Disini Vs.

Sandiganbayan (EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL ACTION)

The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over the criminal action involving petitioner
notwithstanding that he is a private individual considering that his criminal prosecution is intimately
related to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, their immediate family, subordinates and
close associates.

-oOo-

Fedman Dev Corp vs. Agcaoili (NON-PAYMENT OF PRESCRIBED FILING FEES AND DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENT)

The nonpayment of the prescribed filing fees at the time of the filing of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading fails to vest jurisdiction over the case in the trial court. Yet, where the plaintiff has paid the
amount of filing fees assessed by the clerk of court, and the amount paid turns out to be deficient, the
trial court still acquires jurisdiction over the case, subject to the payment by the plaintiff of the
deficiency assessment.

-oOo-

Galvez vs. CA (MERE FAILURE TO ATTACH COPIES OF PLEADINGS NOT ENOUGH TO DISMISS A CASE)

The mere failure to attach copies of pleadings and other material portions of the record as would
support the allegations should not cause the outright dismissal of a petition for review. The allegations
of the petition must be examined to determine the sufficiency of the attachments appended thereto.

-oOo-

Golangco vs. Fung (GROSS PROCEDURAL MISSTEP BY PETITIONER IN CA)

The petitioner did not join the People of the Philippines as a party in his action for certiorari in the Court
of Appeals. He thereby ignored that the People of the Philippines were indispensable parties due to his
objective being to set aside the trial courts order dated May 23, 2001 that concerned the public aspect
of Criminal Case No. 95145703.

The omission was fatal and already enough cause for the summary rejection of his petition for certiorari.
The petitioner did not also obtain the consent of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to his petition
for certiorari. At the very least, he should have furnished a copy of the petition for certiorari to the OSG
prior to the filing thereof, but even that he did not do.

HEIRS OF EDUARDO vs. CA (NO INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION FOR BP22)

There is no independent civil action to recover the civil liability arising from the issuance of an unfunded
check prohibited and punished under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22).
Heirs of Garcia vs. Mun. of Iba (PLEA FOR LIBERALITY)

The plea for liberality is unworthy of any sympathy from the Court. We have always looked at appeal as
not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege. As the parties invoking the privilege, the petitioners
should have faithfully complied with the requirements of the Rules of Court. Their failure to do so
forfeited their privilege to appeal.

-oOo-

Heirs of Margarita Prodon vs. Heirs of Alvarez (BEST EVIDENCE RULE)

The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a written document are the subject of the
inquiry. In an action for quieting of title based on the inexistence of a deed of sale with right to
repurchase that purportedly cast a cloud on the title of a property, therefore, the Best Evidence Rule
does not apply, and the defendant is not precluded from presenting evidence other than the original
document.

-oOo-

Heirs of spouses Reterta vs. Spouses Lopez (FRIAR LAND)

The original and exclusive jurisdiction over a complaint for quieting of title and reconveyance involving
friar land belongs to either the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). Hence, the
dismissal of such a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to the land in litis being friar land
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Management Bureau (LMB) amounts to manifest grave
abuse of discretion that can be corrected through certiorari.

Jose Vs. Javellana (DENIAL OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS FINAL ORDER)

The denial of a motion for reconsideration of an order granting the defending partys motion to dismiss
is not an interlocutory but a final order because it puts an end to the particular matter involved, or
settles definitely the matter therein disposed of, as to leave nothing for the trial court to do other than
to execute the order.[1] Accordingly, the claiming party has a fresh period of 15 days from notice of the
denial within which to appeal the denial.[2]
Lorenzo Shipping Corp. vs. DMAP (INDIRECT CONTEMPT)

The test for criticizing a judges decision is, therefore, whether or not the criticism is bona fide or done in
good faith, and does not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.

The petitioners mere allegation, that said publication unfairly debases the Supreme Court because of
the scurrilous, malicious, tasteless, and baseless innuendo therein that the Court allowed itself to be
influenced by the petitioners as concocted in the evil minds of the respondents thus leading said
respondents to unjustly conclude: Supreme Court ruling issued in one month only, normal lead time is at
least 3 to 6 months,[54] was insufficient, without more, to sustain the charge of indirect contempt.

Nor do we consider contemptuous either the phrase contained in the Sea Transport Update

stating: The Motion for Reconsideration filed with the Supreme Court was denied based on
technicalities and not on the legal issue DMAP presented,[55] or the phrase in the Sea Transport
5/25/2017 G.R. No. 155849 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/155849.htm
10/14 technicalities and not on the legal issue DMAP presented,[55] or the phrase in the Sea Transport
Update reading Supreme Court ruling issued in one month only, normal leadtime is at least 3 to 6
months.

-oOo-

Macalang vs. Bacani (TRIAL DE NOVO)

In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) shall decide the appeal of the
judgment of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in unlawful detainer or forcible entry cases on the basis of
the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as
may be required by the RTC. There is no trial de nova of the case.

Hence, the RTC violated the foregoing rule by ordering the conduct of the relocation and verification
survey in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and by hearing the testimony of the surveyor, for its doing so
was tantamount to its holding of a trial de novo. The violation was accented by the fact that the RTC
ultimately decided the appeal based on the survey and the surveyors testimony instead of the record of
the proceedings had in the court of origin.

-oOo-

Macaslang vs. Zamora (RTC NOT LIMITED TO REVIEW MTC FINDINGS)

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) is not limited in its review of the decision of the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) to the issues assigned by the appellant, but can decide on the basis of the entire records of the
proceedings of the trial court and such memoranda or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or
required by the RTC.
Mangila Vs. Judge Pangilinan (EFFECT OF A LAWFUL RESTRAINT IN HABEAS CORPUS)

Restraint that is lawful and pursuant to a court process cannot be inquired into through habeas corpus.

The object of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of the detention, and, if the
detention is found to be illegal, to require the release of the detainee. Equally well-settled however, is
that the writ will not issue where the person in whose behalf the writ is sought is out on bail, or is in the
custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge with jurisdiction or by virtue of a
judgment or order of a court of record.

-oOo-

Mendiola Vs. CA (RES JUDICATA)

The identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity; otherwise, a party may easily escape
the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought. The test to
determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will
sustain the actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the
actions. If the same facts or evidence will sustain the actions, then they are considered identical, and a
judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action.

The rule expressly mandated the Makati RTC to dismiss the case motu proprio once the pleadings or the
evidence on record indicated the pendency of the Manila case, or, later on, disclosed that the judgment
in the Manila case had meanwhile become final and executory.

-oOo-

Metrobank vs. Tobias (PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERFERENCE IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE EXISTENCE

OF PROBABLE CAUSE)

We affirm the CA in keeping with the principle of noninterference with the prerogative of the Secretary
of Justice to review the resolutions of the public prosecutor in the latters determination of the
existence of probable cause, absent any showing that the Secretary of Justice thereby commits grave
abuse of his discretion.

-oOo-

Metrobank vs. Judge Sandoval (SEPARATE TRIAL)

The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, may order a separate trial of any claim,
cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims,
cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party complaints or issues. 1 But a separate trial may be denied if a
party is thereby deprived of his right to be heard upon an issue dealt with and determined in the main
trial.
Milla vs. Spouses Luis (VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE, ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT)

As correctly ruled by the CA, the voluntary appearance and participation of petitioner, through his
counsel, during the temporary restraining order application hearing had already cured any defect in the
alleged improper service of summons upon him. Verily, Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court3
provides that a defendant's voluntary appearance in the action is equivalent to service of summons, as
in this case.

-oOo-

Nerwin Industries Corp. vs. PNOC (ONLY SC MAY ISSUE TRO FOR VARIOUS GOVERNMENT'S DIRECTION)
Doctrine: A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the
judgment or final order

It is an ancillary or preventive remedy resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or

interests during the pendency of the case. For lower courts to issue temporary restraining orders,
preliminary in1unctions or preliminary mandatory in1unctions against expeditious implementation and
completion of government infrastructure projects there must be sufficient evidence that the matter is of
extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, such that unless a temporary restraining order is issued,
grave in1ustice and irreparable injury will arise.

Republic Act No. 8975[1] expressly prohibits any court, except the Supreme Court, from issuing any
temporary restraining order (TRO), preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction to
restrain, prohibit or compel the Government, or any of its subdivisions or officials, or any person or
entity, whether public or private, acting under the Governments direction, from: (a) acquiring, clearing,
and developing the right of way, site or location of any National Government project; (b) bidding or
awarding of a contract or project of the National Government; (c) commencing, prosecuting, executing,
implementing, or operating any such contract or project; (d) terminating or rescinding any such contract
or project; and (e) undertaking or authorizing any other lawful activity necessary for such contract or
project.

Accordingly, a Regional Trial Court (RTC) that ignores the statutory prohibition and issues a TRO or a writ
of preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against a government contract or project
acts contrary to law.
Panila-Garrido vs. Tortogo (EFFECT OF FINAL JUDGMENT)

Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable
and unalterable.[1] The enforcement of such judgment should not be hampered or evaded, for the
immediate enforcement of the parties rights, confirmed by final judgment, is a major component of the
ideal administration of justice. This is the reason why we abhor any 5/25/2017 G.R. No. 156358
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/156358.htm 2/18 delay in the full execution
of final and executory decisions.[2] Thus, a remedy intended to frustrate, suspend, or enjoin the
enforcement of a final judgment must be granted with caution and upon a strict observance of the
requirements under existing laws and jurisprudence. Any such remedy allowed in violation of
established rules and guidelines connotes but a capricious exercise of discretion that must be struck
down in order that the prevailing party is not deprived of the fruits of victory.

The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an appropriate special civil action
under Rule 65,[23] provided that the interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion. Then is certiorari under Rule 65 allowed to be resorted to.[24]

-oOo-

Patula vs. People (RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY)

In the trial of everycriminal case, a judge must rigidlytest the States evidence of guilt in order to ensure
that such evidenceadheres to the basic rules of admissibility before pronouncing an accused guilty of the
crime charged upon such evidence. Nothing less is demanded of the judge; otherwise, the guarantee of
due process of law is nullified.The accused need notadduceanythingto rebut evidence that is discredited
for failing the test.Acquittal should then follow.

-oOo-

People vs. Cristobal (EFFECT OF DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT)

Although a waiver of the right to present evidence by the accused is not a trivial matter to be lightly
regarded by the trial court, the filing of the demurrer to evidence without express leave of court
operates as a waiver that binds the accused pursuant to the express provision of the Rules of Court.

-oOo-

People vs. Gonzales (CHAIN OF CUSTODY REGULARITY LIES WITH THE STATE)

The State, and no other party, has the responsibility to explain the lapses in the procedures taken to
preserve the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs. Without the explanation by the State, the
evidence of the corpus delicti is unreliable, and the acquittal of the accused should follow on the ground
that his guilt has not been shown beyond reasonable doubt.
People vs. GSIS (60 DAYS LIMITATION PERIOD)

The mortgagor or his successor in interest must redeem the foreclosed property within one year from
the registration of the sale with the Register of Deeds in order to avoid the title from consolidating in
the purchaser. By failing to redeem thuswise, the mortgagor loses all interest over the foreclosed
property a non-redeeming mortgagor he could no longer impugn both the extrajudicial foreclosure and
the ex parte issuance of the writ of execution cum writ of possession; and that the enforcement of the
duly issued writ of possession could not be delayed.

-oOo-

People vs. Olano (CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE)

Circumstantial evidence is admissible as proof to establish both the commission of a crime and the
identity of the culprit.

-oOo-

People vs. PO2 Valdez (SUFFICIENCY OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES)

The sufficiency of the allegations of the facts and circumstances constituting the elements of the crime
charged is crucial in every criminal prosecution because of the ever present obligation of the State to
duly inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation.

-oOo-

People vs. Polpol (AN ACCUSED ARRESTED DURING A VALID ENTRAPMENT OPERATION IS NOT ENTITLED
TO AN ACQUITTAL ON THE GROUND THAT HIS ARREST RESULTED FROM INSTIGATION.)

An accused arrested during a valid entrapment operation is not entitled to an acquittal on the ground
that his arrest resulted from instigation.

-oOo-

People vs Salafranca (ANTE-MORTEM DECLARATION)

An antemortem declaration of a victim of murder, homicide, or parricide that meets the conditions of
admissibility under the Rules of Court and pertinent jurisprudence is admissible either as a dying
declaration or as a part of the res gestae, or both.
People vs. Taguibuya (CIVIL INDEMNITIES)

The urging of the accused, that the RTC and the CA should not have accorded faith to the evidence of his
guilt because the only witness presented to prove the accusations was the victim herself, is unworthy of
consideration. Such urging cannot acquit him, considering that it is already settled that the accused in a
prosecution for rape can be convicted on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim provided the
victim and her testimony are credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things.

Civil indemnity is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape; it is distinct from and should
not be denominated as moral damages, which are based on different jural foundations and assessed by
the court in the exercise of its discretion.

The interest imposed is the legal rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this judgment.

People vs Teodoro (RECANTATION OF WITNESS)

The recantation of her testimony by the victim of rape is to be disregarded if the records show that it
was impelled either by intimidation or by the need for the financial support of the accused.

-oOo-

People vs. Zakaria (CHAIN OF CUSTODY)

Statutory rules on preservmg the chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs and related items are
designed to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence to be presented against the accused.
Their observance is the key to the successful prosecution of illegal possession or illegal sale of dangerous
drugs.

-oOo-

Reyes vs. CA (EVIDENCE OF GUILT SATISFIES THE STANDARD OF MORAL CERTAINTY)

The burden rests in the Prosecution to see to it that the evidence of guilt satisfies the standard of moral
certainty demanded in all criminal prosecutions. The standard demands that all the essential elements
of the offense are established as to leave no room for any doubt about the guilt of the accused. The
courts should unfailingly impose the standard in order to prevent injustice from being perpetrated
against the accused.

The omissions noted herein indicated that the State did not establish the identity of the dangerous
drugs allegedly seized from petitioner with the same exacting certitude required for a finding of guilt.

Conviction must stand on the strength of the Prosecutions evidence, not on the weakness of the
defense the accused put up.[50] Evidence proving the guilt of the accused must always be beyond
reasonable doubt. If the evidence of guilt falls short of this requirement, the Court will not allow the
accused to be deprived of his liberty. His acquittal should come as a matter of course.
Sofio vs. Valenzuela (RECALL OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT)

The Court will not override the finality and immutability of a judgment based only on the negligence of a
partys counsel in timely taking all the proper recourses from the judgment. To justify an override, the
counsels negligence must not only be gross but must also be shown to have deprived the party the right
to due process.

The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any
evidence one may have in support of one's defense. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral
arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process. Verily, so long as a party is given
the opportunity to advocate her cause or defend her interest in due course, it cannot be said that there
was denial of due process. (Emphasis supplied)

Failure to file a motion for reconsideration did not necessarily deny due process to a party who had the
opportunity to be heard at some point of the proceedings.

-oOo-

Special People vs. Canda (PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS)

The peremptory writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is issued only in extreme necessity,
and the ordinary course of procedure is powerless to afford an adequate and speedy relief to one who
has a clear legal right to the performance of the act to be compelled.

Mandamus will issue only when the petitioner has a clear legal right to the performance of the act
sought to be compelled and the respondent has an imperative duty to perform the same.

Such extraordinary remedy lies to compel the performance of duties that are purely ministerial in
nature, not those that are discretionary.

-oOo-

Spouses delos Santos vs Metrobank (A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO ENJOIN AN IMPENDING

EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE IS ISSUED ONLY UPON A CLEAR SHOWING OF A VIOLATION OF THE
MORTGAGOR'S UNMISTAKABLE RIGHT)

The Court must find that the petitioners were not entitled to enjoin or prevent the extrajudicial
foreclosure of their mortgage by Metrobank. They were undeniably already in default of their
obligations the performance of which the mortgage had precisely secured.

-oOo-

Spouses Lebin vs. Mirasol (PERFECTION OF AN APPEAL)

The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is mandatory and
jurisdictional.

-oOo-
Sulpicio vs. Curso (MORAL DAMAGES)

ISSUES:

The petitioner raises the following issues:

ARE THE BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF A DECEASED PASSENGER IN A CASE OF BREACH OF CONTRACT OF
CARRIAGE ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES AGAINST THE CARRIER?

ASSUMING (THAT) THEY ARE ENTITLED TO CLAIM MORAL DAMAGES, SHOULD THE AWARD BE GRANTED
OR GIVEN TO THE BROTHER OR SISTER NOTWITHSTANDING (THE) LACK OF EVIDENCE AS REGARDS HIS
OR HER PERSONAL SUFFERING?

The petition is meritorious.

As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of
contract, unless there is fraud or bad faith.

As an exception, moral damages may be awarded in case of breach of contract of carriage that results in
the death of a passenger, in accordance with Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206 (3), of the Civil
Code, which provide:

Article 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII
of this Book, concerning Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by
the breach of contract by a common carrier.

The foregoing legal provisions set forth the persons entitled to moral damages. The omission from
Article 2206 (3) of the brothers and sisters of the deceased passenger reveals the legislative intent to
exclude them from the recovery of moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the
deceased. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. [10] The solemn power and duty of the courts to interpret
and apply the law do not include the power to correct the law by reading into it what is not written
therein.[11] Thus, the CA erred in awarding moral damages to the respondents.

The petitioner has correctly relied on the holding in Receiver for North Negros Sugar Company, Inc. v.
Ybaez, [12] to the effect that in case of death caused by quasidelict, the brother of the deceased was not
entitled to the award of moral damages based on Article 2206 of the Civil Code.

Essentially, the purpose of moral damages is indemnity or reparation, that is, to enable the injured party
to obtain the means, diversions, or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has
undergone by reason of the tragic event.
Ulaso vs. Lacsamana (NOTARIZATION OF JURAT)

The decisive question to be resolved in this administrative proceeding is whether or not the notarization
of the jurat of the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping attached to the initiatory
pleading even before the plaintiff-client has affixed her own signature amounts to censurable conduct
on the part of the notarycounsel.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent Atty. Edita Noe Lacsamana, The
notarycounsel, guilty of gross negligence and of a violation of the Notarial Law; and recommended her
suspension from the practice of law for six months.

The jurat is that end part of the affidavit in which the notary certifies that the instrument is sworn to
before her. As such, the notarial certification is essential. Considering that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless, routinary act, the faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath
in the jurat are sacrosanct.

Indicated both the necessity for the physical presence of Bides as the affiant and the fact that the
signing was done in the presence of the respondent as the notary, the physical presence of Bides was
required in order to have her as the affiant swear before the respondent that she was that person and in
order to enable the respondent as the notary to ascertain whether Bides had voluntarily and freely
executed the affidavit.

Thus, the respondent, by signing as notary even before Bides herself could appear before her, failed to
give due observance and respect to the solemnity.

-oOo-

Balais - Mabanag vs. QC RD (ISSUE OF CITIZENSHIP MUST BE RAISED BEFORE FINALITY OF JUDGMENT)

The issue of citizenship of the registered owner of land cannot anymore be raised to forestall the
execution of a final and executory judgment where the objecting party had the opportunity to raise the
issue prior to the finality of the judgment. The time for assailing the capacity of the winning party to
acquire the land was during the trial, not during the execution of a final decision.