Balubar, Phoebe C.

Legal English, M 6:30-7:30, F 5:30-6:30

1. GR No. 153837
July 21, 2010

Silva vs Mationg

Facts:

Petitioner was then appointed as General Manager of Aklan Electric Cooperative. However, he
was later to have been dismissed due to grave abuse of discretion and other allegations
involving abuse of office and corruption practices and for allegedly being involved in the
nonpayment of the cooperatives loan to the NEA.

Petitioners dismissal has been made final by the Board of Administrators of the NEA and was
also held up by the NLRC.

Petitioner had now sought relief to the Court of Appeals for relief.

Issue:

Given that the case is administrative in nature, should the Court of Appeals render a decision?

Ruling:

No. The court contends that while the case is administrative in nature, it is then under exclusive
jurisdiction of institutions granted by the law. In the case given, the case was already settled
before the National Labor Regulatory Commission and also by the Board of Directors of the NEA
which meant that the case has been given relief by proper delegated authorities and thus the
Court of Appeals need not to further intervene and declare res judicata.
2. GR No. 146091
July 28, 2008
Spouses Nepomuceno vs. City of Surigao

Facts:

Spouses Nepomuceno filed an action against the City of Surigao for allegedly taking a piece of
their property by virtue of public domain without even giving prior compensation. The City of
Surigao had contended that prior to the transfer of the property was subject to a deed of
absolute donation by its former owners.

The RTC ruled in favor of the spouses, entitling them to nominal damages and fees. Not
contented with the decision, the petitioners raised the case to the Court of Appeals citing that
further payment should be given to them by virtue of proximity and the efforts the couple did to
contend in the said legal battle. The Court of Appeals then modified the damages.

Eventually, the spouses raised the case to the Supreme Court citing that further payment should
be given to them and cited a case similar to theirs that was decided by the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

Whether or not a CA decision can be used a jurisprudence to support claim for a case

Ruling:

No. Only decisions made by the Supreme Court are to be upheld as part of jurisprudence given
its permanent and irrevocable nature. Supreme Court decisions are presumed to be final and
can no longer be contested thus its nature alone constitutes it to be part of Philippine
jurisprudence to be used in other similar cases to be encountered later on.
3. GR No. 134284
December 1, 2000
Ayala Corporation vs Rosa-Diana Realty and Development Corporation

Facts:

On April 20, 1976, Ayala sold a parcel of land to Manual Sy and Sy Ka Kieng under special
conditions mentioned:
a. Vendees shall build on the lot and submit the building plans to the vendor before
September 30, 1976.
b. That the construction of the building shall start on or before March 30, 1977 and to be
completed within two years.
c. That there shall be no resale of the property.

However, vendees had failed to construct a building under the special conditions and instead
was able to sale the lot to Rosa-Diana Realty and Development Corporation in 1989 with
approval of the petitioner. It was then taken that Rosa-Diana had taken the special conditions
sited in the original contract.

Eventually, plans were submitted to transform the lot. This is when both parties found
themselves in conflict as Rosa-Diana enforced a different plan than that submitted by Ayala. In
this case, Ayala filed action for lis pendes to basically retrieve the lot.

Issue:

Whether or not the action is valid.

Ruling:

The Court upholds the previous rulings on the case citing inconsistencies with the petitioner and
its enactment of the conditions it had provided in two instances.
4. GR No. 170948
June 26, 2007

Silliman University vs Nanila Fontelo-Paalan

Facts:

Nanila was employed by the University in 1962 and was assigned in the Medical Records
Section. Later on she was promoted to Head of the Medical Records Section, she held on to the
position until she retired on the 31st of May, 1997 at the age of 57.

Three after she had received her retirement benefits, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
before the NLRC. Nanila contends that she shouldve been qualified for the retirement age of
65. The Labor Arbiter found the University guilty of illegal dismissal.

Eventually the University went on appeal and contended that retirement can be rendered upon
the age of 65 who had rendered at least 5 years of service or if the employee had rendered 35
years of uninterrupted service in which Nanila was covered.

The Court of Appeals had reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Issue:

When can a case at bar be still subject to appeal at the higher courts?

Ruling:

When a decision has become final and executory, it can no longer be subject to re-appeal in the
higher courts as it becomes outside of their jurisdiction.
5. G.R No. 174153
October 25, 2006

Lambino vs. COMELEC

Facts:

The Lambino group, in order to propose a certain amendment in the Constitution was able to
present over 6 million signatures to petition the said amendment. The group aims to modify
Sections 1-7 of Article 6 and Sections 1-4 of Article 7 and also by adding an additional article for
Transitory Provisions. The following alterations aims to change the form of government from
bicameral-presidential system to unicameral-parliamentary.

However, the COMELEC had denied the petition citing that there is no enabling law to make the
petition valid.

Issue:

Whether or not the requisites for peoples initiative under Section 2 of Article 17 of the 1987
Constitution were met.

Ruling:

The court rules that while the numbers indicated in the Constitution of 12 per centum of all
registered voters by at least 3 per centum of each legislative district were met, the standards
were not.

It has been observed that the forms given only consisted of name and signature and thus people
were not actually aware of what they are signing up for. And even though there may be an
instance wherein it was explained to them, no sufficient evidence was presented.

The court also cited that the said proposals are considered as revisions and not a mere
amendments. This is supported by the introduction of transitory provisions which would
basically alter the scope and operation of the Constitution.