Cayabyab then sold the
land to respondent spouses Ramos. The petitioners filed a verified
complaint for the nullification and cancellation of the deeds of absolute sale
of the respondents. They asked also for the possession of the 2 parcels of
land due to the alleged donation inter vivos of their mother. The trial court

decided in favor of the petitioners, part of the decision included the

application of res judicata. Respondentsappealed this to the CA contending
the misuse of res judicata. CA decided in favor of the respondents. It held
that res judicata was inapplicable and also, declared the deeds of absolute
sale and TCTs valid. CA mentioned that it was evident that there was an
affidavit withdrawing adverse claims over land, that the sale of parcels of
landwere not simulated and not done in bad faith, and that there was
no evidence for the donation inter vivos being alleged by the petitioners.
I: Whether or not the decision on the first civil case constitutes a bar to the
defenses and claims of respondents in the second case?
R:Both the trial court and CA misread the provisions on the effect of
judgments or final orders as given by Rules of Civil Procedure:SEC.
47. Effect of judgments or final orders.--The effect of a judgment or final
order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to
pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:(a) In case of a
judgment or final order against a specific thing, or in respect to the probate
of a will, or the administration of the estate of a deceased person, or in
respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or status of a particular
person or his relationship to another, the judgment or final order is
conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or administration, or the
condition, status or relationship of theperson; however, the probate of a will
or granting of letters of administration shall only be prima facie evidence of
the death of the testator or intestate;(b) In other cases, the judgment or
final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other
matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between
the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the
commencement to the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same
thing and under the same title and in the same capacity;(c) In any other
litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only

is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which

appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and
necessarily included therein or necessarily thereto.
Res judicata and the bar of prior judgment are not applicable to this
case since the requisites for these two to apply are not
present. There is bar by prior judgment when, between the first
case where the judgment was rendered and the second case which is
sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter and
cause of action.
The judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the subsequent
action. It is final as to the claim or demand in controversy, including the
parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which
was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to
any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose
and of all matters that could have been adjudged in that case. But where
between the first and second cases, there is identity of parties but no
identity of cause of action, the first judgment is conclusive in the second
case, only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and
determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. For res
judicata to apply, there must be (1) a former final judgment rendered on the
merits; (2) the court must have had jurisdiction over the subject matter and
the parties; and, (3) identity of parties, subject matter and cause of
action between the first and second actions. According to the appellate
court, the third requisite for the application of res judicata is not present
in this case.The doctrine that should have been followed in this case
is conclusiveness of judgment--a fact or question which was in issue in
a former suit and there was judicially passed upon and determined by
a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the
judgment therein as far as the parties to that action and persons in privity

with them are concerned and cannot be again litigated in any future
action between such parties or their privies, in the same court or any
other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or different cause
of action, while the judgment remains unreversed by proper authority.
Urbana Velasco v Peoples Homesite (GR NO. L-39674) 01.31.78
Supreme court exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases in which only
errors or questions of law are involved."cause of action" has been
defined as "an act or omission of second party in violation of the legal right
or rights of the other, and its essential elements are legal right of the
plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or omission of the
defendant in violation of said legal right."
F: The case at bar involves a parcel of land which the petitioner occupies
and built a house thereof. Petitioner filed before the defendant corporation
for the award of sale of the said parcel of land and found out that it was
already awarded to defendant spouses. Petitioner filed protest before the
court for annulment of deed of sale of said lot. Defendant spouses invoke
res judicata in their counterclaim stating that the petitioner has no cause
for action since there is a decision already to quiet the title and recovery of
possession of the Lot
involved in favor of the defendant spouses. The court dismissed the case on
ground of res judicata stating that the court decision has already been final
and executory. Petitioner appealed before the appellate court which
forwarded the case to SC since the issue involved is a question of law.
I: WON res judicata is applicable at the case at bar.
R: No. For res judicata be appreciated in a case, 4 elements must be

present: (1) there is a former final judgment; (2) decision rendered by court
with proper jurisdiction over the case; (3) judgment must be on merit; (4)
there must be identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action
between 2 cases. The identity of cause of action is the main issue on the
case at bar. The court held that in order to identify whether the second
action is of the same cause as the first the test generally applied is to
consider the Identity of facts essential to their maintenance, or whether the
same evidence would sustain both. If the same facts or evidence would
sustain both, the two actions are considered the same within the rule that
the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action. If, however,
the two actions rest upon different states of facts, or if different proofs
would be required to sustain the two actions, a judgment in one is no bar to
the maintenance of the other.The first case involves quieting the title and
recovery and possession of the land while the second case involves the
action for annulment of award and deed of sale and cancellation of the land
title. The case was remanded back to the lower court for further
proceedings.